Posted on 07/26/2002 4:22:50 PM PDT by JediGirl
Well, with all due respect, that is always the conflict between security and liberty. We could catch every terrorist in this country if the FBI could search every house without a warrant. We could end drunk driving if the cops could have a checkpoint every quarter mile along the roadways. But at what point do we lose something greater if we try to enforce away human fallacies? It's not an easy answer, but to simply demand that we apply law enforcement until human fallacies are gone, is, IMO, an existence in denial of both human nature and the nature of totalitarianism.
Those are the exact same arguments used by alcohol prohibitionists alcohol early last century. We saw the results. Yes, we have bad societal effects from alcohol, but prohibition was worse.
So to be consistent, you should be supporting renewal of alcohol prohibition, no?
People make moral choices every day. If we could somehow form a magical world in which no immoral choices were available to us, how would we demonstrate our morality? Doesn't the Bible talk about the fact that we get no "credit" for choices forced upon us - only for those choices we take freely?
It would be ludicrous for anyone to assert that laws against evildoing somehow rob evildoers of their free will choice. We have laws against bank-robbery, but we don't feign crocodile tears over the sad plight of would-be bank-robbers, supposedly robbed of their free-will choice of whether to rob banks or not. If you are looking for a villain which robs people of their free-will, then look no further than the addictive and deadly drugs.
I know I will agonize trying to make sense of your response. That's why I don't reply to you anymore, but this one seemed fairly new and I wanted to point out your illogic and see what creative rant you can come up with next.
It is more virtuous to do the right thing of your own volition than because the government will punish you because you don't. This is the way people in countries who use your name run things. They force people by government control to be virtuous.
You keep calling for government to ban evil doing, but you never resolved your old delimma. Lying, divorce, taking false Gods and such are all evil, but you never call for laws to ban these actions. Only the ones you don't seem to like. Be consistent or stop making the same mistake over and over.
If we open the doors and legalize heroin, for instance (and we can't be selective and choose what to legalize, correcto??) what are you gonna get? You're gonna have your own block's whacko..... You're gonna have a zoned-out driver not only in front of you, but right on your tail... You're gonna have a panhandler at your front door, not just at the front door of your local Wal Mart as is the case now.
Pandora's box, folks - Pandora's box......you "aks for it" and you'll get it - bigtime
Then you should have replied to him, not me. Maybe if YOUR favorite brother's kid (as in my case) was a virtual "lifer" in the Georgia, of all places, penal system, all on account of drug related felonies - you'd share my rage on this foolishness. Drugs simply can NOT become any more legalized than they are already....this "giving up" crap is total bull puckey.
Legalizing may make some s**t cheaper, but it won't lessen the buzz it puts on the user's peabrain........too many Freepers just can't connect the dots here.
Have a great evening - I'm pouring myself a nice stiff "7 and 7"!!
Posted on 02/14/2002 10:12 PM Central by Aurelius
Decorated veteran of drug war says only the option is to legalize them Masters was once a drug warrior.
The only way to end the war on drugs is to legalize them, says a U.S. sheriff who was once a frontline warrior in the battle.
Bill Masters of Colorado's rural San Miguel County has been sheriff -- an elected position -- for 22 years.
Sheriff Masters, 49, and the father of four, has won a certificate of appreciation from the Drug Enforcement Administration and even helped bust a former town marshal on drug charges.
But he had a change of heart a few years ago when he made a trip to the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia, for help in a grisly murder case. There were no shortage of bright young recruits on the campus. But most were being trained as drug agents, not murder investigators.
"We care more about catching pot-smokers than child murderers," said Sheriff Masters, whose book, Drug War Addiction, Notes From the Frontlines of America's #1 Policy Disaster, was published recently. "We spend $50 billion a year on drug enforcement," said Sheriff Masters. "Maybe we should be going after terrorists and child abusers. Or spending it on cancer treatment."
