Posted on 06/20/2002 5:52:02 AM PDT by Pern
There's the safety angle. Druggies are disproportionately involved in automobile accidents.
There's the financial angle. Where exactly is the money used to buy the drugs going and what's being done with it? (Probably funding Democratic Party candidates, a very bad and evil thing.)
If I wake up, maybe I'll think of a few more.
AMEN !!! AMEN !!! AMEN !!! AMEN !!... Preach on..
you are right on target... its the catch 22 that the ANTI-WOD groups are completely missing.....
The COST of NOT having the WOD would be FAR more substantial and passed indiscrimanently to everyone across the board.....
I am a strong supporter of ASSET SEIZURE LAWS (eluded to in post #38) having those who commit drug related offenses pick of the tab for the war on drugs... if they would stop violating our nations drug laws they would not have to worry about having their drug money/assets confiscated
With all due respect your defense of this ILLEGAL activity makes my job much more dangerous, and gives these criminals a strong sense of legitimacy while they openly mock the criminal justice system...
If you think there is corruption in your local law enforcement agency I suggest you consider running for Sheriff in your county (assuming your county has a constitutionally elected Sheriff, if not I suggest you lobby locally for such a position...) Only a constitutionally ELECTED Sheriff answers directly to the voters and not a panel of potentially "influenced" local politicians....
Respectfully,
David
Well, for one thing, we could start voting for someone other than the weak candidates put forth by the duopoly.
Thanks for your time..
FReegards,
David
I see so the answer is creating MORE parties??????...NOT!! with all due respect that would make the problem much WORSE.. the more parties there are. the fewer votes needed to be elected.... and the more the candidates become "single issue" and that would meltdown the entire process that makes America Great!!.. Let's work WITHIN the Republican Party to rid our country of LIBERALISM!!! which is just a pen stroke away from COMMUNISIM !! If the conservatives in this country DIVIDE the only thing we will do is hand this country over to the likes of Daschle and Leahy...
Respectfully,
David C. Osborne
I wholeheartedly agree with you, David. Someone made a comment on how we survived as a nation for a century and a half without drug laws. For that first century and a half we had a God-fearing nation of people and a culture that didn't glorify depravity and immorality. Maybe we didn't need drug laws, because people had more self-respect and self-control.
Perhaps by electing the people who will stop intruding on our lives and un-electing those who don't.
But I guess that won't work 'cause if we don't vote for Republicans those darn Dems might get in. So I guess we are stuck forever with busybodies and thugs 'cause we want to make sure they are OUR thugs. < /sarcasm>
FReegards,
David
You are the person we need to be defended against. More rights are lost to governments than any other group. More to local thugs than far away thugs too.
I prefer to think of myself as a libertine, actually, just been a long time since I've had a good debauch. I reserve the right to debauch. You gotta problem with that? If so, respectfully, esad!
I know of no libertatians who call for new legislation which would be called "legalisation of drugs". The ones I know, (thousands) call for the removal of federal laws prohibiting use or sale of substances. Not laws allowing them.
On the state and local level, they call for the same thing. Is that not within their rights? They do violence to the constitution by exercising their rights to influence local government? I think you have it confused.
In response to your comment about "busting violent people".. some of the most violent criminals out there are the ones "defending" themselves and their "drug business" from those of us who wish to see them out of business...
Although this may be partially true, I believe you have fallen for the "Hollywood" hype. We simply just don't have many instances of violence like you see in the movies. In addition, the violence associated with the drug trade is immediately ended with the legalization of drugs.
With all due respect your defense of this ILLEGAL activity makes my job much more dangerous, and gives these criminals a strong sense of legitimacy while they openly mock the criminal justice system...
You are speaking of an activity only justified as "illegal" by an edict of government. If we made possessing a gun illegal, that would make you job more dangerous too. Removing the illegality removes the "added" danger from your job. No one would have to worry about going to jail for merely possessing a substance that somebody said you can't have.
There's the safety angle. Druggies are disproportionately involved in automobile accidents.
This is plain and simply not true. The poster made this up. There are no statistics that show anything of the sort. Please don't fall for this lie.
I am a strong supporter of ASSET SEIZURE LAWS (eluded to in post #38) having those who commit drug related offenses pick of the tab for the war on drugs...
Asset seizure laws have to be ended. They are the most clear violation of the 4th Amendment. IMHO, any supporter of these laws is ant-american and anti-freedom. Again, you say "drug related offenses" when you mean "drug possession". Why do you get my car and all the money on me if I have a bag of weed in my pocket? That makes no sense, unless you are some sort of totalitarian looking for justification for your job.
if they would stop violating our nations drug laws they would not have to worry about having their drug money/assets confiscated
Again, you mean "possession" laws. And these laws are applied to ANYONE with something the arresting agency wants; Not just your "Scarface" types.
I have had it up to here with government edicts concerning the possession of objects, whether it be guns, drugs or freeon. Possession is not a violation of rights, thus not a crime. Imprisoning people for mere possession removes responsibility for their actions.
Prohibition of the possession of objects makes everyone a suspect to law enforcement because, well, who knows what that person might have in their pocket. Freedom is at the whim of law enforcement, who(not meaning you personally) do not have a good track record in the WOD.
I abhor drug abuse. Most of the problems people bring up concerning "drug abuse" are caused by socialism in the first place. Fight the socialism, not the private, peaceful actions of individuals.
Thats my opinion. I enjoy your posts and pings; we just disagree here. I think if you could see the bigger picture, you may be persuaded to take an anti-WOD position. Of course, I didn't even mention the biggest argument to be anti-WOD - its simply unconstitutional.
You will NEVER see me defend a "bad cop" no matter how much "good service" he/she has put in.. when a cop violates his/her oath he/she violates the very essence of our constitution and is an ENEMY of America !!
The federal government's obligations are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and drugs are not mentioned. It took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, and it would take another one to make the federal WoD legitimate. This is an issue for the states, as per the 9th and especially 10th Amendment. The states can outlaw or legalize drugs as they like, and the fed can only constitutionally prevent interstate commerce thereof.
Well, that's what the Constitution has to say about it. And as we all know, government really doesn't care what it says. It does whatever it damned well pleases.
I am a strong supporter of ASSET SEIZURE LAWS
As it stands, forfeiture is done without Due Process. Property is forfeited upon mere suspicion, without a trial or even charges. The burden is on the defendant to show he is innocent. Even upon an acquittal, property may not be returned. This invites, no, demands corruption and abuse. This is as brazenly unconstitutional, and un-American as it can get. I expect this type of behavior from 3rd world tin-pot banana republics, and asset forfeiture lowers our nation to their level.
But as you are in law enforcement yourself, you'll never have your property unjustly confiscated, and you'll likely get some cool new stolen toys to play with, so I can understand why you like it.
some of the most violent criminals out there are the ones "defending" themselves and their "drug business" from those of us who wish to see them out of business...
There was lots of that during Prohibition. Notice Al Capone and Frank Nitti have been replaced with Budweiser and Jim Beam. And those fellas aren't going to shoot anyone.
Respectfully,
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.