Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Contempt for illegal drug use blinds American public to alternatives
Coach is Right ^ | 8/25/13 | Bruce Karlson

Posted on 08/25/2013 8:46:19 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax

Please do not be guilty of the above when considering the legalization of all recreational drugs. Anyone is legally permitted to kill himself slowly with tobacco, once addicted. Equally, a person may legally drink himself to death and/or wreck the lives of those around him with a bottle a day. For such people we have compassion. But for the users of illegal drugs, most of us have only contempt.

It is difficult (impossible, actually) to understand the logic of making certain drugs illegal. Apart from legality, what is the difference between smoking a “joint” and having a beer? Further, doing a “line” of cocaine makes for an apt comparison with having a dry martini. Oh, the “gateway” routine? Well, weed may be a “gateway” drug but Budweiser and nicotine are the “gateways” to weed. Shall we continue this line of reasoning??

Society is visited with problems from both legal and illegal drugs but the illegal ones support a criminal culture that is bankrupting...

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Health/Medicine; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: drugarrests; drugs; drugusers; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; prescriptiondrug; randsconcerntrolls
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 next last
To: Hawthorn; DannyTN

>> Marijuana causes bipolar and schitzophrenia <<

Never heard that before. What’s your evidence?

He has no evidence of that because it's utter BS.


51 posted on 08/25/2013 10:00:42 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" is more than an Army Ranger credo it's the character of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
I would have no problem with this IF I weren’t paying for it.

You already are paying for it!

Wanna try something different, or continue to pay for it like you are currently doing!

52 posted on 08/25/2013 10:01:51 AM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Jeremiah 50:32 "The arrogant one will stumble and fall With no one to raise him up; /)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

“Because mj intoxication is addictive and dangerous in a way that beer isn’t.”

What way is that?


53 posted on 08/25/2013 10:04:04 AM PDT by Magic Fingers (Political correctness mutates in order to remain virulent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN

One option I do not see discussed when it comes to drug legalization as well as alcohol abuse. Live and let live - DO NOT provide any G’meny (Tax supported) assistance to addicts.

We have a many homeless, most of them are either mentally deranged (medical issues) or drug or alcohol over-users. Most of these people are weak, life goes on.

If we legalize drugs, at what age? Should we not also legalize all manor of other deviant behavior?

After all we are just talking about where the line is to be drawn.


54 posted on 08/25/2013 10:09:41 AM PDT by DanZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

The only legalization argument I that ever sways me a bit is just the potential of having one of the states (a worthless, Obama-voting blue state, of course) going for full legalization, and thus serve as a magnet for all the hippie dopehead filth to migrate to, leaving the rest of the country cleansed of them.

The argument against EVER legalizing it in my state is more practical. Because if I happen to walk to my local park, and see a group of zonked-out druggie scum, I’m very libel to start taking a baseball bat to their skulls. Which, could very conceivably lead to a few legal troubles for me. Hence, the practicality of keeping dope both illegal and meriting stiff sentences.


55 posted on 08/25/2013 10:13:02 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blackirish

The reason many of us are Catholics is because we know God loves us. He gave us Beer and Wine

You must be at the gateway to Hell


56 posted on 08/25/2013 10:13:53 AM PDT by DanZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

This article is ridiculous. Americans have “contempt for hard drug use”...

NO THEY DON’T. Look at this pathetic waste of space Glee star who killed himself with drugs, he’s venerated, adored.

I came to a compromising stand a year ago. I think drugs that are physically addictive (i.e heroin and coke) should be regulated by the feds, and other drugs like pot, LSD, ecstasy, should be left up to the states to decide what they want to do. If Colorado thinks their state is better now, then so be it. If Louisiana thinks their state is better off without stoners being vindicated by state law, then so be it. That should be up to the STATES.

As side notes.
The comparison to alcohol and tobacco I find to be fallacious. Tobacco does not intoxicate you or hinder your inhibitions in any way. It does not stop you from driving or performing any other task as you go about your daily functions, although it is incredibly unhealthy and I wouldn’t recommend it. Alcohol on the other hand, while potentially destructive, is not used typically to get wasted, but rather as a drink like any other that we might enjoy at Applebees or at a baseball game. People who do use alcohol to intoxicate themselves, beat their wives and such are recognized as societal nuisances. I’ve never seen anyone smoke a joint or do a line of coke without the intention of getting high.

