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 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 2,121-2,137 next last
To: A CA Guy
Congress is allowed to write law. If it was unconstitutional then it would hve been successfully overturned in the Top court of our land. It wasn't because it IS legal.

So you believe abortion is a constitutional right? It must be. Afterall the "Top court of our land" said so.

I imagine if the "Top court of the land" declared the bill of rights null and void you'd just think it was swell.

341 posted on 12/30/2001 9:17:08 PM PST by elmer fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The constitution is the foundation, but like an older house the congress wrote new laws that were necessary to deal with the present and future. The Constitution did not mention computers, cell phones and airplanes.

The world did stay in the 1700's due to the Constitution tp.

342 posted on 12/30/2001 9:17:12 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: laredo44
I've read their platform.
343 posted on 12/30/2001 9:17:56 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: LloydofDSS
But Libertarians do not even advocate that the state whither away. We only advocate that it return to its rightful powers as spelled out in the constitution.

Read the platform

344 posted on 12/30/2001 9:20:41 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Libertarian socialist is an oxymoron. Kind of like Capitalist communist. Now there are plenty of Republican socialists such as yourself who seem to love big government and want to give it unlimited power, but not me.
345 posted on 12/30/2001 9:21:34 PM PST by elmer fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Come out of the 1700s TP, we are now almost in 2002. Many legitimate laws have been added since the 1700s TP.

We went to the moon and sent some mechanical stuff to Mars. Just a few things have happened since the 1700s. We even ended slavery. Was that unconstitutional for you also? LOL

346 posted on 12/30/2001 9:21:47 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: LloydofDSS
So, was the law posted earlier challenged in court yet? I bet it was and failed to be overturned. The ACLU would love to bury this country and would be like white on rice in championing your issues in court. I bet they did and failed.
347 posted on 12/30/2001 9:24:51 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I've read their platform.

So you can quote where they call for the elimination of government? You must also have a passle of links to libertarian threads here on FR that echo that call for elimination. On the other hand, I can see right here on this thread, within the last few dozen posts a libertarian calling for the continuation of Constitutional government. Do you know his mind better than he? Don't play so fast and loose with the truth.

348 posted on 12/30/2001 9:26:16 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
I would like to see that congress honor the clear words of the constitution.

313 posted by tpaine

The constitution is the foundation, but like an older house the congress wrote new laws that were necessary to deal with the present and future. The Constitution did not mention computers, cell phones and airplanes. The world did stay in the 1700's due to the Constitution tp.

Good grief. -- Do you really believe congress has the power to 'write new law' that in effect ignores or amends the constitution? Go back to school, son.

349 posted on 12/30/2001 9:29:46 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
>>Actually the 3 strikes law has greatly reduced crime.<<

Libertarians support tough laws that punish "real" criminals. We only fight against laws that imprison people for consensual behavior that harms no-one.

And by the way, crime is up in Los Angeles over the last year. So I don't know if thatdamages your argument or not, but it is a reality.

>>I would like to see at least monthly education in all schools for staying away from drugs. Starting in early grade school.<<

It has already been tried in most school districts over that last 20 years. It is called the DARE program. Studies have shown that either it does no good at all or it makes things slightly worse. The DARE program originated in Los Angeles by the way.

>>There is also a cause and effect issue surrounding what you want. On FR we've had many articles by people who want to legalize illegal drugs and say the effect of legalization would be to grow drug addicts. So that would be contranry to what you want also.<<

I think you have some things mixed up here. If we go back to when alcohol was made legal, we can see that a very large number of people began using alcohol again, who were not using it during prohibition. But these were law abiding people. When law abiding people use alcohol the vast majority (over 90%) do not have problems with it.

Most anti-WOD people will go along with the idea that a lot of responsible law abiding people will begin using some of these drugs "reponsibly". We will not see a big upswing in addictions, as the people who are prone to addiction do not let the law stand in their way anyway.

In addition, a lot of law abiding people are currently pushed into using alcohol, when that is probably the most dangerous drug known. Many of these people will drift away from alcohol and begin using pot. This will be better for everyone.

