Can't you see the folly in that kind of utopian, socialistic thinking?
First, that is not how I think, second it is not socialistic, and third the only utopian is you who thinks that this republic would survive if all drugs were legalized.
Posted on 12/13/2001 3:32:50 AM PST by CrossCheck
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
I'm glad you said that. I gives me great insight to were you are coming from. That of a 10 year old. Daddy just doesn't want me to have fun. He just likes to tell me what to do. I could care less what people do. But I will not allow people to put me and my family at risk. Even if they legalized drugs, if I saw a man using crack in his yard, I would probably shoot him. I will not allow my family to be threatened.
Buzzzzz Wrong Answer, assets seizures are split between the police dept that arrests the culprit and the informant who provided the info. Bin Laden cash, if it was really seized, will remain in a trust that will be whittled down by taxes, attorney fees, management fees and emerge in ten years as $1.75 check issued to the widows and orphans. Next Contestant Please!
Can't you see the folly in that kind of utopian, socialistic thinking?
First, that is not how I think, second it is not socialistic, and third the only utopian is you who thinks that this republic would survive if all drugs were legalized.
Statistics will tell you that most people are in jail or prison because they were found to be in posession of or caught selling drugs. Not because of something they did under the influence of drugs.
Also the threat is also to the users family. NO person has the right to destroy the ones around them. No one has the right to take a substance that takes away their ability to function as a resposible human.
Absolutely people have that right. People have a right to act like complete utter irresponsible *ssholes.
And you would go up the river on a 1st-degree murder charge, my friend!
In reality, however, such a circumstance would never occur. Just as people no longer drink antifreeze to get drunk, crack cocaine would probably no longer even exist in a world in which powder cocaine was legalized. Crack is a cheap, adulterated artifact of prohibition.
You are certifiably insane.
Yup, that's why such rich people as Darryl Strawberry use it. LMAO Are you that blind?
You are just totally convinced that smoking crack is just a peaceful activity aren't you? LMAO I have witnessed the facts.
How in the hell can a non-initiatory act not be peaceful? Are you really that dense?
I can't even believe I am responding to this.....
It is physically impossible to remain a responsible peaceful citizen when on crack.
If it was to myself, then it obviously didn't concern you, so butt out. :-P
Apologies for impugning your thought processes ...:-( At least you can defend your position rationally (unlike most other WOD supporters).
second it is not socialistic
Government control over a private, personal behavior is most certainly socialistic. After all, it was an unholy alliance of "progressives" (read: socialists) and holy rollers that got alcohol Prohibition passed. That great "social experiment" failed miserably, and we are repeating the same mistakes today with "illegal drugs".
and third the only utopian is you who thinks that this republic would survive if all drugs were legalized.
The republic survived the first 138 years of its existence with all drugs legalized.
Regarding the graph -- consider the sources: they have a stake in the continued enforcement of drug prohibition laws. And even if you believe the accuracy of those "damned statistics" (paraphrasing Mark Twain's quote about "lies, damned lies, and statistics"), is it really worth the cost to society? The world's highest incarceration rate? The shredding of the Constitution? The demonization of law enforcement in a large segment of society?
Personally, I don't think it's worth it. There has to be a better way.
I don't know that this is a valid statistic to use. How many people in America used drugs and did not commit a crime (other than the drug possession)? We do not know this percentage. I mean, if 99.995% of the people that used drugs did not also commit a crime, you would be hard pressed to show a relation. And until the government gives daily urine tests to every citizen, we can never know this answer for comparison.
For what it's worth, my opinion is that drug laws are clearly a state's rights issue under the Constitution. States should be able to make laws prohibiting or allowing alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, etc. I do not believe any of these should be addressed at the Federal level. This country is designed to be 50 mini-republics with their own ideas. When we blend everything down to the homogenous mushy middle (that 'everyone can agree to,' but few actually do) we lose the ability to learn from the successes and failures of trying different ways.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.