Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why we should legalise hard drugs
Observer (UK) ^ | February 23, 2003 | Henry McDonald

Posted on 02/25/2003 7:22:28 AM PST by MrLeRoy

I was having lunch last week with a senior member of the Garda Siochana or Irish police in Dublin. He is a man with 32 years of service fighting crime in the Irish capital. Throughout his career he has witnessed three major drug waves in the Irish Republic - the first heroin epidemic of 1980; the explosion of ecstasy and cocaine use in the mid 1990s and now the introduction of crack cocaine at the start of the 21st century. He is a superintendent with some major successes under his belt including the operation against John Gilligan, the drugs baron who ordered the murder of my colleague, the reporter Veronica Guerin. He has seen millions of pounds of euros in drugs seizures. But the officer was highly modest about the scale of his achievements in the fight against drugs. In his most candid moment of the afternoon he came across with a startling statistic - the police only seize about ten per cent of the drugs that come into the state at any time. When you press him about the success of the war on drugs he is dismissive. This is a war, he states, that cannot be won.

The drug sub-culture still fills me in equal parts with disgust and ennui, but there seems to no logic to prolonging what is arguably the most futile conflict in human history: this so-called war against drugs. This war, equivalent to fighting a thousand Vietnams at once, can never be won. Even the United States, with its superpower monopoly and infinite military resources, has failed to stem the narcotics flood. Dictatorships, whether of the Islamic fundamentalist variety as in Saudi Arabia or the Leninist-capitalist model in China, have employed brutal methods to suppress drugs, respectively beheading or blowing the brains out of alleged dealers. The latter means of dispatching drug peddlers is also used by the IRA on the streets of Belfast, Derry and even Dublin.

But neither the Saudi and Chinese cliques nor the IRA can put an end to the production or consumption of drugs. That is because since the time of the ancient Greeks - and quite possibly even before - the iron laws of economics have operated: a permanent demand creates an inevitable supply. Dealers are prepared to continue risking their lives on the streets of Belfast, Beijing and Riyadh to meet that demand.

Prohibition, as the Americans found with alcohol in the 1920s and 1930s, is counter-productive and only gives rise to a vast criminal sub-culture. The monopolisation of supply in criminals' hands hikes up the price of drugs to the point where consumers can only feed their habit through larceny or prostitution, thus further fuelling crime.

Then there is the enormous and totally unnecessary cost to the state of prosecuting those individuals who choose freely to take drugs as a means of entertainment or escapism. The Economist magazine has estimated that between 1996 and 2000 the British taxpayer paid out £36 million to lock up people who were tested positive for cannabis. The figures for jailing those consuming hard drugs are reckoned to be even higher.

Then there is the one drug which is widely available, legal and socially acceptable. Families are ripped apart and lives shattered through the fermentation, advertising and distribution of the most popular legal drug in the free world - alcohol. How many young men for instance will end up in the casualty wings of Irish and British hospitals this weekend due to obscene bouts of boozing? What are the odds of someone getting mowed down on an Irish or British road by a drunken driver?

Despite this we persist in glamorising drink while demonising drugs. In Ireland more people are killed by drink and cars than drugs. These are indisputable facts yet we never hear calls for the prohibition of alcohol or driving. Nor does society ban dangerous sports such as hang-gliding, air boarding, bungee jumping and so on. These activities are taken up by individuals exercising personal freedom and choice. The state does not intervene in these choices.

Opponents of legalisation claim that drug takers are not free individuals. This is because the moment they consume a drug, any drug, their minds are altered and thus their ability to act as free thinking individuals. But if you apply this logic consistently then what about the moment that someone takes a sup of his first pint, then his second, third, fourth and so on? That individual's mind is also being altered by chemicals. Are our opponents seriously suggesting that we should therefore ban alcohol because it stops us from being rational individuals the moment we put pint or glass to our lips? I think not.

Legalisation of course contains inherent dangers. The sale of narcotics should be regulated but definitely not controlled by the state. The prospect of the state selling drugs to consumers brings to mind Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, where the regime kept the masses docile by doling out Soma. Nor should legalisation imply hedonistic license. The minimum age should range from between 16 for soft drugs and 18 for harder substances; those who sell to children must suffer the maximum penalties.

