Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Frontier in Random Drug Testing: Checking High Schoolers for Tobacco
Associated Press ^ | Oct. 7, 2002 | Greg Giuffrida

Posted on 10/08/2002 4:35:09 AM PDT by Wolfie

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-209 next last
To: tpaine
majority rule, - trump our constitutions safeguards of individual liberty.

They're (small d) democrats, they're just in denial because they despise their (big d) Democratic brothers.

It would be funny if they weren't so dangerous. My only consolation is that democracy is a two edged sword, and they're going to cut themselves with it.

41 posted on 10/08/2002 10:46:30 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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
__________________________________

We of the anti-WOD contingent support the agenda above.

You and your communitarian drug warriors do not.

-- Case closed --
42 posted on 10/08/2002 10:46:52 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Don't misrepresent Jim Robinson's position on legalizing drugs.
43 posted on 10/08/2002 10:49:49 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Nope, your insistance that prohibitions on drugs, guns, etc, are constitutional, -- are the most tired arguments on FR.

Take them to DU.
44 posted on 10/08/2002 10:50:00 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
..drugs, guns, etc...

Equating guns to drugs is one of the oldest and most tired arguments of leftists and their Libertarian cousins.

45 posted on 10/08/2002 10:51:42 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Don't misrepresent Jim Robinson's position on legalizing drugs.

"Now, to be realistic, I realize that we have varying degrees of reduction of government control in mind. The more Libertarian among us are for more drastic cuts in government than are the more moderate Republican members. But I'd like to remind the Libertarians that there is a huge difference between the Republicans and the liberal Democrats, even if from your vantage point you cannot see it. Republicans are not "statists." That term is just as insulting and degrading to them as the term "druggie" is to Libertarians who are opposed to the drug war. Republicans do want smaller government, more freedom and less taxes than do Democrats. They are not socialists. There is hope for them."

"And Libertarians are not druggies. Libertarians call for an end to the drug war. There is understandable logic behind this. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all."

- Posted on 05/09/2001 17:30:14 PDT by Jim Robinson Personal attacks, petty (and not so petty) bickering, flame wars, feuding, etc.

46 posted on 10/08/2002 10:54:14 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Can you make your case that I misrepresent his stance on the constitutional effect of the drug war, roscoe?




47 posted on 10/08/2002 10:55:13 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Back to your pitiful ploy of posting repetitive nonsense.
How dumb, roscoe.
48 posted on 10/08/2002 10:57:40 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Opposing legal bans on "dope" doesn't make one "pro-dope"

Like I said, the "pro-dope" contingent on FR usually aren't honest about their agenda.

You're babbling. This no longer comes as any surprise.

49 posted on 10/08/2002 10:57:45 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
I wish my government---local, state and federal---spends its resources fighting real crime.

Spending tax-payers' money in silly urine tests does not seem the best use of my property taxes.

Since smoking allegedly reduces the oxygen-utilization capacity of the athlete's lungs, smoking itself will be the best punishment for these rule-breaking athletes.

50 posted on 10/08/2002 10:57:47 AM PDT by LO_IQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
"Would you knock it off with the drug posts. Iam NOT in favor of legalizing drugs. I agree that it's none of the feds business and I'm against no knock raids and asset forfeiture, etc, but at no time did I ever advocate legalizing drugs. I detest dopers and the dope scene. Quit posting this crap." Jim

51 posted on 10/08/2002 10:58:24 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; Roscoe
Back to your pitiful ploy of posting repetitive nonsense.
How dumb, roscoe.

He's rallying the morons to his cause.

52 posted on 10/08/2002 11:00:12 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LO_IQ
Thanks, LO for some refreshing common sense.
53 posted on 10/08/2002 11:00:37 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Typically, the argument will go something like, "We don't support legalizing dope because we're in favor of dope, it's, er, the, uh, Constitution. Yeah, that's it! It's against the Constitution to prohibit anything!"

Asked for sources, they always come up empty.

54 posted on 10/08/2002 11:01:56 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
So, it's agreed: Jim doesn't want the feds involved at all and he doesn't want drugs legalized at the state level.

Please also note he does not want you to call us "druggies" or "dopers". And I will refrain from similar invectives towards you. We're supposed to debate the issue with logic and reason.

That was my point.

55 posted on 10/08/2002 11:03:56 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Please also note he does not want you to call us "druggies" or "dopers".

Quote me.

56 posted on 10/08/2002 11:06:30 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Typically, the argument will go something like, "We don't support legalizing dope because we're in favor of dope, it's, er, the, uh, Constitution. Yeah, that's it! It's against the Constitution to prohibit anything!"

I don't think that argument is "typical" of FR drug-freedom advocates---although there are a few who hold that it's against the Constitution to prohibit anything. And what is your basis for claiming that their interpretation of the Constitution is insincere?

57 posted on 10/08/2002 11:08:42 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; Roscoe
Please also note he does not want you to call us "druggies" or "dopers".

Quote me.

Jim, how do you feel about Roscoe calling drug-freedom advocates "pro-dope"? Thanks for your input.

58 posted on 10/08/2002 11:10:39 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Asked for sources, they always come up empty.

You've been told this countless times, but I'll tell you again for the benefit of other readers:

Those powers not enumerated to the fed are prohibited, as per the 10th Amendment. And not all rights are enumerated as per the 9th Amendment. Drugs are a state issue. The federal WoD defies both of those.

Furthermore, several specifically enumerated rights are violated by the WoD, specifically 4th Amendment guarantees against warrantless searches, and 5th Amendment guarantees of Due Process, among many others.

59 posted on 10/08/2002 11:11:01 AM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
I don't think that argument is "typical" of FR drug-freedom advocates---

Not enough spelling errors and personal attacks?

although there are a few who hold that it's against the Constitution to prohibit anything.

Find one authority in support.

60 posted on 10/08/2002 11:12:56 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-209 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson