Posted on 07/26/2002 4:22:50 PM PDT by JediGirl
I can understand their position. What I cannot understand is a professed conservative with that view. Everything in your being should say that drugs are not the government's business and the attempt to ban them does significantly more harm than good.
"Banned in Boston" was not the name of a pre-MTV colonial musical group who played live before the Continental Congress.
That is odd. When it is put on the ballot, marijuana has been getting decriminalized in every state lately. I want to see this guy's numbers. Ask the question: Should somebody caught smoking marijuana be sentenced to 5 years or more in jail?
Love to see the results on that question.
In other words, this was written by someone who's made a career out of the War of Drugs. (And thus someone who'd be unemployed were recreational drugs legalized!)
American life in many communities no longer resembles the quiet peace of our childhoods. Guns have endangered the quality of life so many of us have worked so hard to improve. Yet despite my ability to understand, and despite years of work to eradicate crime, violence and guns, I am baffled by the cyclical calls for the legalization of guns according to proponents, the answer to our problems. ...
What ABC did not take into account was that the overwhelming majority of Americans are unequivocally opposed to legalizing guns. They understand that many crimes are committed by people using guns not to defend themselves, but because guns exacerbate the user’s criminal nature. The majority of Americans understand that our crime problem will get worse, not better, if guns were more widely available and socially acceptable. ... And the great majority of Americans do not want gun owners drawn to their communities in search of cheap, plentiful guns ...
Why does the idea of legalization appear and reappear when there is so little support for such a notion? Some proponents of legalization are seeking to normalize the use of guns, and many of them are people who use, or have used, guns with little significant adverse impact. Many proponents are wealthy members of the elite who live in the suburbs and have never seen the damage that guns and violence have wrought on poor communities, and for whom legalization is a abstract concept.
Let’s ask proponents some of the hard questions that arise from their simplistic proposal. Would we legalize all guns--handguns, rifles, and shotguns, as well as assault rifles? Who could obtain these guns-- only adults? Who would distribute these guns--private companies, doctors or the government? Should the inner city be the central distribution point, or should we have gun makers in Scarsdale, Chevy Chase and the Main Line? How much are we willing to pay to address the costs of increased gun use? How will we deal with the black market that will surely be created to satisfy the need for cheaper, more powerful guns? And when the legalizers answer all these questions, ask them this: Can we set up a pilot legalization program on your block?
Our national and international efforts to reduce the supply and use of guns have a long way to go. There are no easy answers, no quick fixes. A single television special won’t solve our gun problem. It took us 25 years to get to this point in our current wave of gun use, and it will take us a little longer to address it. We have made significant gains in reducing gun use: ... . Success will not happen overnight, but we know what works; a constant, unflagging multi- faceted effort to dismantle gun trafficking networks, educating our population about the dangers of guns and ensuring certain sanctions against drug trafficking and use.
Legalizing guns is not a viable answer or a rational policy; it is surrender."
Don't get me wrong. I am not equating that drugs are the same thing as guns. What I am illustrating, is this type of liberal argument used against drugs, works just as well for guns. If YOU cave to the non logic in this appeal, it illustrates that OTHERS who don't know much about guns will be easily swayed by this non logic.
Be very wary of politicians seeking to do something for the public good. They don't know squat, or for that matter, even care, what's best for you and me. They care only about their own power, and money.
5 years? A $100 fine is more likely if even that. Which states still prosecute 5 years for public use? And if so, how many people are so prosecuted each year?
Anthrax - # arrests, 0
Smallpox -# arrests, 0
U-235 - # arrests, 0
Minor annoyances:
Pot - # arrests, > 1 million per year
If we keep going like this, we are going to lose major urban areas and possibly the Republic.
Oh my, let's. The DEA asking questions? That's a first. Usually they start by shooting.
Would we legalize all drugs--cocaine, heroin, and LSD, as well as marijuana?
Sure.
Who could obtain these drugs-- only adults?
Who is allowed to legally obtain alcohol and tobacco now? This is an attempt to show that those in favor of drug legalization are only interested in selling drugs to children. NOT ONCE have I read a pro-legalization article that even remotely intimated that children should be allowed to buy drugs. This is SUCH a tired and pitiful argument, based on fear and ignorance. That's about par for the course, though. We are talking about the War on (Some) Drugs.
Who would distribute these drugs--private companies, doctors or the government?
The government would just waste a huge amount of money and end up shooting a bunch of people. Does a doctor distribute alcohol and tobacco? Of course not. There are establishments licensed to sell liquor, aren't there? Show up, show your ID, get what you want. I fail to see why drugs should be handled any differently.
Should the inner city be the central distribution point, or should we have drug supermarkets in Scarsdale, Chevy Chase and the Main Line?
Oh, now we've descended into utter pro-War idiocy. What is the "central distribution point" for the legal drugs we have now? Is it "the inner city"? Should we have "alcohol supermarkets" in Chevy Chase? Wait, we already do.
How much are we willing to pay to address the costs of increased drug use?
It will certainly cost less than the BILLIONS of dollars a year used by paramilitary federal jackboots to kidnap and falsely imprison over a million people and shoot down planes full of missionaries. I'd rather spend money on treatment than on jails.
How will we deal with the black market that will surely be created to satisfy the need for cheaper, purer drugs?
Ummm... this person is supposed to know something about drugs? "Cheaper, purer"? The black market is the CAUSE of the violence and crime associated with the drug trade. Those asking for legalization want to END the black market. THERE WILL BE NO NEW BLACK MARKET. NO ONE is going to want to go crawl into some seedy crack house when they can just as easily go to Eckerd's and get their high. NO ONE. Totally fallacious and ignorant argument. Imagine that!
And when the legalizers answer all these questions, ask them this: Can we set up a pilot legalization program on your block?
Yes. See, I don't believe that the people who come to "my block" are going to shoot the place up, f**k the cat, and set fire to the lawn. I think they will do just what people who buy alcohol do: Show up, buy, and leave.
Welcome to the real world, head jackboot. Your days are numbered. Maybe you'll even have to get a real job someday soon. Zimbabwe and North Korea will always need goons and kidnappers.
I don't get these idiots. Why does legalization make something socially acceptable? is smoking socially acceptable now? Is driving drunk socially acceptable?
Prohibition does not work.....period. These people are fools wasting tax dollars. legalization is coming....slowly but surely (and don't call me....)
Materialist ideologues of any stripe, from Marxist to libertarian, see only a material reason to all actions, and never a values-based reason.
The two are related. Given that the post-Drug War US has 6X the prison capacity, who do you think will be occupying those cells after we admit the Drug War has failed? This is a business that is capable of "finding" customers.
After all, the Alcohol Warriors were not fired, they became the BATF. I imagine the same thing will happen to the DEA.
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.