There are pitfalls over price fixing. An exorbitantly taxed product will result in what has already happened with tobacco in Ireland, where the paramilitaries have flooded the market with cheaper illegal foreign cigarettes. Tax revenue from drugs should be funnelled into drug treatment programmes and preventative education aimed at de-mystifying drugs.

None of this is to suggest a solution to the drugs problem because there is no solution, only the pragmatic management of it. A reasonable tax on narcotics can help fund education programmes aimed at reducing demand for drugs. Furthermore, decriminalisation would wipe out far more effectively than the Criminal Assets Bureau the profits earned by loathsome beings, such as John Gilligan, who control supply.

With apologies to The Verve: the drugs don't work but the ban on them just makes us all worse.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: askjanisjoplin; drugskill; spam; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

1 posted on 02/25/2003 7:22:28 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
Wod_list ping
2 posted on 02/25/2003 7:22:41 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Libertarians: The Enemy Within

When Napoleon was asked upon whom he would most like to wage war, the vertically-challenged dictator replied,
"My allies." With this in mind I would like to turn my intellectual guns on the libertarians — the so-called
"allies" of conservatives.While superficially conservatives and libertarians have a political alliance based on a
mutual support of the free market and opposition to the omnipotent State, philosophically we are mortal enemies.

The philosophical war between conservatives and libertarians began two hundred years ago when the first aristocratic
French head was placed on a pike as declaration of war to prescriptive society.
Libertarians are the disciples of the Enlightenment and staunch supporters of the French Revolution.
They are the bastard children of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are the disciples of the eighteenth-century British statesman Edmund Burke.
It was his fiery diatribe against the French Revolution, Reflections on the Revolution in France ,
that gave conservatives their philosophical substance for the next two centuries. Burke railed against the atrocities
of the Jacobin revolutionaries as well as Enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau, whom he viewed as responsible for the revolution.

Unfortunately, most modern-day conservatives and libertarians are ignorant about this 200 year old quarrel.
Most believe the alliance based on superficial common interests is sound political practice. But the conservatives' pact with the libertarians
has been most harmful to the cause of true conservatism as expounded by Burke.

More often than not you hear so-called conservatives constantly singing the praises of the free market
and stressing individualism rather than speaking about tradition and the spirit of community. The libertarians have so polluted the intellectual waters of true conservatism
with their ideological filth that many conservatives now have trouble distinguishing between the two. In light of this,
I would like take this opportunity to remind my fellow conservatives of the extreme philosophical chasms which
have always separated conservative man from libertarian beast.

The most fundamental difference between conservatism and libertarianism is one of ideology.
Libertarianism is an ideology based upon abstract ideas and doctrines such as the free market,
absolute liberty, and radical individualism. The libertarian foolishly believes that if his abstract ingredients are properly mixed within the social
cauldron, an earthly utopia will bubble forth. Conservatism, as H. Stuart Hughes declared, is the negation of ideology. Ideology is founded upon abstract ideas
which possess no relation to reality, whereas conservatism is founded upon history, tradition, custom, convention, and prescription.
As Russell Kirk put it, "[C]onservatism...is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at civil social order.
The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata."
The conservative puts his faith in the wisdom of his ancestors and the virtue of experience,
rather than the abstract jargon of "sophisters, calculators, and economists." He knows that there are no simple political formulas to solve all the world's troubles.

Next, conservatives and libertarians disagree over what binds civil society. Libertarians view civil society
as something artificial — a dissoluble agreement made to furnish individual self-interest.
In their repugnant view, society is a "partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature."
Society is merely a machine with interchangeable and separable parts, says the libertarian.

In contrast, the conservative declares that society is not a paltry economic agreement or a mechanical device,
it is a spiritual and organic entity. The conservative, imbued with the spirit of Burke,
sees society as a partnership between the living, the dead, and those yet to be born – a community of souls.
Each social contract in each particular state "is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower and higher natures..."

It is not true that the legitimacy of the state is dependent solely upon tacit consent, as the libertarians would
have us believe. The social contract's legitimacy is the work of history and traditions which go far beyond any single generation.
The present is not free, as political rationalists tell us, to redesign society according to abstract doctrines or theoretical dogma.
As Russell Kirk put it, "Society is immeasurably more than a political device ... If society is treated as a simple contraption to be managed on mathematical lines,
then man will be degraded into something much less than a partner in the immortal contract
that unites the dead, the living, and those yet to be born, the bond between God and man."

