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 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 561-577 next last
To: VA Advogado
Because they advocate things that will destroy our society, that's why. They and their ideas are repulsive and insane.

Once again it is nice to see you totally repudiate the Second Amemdment, tax reform and social security reform, personal property rights,and the idea of limited government all in one sentence.

401 posted on 05/17/2002 12:56:54 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"...how to make the system work for you."

ROTFLMAO!!!

WOO-HOO!!! You're the MAN, FDR!

Would all you liberdopian crackheads just quitcherbitchin and get a gubmint job!

Hey! Great benefits, too.

LOLOL!!!

I'm still not convinced you're not a satirist, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. ;^)

402 posted on 05/17/2002 12:57:56 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
I know you wouldn't use the dictionary to define a political conservative so why would you use it to define another political philosophy?

That's not true and you know it. I've defined conservative/conservatism before, using standard dictionary definitions.

A conservative is someone who follows a political philosophy, based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

403 posted on 05/17/2002 1:02:02 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
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.

With asset forfeiture laws we are not talking about rogue cops on the take, but the LEGAL systematic trashing of the 4th amendment by allowing LEO's to simply take cash and property if it might have been involved with drugs or money laundering. Citizens must then petition the government for the return of their property and prove that it was not obtained illegally. That's right, they have to prove their innoccence.

It is illegal to carry $10,000 or more into a train station or airport and the money can be taken on the spot without charges placed on the individual. This is not hypothetical, it happens.

404 posted on 05/17/2002 1:02:46 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac;Kevin Curry

From the Mao-Mao School of Political Science? According to the ideologues, the real tragedy would be if the bullets represented a majoritarian opinion.

405 posted on 05/17/2002 1:03:43 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
That's not true and you know it. I've defined conservative/conservatism before, using standard dictionary definitions.

If so, I don't recall and I apologize.

HOWEVER...Rush certainly disagrees with you and staunchly rejects the dictionary definition since it becomes relative to the establishment and not fixed on any principle.

For instance, with the dictionary definition, it could easily be argued that conservatism would defend social security, and all manners of increased government involvement in our lives as THAT is the overriding tradition of the US government in the last century. But that is not the definintion of Conservatism I've always been acquianted with.

406 posted on 05/17/2002 1:08:49 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: billbears;sheltonmac
would you agree that it would be acceptable for the states to determine on their own whether or not drugs are illegal?

Absolutely not. The constitution bars all governments from infringing upon our right to chose and ingest the medication which will heal us of our ills.

Anyway, I don't know why this dimwit (the author of the article) is worried. Libertarians only garner 1% of the vote and therefore will never be a threat to the totalitarians who wish to enslave us...right?

407 posted on 05/17/2002 1:09:30 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
According to the ideologues,

Don't forget, YOU fit that dscription!

408 posted on 05/17/2002 1:10:11 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
In truth, there would be increases in both drug activity and concomitant social ills and other antisocial behaviors linked to substance abuse, all of which would have a profoundly deleterious effect on our populace.

Totally unsupported nonsense.

409 posted on 05/17/2002 1:10:32 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Is he talking about the libertarians who will never impact anything or the libertarians who steal elections from the Republicans and are a threat to the world as we know it?
410 posted on 05/17/2002 1:12:21 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye;Reagan Man
"...it could easily be argued that conservatism would defend social security..."

BINGO! That's the kind of conservative Mr. RM is, I'm afraid.

411 posted on 05/17/2002 1:14:23 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
Question: Is alcohol a drug?

Yes, it is a depressant. Narcotics are a different class.

412 posted on 05/17/2002 1:26:00 PM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
... the dictionary definition, it could easily be argued that conservatism would defend social security, and all manners of increased government involvement in our lives as THAT is the overriding tradition of the US government in the last century. But that is not the definintion of Conservatism I've always been acquianted with.

I guess, in that regard, anyone can theorize anything they want. In my book, being a conservative, is being opposed to everything that has happened since the 1930`s. I oppose everything from FDR`s New Deal socialism, to LBJ`s Great Society liberalism, to Clinton's "I Feel Your Pain" liarism. Conservatism doesn't mean, I want to throw America back in time, to the early days of its beginnings. Modern conservatism, isn't against government, its against the over taxation and the bloated federal bureaucracy. I believe the only way the system can be changed, is through the ballot box and through the election of more conservatives to public office.

You all can moan and groan all you want, about this and that, being anti-constitution and anti-founding fathers. It does absolutely, NO good. I repeat, it serves no good purpose. The only way to effect real change, is to face the facts, of the real world. Grab your political agenda, ideology, philosophy, or whatever and run run run, for public office. If you're fortunate enough to win victory, you'll then have the power, influence and opportunity to bring about the changes you support. Otherwise, without following this simple example, you're dead in the water and all you have is rhetoric to get your message out. Rhetoric only goes so far. Just ask Rush.

413 posted on 05/17/2002 1:37:51 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Rhetoric only goes so far. Just ask Rush.

Like it or not, we'd be United Socialist States of Amerika if not for Rush. How many elected office holders have had more infulence on the population than Rush?

414 posted on 05/17/2002 1:51:57 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Rush isn't the issue right now!

I'm the issue! =^)

Eagle Eye, you've missed my point altogether. Nothing new, though. You do it all the time.

415 posted on 05/17/2002 1:55:58 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"The Founding Fathers didn't cut and run when the going got tough."

I couldn't agree more! They stood their ground and fought for liberty. It seems to me that today's Republican's are the ones who have resigned themselves to the notion that only a select group of nine people in black robes have the ability to interpret the Constitution.

"Take away our freedom of speech, or freedom of religion and there will be upheaval throughout the land."

Again, I couldn't agree more, but it is our right to keep and bear arms that will keep that from happening and will allow us to stand as a threat to an ever-expanding government.

416 posted on 05/17/2002 2:04:21 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
If it were really a "war" they'd execute anyone -- including the heroin-toting wife of one of our Colombian drug war colonels -- who brought drugs into the country.
417 posted on 05/17/2002 2:07:01 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Let's see.... we discussed asset forfeiture, to which you seemed to think that it was rogue cops making human mistakes instead of actual government policy....I objected to the dictionary definition of libertarianism while you decided to disagree with Rush and use the dictionary definition for conservatism....and I still disagree that the US Codes that you referenced are Constitutional in their scope and application to deny citizens the possession or use of today's illegal substances. I also disagree that the current Wo(some)D is completely Constitutional or effective. Add to that the arguements that ending prohibition will cause multitudes of societal problems are nearly identical to those used in opposition to repealing alcohol prohibition. And they were proven wrong.
418 posted on 05/17/2002 2:08:29 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
"From the Mao-Mao School of Political Science? According to the ideologues, the real tragedy would be if the bullets represented a majoritarian opinion."

If you can't see the importance of the right to keep and bear arms as a defense against totalitarianism then I don't know what to say. The founders believed a well-armed citizenry was necessary to the security of a free state.

419 posted on 05/17/2002 2:11:24 PM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
"Using the above condition, anything can be banned or regulated by the feds simply because it is 'transported in interstate commerce.'"

Actually, the claim is even thinner than that. The controlled substances act claims that a) the federal government cannot distinguish between intra- and interstate commerce; that b) this allows the feds to regulate intrastate commerce as well; and that c) regulation of the manner and amount of manufacture is both necessary and proper for pursuing that end.

420 posted on 05/17/2002 2:14:45 PM PDT by Tauzero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 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