I am also sick of this ‘medicinal’ crap. People who go to these medicinal marijuana clinics should cut the BS, and just admit they want to get high. Even Greg Gutfeld has called out this farce and he’s very pro-legalization.

All that being said, the drug war has cost a countless sum of money, and has drawn attention away from more serious crime.
I also find we’re hypocritical if we have kids being told homosexual sex is A-OK, but pot is bad, when clearly the former is by far more destructive to you.


57 posted on 08/25/2013 10:14:18 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

Woah, woah, woah... are you KIDDING?! These countries define police states. You can be arrested in the Netherlands for so called ‘hate speech’, as Geert Wilders almost was, and Sweden quite literally steals people’s children should they dare try to keep them away from the government education system.


58 posted on 08/25/2013 10:16:18 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

“War is the health of the State.” - R. Bourne

The War on Drugs has been extraordinarily healthy for the State. It has militarized local police forces. It has made dynamic-entry, no-knock warrants commonplace, terrorizing and even killing innocents (and not a few dogs.) It has expanded the funding of the State by asset forfeiture. It has enriched politicians, prosecutors, and lawyers. It has usurped individual liberties and rendered the Bill of Rights a dead letter. It has empowered the national security establishment to spy upon all Americans and to turn over evidence thus obtained to law enforcement. It has defoliated cropland at home and abroad.

It has, however, failed to curb the use of recreational drugs. Obviously, it is time to double down ... again. It’s time to go full police state. To paraphrase George Bush, “We need to abandon the principles of the Constitution to save the Constitution from the evils of drugs.”


59 posted on 08/25/2013 10:16:41 AM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

/Johnny

We need to eliminate all of the Fed. departments that the Congress critters have created over the years to shirk their legislative responsibilities.

Dept. of Education, Homeland Security, the list goes on


60 posted on 08/25/2013 10:20:51 AM PDT by DanZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
I would have no problem with this IF I weren’t paying for it.

You're paying for it.

Watch our Drug War Cost Clock. See if you can keep up with how fast the government wastes your money.
Since January 1, 2013 until this moment, Sunday, August 25, 2013 11:12:37 AM, the government has already spent
$35,068,730,322 of taxpayer money, on a "Drug War" that has a record of failure unequaled in history.

That's just the FedMob expenditures. Then there are the state expenditures...

The state portion of the Drug War costs comes from a report titled, "Shoveling Up: The Impact of Substance Abuse on State Budgets", authored by The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, in 2001, which in its press release and on page 3, shows that states spent $30.7 billion in 1998

61 posted on 08/25/2013 10:20:55 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" is more than an Army Ranger credo it's the character of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: DanZ
Pot is a gateway to it IMO. Most violent prisoners in California all are addicted to and use pot. Gateway drug for sure.

IMO only the real sick people should get it, not the phony $40 notes from pot doctors.

We are going to pay soon for this acceptance. More brain defective children. More unfulfilled lives. Far more violence will happen as well IMO.

Leave the stuff for cancer patients and the like.

62 posted on 08/25/2013 10:22:42 AM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God Bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Which address NONE of the points I made.


63 posted on 08/25/2013 10:23:13 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
It's not up to the federal government to address the points that you made. That's a societal and state issue. Not a federal issue.

/johnny

64 posted on 08/25/2013 10:25:25 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

This isn’t some libertarian, individual “right”, as the impacts to society are long term and severe.

Get it yet?


65 posted on 08/25/2013 10:25:57 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Good!

You won’t mind then, if 50 states recognize the concerns I addressed, and make laws accordingly?


66 posted on 08/25/2013 10:27:34 AM PDT by G Larry (Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Psalms 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
It was legal until 1913, I think. Why weren't there issues before that?

The feds are overstepping their constitutional authority. Regardless of how you feel about drugs, do you want to trash the Constitution for the war on drugs?

Move the police powers back to the States, where it belongs.