The next philosophical issue at which conservatives and libertarians cross swords is the concept of liberty.
Libertarians believe that liberty is the first priority of any
society. But the liberty they value so highly is solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish liberty. Theirs is an abstract liberty divorced from order and virtue.
The libertarian views liberty as a good thing in and of itself and constantly strives to maximize it, no matter the cost.

The conservative believes that order is the first priority of society, for it is only within the framework
of an enduring social order that a true and lasting liberty may be attained. To the conservative, the only liberty is
"a liberty connected with order: that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them." When considering the effects of liberty,
the conservative hears Burke's words ringing in his ears: "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it
will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may be soon turned into complaints."

Individualism is the next battlefield on which conservatives and libertarians slip the dogs of war.
Libertarians possess an ideology of individualism which denies that life has any meaning other than the gratification
of the ego. They envision a utopia of individualism where man
exists for his own sake and human beings are reduced to social atoms. Selfishness is a virtue, says the libertarian.

Conservatives recognize that that basic social unit is not the individual but the group – autonomous groups such as
family, church, local community, neighborhood, college, the trade union or guild, etc.
These groups intermediate between the individual and State and help preserve social order. As Robert Nisbet pointed out,
"Release man from the context of community and you get not freedom and rights but intolerable aloneness and subjection to demoniac fears and passions."
The conservative values the spirit of community and agrees with Marcus Aurelius that, "We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet."

Both conservatives and libertarians support the free market economy, but they differ in the degree of their devotion. Many libertarians worship the free market
as if it were a religion — indeed many have no trouble replacing the cross with a dollar sign. But libertarians do not
confine their zeal for the market to the economic arena. They believe the market is an abstract doctrine to be applied to all facets of life and social problems.
The libertarians are really just inverted Marxists, who substitute the free market for socialism as not only the dominant economic system but also the overriding
social and political influence. Indeed, they are guilty of the same dialectical materialism as Marx.

Conservatives know that society is too complex to be reconstructed according to abstract economic doctrines.
They think too highly of man and society to distill everything in existence down to the production and consumption of material goods — the nexus of the cash
payment is indeed a weak social link. The laws of commerce are no substitute for the laws of convention and the Divine.

In conclusion, libertarianism is as much an anathema to true Burkean conservatism as Marxism and it should be fought against equally as hard.
As Russel Kirk once said, "Adversity sometimes makes strange bedfellows, but the present successes of conservatives disincline them to lie down, lamblike, with the libertarian lions."

3 posted on 02/25/2003 7:28:12 AM PST by apackof2 (You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you Free.. John 8:32)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Why was this thread moved to the backroom? It was not a flame war as there were no postings to it when it was moved. Is the subject of the WOD now verboten on FR?
4 posted on 02/25/2003 7:31:37 AM PST by Rifleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
The libertarian foolishly believes that if his abstract ingredients are properly mixed within the social cauldron, an earthly utopia will bubble forth. [...] Society is merely a machine with interchangeable and separable parts, says the libertarian.

There's nothing like lying about your opponents.

5 posted on 02/25/2003 7:35:28 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rifleman
Why was this thread moved to the backroom?

I've FReepmailed the AM and Jim Robinson with that very question.

6 posted on 02/25/2003 7:36:24 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
"They are the bastard children of Jean-Jacques Rousseau"

I, too, am a conservative. I am no longer a Republican, and do not feel compelled to find another herd to enjoy communal grazing with.

The many despicable stands on various issues(like drugs) I have read about Libertarians are disturbing. I have noticed, however, these positions are always stated by non-Libertarians. Primarily Republicans.

The vile descriptions offered carry a most familiar ring to me. The venom with which they are sold is identicle to that said about me, by Democrats, when I was a Republican.

I do not: starve children, rape the environment, kick the old into the street, lynch blacks, or burn their churches. These are vile, malicious lies; succesfully sold to many of my neighbors. They were designed to incite hatres, and they have.

Among other disappointments I suffered from elected Republicans, were their many similarities to Dem.s.

The ridiculously evil portraits of Libertarians painted by Republicans carry the same design; and will appeal to an equal share of childish intellects.

