Twenty-three year old man shot dead by police in a marijuana raid

Dayton Daily News ^ | 10/01/02 | Cathy Mong

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Where did I call for a "War on Drugs?"

Now we get the cute version of Roscoe.

You find common cause with FR War on Drugs supporters everywhere. You argue vehemently against all those on FR who support ending the War on Drugs. You provide endless amounts of extremely flimsy "proof" that the War on Drugs is perfectly legal.

Add this all up and the inevitable, unavoidable conclusion is that you support the War on Drugs. In the context of Arguing the Drug War^TM on Free Republic, suggesting that calling for a War on Drugs is different from supporting the War on Drugs is Clintonian to the 12^th degree.

Unless now you're telling everyone on Free Republic you're not "calling" for a War on Drugs, and that this, in fact, means you don't support the War on Drugs.

Could you clarify your position on the War on Drugs for all of us here? Thanks in advance.

[Roscoe]

Now we get the cute version of Roscoe.

But as always we don't get support for your assertion.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Could you clarify your position on the War on Drugs for all of us here? Thanks in advance.

[Roscoe]

Could you clarify your position on the War on Drugs for all of us here?

I've never taken a position on the policy. I'll note that there are a number of fanatics on FR who label any law or regulation regarding drugs as a "WOD" or a "WOsD."

[tpaine]

"Could you clarify your position on the War on Drugs for all of us here?"

I've never taken a position on the policy. -roscoe-

We now see not only the 'cute' version of roscoe, -- we see the totally demented, self deluded version.
Bizarre.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I've never taken a position on the policy. I'll note that there are a number of fanatics on FR who label any law or regulation regarding drugs as a "WOD" or a "WOsD."

I'm asking you to take one.

Your note on fanaticism is well-founded, too: I agree. It's easy to be a fanatic here on FR.

But seeing as how you've argued the WOD position religously here on FR, I was under the impression that you were a WOD supporter. If I have mischaracterized your position, now's your chance to set the record straight.

Could you clarify your position on the War on Drugs for all of us here?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

We now see not only the 'cute' version of roscoe, -- we see the totally demented, self deluded version. Bizarre.

November Sierra. Whatever happens, I'm bookmarking this thread. It's been a real roller-coaster.

[FormerLurker]

The Emancipation Proclamation preceded the 13th Amendment.

In the context of a yes or no answer (to the question as to whether the 18th Amendment was necessary in order to PROHIBIT intoxicating liquors), with the response you gave being a true statement, I conclude that you have answered in the affirmative.

So now that we have that out of the way, can you see why many of us feel that the federal government has no consitutional power to PROHIBIT a intoxicating SUBSTANCE, short of passing a Constitutional Amendment?

[Roscoe]

I conclude that you have answered in the affirmative.

Nope.

[Roscoe]

Nah. Bravo Sierra.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I'm disappointed in you. You lack the courage of your convictions.

Let it be known on Free Republic that the mighty Roscoe will not clarify his position on the War on Drugs. He could be for it, he could be against it, but he will not say which is true.

On the subject, his opinion is now unquestionably moot.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

A ping for anyone I can think of who's ever taken part in an FR WOD thread. Check out Roscoe's stance on the Drug War. Vin, if you could bump your JediGirl list I'd appreciate it.

[Roscoe]

There are a number of fanatics on FR who label any law or regulation regarding drugs as a "WOD" or a "WOsD." I reject their assertion.

There also are a number of fanatics on FR who falsely contend that laws restricting any drugs are unconstitional. I enjoy encouraging them to try to produce any support at all for their inane position.

[Roscoe]

Suddenly in love with private clubs?

Legal distinctions between private clubs and businesses open to the general public have been around for quite a while.

Read a book.

[tpaine]

As Jim Robinson said to tpaine:

From tpaine's homepage:

Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government. If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere. Thanks, Jim 226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson

You pro druggies: Go find another forum.
__________________________________

JR did not post that remark to me.
If memory serves it was part of a longer, 'mission' type statement wherein JR was trying to cut down on all the sideline issues that distract the forum from its main goal of constitutional restoration.

Seeing that the war over drugs is a primary cause in many violations of our constitutional rights, it is certainly a topic worthy of discussion.
You drug warriors will at some point have to face the fact that prohibitionary law enforcement is a far greater constitutional evil than the 'sinning' such bans attempt to stop.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Wonderful, but you're irrelevant. At least this explains why you never bothered to put forth a conservative argument in favor of the War on Drugs.

[Roscoe]

BTW, did you ever come up with any source supporting your assertion?

[headsonpikes]

"Read a book."

So, you're a secret librarian, after all. ;^)

I'm pleased to hear you've become, or have remained sceptical about the War on Drugs.

Who now will deny the power of right reason?!?

Maybe Dane could learn to read, also. This would certainly raise the tone of the forum.

[dcwusmc]

It means that, thanks to these trigger-happy thieves in blue, he won't ever have to worry about growing older.

[coloradan]

There also are a number of fanatics on FR who falsely contend that laws restricting any drugs are unconstitional. I enjoy encouraging them to try to produce any support at all for their inane position.

Sorry, wrong burden of proof. In a limited government with enumerated powers, you have to be the one to show that a law or agency is constitutional, because it is specifically authorized in the Constitution. Where's the Constitutional authorization for the DEA? Where's the Constitutional authorization to prohibit leafy substances? If it isn't explicitly spelled out, it's unconstitutional.