/johnny

67 posted on 08/25/2013 10:28:31 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

You and I are in complete agreement, Johnny, I just want my money eliminated from the system before those who use drugs already see this as a way of life. For example, I live in a very low-income county and it is just known that you don’t go anywhere on the first, second, third, or last day of the month. I teach at our local public school and my husband is on our local fire department. We see everyday, first hand, the drug use in the “urban culture.” legalizing will make the problem worse and bring it out into the public even more. So until some of those people literally die in the gutter because my tax dollars aren’t going to their treatments and od hospital stays, I don’t think this plan will work. If the government safety net still exists, expect very bad problems from legalization. Again, I agree that fed gov has no business regulating or declaring war against these substances.


68 posted on 08/25/2013 10:29:32 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
DannyTN

Have you ever considered that maybe the entire purpose for the War on Drugs is NOT to prevent addiction but exists to create ARMIES of DEMOCRAT voting workers, in mindless bureaucracies across the nation, who pay dues to the DEMOCRAT UNIONS? ( Yeah! I am shouting.) And...To line the pockets of corrupt legislators and police officials?

The War on Drugs is NOT preventing drug addiction in the least. Not at all. Not a jot! But....It is causing a corruption of the rule of law.

69 posted on 08/25/2013 10:30:12 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
I have no problem with that at all, since states DO have laws on the books now.

I don't expect Texas would legalize much, heck we've still got dry counties here.

Put the fed back in the constitutional box.

/johnny

70 posted on 08/25/2013 10:32:00 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy

We all draw a line. On the farm kids as young as 10 drive trucks, tractors - You will not find this behavior in a populated area for a good reason.

All drugs (including alcohol) that are overused lead to personal and more importantly community issues. The old English TORT law may be a viable option to ameliorate the family of the people harmed by the over-users of drugs. The family of the drug user would also be exposed to this TORT penalty


71 posted on 08/25/2013 10:32:18 AM PDT by DanZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
You won’t mind then, if 50 states recognize the concerns I addressed, and make laws accordingly?

If you check your own state laws, you will find they already did.

72 posted on 08/25/2013 10:32:53 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
You are already paying for all those things for the drug addicted and you now paying for armies of middles class Democrat voters sitting in “War on Drugs” bureaucracies across the nation, who pay dues to the Democrat Union voting machine.

You are also paying for all that you mention and making sure that our corrupt legislators pockets are lined with the money of the cartels and NO ONE is being prevented from being a drug addict as I type.

When little ‘ole me, a 60 year old grandmom, could find illegal drugs within a 15 minute drive from her home, then there is NO War on Drugs. There is merely a Democrat voting machine pretending to be a War on Drugs.

73 posted on 08/25/2013 10:36:34 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

The left loves the drug war, because it makes the right complicit in their abuse of the Commerce Clause.


74 posted on 08/25/2013 10:36:42 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist; TigersEye

Those figures will not go down with legalization under the current one party, bleeding heart system that we have. If anything the costs will rise. We will have more “free” clinics for users, more medical coverage under obamacare, more gov subsidized clean needle pickup stations, more AIDS prevention and awareness, etc. You really think legalization with the current crop of pols is going to lessen our costs? Please! They will find a way to spend even more money! Get some true conservatives in office willing to pull the plug on welfare subsidies and NOT create NEW subsidies for users, and then legalize everything.


75 posted on 08/25/2013 10:36:49 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

I don’t even have to drive 15 minutes. See my post #75.


76 posted on 08/25/2013 10:38:16 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
You aren't willing to end civil rights abuse, federal usurpation and the trashing of the Constitution until all of your pet peeves get fixed?

Quite the conservative.

/johnny

77 posted on 08/25/2013 10:40:49 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

“It was legal until 1913, I think. “

We also did not have a Federal Tax code. Let us return to those care days once again


78 posted on 08/25/2013 10:44:23 AM PDT by DanZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
So?,,,,,Why wasn't there an epidemic of all those maladies in the 19th and early 20th century?

The War on Drugs exists to provide middle class jobs to armies of government bureaucrats who vote Democrat and belong to unions that money launder funds directly into the pockets of legislators. The War on Drugs also exists so the corrupt politicians can hand out favors to those in the highest levels of organized crime.