So on the actual direct effect of the drugs themselves, I think the situation will not change much. The illegal drugs are actually much less harmful than alcohol. I would add here that deaths due to tainted drugs will plummet, and most heroin related deaths are of this type.

The real benefits of ending the drug war will be improved respect for the law, improved respect for the police, reduced police and court corruption, reduced funding of the worst scum in the world (terror groups included) and on and on.

Freedom works, prohibition does not.

350 posted on 12/30/2001 9:31:39 PM PST by LloydofDSS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Actually the 3 strikes law has greatly reduced crime.

The 3 strikes law is constitutional and I voted in favor of it. Reducing crime is a good thing. Curtailing our liberties is not. All the arguments you make against drugs can also be made against guns, religion or whatever else is deemed too dangerous for the public. Essentially you're saying that we're all too stupid and irresponsible to live our own lives and that Mommy Government should do it for us.

351 posted on 12/30/2001 9:32:41 PM PST by elmer fudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Since our whole form of self-governance is based on rationality, the ability to offer consent, and clear-headedness, why would anyone advocate the "right" to abrogate self-governance unless they were haters of liberty or were just sorely ill-informed?

Are you then prepared to ban alcohol, legal narcotics and psychedelic plants, mind-imprisoning cults and all other contributors to irrationality?
352 posted on 12/30/2001 9:32:46 PM PST by Hemlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Read the platform, Read the platform, Read the platform, Read the platform, Read the platform.

There now roscoe, 'Read the platform' has been repeated enough for any one thread.

Please desist.

353 posted on 12/30/2001 9:35:22 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Sadly, there are many dimwits here that support his halfwitted ideas.

Their ignorance must be challenged by the libertarian forces of Truth & Liberty if FR is to survive!

[ And, its easy sport.]


LOL! I guess you're right. And it's fun too.
354 posted on 12/30/2001 9:35:34 PM PST by Hemlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The same folks the Libertarians claim will be empowered when the state withers away...

Little Katie and Little Mattie claim it is Republicans like you that want to do away with government.

355 posted on 12/30/2001 9:37:01 PM PST by laredo44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
David I don't discount the Constitution. I think it is the foundation of our law.

There has been additional law created because there was a need. I think the courts upheld the Congressional laws regarding illegal drug laws. The ACLU who wants to destroy America would have been trying to champion the challenge in court against the Feds to undermine this country if they could. I'm sure they tried and failed.

I am very conservative by the way. I would be to the right of Reagan in all likelyhood David.

356 posted on 12/30/2001 9:39:14 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Shush boy. -- It's ok to try to crack wise now & then, but your base idiocy shows when you try to discuss the constitution.
357 posted on 12/30/2001 9:40:25 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
>>So, was the law posted earlier challenged in court yet? I bet it was and failed to be overturned. The ACLU would love to bury this country and would be like white on rice in championing your issues in court. I bet they did and failed.<<

No it has not been challenged. If you look at the history of court challenges, they typically require a group with a strong economic interest to fund the challenge. I have been in the anti-WOD movement for 25 years, and I can tell you for sure that there is no-one in this movement with a significant economic interest in ending these laws. George Soros and a few other libertarian millionaires have finally emerged, but they are convinced that the ballot box is the most efficient route to overturn these laws.

One of the problems is the court has a long history of accepting statements made by congress at face value. So laws based on total lies are perfectly constitutional. The CSA is a good example. Nearly every statement in the law is false. So congress has learned how to get around the limits of the constitution, they simply write lies into law and the courts accept them as facts.

358 posted on 12/30/2001 9:40:36 PM PST by LloydofDSS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You would be wise to heed Jim's words for you so often ignore them otherwise. Stick around here and you might learn.
359 posted on 12/30/2001 9:41:52 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: laredo44;roscoe
Nor, apparently do you have a definition of liberty you'd care to share. Silly hand wringing, indeed. You'd have been a welcome addition to the Second Continental Congress! George III salutes you.

You say that to me after you wrote this in post 266?

"All laws that have been enacted by Congress are not Constitutional even though all laws have been tied to the powers granted in the Constitution by Congress as part of passing the law. "

Do you still have your constitution coloring book or are you just having a bad day today?

360 posted on 12/30/2001 9:43:51 PM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 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