San Miguel County, which Mr. Masters refers to as "Mayberry," is hardly inner-city Los Angeles. It has a population of only about 8,000 people, but that can swell by 20,000 at the height of ski season at upscale Telluride. It's educated and affluent and has its own sizeable "trust-funding" population.
In the last election Sheriff Masters ran as a Libertarian (he had previously been a Republican) on a platform of legalizing drugs and won 80 per cent of the vote -- his best result so far. His opponent was a Republican who wanted to strip-search everyone entering the county jail for drugs.
"We arrested 750,000 people on drug charges the year before Sept. 11, and two terrorists," said Sheriff Masters, whose mother, the former Janet Caldwell, was a member of an Arnprior lumbering family. She left Canada for the U.S. as a young woman.
Sheriff Masters, who says he takes no drugs himself aside from the occasional painkiller, believes people should make their own decisions -- and be responsible for their own mistakes. Last week, as a guest on a call-in radio show, he was berated by a woman with a heroin-addicted husband. "It's his life," Sheriff Masters responded.
If people want to use drugs, they will use drugs, argues Sheriff Masters, who says one per cent of the population is using heroin and morphine now -- the same percentage as a century ago. If buying drugs is not criminal and drugs are sold for what it costs to produce them, then the criminal activity around drugs -- murders, robberies, prostitution -- will evaporate, he argues.
"If a person is addicted to heroin, it's better to prescribe heroin than to allow armed criminals to go out and rob to get the money."
If drugs were legal, prisons would not be overcrowded with people who are felons for possessing drugs. "Most people aren't walking around the streets drinking beer," he said. "The same thing would happen with marijuana. We have to get rid of the anarchy we have now."
While the electorate doesn't appear to mind Sheriff Masters' stand, he has taken some harsh criticism. Society can't afford to trivialize or ignore the drug problem, especially if children are at risk, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens has said.
"Making drugs legal would make dangerous substances even more widely available to our young people. That is a chance we cannot take," said Mr. Owens.
Some suggested that a law-enforcement officer who believes in legalizing drugs should resign. Sheriff Masters took an oath of office to enforce the laws of the U.S. and the state of Colorado, the state's U.S. Attorney, John Suthers, said in December. "If you don't like it, become a critic, not a law enforcement officer," said Mr. Suthers.
"I guess he doesn't believe in freedom of speech," responded Sheriff Masters.
Some of Sheriff Masters' fellow lawmen are listening to his arguments.
Sheriff Bob Braudis of Pitkin County says legalizing drugs would put traffickers out of business and save billions. Drug users need medical help, not jail time. "Eventually others would agree, but it may not happen in my professional lifetime," said Sheriff Braudis.
Sheriff Masters faces another election this year, and he plans to run. Ron Crickenberger, the national political director of the U.S. Libertarian Party would like him to aim higher, for state representative or Congress.
Once again, legalizing drugs would be the keystone of his platform.
There are still drug charges in Sheriff Masters' jurisdiction, but he prefers to concentrate on crimes, like drunk driving, that hurt other people.
"We prioritize things differently," he said. "If someone is dealing amphetamines out of their house, we deal with it immediately."
What the hell - I guess we ain't gonna be on the same page tonight, regarding this subject. Enjoy the "hoing", but use the proper latex precautions, OK?
I don't need a government agency to help me grow a weed in my backyard. As for processed drugs, if they can handle the liability from selling alcohol, they can handle xtc, psilocybin and lsd. I will grant you that meth is far too dangerous for anyoen to want liability for.
Yet again, you completely miss the difference between actions which commit fraud or aggression against others and actions which do not. Your willful blindness on this fundamental tenet of libertarian philosophy consistently leads you to the wrong conclusion.
Then make those actions against the law (actually they already are - driving under the influence and trespassing, respectively). Those are the actions exhibiting aggression against others. That's the way we do it with alcohol. We don't make drinking illegal - just driving while drinking (which endangers others) and being a public nuisance.
I had a brother killed in a drunk driving accident, but you don't see me calling for prohibition of alcohol.
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.