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.

[LazarusX]

Destroy yourself all you want buddy. My concern is when you snort your coke and put OTHERS at risk. Hard drugs take away your ability to act responsibly, to reason, and to be able to choose to stop using the substance. You have no right to do this on public property, nor your own, because there is no way to fence in the possible effects and inevitable effects.

This is true of tobacco for most regular users, true of alcohol for some users, but true of marijuana for only the tiniest fraction of users since it's less addictive than caffeine.

[FreeTally]

So you haven't a problem with private nukes in your neighbors homes,

Tex, we have been through this time and time again. I state on virtually every thread like this that the government has the legitimate power to ban the possession of two items - weapons of mass destruction and child pornography. WOMD are not used defensively, and individuals do not have the right to engage in war with other countries. Children can not consent to sexual activities, thus child pornography is a crime, because the child is the victim.

or your nighbor aiming a loaded weapon at your child?

That is a direct threat of force. No libertarian would argue that this is not a crime.

It is all risk, no harm.

No, they were both a threat of force, a violation of rights.

[headsonpikes]

Your post #244 a breath of fresh air in a miasma of swamp-gas from the 'usual suspects'. ;^)

[tpaine]

Only a fool laughs & imagines 'parody', where common sense was posted.

[LazarusX]

As for alcohol, tell me another illicit substance that you can sit down at lunch and have a little and not get intoxicated.

GHB. It causes mild relaxation with no loss of mental function. It's much subtler in its effects than alcohol. Of course it's been banned as a date rape drug even though alcohol is involved in far more rape and violence than any other drug.

[Dane]

WACO was over so called drugs.....

And WACO was led by Janet Reno.

[Cold Heat]

Allowing the medical use of MJ and the blatent violations of federal drug laws,(as in the case of these clubs) are two distinct issues. Ashcroft is only enforcing the law as it exists today.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

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?

No, to his credit, he has not used these drugs personally.

Texaggie79 has a very definite and effective formula for determining the difference between "hard drugs" and "soft drugs".

• Drugs that Texaggie79 has not personally used (opium, LSD, etc.) = "Hard Drugs".
  
• Drugs that Texaggie79 has personally used (alcohol, marijuana, psyllocybin, etc) = "Soft Drugs".

See? A quite objective standard. If Texaggie79 has used it personally, it is therefore a "soft" drug and should be entirely legal. Simple!!

;-)

[southern rock]

It is morally wrong to put those around you at physical, financial, and psychological risk.

Liberals say the same thing about gun owners.

[fod]

Gonna vote that harm right outta my hair

Gonna legislate that risk right outta my village

I like to behave cause thinking hurts my brain

Gonna help the state raise the chilluns in my village

Gonna send in the JB Thugs to make them behave

Can't rape the neighbor yet, so we settle for pillage

Gonna crush those freeks right under my boots

We got a majority vote so all get to be slaves

Gonna be safe cause freedom's too much trouble

Tell me what to do cause I don't trust you

[tpaine]

Thanks. --- Our prime 'usual suspect' here, tex, is rapidly lo0sing all his very limited supply of credibility. Soon he will be ignored, - much like dane. -- They have made themselves into FR's town clowns.

[Polonius]

By "personal experience," I meant his observance of people on these drugs.

[realpatriot71]

I've personally done alot of recreational drugs in my day: marijuana, ectasy, cocaine, LSD, ketamine, and shrooms. I did these drugs with many of my friends, NONE of us committed a single crime against anyone while using. Some of us grew up and quit, others didn't stop and are now burnouts. Of those who still use, NONE has yet to commit a crime. Interesting . . . there goes the theory that all users commit crimes.

[Texaggie79]

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

God set no "civil law" for societies post Jesus. He left that up to the governments. As stated in Romans 13

[southern rock]

Also since morality can only come from God. It is spiritually immoral to be intoxicated.

Well now you have hit my sore spot. I could go on and on about that all day. First of, since marajuana is a naturaly occouring plant, it does come from God. Therefore God can't be all that against it.

As far as intoxication being immoral or a sin goes, I have had arguments with many phoney so-called "Bible-believing" Christians who claim that they believe in the literal word of the Bible, but will jump through all sorts of hoops, bending and twisting of the Word of God every which way to come up with some laughable, convoluted arguments in order to "prove" that Jesus never drank wine. Please tell me that you are not one of those "two wines theory" (thats what they call it) kooks. People like that do NOT believe in the literal Word.

[Polonius]

You didn't get permanently stuck in a K-hole or anything? Bully for you.

Incidentally, in case you are under a mistaken impression, I never said that all drug users or even all users of certain drugs commit crimes. I'd hate to be confused with a hardcore drug warrior, when I'm quite the opposite.

[realpatriot71]

Dane's an idiot. Call me on the ad homenem. I don't care. The guy doesn't even try to debate. I completely ignore him.

Texaggie79, on the other hand, while getting a bit "out there" on the last few posts, I feel actually contributes to the debate. At least he tries to "point-counter-point" in a reasonably respectful manner. I think the guy lets his emotions get the best of him on this issue. I think he's a Libertarian at heart, and is strugglin' with it. It's hard to overcome preconcieved notions.

[southern rock]

Umm, I think Jesus turned water into an intoxicant at one point. Why would he do such an immoral thing?

Yep. see post #275.

[fod]

JACKBOOTS:

DANE'S ANTI-DRUG

[Texaggie79]

Really? Since drugs are already accessable to those who want to use them...

You leave out the FACTS. They are accessible but unknown, they could be a bad product. They are expensive because of the cost to smuggle them. And they are illegal, which means you must become a criminal to purchase and use them. Legalize and there is no legal consequences in using them. They are cheaper, therefore more people can afford them. And they are safer, and no one will have to worry about getting a bad drug so they will feel no reason to not do them. Answer to me this. Why is alcohol and tobacco usage WAY beyond that of illegal drugs. Tell me.