Addicted to the Drug War

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | December 28, 2001 | Ilana Mercer

[A CA Guy]

If the federal law was unconstitutional it would have been overturned in court TP. By drug producers, the ACLU and I guess Libertarians.

Evidently it is not illegal as of today.

[Hemlock]

Every economists article about the leagalizing of all drugs say it will grow addicts greaty based on other places where it has come to pass.

Every one you've supposedly read, or every one you've so diligently quoted?

[Zon]

Being vague is not a lost art in your hands is it?

Don't worry the message will be clear for the intended audience.

[laredo44]

Don't use illegal drugs.

If drugs were legalized tomorrow, would spend the rest of your life high? If not, what makes you think the rest of society would? I mean, I won't be doing drugs tomorrow or the next day or the next days after that, legal or illegal. Why such a low view of your fellow citizens?

[A CA Guy]

I think the bar to be passed would be to overcome what the court would assume was a thoughtful creation and need for this law.

In the article you saw before

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/591110/posts

the Feds do good work at times so you would need to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only area I see success in would be the area of law where the Feds can just take private property if it was associated with drug sales or consumption.

An example of this need would be when a person renting your house sells drugs out of the house without knowledge and the Feds take your house even though you knew nothing about any drug sales.
I think that will be modified to require proof before taking rented or borrowed propery. That is how I see it Lloyd.

[tpaine]

Whining that I've been 'nasty' to poor little you only shows up your own lack of intelligence or wit.

Do yourself a favor, & get mom to tuck you in.

[A CA Guy]

On FR there have been Libertarians pushing leagalizing drugs. (Surprise)

In the articles posted by economists that they posted they point to the great growth of drug addicts.

It is really a logical to believe that would happen.

[Zon]

Funny how the ones that hate the war on drugs the most end up saying some of the most violent and confrontational things.

161 posted on 12/28/01 11:13 AM Pacific by VA Advogado

I have no problem with Jack booted thugs when they're used against the right people. In this case, law breaking druggies are the right people. No mercy, no peas.

8 posted on 12/13/01 4:50 AM Pacific by VA Advogado

 

American twaddle. You're either with us or against us. You are clearly against us.

10 posted on 12/28/01 8:11 AM Pacific by VA Advogado

Ha, never. Its a lot easier to just crank up what we're doing now and keep you in the cross hairs. Give the BATF more effective tools, more money, more men and bigger bounties and we're there.

87 posted on 12/28/01 9:49 AM Pacific by VA Advogado

96 posted on 12/28/01 9:54 AM Pacific by VA Advogado

 

Championing his soul mates...

Cultural Jihad and Clamper are heros here. Some day, when you put down your dope and grow up you'll appreciate that this country is run by people like them.

145 posted on 12/28/01 10:55 AM Pacific by VA Advogado

[A CA Guy]

Are you part of the Taliban then? Man the FBI will be knocking on your door tonight. LOL

[Hemlock]

If drugs were legalized tomorrow, would spend the rest of your life high? If not, what makes you think the rest of society would? I mean, I won't be doing drugs tomorrow or the next day or the next days after that, legal or illegal. Why such a low view of your fellow citizens?

Maybe he's afraid he'll be tempted to leave the First Self-Righteous Church of the Holy Snake Charmers and fall back into his old life of crank, Jack Daniels and hairy women.

[A CA Guy]

The most likely people to increase drug addiction would be ignorant children. You would be harming the children of America. They don't know anything and will think drugs are cool.

A proud moment for you? I would hope not.

[Hemlock]

In the articles posted by economists that they posted they point to the great growth of drug addicts.

It is really a logical to believe that would happen.

Yeah, whatever. Once again I'll ask:

Every article you've supposedly read, or every article you've so diligently quoted?

[tpaine]

Yep, there are a lot of constitutional violations in the lawbooks.

Thats why free republic is here, - to discuss them, & work to correct them, just as JR was quoted as saying above.

Why are you here?

[A CA Guy]

I was pointing out you had lost this debate so you had to go nasty. All of us know here on FR that being vulgar and rude is the sign you lost the debate. Thanks for the double acknowledgement of the loss.

Have a Happy New Year.

[Hemlock]

They don't know anything and will think drugs are cool.

I've got news for you -- many of our children already think drugs are cool. The ones who think drugs are evil, or the more rational ones who think drugs shouldn't be abused, have gained their values from their families and communities (not because drugs are illegal).

[tpaine]

Unilateral declarations of victory are truly pitiful, me boy. - Say 'hi' to your long suffering mom.

[LloydofDSS]

>>I think the bar to be passed would be to overcome what the court would assume was a thoughtful creation and need for this law.<<

>>But the court does not allow one to present evidence that the congress did not do a good job. You have to show how the congress made some kind of procedural error or how the law violates the 14th amendment or something like that.<<

>>the Feds do good work at times so you would need to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt.<<

In my mind, it is the group that is putting people in prison that should have to prove that this is actually accomplishing something.

>>The only area I see success in would be the area of law where the Feds can just take private property if it was associated with drug sales or consumption.<<

We agree here. These forfeiture laws are under attack by both Republicans and Democrats in congress. It may take a few more years, but hopefully these draconian laws will bite the dust soon.

>>An example of this need would be when a person renting your house sells drugs out of the house without knowledge and the Feds take your house even though you knew nothing about any drug sales.<<

There are cases where people have had their cars and boats taken from them because they let a friend ride in them and the friend left behind a few seeds of pot.

Shamefully tyrannical laws.

[A CA Guy]

Articles were provided over the last year by the pro-legalizing addiction crowd here at FR Hemlock.

Happy New Year, I've been posting with a bug so I am getting tired and will be turning in soon. Enjoy your New Year.

[laredo44]

On FR there have been Libertarians pushing leagalizing drugs. (Surprise)

Seems to me they've been pushing a return to Constitutional powers for the Federal Government. The drug prohibition is one of the most blatant usurpations of power and one which defines the essence of the battle so clearly.

Many see the issue, I'm one, as plainly a violation of individual rights protected by several articles in the Bill of Rights. Others with whom we often agree on other topics feel we're not entitled to behave as we wish even though we do not violate the rights of others.

Specifically, if I become violent and assault you or others, or steal from you or others, I should be locked up so I can't do that, regardless of whatever substances I've ingested prior to my actions against you. That you believe I'm incapable of refraining from violating rights or from polluting myself into doing so is an affront to me and my abilities to comport myself without such violations. It asserts your control over me as if a babysitter. I don't need that. It makes me angry, as it does many others. Society is not strengthened when adults are treated as children.

[A CA Guy]

To debate many ideas and point out the difference between good and evil regarding illegal drug use on these kinds of threads. But I am hardly a one issue person.

So why don't the Libertarians go challenge what they wish in court? Surely the group must have collectively more than 2 nickles to rub together and can form the challenges they feel should be made. Heck it's why the court system is there. We can watch it on Court TV perhaps. Go for it! Sure doesn't hurt the country to challenge anything.

Happy New Year!