Right! Where are they now?
Posted on 05/02/2002 8:11:26 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
Please don't do the former, too late for the latter.
You don't buy gasoline?
A bit thin skinned are we ?
Oh yeah?! My dad can beat up your dad! :-p
Can't miss, he's been dead for 27 years.
On the other hand,,,he was creamated so it might be quite impossible,,,,,,
Right! Where are they now?
"Good Things Grow In Ontario"
1. The introductory paragraphs advance the familiar (to those of us who witnessed the Clinton impeachment follies) "hypocrisy" argument: "Famous (or Notorious) Person X allegedly used illegal drugs, how dare they condemn anyone else." This argument implies an ability to read the mind of the purported hypocrite, i.e. to know to within a moral certainty that they do not now believe that drug use and possession are wrong and should be punished. Moreover, by carrying this argument to an illogical conclusion, one could accuse a reformed cat burglar of "hypocrisy" for supporting laws against theft, or for teaching his children not to steal. I also strenuously object to the statement "...self-medication has been a hallmark of human civilization..." A dictionary definition of "hallmark" is " ...an indication of quality or excellence", Mr. Gee's statement may alternately be read as: "drug use and possession are an indication of quality or excellence in human civilization".
Paragraph 5 also presents the "if booze and tobacco are legal, what's wrong with my drugs of choice, you flaming hypocrite" argument. If Mr. Gee's intent were to demand that alcohol and tobacco should be prohibited on the grounds that they are just as dangerous (or more so) than currently illegal drugs, then he has made his case. He is absolutely correct: we are all hypocrites for banning some dangerous drugs while permitting the possession and use of other dangerous drugs. That does not, however, mean that we need to compound the "crime" of hypocrisy with the crime (and immorality) associated with the possession and use of habit forming, health endangering, crime inducing and/or mind-altering drugs.
2. The next section of Mr. Gee's article, "the Unreason of Drug Laws", mixes some valid points with some unproven assertions, and some good old-fashioned left-wing "conventional wisdom". Just because "drug legalization proponents" choose to believe that "drug dependence is more of a health issue rather than a crime issue", doesn't necessarily make that assertion the God's eternal and immutable truth. I don't think that the people who've been mugged, robbed, beaten and shot by addicts out to get money to support their habit would necessarily endorse this "health rather than law enforcement issue" concept. There are, in my opinion (which is just as valuable, as Mr. Gee's), some serious Constitutional issues with current asset forfeiture laws, and with the "cruel and unusual" severity of some of the penalties under existing drug laws. On the other hand, I thought that Mr. Gee's basic Thesis is that drugs should be legalized, not that the penalties for drug possession and use should be reduced. And throwing down the race card, as Mr. Gee does in this section, is so much useless demagoguery and sophistry. The incarceration rate of blacks for drug offenses may indicate that drug abuse truly is more of a problem in African-American community than in the general population, it might also be the result of a lot of factors other than raw racism, but whatever the incarceration rates or causes of them are, they hardly constitute an excuse to legalize drugs. As to the argument that we're losing the War on Drugs simply because we haven't eliminated the problem, I would point out (as have better people before me) that we also have not eliminated crime, poverty, or Terrorism, but we still spend billions and trillions to solve (or at least to ameliorate) those age-old problems.
3. This is as far as I want to take this critique at this time (maybe too far to suit most of you, particularly the Liberals, libertarians and drug addicts). I once had a college roommate who smoked a lot of ganja, but who was opposed to drug legalization on the grounds that he didn't want his (future) kids to think it was OK (or a "hallmark of human civilization") to use drugs. At the time I thought he was the biggest hypocrite on the face of the earth. Now I have a teen-aged stepson, and now I know that there are a lot worse things than a little hypocrisy if it keeps people from messing up their lives, and endangering others, with drugs.
I'm joking, of course. I no more think that these problems can be solved by spending taxpayers' extorted money than that the so-called WOD can be 'won' by spending the same money.
OTOH, there is no doubt that the grifters, parasites, and other detritus of modern American society would continue to benefit from this criminal conspiracy to terrorize Americans, fatten the bank accounts of the drug cartels, and create thousands of pensionable government jobs.
But let the whited sepulchres of the American Right continue this travesty of justice and morality. God is not mocked.
Yep - its about whipping up votes and securing gubmint jobs.
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.