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

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Advocate Drug Legalization: Recipe For Escalating Societal Decay
GOPUSA.COM ^ | May.16,2002 | Carol Devine-Molin

Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 561-577 next last
To: kidd
Federal regulations have reduced our "laboratories of democracy" to 50 control groups.
381 posted on 05/17/2002 11:57:13 AM PDT by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Yes, I believe drug criminalization should be a state issue.
382 posted on 05/17/2002 11:57:35 AM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Why is it that some of you feel the need to make false statments and innuendos to make your points.

We've been here before Eagle Eye. I've made no false statements. Open a dictionary and look up "libertarian". My Merriam-Webster says, a libertarian is, a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty, especially of thought and action.

383 posted on 05/17/2002 11:58:28 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"Libertarians do not support the rule of law, or the will of the people, has [do you mean as? -LC] represented through their elected officials. Libertarians want absolute and unrestricted liberty, as in no limitations on individuals and their personal behavior. Such extremism, will only lead to chaos and anarchy."

Sorry, I can't agree. Libertarians do believe in the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of men. The rule of law means that the government must obey its own rules, whereas the rule of man means that people are at the arbitrary whims of whoever is in power.

Let me ask you, do you feel the government scrupulously follows its own rules? I don't. When I read about the campaign finance reform act that Rush signed I am left wondering what our representatives think "Congress shall make no law" means. Apparently, they think it means "shall make no law, unless we think it sounds like a really good idea at the time."

To continue, libertarians know our freedoms are bounded by that of others. I am not an extremist, I am a moderate. I repudiate the anarchist-leaning libertarians from taking positions I feel aren't in line with constitutional republicanism. This may mean I am not a "real" libertarian, but that is not the point. The point is that you do not have to be a radical to oppose prohibition. I'll say that again. You don't have to be a radical, nor do you have to believe in total legalization to oppose prohibition.

384 posted on 05/17/2002 12:01:12 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Impeach98;seanc623
Why are we trashing Liberterians?

Because they advocate things that will destroy our society, that's why. They and their ideas are repulsive and insane.

385 posted on 05/17/2002 12:02:08 PM PDT by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Sophistical pleadings bump!

You may be a satirist, and I'm just not quick enough to appreciate your mordant wit.

OTOH, you may be as much of a fatuous white-shoe country-club 'Pubbie as you appear.

Either way, your empty platitudes are the emptiest I've ever seen, and that's no empty compliment.

Your latest post is surely the 'Gold Standard' of fatuity.

386 posted on 05/17/2002 12:04:30 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
``If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your councils or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.''

-- Sam Adams

387 posted on 05/17/2002 12:06:59 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Federal regulations have reduced our "laboratories of democracy" to 50 control groups.

LOL

388 posted on 05/17/2002 12:07:56 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
As I've told you before, I never said our entire system of government was perfect. I don't agree with every aspect of federal and state asset forfeiture laws either. But I understand, human beings aren't perfect creatures and that includes members of law enforcement and officials of the criminal justice system. Mistakes are made every day in this world. If an American citizen, believes their rights have been trampled on, they have every right, under law, to have their case addressed through the legal system. get a lawyer and present your case.
389 posted on 05/17/2002 12:12:58 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"...get a lawyer..."

I thought so...do a Google search on 'barratry'.

390 posted on 05/17/2002 12:18:23 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
I just read on FR that in Florida lots of Libertarians are winnin' now, and shockin' the whole State.

The ideology contained in the Libertarian Platform is part of an extreme political agenda, that has no chance of ever being taken seriously in America. Rick Stanley will never be a Senator from Colorado, and he will never, ever be, POTUS.

391 posted on 05/17/2002 12:20:05 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Yes, I believe drug criminalization should be a state issue.

And most states have dealt with these issues in their bills of rights. The states are supposed to be 50 free republics not 50 wild experiments in unlimited majoritarian socialism.

California (Section 24): "This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people."

Maryland (Article 45): "This enumeration of Rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the People."

New Jersey (Section 21): "This enumeration of rights and privileges shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people."

392 posted on 05/17/2002 12:20:42 PM PDT by Libertarian Billy Graham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"If an American citizen believes their rights have been trampled on, they have every right, under law, to have their case addressed through the legal system."

That, of course, supposes that the legal system has not been corrupted by the same lust for power. The Supreme Court has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted to interpret the Constitution accurately. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example. (Actually, the job of the SCOTUS is to interpret law in light of the Constitution, not to interpret the Constitution itself)

The ultimate form of checks and balances lies with an armed populace. Virtually all of the debates we have on this forum can be linked to the government's encroachment on the 2nd Amendment protection of our right to keep and bear arms. If the government can disarm us, they can govern with complete autonomy. We would have no recourse. Lawyers and lawsuits against the government would be meaningless.

393 posted on 05/17/2002 12:22:52 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your councils or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Sam Adams

I've always loved that quote. Here's a Sam Adams bump.

394 posted on 05/17/2002 12:24:28 PM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
rebump!
395 posted on 05/17/2002 12:28:55 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
Sweeet post! Notice how none of the foaming at the mouth types even bothered to respond? When faced with the hopeless logic of their position all you hear is silence, ocassionally pierced with an ad hominem attack (of course - statist debate tactis 101)
396 posted on 05/17/2002 12:40:13 PM PDT by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener; headsonpikes; Liberal Classic
Another Samuel Adams BUMP!


397 posted on 05/17/2002 12:42:20 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: reagan man; Kevin Curry
The basic constitutionality of the act is not addressed because it is not even arguable. Congress can legislate under the Commerce Clause. -- Reagan Man

The pro-dopers revere the Constitution only when it furthers their "Let's get high!" agenda. Otherwise, they're content to use that grand document to line bird cages or to roll their joints in. - KC -

---------------------------------

The constitutional basics ARE obvious. --- Congress is limited as to what it can 'legislate' in the commerce clause in very clear language. Drug prohibitions are NOT included in those powers.

Look at the only support you have RM, a crazed 'anti-doper', barely able to post. You are losing all credibility.

398 posted on 05/17/2002 12:44:06 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
That, of course, supposes that the legal system has not been corrupted by the same lust for power.

Don't you third party malcontents get it, yet? The world isn't a perfect place and the people who populate it, aren't perfect either. You guys are dense, dense, dense!!! All you do, is point fingers and claim corruption throughout the federal government. This is typical, doom and gloom-the sky is falling rhetoric, from people who have no answers, but enjoy fingering those people, who may disagree with them.

If that's what you believe, then run for cover "chicken little" and take all the other little "chicks" with you. Let the adults handle the tough stuff. The Founding Fathers didn't cut and run when the going got tough. This conservative ain't pointing fingers and isn't running from anything. You guys are truely lost and have no understanding of American politics, or how to make the system work for you.

The idea that our second amendment rights are more important then any other of our Constitutional rights, is ridiculous. The entire Constitution is critical to the survival of our Republic. Take away our freedom of speech, or freedom of religion and there will be upheaval throughout the land.

399 posted on 05/17/2002 12:50:09 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
And a conservative is one who attempts to preserve the status quo.

I know you wouldn't use the dictionary to define a political conservative so why would you use it to define another political philosophy? C'mon, WWRD?

(What Wouls Rush Do?)

400 posted on 05/17/2002 12:52:25 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 383 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 561-577 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