The drug war vs. the war on terror

Chicago Tribune ^ | December 13, 2001 | Steve Chapman

[CrossCheck]

On Oct. 25, six weeks after the worst terrorist atrocities in our history, the United States was bombing Afghanistan, Colin Powell was discussing a post-Taliban government, investigators were grappling with anthrax in the mail, and federal agents were . . . well, they were going after pot smokers in California. If John Ashcroft had been around during the Chicago fire, he would have been handcuffing jaywalkers.

[Dakmar]

What about when their parents are blitzed on booze, does it cause the same damage?

[Texaggie79]

Actually the sodomy laws were all state laws,

Thats probably why I called them "state sodomy laws" LMAO

I don't think there were ever any federal ones,

Nor do I.

so the founding fathers had nothing to do with those laws, unless they also served in state governments.

Not all, but most did.

[Dane]

I'm not a druggie

Then I guess Mario Cuomo is not pro-abortion, since he is personally against it, but would vote to keep all abortions legal. Do you like following Mario Cuomo's lead?

You mind telling me what right and business the FEDS have into coming into people's homes, breaking down their doors, STEALING their property without a conviction? I'm not saying drugs are good. I'm saying the drug WAR is EVIL.

Most drug raids are local and most people who live in drug neighborhoods are happy to see action against these thugs. I guess you want to spread the scrouge of drugs to every neighborhood in the country. Hey what the hell who cares if drugs ruin everything at least my(Dan's) interpretation of the Constituion is safe(doing drugs is a constitutional right)

It's a STATE issue, and the feds should stay out of it outside of the borders.

Like I said most drug raids are done by local police and yes mistakes do happen, but 99.9% of American households are not affected by mistaken raids, but you just like the gun grabbers go nuts and blow things out of proportion, to further your political aims.

[tpaine]

"From personal experience, I have known and witnessed many hard drug users. I have not known one single HARD drug user that I would have said was acting responsibly and with reason while high on the narcotic, at any level of use. Whereas with alcohol, only those who consumed VERY VERY high amounts of it, were acting the same way." - 206 TA79 -

Get real tex... You are what, 23 years old?

Granted, by that age I had only known half a dozen serious hash, morphine, or heroin users, [most in europe, '56/'58], --- but I can guarantee you I knew more alkys than you just from those same army days alone.
In my 40+ years since, working construction, I've probably fired more druggies & alkys than you have ever even known.

Your silly generalizations above are simply not credible. Addicts of all types are extremely adept at hiding their use/abuse and many can do highly skilled work while 'high'. -- You haven't a clue about the BS you spout.

[Dakmar]

Sorry, I missed the 'state' part. I generally take references to the Founding Fathers to be about the Federal Government.

[Texaggie79]

Sodomy is listed along with rape, and Jefferson was almost certainly referring to forced sodomy

Nope, sodomy was also used with homosexual activity.

you do not have a "right" not to be at risk.

Oh I don't? So I can do nothing, legally if my neighbor aims a gun at my head while he is on his property and I am on mine? I must just say , oh well. Anyone has the right to put me and my family at risk.

BTW your son MUST have a gay boyscout leader, because he has no right to not be at higher risk.

[Texaggie79]

What about when their parents are blitzed on booze, does it cause the same damage?

Yes, but the vast majority of parents do not drink alcohol to high intoxication.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Ok Uriel, lets go back to Romans 13 where you incorrectly draw this conclusion. The verse, in NO WAY, limits government to anything less than punishing EVIL. The enumeration in Romans 13, of certain sins, shall not be construed to deny the government the ability to creat laws to punish other wrongs. 218 posted on 12/13/01 12:15 PM Pacific by Texaggie79

The defining of abstention from the sins, enumerated in Romans 13, as the "fulfillment of the Law", absolutely prohibits the Magistrate from redefining The Law to his own specifications.

The Second Table of the Ten Commandments is the Fulfillment of the Civil Law.

Nuff Said.

[Texaggie79]

I was waiting for you to show up and defend drug users as good people. You are such a riot. I can't help but laugh every time you post your parodies.

[Texaggie79]

Well that's why they are so relevant. They are the ones that wrote the Constitution, so I would venture to bet that they would be the best qualified to know if a state law was constitutional. Therefor I would also venture to bet that any state law that they helped pass was constitutional.

[realpatriot71]

When you legalize drugs, use will skyrocket, and no sane person can argue that. Cheaper, safer, legal drugs spell HIGHER use, period.

Really? Since drugs are already accessable to those who want to use them, why to you think that anyone else is going to use who doesn't already want to? You're going to have to do better than, "Cheaper, safer, legal drugs spell HIGHER use, period". Let try and substantiate that with some sort of facts or data relevant to the your statement.

