Posted on 02/20/2002 6:08:45 AM PST by Magician
Oh I get it, you just want to debate the imbeciles because you can always win. :-)
Those other guys are on total God trips: A CA G, on this thread alone, has proved himself to be the mother of Carrie . . . "evil, evIL, EVIL!!!" (ad nauseum).
The other guys don't know much about God if they come onto every thread and bear false witness. I always ask them why they think God wants them to use guns on people who have vices, they never answer. They will get a chance to stand in front of him and say, "Don't worry God, I took your place down on earth when you were tardy in cleaning up the mess, aren't you proud of me? I handled the stuff you obviously couldn't handle, so where is my room?"
It should be an interesting scene.
Then why do you spend 99% of your time here attacking libertarians, you are the most anti-socialist people in America. You attack libertarians, who usually shock most conservatives, who are , in fact, moderate socialists these days.
Your argument does not hold up.
So you wanting to stick your nose in other citizens business by putting them in jail for using non-approved substances doesn't count?
More hypocritical BS.
So I assume since you didn't answer that you are/were a drug user too. Anyone who never used drugs would be proud to say so regardless of their stance on the unconstitutional WOD.
Their days of man-handling our culture and country are just about over.
Their existence comes closer to proving Jung's 'collective conscience' theory than any other demographic anomaly.
How come the crime rates started to skyrocket when drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, and heroin started to find their way into the American culture in the mid-60's?
Dane, there's something called demographics that can answer that. Criminologists have determined through years of research that the prime "crime committing" age group ranges from 18-26, with a sharp dropoff after that. In the 1950s, the 18-26 cohort (Silent Generation) was very small in number (due to the sharp falloff in birth rates during the Depression era 1930s.)
Contrast that with the colossal Boomer 18-26 cohort which first hit 18 in 1963-64 and first passed 26 in 1971-72, the last Boomer cohort passing 26 in the mid-1980s, and that correlates closely with the high crime rates of that era.
Moreover, existing drug law enforcement was relatively lax until the late 1960s, when Dick Nixon created the model for the WOsD that exists today, and even as bad as it was, his approach was more treatment-centered than prison centered, the latter which Mr. "I never inhaled" and Reichsfuehrer McCaffrey backed to the hilt.
LOL! I guess I am a "bigot" now, because I think that drugs should be illegal.
Well at least you are consistant Libertarian, they think the Boy Scouts are "bigots" also.
"Even bigots(Boy Scouts) have rights," he(Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus) said.
Laugh all you want. The fact remains that Leary is simply a private citizen. My tax dollars don't pay his salary, and he's not the one setting public policy. You've done nothing but try to change the subject and try to deflect attention away from the issue of the government lying to us about marijuana from the very beginning. You can't make a case defending marijuana prohibition based on any kind of objective criteria, because you don't have any. All you have is ad hominem attacks and a lot of emotional hand-wringing about the evils of pot that have no basis in fact.
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha.....yeah, it's not like people ever get legally loaded out of their mind of booze. Boy, if brains were dynamite, I doubt you'd be able to blow your nose...
No. I wrote you come from your position through prejudice---your prejudice that holds that everyone who smokes pot is a member of the Drug Culture, and ergo a leftist who supports socialism or marxism. If you think your devotion to your stance makes you a bigot, that's your interpretation, not mine.I assume, then, that you believe smoking pot makes one a leftist?
I think that's an interesting question that probably nobody could fully answer, but there are some points so obvious we can actually probably agree on them.
The fact that these drugs were illegal evidently did little or nothing to prevent a major increase in their use and in crime. I presume you won't argue with that, will you Dane?
In fact, this illegality presumably contributed if not caused the increase in drug use in several ways. You, Dane, seem to think that a major factor in the increase in drug use was the rise in the counterculture: tune in drop out or whatever. This was kids rebelling. As I've posted numerous times, having drugs illegal makes them attractive to kids who want to rebel. Even you, Dane, agree don't you that one major reason drugs were attractive to 60's rebels was because they were illegal and shocked the moral majority?
Also, you agree don't you that the fact that drugs were illegal raised their prices dramatically-- thus causing great financial incentives for dealers? Under this financial incentive, and also the incentive because of the illegality to get more compact and thus shippable products, the "product" was much improved in the '60s and beyond: pot was bred to be more potent and tastier, cocaine was refined and ultimately processed into crack, and so on.
You know, Dane, it took a while for alcohol prohibition to escalate crime, and everybody already used alcohol. My guess is drug use ramped up in large part because of the drug war, and crime naturally followed.
Why crime has dropped in the last decade is another question. The rise in gun ownership and concealed carry probably has something to do with it. Demographics in the population probably had something to do with it. An academic paper published recently proposed the rise of abortion may have had something to do with it as many of the babies who were aborted would have been prone to develop into criminals. Its a controversial proposal, but not necessarily wrong. I suspect also that the drug trade has become more mature. As the drug trade ramped up in the 60's and 70's, the gangsters fought over turf and clients. But wars are expensive. Its plausible to me that by the 90's the drug trade became so mature that the cartels and what not were more often able to settle their differences in less expensive and violent fashion.
And the fact is that Timothy Leary promoted drug use to a whole generation and a liberal media and entertainment industry gave him a big microphone, just becuase he wasn't with the government in the 60's doesn't excuse that fact.
You can put your head in the sand and use technacalities(he wasn't part of the government) to say Timothy Leary wasn't influentiual, but using those tactics makes you look like that you think that the Earth is flat.
What a thought-impoverished universe they inhabit.
Your obsession over unlimited police power is so extreme it's downright pathological. The sun rises and sets over unlimited police power. All the important questions of life--and all of the solutions--come down to the use of unlimited police power eventually. Power uber alles. You and your Trojan horse-WOsD buddies are sanctimonious liars and pathetic cowards, like most closet authoritarians, hiding behind the iron fist of the State.
I assume, then, that you believe smoking pot makes one a leftist?
Uh no I am just using facts. It seems that the vast majority of people who want to prostelytize the drug culture come from the political left. (Barney Frank, Geroge Soros, Timothy Leary, the ACLU, the Green Party, ELF(Earth Libertarion Front) etc. etc.)
Sure there will be exceptions such as William Buckley, but that still doesn't negate the fact that drug legaization is a major tenet of the American left. If those facts are "predjidice" to you so be it, that's your problem.
Still more emotional drivel. You don't have a case to make, so you label my arguments a "technicality", and try to divert attention away from questions you don't want to answer. You want to talk about Leary's influence, start a thread. Don't try to turn this thread into one to make it look like you have something rational to say.
If drug legalization is such a major tenet of the American left, why hasn't my state, Massachusetts---as Ground Zero of the American Left---legalized drugs, or even decriminalized marijuana, or even pushed for it? Why isn't it one of Ted Kennedy's or John Kerry's major issues?
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.