Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Addicted to the Drug War
Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,041-1,0601,061-1,0801,081-1,100 ... 2,121-2,137 next last
To: Djarum
Under our system of government, policies are subject to change. Under the "principles" espoused by the anti-government posters on the thread, it would be impermissable to prohibit the sale of crack.
1,061 posted on 01/01/2002 5:37:26 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1055 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent; JHoffa_
Yeah, for someone who characteristically misquotes the NON-INITIATION of force or fraud pledge. I guess he figures that if you lie big enough, LONG enough, maybe someone will take you seriously! Right, Mr. Hoffa? A libertarian MUST be an anarchist, right? He or she COULDN'T even THINK about wanting the CONSTITUTION enforced, now, isn't that right? It isn't in your fairyland tale book is it? And if it's not THERE, it must not exist. And if you try throwing that LP website at me, I will, in the immortal words of my Drill Instructor at Parris Island, "unscrew your head and sh!t down your neck!"

I am a Restorationist. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/596119/posts

1,062 posted on 01/01/2002 5:37:59 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Department of Justice.

How Don? On what charges?

The same sort of charges that would be applied against, for example, a pornographer who took sex pictures of a 9 year old. The reason we have, for example, statutory rape when there is consenting sex between two people, one of which is underage, is that, as I have frequently said, children are not citizens, so the level of care in determining harm to children can and should be severely different than for competent adults. And libertarian theory has nothing significant to say about this. Hence, your cow and you committed statutory battery with those kids on the playground. If the kids consented, than it was statutory fraud, just as you get hit up with if you make a hurtful contract with a supposedly consenting 6 year old to have sex on commercial tape.

1,063 posted on 01/01/2002 5:38:57 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1056 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Ok, I am going to field this one.

Roscoe. I don't care if every person in the US but one has decided that prohibiting a thing is ok, it's not allowed. At least to the federal government. If you want the federal government to have that power, then enact an amendment giving it that power, and get it ratified.. They used to understand that, thus the 18th amendment giving congress the power to prohibit alcohol. Remember how well that worked? The same thing is happening again, but without the legitimacy of a constitutional amendment.

There is no such power in the Constitution to prohibit a thing. Period, end of discussion. Even if 99.999999999999% of the population agreed with you, they still would not have the power unless an amendment was passed and ratified under the procedures specifically set out in the Constitution.

It is folks like you, along with your hubris and paranoia, who are tearing this nation apart. You say...oh no, a nasty plant that will make someone happy....must eraticate it and jail all who may get the slightest enjoyment from it...can't have enjoyment, oh no.

God, listen to yourself, Roscoe. You must a bitter, unhappy man.

1,064 posted on 01/01/2002 5:39:19 PM PST by AKbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
You'd end up with stuff like citizens having their property seized without being convicted or even charged with a crime

That extremely rare occurrence would become commonplace. Congratulations.

1,065 posted on 01/01/2002 5:41:08 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1060 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
It would not be impermissable. The federal government would just have to follow the established guidelines for doing so, ie. ammend the constitution, just like we did with prohibition. State governments would have no such problem since under the constitution they are free to regulate such things.

I have no real problem with drug prohibition, so long as it's not done illegally at the expense of our constitution.

1,066 posted on 01/01/2002 5:42:00 PM PST by elmer fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1061 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Roscoe, go HERE http://www.fear.org/ to see just how RARE it really is! Of course, if you profit from it (and I suspect you do), you sure don't wanna mess with your golden goose eggs, do ya?
1,067 posted on 01/01/2002 5:45:59 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1065 | View Replies]

To: AKbear
Roscoe. I don't care if every person in the US but one has decided that prohibiting a thing is ok, it's not allowed.

Two centuries of building the greatest, most free and prosperous nation in history abandoned in favor of the unsubstatiated ravings of America hating zealots promoting Constitutional revisionism? You don't stand a chance.

1,068 posted on 01/01/2002 5:46:56 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1064 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Under our system of government, policies are subject to change.

Another dodge. I'm looking for a Constitutional power to regulate the growing and subsequent use of marijuana by a citizen on their property.
1,069 posted on 01/01/2002 5:47:09 PM PST by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1061 | View Replies]

Comment #1,070 Removed by Moderator

To: Djarum
Hehe, I guess my frustration level is just too high whenever Roscoe or CJ are involved in a thread. I realize that lurkers may be around and are listening, but I figured after 1000 posts, they may have given up. Maybe I am wrong.

Back yard, across the street in their own garden, in the next county where they own land. Next state maybe arguable, but even that is highly questionable. As I have stated, the original and only purpose of the commerce clause was to protect the products from one state from the taxing authority of another state through which that product passed during shipment. The debates, writings, and the Federalist Papers all show that clearly. Truly, congress has no authority to regulate interstate commerce any more than that.

But especially, most especially, if a guy grows something on his own property, as long as he never crosses a state line, it most definately does not fall under the commerce clause in any way shape or form, and the federal government has no power to do a dang thing to that person, or, a most disturbing practice lately, his property.

1,071 posted on 01/01/2002 5:48:29 PM PST by AKbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe

That extremely rare occurrence would become commonplace. Congratulations.

It is as far from rare as one could possible imagine. It earns the DEA and local law enforcement many billions of dollars each year that they don't have to beg congress for. It has become a part of our institutions that they depend on for funding. In my town, there is twice yearly auction in the Coluseum where ceased cars and boats are auctioned off. Are you really unaware of this?

1,072 posted on 01/01/2002 5:50:43 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1065 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
FEAR manual - Price: $ 84.00

Why pay $84 for rants you can get online for free?

1,073 posted on 01/01/2002 5:51:35 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1067 | View Replies]

To: donh

don, I hate to say it.. But you are a liar and that is a lie..

"No force, no Fraud" rememeber?

Now, suppose you prove this lie to me.. WHILE, I go dig up Harry Brown Quotes..

THEN, if you can prove this you can take me aside and tell me how we can have laws against some types of immoral behavior, but definately not others in your little Utopian dream world..

That should make for interesting conversation.. Your "Rules" and how you will enforce them..

Cha-cha..

1,074 posted on 01/01/2002 5:51:38 PM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1063 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Oh, Okay TPaine.. You win again.

1,075 posted on 01/01/2002 5:53:31 PM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1070 | View Replies]

To: AKbear
Precisely. They are in bed with Democrats who enjoy abusing the same commerce clause to restrict my firearms.
1,076 posted on 01/01/2002 5:53:35 PM PST by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1071 | View Replies]

To: elmer fudd
It would not be impermissable.

Oh? Thread is full of posts claiming that it is "unconstitutional" to prohibit anything.

1,077 posted on 01/01/2002 5:53:44 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1066 | View Replies]

To: donh
It is as far from rare as one could possible imagine.

You're imagining.

1,078 posted on 01/01/2002 5:55:33 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1072 | View Replies]

To: Djarum
Exactly! Roscoe and CJ are just two of the worst on this forum.
1,079 posted on 01/01/2002 5:55:55 PM PST by AKbear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1076 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
OK. Don't buy it. I care not a whit. Now will you answer the question I asked you further back in this thread? Can YOU devise a war on drugs that is NOT repugnant to the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Yes or no? If yes, HOW would you make it work? If you can do it, I will support it and I would not be surprised if a lot of the libertarians who despise drugs would also. But it MUST satisfy the CONSTITUTION. You are no longer allowed to wipe your a$$ with it.
1,080 posted on 01/01/2002 5:56:51 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1073 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,041-1,0601,061-1,0801,081-1,100 ... 2,121-2,137 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson