Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
That's blasphemy! How dare you!
Ever see anyone with the DTs? It's as bad as any smack addict.
But I'm not tired of paying to lock up murderers drug growers, drug dealers, drug purchasers and drug abusers. That I'm willing to pay for.
Short the willingness to do what is neccessary to stop drug usage, all the rest is hot air. The war on drugs, treatment centers, etc. are only bottomless pits for blfeeding hearts to toss taxpayer money.
Not at all. I think it means "social conservatives", have a deep rooted personal understanding and appreciation for traditional beliefs and values that stipulate, human beings follow a code, that distingishes, what is right from what is wrong...
I’m not against facism, if I get to be the fascist.
Because it's so effective?
Well, if the shoe fits.....
You were saying?
It is? Since when?
Every morning I drink two or more cups of coffee. Guess I'll have some explaining to do to my Maker...
I just want the drug warriors to answer the "Who's your Daddy?" question.
True. However, the laws of civilized society regularly undergo revision -- after all, 50 years ago, New Deal socialism was the law of civilized society. Those who are advocating changes in the drug laws are taking part in the process by which aspects of society are examined, reconsidered, and, sometimes changed.
Contrary to libertarian propaganda, most people who are caught with small amounts of marijuana, are not automatically thrown in jail on a first time offense. In fact, most users of marijuana, who are caught with the illicit substance, are given many chances by the criminal justice system, to reform, before they're actually put in prison.
Quite true. In fact, when I was at the University of Michigan in the mid-80s, the penalty for pot possession in Ann Arbor was a $5 fine. For all intents and purposes, it was legal.
Thing is, I saw some students who used pot and screwed up their lives. I saw other regular pot smokers who quite frankly thrived, got solid grades, and went off to law school and business school. I didn't see any appreciable difference in failure and success between those who used pot and those who did not. In that light, it does not make sense, to me, that pot should be banned.
True, provided you consider society and government to be freely interchangeable. In the case of marijuana, at the time it was prohibited it's use was not widespread, and it was not an issue of general concern among "society". The decision to prohibit it was done by government, and support for that decision was demanded of society. Should our society decide what kind of government we are to have, or should our government decide what kind of society we shall live in? Or should we just consider them one in the same so we never have to ask that question?
In your opinion and nothing more.
The law is the law.
Some laws I may agree with and others I may disagree with. Some laws are viewed as unconstitutional and some are deemed constitutional. That's what social, cultural and political agendas are all about. That's why will hold democratic elections and choose who we think deserves the public trust and should be given the power and authority to govern this great nation. That's what the US Constitutiona is all about.
Granted.
The right of a farmer to grow and sell crops isn't the RKBA.
The right of a businessman to hire and fire is not the RKBA.
In fact, nothing else is the RKBA.
So what?
Well, I'll concede that the RKBA is the guarantor of all other rights; that doesn't negate the value of other rights, IMHO.
Folks that use illegal substances aren't asking anyone's permission from the get-go. This fact will never change: there will always be people who seek drugs and there will always be suppliers to meet the need (or create it?).
Movies, when watched, do not enter the blood stream and markedly change the affect of the viewer. Cocaine, smoked, does so rapidly and dramatically.
Personally I believe we can be affected negatively by many different things, some legal/some illegal. For the greater good of society, and as a result of observation over time, some things are given a greater prohibition.
Valium was dispensed like candy in the sixties, until it's addictive potential was made manifest. Plain Jane housewives, not drug-addled bums, showed how certain substances are inherently problematic.
Amen to that -- for all that I drink occasionally.
but I don't hear any of the "Drug Warriors" calling for a return to prohibition.
Probably because too many of them are addicted to their nightly martini or six-pack.
Simpler reason. It was tried and it failed, big-time. Alcohol now has a free pass from being banned, except for an occasional dry county.
This happens now. Drug dealers 'brand' their drugs, especially heroin, giving them names like 'spider' or 'blackjack'. The names get around, and addicts shop for the best dope.
Right. I think most of these people don't have enough self control to "just say no" to drugs, so they need a big brother government to tell them it's wrong.
The right of a farmer to grow and sell crops isn't the RKBA.
Equating drug use to America's farmers providing food to our nation is equally inane.
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.