Posted on 09/05/2002 9:50:41 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
Maybe the recent story in The Economist will be the prod that causes some long, hard introspection in America regarding its prison system. The land of liberty is a cruel joke for a too-large percentage of the U.S. citizenry.
Consider some statistics: For almost 50 years, from 1925 to 1973, an average of 110 Americans for every 100,000 were in federal and state prisons. By 2000, the incarceration rate had risen to 478 per 100,000. Add in the local jail population, and almost 700 of every 100,000 Americans is behind bars. [...] Drug offenses and the efforts of the war on drugs are a major contributor to the increases in incarceration. In 1980, 15 of every 100,000 Americans were in jail on a drug conviction. In 1986, the number was 148. [...] the $54 billion we spend annually on the prison system. There is growing skepticism about the effectiveness of the war on drugs, which should lead to some reform. It's about time.
(Excerpt) Read more at journalnow.com ...
Absolutely. So you agree that not all users of alcohol are exhibiting "weakness" by their use. Isn't it also true that not all users of other drugs are exhibiting "weakness" by their use? If this is not true, why not?
So government has the authority to ban whatever "contributes to moral, social and cultural decline"? Does that include fast food (which contributes to obesity, certainly not a moral, social or cultural boon)? Romance novels? "Action" movies?
No Constitutional authority for the Feds to interfere with the States. "Victimless crime". Insert the thousands of other logical arguments you seem to be able to ignore.
Lax on infanticide...
Over turning Roe v. Wade and handing the issue back to the States is a Republican issue as well isn't it? Not supporting tax money for abortion clinics is also a Republican issue isn't it? Does that make you a supporter of "infanticide" as well? Just because some of us support a womans right to do with her body what she wants (to verying degrees of course), does not mean we give carte blanche to the "abortion to the twentieth trimester using government funds" crowd. I realize you are trying to be an inflammatory a-hole, but do try to keep up will you?
Lax on Family Values...
Boy are you smoking crack now. If you mean lax on forcing everyone to live by one religious sects version of faimly values at the point of a government gun... then you may have got one right.
Lax on illegal immigration...
Without the welfare state being pushed by jerks like you, there wouldn't be so much illegal immagration now would there? The only ones coming here would be trying to follow the dream that brought so many of our ancetors here. Freedom and opportunity instead of a "free-handout" like you Federalist pigs keep forcing the rest of us to pay for.
Lax on just about everything that contributes to moral, social and cultural decline.
You are one twisted individual, you know that? Advocating freedom now equates to cultural decline in your world. You need some serious psychiatric care.
No, not at all.
I favor eradication of the sources of these poisons, including those who profit by their manufacture and distribution.
I advocate strenghening of our nation's borders to curtail the flow of illicit drugs into our nation.
And the harshest of penalties for the drug lords, pushers and corrupt politicians and bureacrats who enable them.
You finally worked up to this. I don't care what they're exhibiting. Alcohol affects the judgement and reflexes of people, weak or strong. I don't know if users of other drugs are affected in the same way. If you know, then share it with us.
Poisons like opiates? The pharmaceutical companies that manufacture morphine for medical use might take issue with you. As would the shareholders of those companies.
You're the one who originally raised the subject of "weakness."
Alcohol affects the judgement and reflexes of people, weak or strong.
And yet it's legal for adults to consume. Why should the same not be true for other drugs?
Then when DC said, "we don't want government subsidies for treatment, or government healthcare," why did you reply, "it reinforces my negative perception of laisezz-faire libertarian darwinism"?
I favor eradication of the sources of these poisons, including those who profit by their manufacture and distribution.
Alcohol and tobacco are poisons, so by your logic their sources, including those who profit by their manufacture and distribution, should be eradicated.
Not so. Libertarianism entails that the state must not impose traditional scruples through force of law; it does not entail that that such scruples are not valid. What is not legally binding on us may nevertheless be morally binding on us. Some libertarians may, of course, dislike and disagree with traditional moral rules; but others might believe strongly in them, even though they would not advocate imposing them on others through the power of the state, and they do not cease being libertarians for that.
Try and think and act for yourself. I already have a mother and I don't need another one.
With MY money. Socialist.
More of that incrementalism.
I strongly agree.
Congress has been dismally negligent in the defense of our southern border.
IMHO, it is high-time we redeploy our military from Europe to end this assualt on our nation.
WW-II ended over 55 years ago, and NATO completed its mission with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The European Union should be quite capable of supporting its own vital security interests.
Ours are here, along our southern border which leaks like a sieve.
The War on Drugs has not been as effective as we would like.
IMHO, it's because it has been stymied by corruption.
Occasional busts, both small and large, are merely small fish being tossed aside to assuage concerns. Lacking are the major scandals involving corrupt government official and bureacrats. With the amount of money circulating via the illicit drug culture, it would be foolish to deny that such major corruption exists. It is time to crank-up our efforts, and root out the corruption.
What of it? I hope you don't think you can rebut an argument simply by calling it "incrementalism."
Who exactly will root out the corruption? How will we keep them from being corrupted?
An alternative method of rooting out the corruption would be to legalize drugs. Legalize the stuff and the profits of production and distribution would(IMO) drop to levels that wouldn't attract the attention the unsavory types that now control the trade. The farmers who grow corn to sell to distilleries don't get jailed-why on earth should a farmer growing a marijuana crop face fearsome penalties?
Good, I'm getting too old to change soiled diapers anyway.
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.