Those who do drugs, engage in a risky life style. I welcome the opportunity of standing aside and letting them remove themselves from the gene pool.

7 posted on 02/25/2003 7:51:31 AM PST by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: laotzu; apackof2
Check out the author---clearly an intellectual heavyweight:


8 posted on 02/25/2003 7:56:57 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Excellant analysis.
9 posted on 02/25/2003 8:18:31 AM PST by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
"Selfishness is a virtue, says the libertarian."

I know this is meant to portray a repugnant characteristic, like when you allied Libertarians with the French, but; selfishness, if not a virtue, is certainly a duty.

Who else should look out for my best interests? Society? The government?

Elected office holders(on both sides), news media, educators, and my neighbors have all sold me down the river.

Why on earth do you insult anyone for tending their own?

Democrats have nothing positive to offer about their own party, only negatives about the other.

Have you anything other than the negative to offer? Are you now, or have you ever been, a Democrat?

10 posted on 02/25/2003 8:19:54 AM PST by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Are you going to attack that piece bassed on the "looks" of the author?
11 posted on 02/25/2003 8:21:59 AM PST by exnavy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
Are you going to attack that piece bassed on the "looks" of the author?

No, I attacked the piece based on its content, in post #5; having established the lies, I thought it would be interesting to see the liar.

12 posted on 02/25/2003 8:25:31 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
Excellant analysis.

No, pack of unsupported lies.

13 posted on 02/25/2003 8:26:23 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Many excellent points made here. Will and of the pro-WOD freepers listen?
14 posted on 02/25/2003 8:52:09 AM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
"the conservative declares that society..is a spiritual and organic entity..imbued with the spirit of Burke..a partnership between the living, the dead, and those yet to be born – a community of souls..a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower and higher natures..."

Oh puke. Let's all hold hands and sing.

What have you against conservatives, and why are you saying these embarrasing things about us?

15 posted on 02/25/2003 9:05:18 AM PST by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Check out the author---clearly an intellectual heavyweight"

You can tell that just by looking at a picture? Wow!

Well then, check out this doofus. Clearly a dunce:


16 posted on 02/25/2003 9:06:02 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Henry McDonald is Ireland Editor of The Observer. This piece is extracted from a speech at the Cambridge Union on Thursday in support of the motion "This House would legalise hard drugs". The motion was defeated by 80 votes to 44."

Close. Keep trying.

17 posted on 02/25/2003 9:08:28 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Very good summary. The liberty and freedom to which the Libertarians refer is that of a personal nature, not of society.

Which is why they often appear to be bordering on anarchy.

18 posted on 02/25/2003 9:17:12 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Very good summary.

No, pack of unsupported lies.

19 posted on 02/25/2003 9:23:52 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Check out the author---clearly an intellectual heavyweight"

You can tell that just by looking at a picture?

No, in combination with his pack of unsupported lies.

20 posted on 02/25/2003 9:24:44 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The motion was defeated by 80 votes to 44."

Close. Keep trying.

So the Cambridge Union now defines truth?

21 posted on 02/25/2003 9:25:50 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
To the conservative, the only liberty is "a liberty connected with order: that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them."
Can you give us a cite for the quote? Tx.
22 posted on 02/25/2003 10:50:27 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
I suspect there can be no cites. "Ordered liberty" is a contradiction of terms. Such a thing cannot exist. You have liberty (which can be and usually is chaotic) or you have order. I suspect most of the WODDIES and their sychophants prefer order because they are afraid to be free and to have the ulltimate responsibility for themselves and their own well-being in their own hands. They cannot stomach that sort of responsibility and want someone else (the National Daddy) to give them direction and take the responsibility for them. Ultimately, they will find (either in this life or standing before their Creator) that THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Abdicating that responsibility does not absolve them. It only makes matters worse for ALL of us.
23 posted on 02/25/2003 11:07:25 AM PST by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
"This tension has often been reconciled by what George Washington called "ordered liberty." British statesman Edmund Burke explained it as, "liberty connected with order; [liberty] that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them."

Ordered liberty is not license. It is not, as Judge Learned Hand said, "the ruthless, the unbridled will." Learned Hand warned that, absent order, liberty becomes license, ultimately leading to the denial of liberty. In a world of unbridled license, the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must. Freedom to act according to one's will is lost to the infringement, by force if necessary, of the will of another.