“The Godfather” was true.

79 posted on 08/25/2013 10:48:21 AM PDT by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DanZ
I'd love to. I'm working hard to get us back to that place where federal government stayed in it's constitutional box. Many problem created by the government would just go away.

/johnny

80 posted on 08/25/2013 10:48:34 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Paying what I pay in taxes is more than a pet peeve. Maybe I was typing to fast and my idea got muddled.

There are so many issues a conservative Congress needs to address: Taxes, laissez-faire economy, eliminating alphabet programs/agencies, foreign aid billions, subsidies subsidies subsidies, War on Terror, “phony scandals” along with who (both Rs and Ds) are involved in them, etc. I don’t think eliminating the unconstitutional war on drugs is necessarily at the top of that list. Does it need eliminated? Of course. However, our country is in such a mess right now that this is not going to be a priority.


81 posted on 08/25/2013 10:53:13 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: FatherofFive

Sigmund Freud — Cocaine
Francis Crick — LSD
Thomas Edison — Cocaine Elixirs
Paul Erdös — Amphetamines
Steve Jobs — LSD
Bill Gates — LSD
John C. Lilly — LSD, Ketamine
Richard Feynman — LSD, Marijuana, Ketamine
Kary Mullis — LSD
Carl Sagan — Marijuana

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/16/10_famous_geniuses_who_used_drugs_and_were_better_off_for_it_partner/


82 posted on 08/25/2013 10:54:15 AM PDT by Second Amendment First
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

The reason I don’t believe there were all those maladies in the 19th and early 20th century is because of the societal institutions from family to churches to community, which were strong. Today’s society is far different, constituted of vastly larger percentages of feral, amoral, deviant scum, cultivated by a combination of massive government dependence and a grotesquely vile culture.


83 posted on 08/25/2013 10:57:03 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
There is a push, mainly from the left, over this issue.

We should take wins where we can get them. The usupation happened piecemeal, the rollback will happen the same way.

/johnny

84 posted on 08/25/2013 10:59:03 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: greene66
The breakdown of 'of the societal institutions from family to churches to community' started in the early 1900s, when drug laws were enacted, along with a plethora of other unconstitutional b.s.

/johnny

85 posted on 08/25/2013 11:00:57 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

It will almost have to happen piecemeal. Can you imagine the riots from the gibsmedats if not? I can already hear a certain “reverend” through a bullhorn.

How frightening is this: I waddled my pregnant a$$ into Walmart last night because we ran out of bananas and almonds. Those are my kids’ staple snacks. At the checkout was a woman in a homemade obama 2016 t-shirt paying for all her items with EBT. The events along the way to taking our country back are going to be violent I’m afraid.


86 posted on 08/25/2013 11:05:01 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

And liberal states full of druggie scum are what put bastards like Obama in office. If all dopeheads would just overdose, the country would be a hell of a better place.


87 posted on 08/25/2013 11:05:49 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: greene66
They aren't going to, and wishful thinking and police state tactics aren't going to help.

Rolling the federal government back into the constitutional box will help.

/johnny

88 posted on 08/25/2013 11:07:50 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
Yeah, good thing none of that happens over here, right?

So how many no-knock raids by guys with body armor and sub machine guns happen during the course of a year in those police states? I'm guessing it's a couple less than in this police state.

89 posted on 08/25/2013 11:12:06 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
We see everyday, first hand, the drug use in the “urban culture.” legalizing will make the problem worse and bring it out into the public even more. So until some of those people literally die in the gutter because my tax dollars aren’t going to their treatments and od hospital stays, I don’t think this plan will work. If the government safety net still exists, expect very bad problems from legalization.

You have made a very insightful point that is often lost in this debate. Although drug legalization is often a part of a larger libertarian ideology, it would be a disaster if it were implemented on its own apart from the other components of the libertarian program.

As long as welfare and food assistance programs are in place, new addicts who divert their money and labors to their drug use will force taxpayers to pay for more of the food and housing costs for them and their children. Without first making real reforms to how we support those who refuse to work or can't support their families, drug legalization risks dramatically increasing this burden on those that do work.

Unless hospital emergency rooms are closed to the indigent and those who can't pay for medical care are left to die, the added cost of dealing with mass addiction and its consequences will be left to the taxpayers. The first debate has to be whether we want to live in a world without universal medical care before we risk increasing its cost.

If the criminal justice system is still publicly funded and criminals are housed in prisons rather than executed or exiled, taxpayers will have to cover the added burden of convicting and housing those who commit crimes in drug altered states or the crimes they commit to fund their addictions. Taxpayers will also have to deal with the extra burdens placed on law enforcement as well as the terrible consequences of the crimes themselves.

Drug legalization on its own would ultimately increase the role and scope of government in all aspects of our lives. I think that this may be why it is generally the political left that supports drug legalization as it furthers the rest of their agenda. No legislative changes which would increase the availability of addictive and mind altering drugs should happen before significant contractions of the welfare state are made.

90 posted on 08/25/2013 11:21:21 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: goodwithagun
Those figures will not go down with legalization under the current one party, bleeding heart system that we have. If anything the costs will rise.

Then keep paying your taxes.

91 posted on 08/25/2013 11:25:21 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" is more than an Army Ranger credo it's the character of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Oldpuppymax

I don’t make the “gateway” argument. Once you start smoking pot, you’re already way past the gate. Pot is in and of itself totally destructive.

Unlike someone who has a martini on the weekend, pot users are demonstrably impaired the rest of the week. Ever work with a pot smoker? Whatever their job, they suck at it. They’re slow of speech because they’re slow of thought. They literally stink, even if they bathe.

Reputable doctors recognize the “medical pot” argument is completely bogus. Pot for cancer is like giving a shot of whiskey to a gunshot victim — sure, if that’s all you got. But modern painkillers are 10,000 times more effective than pot.

Schizophrenia and pot are linked. That’s reason enough to ban it.

Pot is evil, evil, evil, and no decent society should permit it — just like no decent society permits suicide.


92 posted on 08/25/2013 11:26:54 AM PDT by Blue Ink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: greene66

Coincidentally all those societal changes began almost exactly when the Federal government decided to enact laws to tax us and control us with punitive criminal laws.


93 posted on 08/25/2013 11:29:26 AM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" is more than an Army Ranger credo it's the character of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Blue Ink
Pot is evil, evil, evil, and no decent society should permit it —

Are you willing to trash the Constitution to have the Feds involved in that?

/johnny

94 posted on 08/25/2013 11:29:38 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
The Constitution mentions very few federal police powers. Gun laws aren't in there, nor are drug laws.

/johnny

95 posted on 08/25/2013 11:31:06 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

It just seems like there are a thousand more important areas to start hacking away at in terms of federal government overreach. Especially when any results of legalization are more apt to benefit a culture of “dependence.” Government dependence, dope dependence. Growing an ever-larger population of compliant serfs, just like in those Obama-voting blue states and their dopehead populations, who are the very ones always at the forefront pushing things like gun control, sanctuary cities, and fag marriage. Things that have already turned most of America into such a putrid sewer. Thanks to druggie scum.


96 posted on 08/25/2013 11:33:21 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

This is a country with some good people left who stand in defiance of the federal government. The Scandinavian population are 99% brainwashed docile drones.


97 posted on 08/25/2013 11:36:20 AM PDT by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
This isn’t some libertarian, individual “right”, as the impacts to society are long term and severe.

So the US was just millions of drug crazed maniacs until the early 1900's? Too stoned for the industrial revelation, intercontinental railroads, harnessing electricity, the telegraph, telephone, airplane. None of that happened until drugs were made illegal?

98 posted on 08/25/2013 11:44:00 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon
This is a country with some good people left who stand in defiance of the federal government.

Pffft...Color me un-impressed. They aren't even an effective speed bump, let alone defiant.

99 posted on 08/25/2013 11:46:31 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

For Libertarian ideas to work, one must be free to succeed or fail. Perhaps all drugs could be legalized, if we were capable of standing idlely by and to witness the self destruction. Much of what claims to Libertarian is really the pursuit of consequence free self indulgence.


100 posted on 08/25/2013 11:47:09 AM PDT by Red Dog #1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-174 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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