Posted on 01/24/2003 8:38:49 PM PST by mhking
Alcohol IS a hard drug: it's addictive and deadly.
Bravo! True and well-riposted.
That wasn't the point or the question.
Alcoholism is every bit as debilitating as other addictions. Tobacco contributes significantly to various cancers and other health-related problems. Why aren't you calling for the prohibition of alcohol and tobacco?
IMO, there is no safe level of coke or herione use, although that is merely my opinion. There are probably those that believe that those can be used in some form of moderation. Some people may be correct about that. I just think it is dangerous to even play with it. My preacher thinks alcoholism is too dnagerous to even have a single drink. I disagree.
However that does not mean that the government has the 'right' (although it has the power) to legislate healthy living.
What's worse, is that the Constitution gets trampled in the name of the WOD which is the government's way (supposedly) of requiring citizens to live healthy lifestyle.
To support the current WoD, you have to support the use of militarily trained government agents running paramilitary operations in foreign countries. Do you support that?
That's a lie.
Hey LeRoy! Are you ever going to post about ANYTHING but drugs?
I have. Your implication to the contrary is another lie.
Bravo Sierra. Mr. LeRoy doesn't need my help to defend himself, but what you posted here is so far off something needed to be said. Check yourself, pal.
Yet another lie. Typical Drug Warrior.
I'll believe you when I see you smoke crack instead of drink a can of beer. Go lie to someone else. Only idiots and fool believe your jive.
I don't do either; your implication to the contrary is yet another of your many lies. (By the way, for honest readers: crack vs. beer is a bogus comparison---crack vs. Everclear would be the right one.)
My program is to execute (kill) hard drug pushers and dealers. While your program is to kill the stupid users via drug legalization. That's the diff between you and me. Face it. You all have no moral center. Would you support drug legalization if this results in 10 times as many meth addicts and laboratories?
Is it not amusing there are so many more gambling addicts now that gambling is essentially legal. With even the government pushing gambling and lotteries. Same would happen with drug legalization.
I don't do either; your implication to the........
That's why you are so warped. This is just mental gymnastics to you. This is all a parlor game to you.
Go shoot up. Go smoke some crack. Go have a case of beer. Then get back to me. I have never used heroin, crack or meth but you sure need to for a reality check. As of now you're just slinging bllsht not based on experience. Getting off on thinking yourself a winner of your social Darwinism head games. Good bye! Gotta go.
If what I say about them is BS because I've never used them, then what can we conclude from the fact that you've also never used them?
Luckily for us, there are other (and in this case better) ways of getting knowledge than by direct experience. For example, one can read Institute of Medicine research to learn that the percentage of all users who ever became dependent is virtually identical for alcohol (15%) and cocaine (17%).
Getting off on thinking yourself a winner of your social Darwinism head games.
Yet another of your many lies.
I did no such thing. If I believed that alcohol and heroine were equals, I would not drink.
I could hear such nonsense in college bull sessions every night of the week. But what does the swash buckling dude (you) practice in his real life? Drinking but no hard dope. Go shoot up tomorrow if you want to practice what you preach. Where's yoru guts and rugged individualism? How come you aren't out smoking crack and shooting up meth? Are you too pussy or too busy subconciously wishing doom on others not as smart as you? No guts no glory
Wow. What a diatribe. Done yet?
There are plenty of things that I don't do that I believe that the government has no business prohibiting (notice I did NOT say 'regulating'): gambling, prostitution, sucking the heads of crawfish, smoking cigarettes, smoking pot, overeating, skateboarding, body piercing, magazines featuring naked people, snowboarding, surfing, to list a few.
Does that make me a swashbuckler because I don't do everything that I think people have a right to do? Would that make mne a swashbukler (and pussy) if I strongly advocated a right to keep and bear arms as well as concealed carry rights but did not myself owned a gun?
Would you still consider me a swashbuckler if I never published and article yet stood up for a free press?
Or how about if I stand up for the rights of parents to homeschool their kids but I don't do the same?
You seem to be saying that if you advocate a right to do something, you MUST also participate or perform that act or else you are a hypocrite.
BTW, you never asnwered my question:
Should alcohol and tobacco be prohibited? Do people have a right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes?
And you need to stop making love to road kill.
Horsesh!t.
Who would have the insurable interest? Who would be the owner of the policy? What would happen if/when the premiiums were too high to bear but the person refused to stop smoking pot? Is this a disability policy? Is this a liability policy?
Bottom line is that KC still wants GOVERNMENT to force people to do things he approves of and stop ding thisng he disapproves of.
But he never really justifies why pot is illegal and booze and cigs are legal.
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.