Nor is ordered liberty a euphemism for Big Brother. A pervasive order in which security is guaranteed by a massive, invasive police power that prevents crime before it happens by monitoring everything its citizens say, do and think strangles freedom. In such a society, as Orwell observed, liberty dies.

Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft
Eighth Circuit Judges Conference
Duluth, Minnesota
August 7, 2002

24 posted on 02/25/2003 12:13:15 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Freedom to act according to one's will is lost to the infringement, by force if necessary, of the will of another.
Thank you for the cite to, and quote from, AG Ashcroft's remarks. Ashcroft seems to be saying that freedom is not the right to do what one wills, but rather is the right to do what is right -- which presupposes a certain order. Coupled with Burke's remark, I understand that to mean that a human action is "right" when it is ordered toward virtue.

I concur.

25 posted on 02/25/2003 12:33:43 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Ashcroft seems to be saying that freedom is not the right to do what one wills, but rather is the right to do what is right -- which presupposes a certain order.

The problem is, who in government defines virtue? Ashcroft? Bill Clinton? Hillary Clinton? Jimmy Carter? For Bill Clinton, it would be virtuous for citizens to give up their guns and let him be president for life.

26 posted on 02/25/2003 2:31:15 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I'm unclear what you mean. Let's take the virtue of Justice, for example. Are you asking who defines Justice? Or are you asking who defines whether a particular act is just?
27 posted on 02/25/2003 2:55:47 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
I'm unclear what you mean. Let's take the virtue of Justice, for example. Are you asking who defines Justice? Or are you asking who defines whether a particular act is just?

I think my meaning is quite clear. What is a virtue to us conservatives is often a vice to liberals, and vice versa (pun intended). Therefore, if you wish to have a government driven by virtue, that government is at the whim of the virtues of those in power...

28 posted on 02/25/2003 3:00:39 PM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
The judgment whether an act is just or not is an application of the facts to the definition of justice, and freedom would be the right to act justly. In our system, an independent judiciary determines whether one has acted justly or unjustly.
29 posted on 02/25/2003 3:13:26 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Therefore, if you wish to have a government driven by virtue, that government is at the whim of the virtues of those in power...

While there are the rare few who truly are driven by virtue (even that is arguable, given that moderation is considered a virtue, and such men are seldom, if ever, moderate), it doesn't seem to compare to the kind of ambition men show in pursuit of vice. While not defending vice, the idea of "driven by virtue" doesn't seem to be conceptually consistent with history and human nature.

30 posted on 02/25/2003 3:14:55 PM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Can you give us a cite for the quote? Tx.

An American patriot

Here's a few more

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." James Madison

No truth is more evident to any mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people." Noah Webster

It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." George Washington

31 posted on 02/25/2003 3:19:32 PM PST by apackof2 (You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you Free.. John 8:32)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: exnavy; robertpaulsen
thanks on behalf of the author
32 posted on 02/25/2003 3:22:24 PM PST by apackof2 (You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you Free.. John 8:32)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: apackof2
Thanks for the cite and the quotes. At the risk of sounding like I'm from another galaxy, is "An American Patriot" a recent book that contains all the quotes you posted?
33 posted on 02/25/2003 3:31:28 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
At the risk of sounding like I'm from another galaxy, is "An American Patriot"

If you are a libertarian you are from another galaxy.
No "An american patriot" is my description for the author of the article

34 posted on 02/25/2003 3:38:10 PM PST by apackof2 (You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you Free.. John 8:32)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; yall; *Wod_list
"Nor is ordered liberty a euphemism for Big Brother. A pervasive order in which security is guaranteed by a massive, invasive police power that prevents crime before it happens by monitoring everything its citizens say, do and think strangles freedom. In such a society, as Orwell observed, liberty dies."

Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft
Eighth Circuit Judges Conference
Duluth, Minnesota
August 7, 2002
_________________________________

And as he spoke, last August, planning was going forward on the massive, invasive police power 'bong bust' display of a few days ago.
An invasive power that seeks to prevent crime before it happens by monitoring everything citizens say, do and buy on the internet.

