Bad news in the drug war America is waging a phony war on narcotics (O'REILLY FACTOR TRANSCRIPT)

THE O'REILLY FACTOR / VIA EMAIL | 2/21/2003 | THE O'REILLY FACTOR

[cinFLA]

If this were the case, I would have no problem whatsoever with my state (NJ) banning cocaine, LSD, heroin, etc.

Would you have a problem with your state legalizing cocaine, LSD, heroin, ecstasy, etc?

[cinFLA]

I think the Federal War on Drugs is largely unconstitutional, and I believe each state should dictate their own policies.

Thus you have no problem with pot dealers that are prosecuted under state laws?

[cinFLA]

I think each state should decide whether or not to allow abortion, the same way it was before Roe v. Wade.

Give that situation, you have no problem with the 14 year old that goes across the state line to get a legal abortion that would be banned in your state?

[tpaine]

To: unspun
"Don't call me a socialist or disrespectful of our Constitution, ---
-- And you may tempt me to exercise some extreme liberty in your direction.
83 -unspun-


Your socialistic views on the unconstitutional drug war are on your home page:

"Don't let anyone tell you that it's unconstitutional to ban intoxicants. The 10th Amendment reiterates our right to legislate this in the states (and Article I, Section 8 does grant Congress limited power to curtail narcotics traffic)."
__________________________________

States can 'reasonably regulate' the use of intoxicants, -- not prohibit them for 'social reasons'.
And the in the commerce clause, to read 'regulate commerce' as a grant of prohibitive power is sheer socialistic jingoism.

Case closed.
87 posted on 03/05/2003 10:53 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 |

[MrLeRoy]

Elasticity as a trait, shows that demand almost always increases with greater availability.

Not quite; elasticity measures by how much demand increases. JmyBryan points out that elasticity is most likely low for drugs.

GIFFEN GOOD: A rare type of good seldom seen in the real world, in which a change in price causes quantity demanded to change in the same direction (in violation of the law of demand). In other words, an increase in the price of a Giffen good results in an increase in the quantity demanded. The existence of a Giffen good requires the existence of special circumstances. First, the good must be an inferior good. Second, the income effect triggered by a change in price must overwhelm the substitution effect. A Giffen good is most likely to result when the good is a significant share of the consumer's budget. c/o www.amosweb.com

Does not apply.

That doesn't follow. "Seldom" is not "never," and "is most likely to" is not "only."

[MrLeRoy]

No offence to MrLeroy, but I would suspect a majority of anti-WOD FReepers would side closer with my opinion on this than his.

None taken. I wouldn't be surprised if you're right.

[jmc813]

You chose to pick up against me.

Well, my intent was certainly not be come off as hostile. I always try my best to respect other posters no matter how much I disagree with them (though sometimes everyone slips up).

I jumped into the fray here originally to criticize the "guilt by association" arguments you were using earlier and to provide converse examples of why this is a poor debating tactic.

[cinFLA]

Witless blather.

As they say, write to the level of your reader.

[tpaine]

Total bull, from a raving madman.
- But keep it up, as it makes you look like a utter fool.

[cinFLA]

When are you going to take down the fake Lincoln quote?

[tpaine]

Your 'level' is witless blather.

[tpaine]

Never. As I said before, it's 'bait', for witless fools.

[cinFLA]

I jumped into the fray here originally to criticize the "guilt by association" arguments you were using earlier and to provide converse examples of why this is a poor debating tactic.

MrLeroy and Tpaine do not respond to debate. They have one message and that is to legalize drugs. I have never seen an open forum that did not have paid spammers. George Soros, etal. are paying millions to set up websites and use the internet in all possible manners to get "society" normalized to drug use. My intent of these posts is to show the readers these associations and they can do their own research and make up their minds as they feel. Just like the "peace activists" are really communists, there is a hidden "drug movement" sponsored by Soros, etal.

[cinFLA]

When will you remove that fake quote?

[jmc813]

Would you have a problem with your state legalizing cocaine, LSD, heroin, ecstasy, etc?

Yes, I would, and I would vote against any referendums for such. And if their illegality at the state level would be an example of how to strive for a drug-free community while still respecting the constitution.

[cinFLA]

Let's take MrLeroy for example. Nice guy, I enjoy reading his opinions and communicating with him,

He and his kind are hurting your ability to discuss the issue as his antics keep the thread relegated to the smokey backroom.

[jmc813]

Thus you have no problem with pot dealers that are prosecuted under state laws?

I wouldn't say I "don't have a problem with it", since I think pot laws are stupid. However if one were to be prosecuted strictly on the state level, I would not call it unconstitutional. Stupid, misguided, emotion-driven, but not unconstitutional.

[cinFLA]

I thought it was a states' rights issue. What is your problem if your state legalizes hard drugs?

[jmc813]

He and his kind are hurting your ability to discuss the issue as his antics keep the thread relegated to the smokey backroom.

The only "antics" I can see is him having a somewhat radical opinion on the issue. As far as flaming, namecalling, etc., I find him to be no more guilty than anybody else.

[jmc813]

They have one message and that is to legalize drugs. I have never seen an open forum that did not have paid spammers. George Soros, etal. are paying millions to set up websites and use the internet in all possible manners to get "society" normalized to drug use.

Now, here's where we really part company. No offence intended, but this seems a bit "tin foilish" to me. MrLeroy has articipated on several abortion threads in the past and given very strong, eloquent (and libertarian) opinions against abortion. Now do you really think a George Soros plant would do this?