Now all these addicts need help. People without work, companies closing left and right. Do you know what this is perfect fodder for? LIBERALS!!! Social programs will be needed to help all the addicts. Welfare, healthcare, treatment. All to be paid by the ones left sober and working.

All based on your abover assumtion that everyone will begin using drugs and that everyone will also be irresponsible.

Find out how to make your very own hat here ! Put it on, take a nap, and the voices GO AWAY!

Libertarians never think long term with their selfish ideals

I'm only thinking of the long term and of others. I want everyone in this country to enjoy as much of their natural rights as is possible. Perhaps I personally like the idea of personal freedom. Does that make me selfish?

[nightowl_jg]

When you legalize drugs, use will skyrocket, and no sane person can argue that.

I consider myself relatively sane, and I can say with certainty that if heroin or cocaine were legalized today, I would not be rushing to the store to get some. I don't know any responsible adults who would either, just because it would be legal. Do you fear that you would be unable to control your own impulses and start shooting up?

[clamper1797]

You Sir ... are the riot ....

[Dakmar]

Yes, but the vast majority of parents do not drink alcohol to high intoxication.

Hmmm, then that would explain the complete lack of alcohol related child-abuse. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Dan from Michigan]

I'm on the fence with that.

Feds shouldn't ban the USE or SALE of it(Only import). Each state should decide. If all 50 ban it on the state level, that's someone I wouldn't complain about it, as long as their aren;t 4th amendment violations and forfeitures without convictions, which is my biggest issue in the matter.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Legalization will make drugs more available, more pure, cheaper, and the users will have no fear of arrest, therefor use will skyrocket and harm to nonusers will as well. Hard drug legalization would destroy our country.

The laws of economics dictate the reverse.

The stronger the Prohibition, the more powerful will be the drugs.

The economics of smuggling lead smugglers to seek more concentrated forms of drugs. Thus, during alcohol Prohibition in the U.S., we had "bathtub gin" and "bootleg whiskey:" harder forms of alcohol were favored over more moderate drinks such as beer and wine. When opium was made illegal, smugglers switched first to morphine and later to heroin. When cocaine was made illegal, smugglers switched from relatively mild coca drinks to powder cocaine and later smokable (crack) cocaine. Since marijuana was made illegal, its potency has steadily increased.

With legalization, people generally prefer moderate drug usage. Since Prohibition, hard alcohol usage has declined in favor of beer and wine, which are actually beneficial to health in moderation. "Tar" content in tobacco (a legal drug, today) declined steadily after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission allowed tobacco companies to compete on that basis. When other recreational drugs were legal, relatively few users chose the most concentrated forms.

[realpatriot71]

Nope, sodomy was also used with homosexual activity.

Prove it! You cannot say that original sodomy laws were intended to punish those guilty of forcible sodomy (anal rape). If you can show me this was intened to punish individual involved in consentual sodomy, I'll stand corrected. Good luck.

BTW your son MUST have a gay boyscout leader, because he has no right to not be at higher risk.

Why must MUST he? I don't see why anyone HAS TO have a gay boyscout leader. I'm not sure what your point is here.

[LazarusX]

Dane, come on. I didn't join this forum to cause problems, but who are you trying to fool? I can't even guess how many of your posts I've read (easily into the three digits by this point), and I'm still waiting for you to bring forth your first fact.

I suspect that Dane is really a legalizer trying to make the drug warriors look like fools.

Dane, You can cut it out. The point has been made.

[Polonius]

What I have personally witnessed is LSD, cocaine, heroin, and meth.

Interesting ... meth completely slipped my mind (must've been all that crack I had this morning). OK, knowing this, would you argue that all of these drugs should remain illegal, and if so do you base this belief on your personal experiences?

[Dan from Michigan]

Then I guess Mario Cuomo is not pro-abortion, since he is personally against it, but would vote to keep all abortions legal. Do you like following Mario Cuomo's lead?

I follow my own lead. BTW - I'm pro-life. Most drug raids are local and most people who live in drug neighborhoods are happy to see action against these thugs. I guess you want to spread the scrouge of drugs to every neighborhood in the country. Hey what the hell who cares if drugs ruin everything at least my(Dan's) interpretation of the Constituion is safe(doing drugs is a constitutional right)
Did I say it was a constituional right? I said the FEDS, I repeat, the FEDS should stay out it. Like I said most drug raids are done by local police and yes mistakes do happen, but 99.9% of American households are not affected by mistaken raids, but you just like the gun grabbers go nuts and blow things out of proportion, to further your political aims.

WACO was over so called drugs.....