The hypocrisy of this administration has little or no limit.
35 posted on 02/25/2003 3:45:39 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: apackof2; robertpaulsen
I was hoping to read Burke's quote ("liberty connected with order; [liberty] that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them") in context. Can either of you tell me where Burke's quote (or the other quotes in post #31 above) comes from?
36 posted on 02/25/2003 3:54:43 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"planning was going forward on the massive, invasive police power 'bong bust'"

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I hope you see a conflict between these two statements. Therein lies the problem.

Do you think there was any need for a "massive, invasive police power 'bong bust'" in the days of John Adams? Do you think a moral and religious people would be organizing "bong parties"?

You throw away morals, elevate shameful acts, denigrate religion, remove personal resonsibility --- then you look around and cry for your "Constitutional Right" to smoke dope. Sorry, you threw that away, too.

37 posted on 02/26/2003 7:47:42 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: exnavy
That is precisely what the merry band of libertarian bashers do here ALL the time. They put up silly pictures of people who are identified as liberatians and do the same thing. I haven't heard you complain about that. Maybe I missed you admonishing them about it. Care to disavow that kind of thing now?
38 posted on 02/26/2003 9:01:31 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You throw away morals,

I find your political beliefs to be immoral.

elevate shameful acts,

It is shamful to advocate the use of force to further your political goals

denigrate religion,

Which one? I denigrate Islam. And the brand of radical violence mongering in the name of the Almighty advanced by pretend Christians,

remove personal resonsibility ---

libertarians call for personal responsibilty on all issues at all times, unlike Republicans

then you look around and cry for your "Constitutional Right" to smoke dope.

The constitution does not confer rights, some of the people can't get that through their heads, they mistakenly believe that rights are granted by benevolent governments

Sorry, you threw that away, too.

No, you threw out your freedom, and now you are trying to throw out mine.

39 posted on 02/26/2003 9:16:15 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Quoting John Ashcroft on liberty is like quoting Hillary Clinton on ethics.
40 posted on 02/26/2003 9:17:33 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"planning was going forward on the massive, invasive police power 'bong bust'"

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I hope you see a conflict between these two statements. Therein lies the problem.

Yep, much of our present 'problem' is made up by 'moralizing' bigots, seeking to govern their peers by prohibitons.

Do you think there was any need for a "massive, invasive police power 'bong bust'" in the days of John Adams? Do you think a moral and religious people would be organizing "bong parties"?

Alcohol abuse was widespread in those days, but prohibition efforts were wisely rejected as being a fools game. - They chose freedom.

You throw away morals, elevate shameful acts, denigrate religion, remove personal resonsibility --- then you look around and cry for your "Constitutional Right" to smoke dope. Sorry, you threw that away, too.

You lie that people want to "throw away morals, elevate shameful acts, denigrate religion, remove personal responsibility" --- then you look around and cry for your "Constitutional Right" to prohibit property & criminalize 'sin'.
Sorry, but you threw away all credibility with your inital lies.

41 posted on 02/26/2003 9:31:21 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Here's a concept, -- Hillary appointed as AG, under the next demo adminisration.
42 posted on 02/26/2003 9:38:32 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Won't work, she will be President in the next demo administration. Hate to say it, but it's probably a good bet.
43 posted on 02/26/2003 9:46:38 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Rifleman
Is the subject of the WOD now verboten on FR

Apparently and officially ... yes it is ....

44 posted on 02/26/2003 9:47:34 AM PST by clamper1797 (Credo Quia Absurdum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Yep, sad to say, but President Clinton the 2nd is an odds on favorite.
The question then would be, - will Billy settle for being Secretary of State, or hold out for Chief Justice?
45 posted on 02/26/2003 12:36:01 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Alcohol abuse was widespread in those days, but prohibition efforts were wisely rejected as being a fools game. - They chose freedom.
Prohibition was discussed and rejected when the Constitution was drafted? That should make for very interesting reading. Can you cite a source (or sources)? Tx.
46 posted on 02/27/2003 10:46:51 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: eastsider; Roscoe
Sorry, I don't play the 'cite' game for roscoe type clones.
47 posted on 02/27/2003 12:44:19 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Thanks for clearing that up. Revisionism rules!
48 posted on 02/27/2003 1:35:22 PM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
He invents all of his "facts."
49 posted on 02/27/2003 7:18:37 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe

50 posted on 02/28/2003 6:47:45 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 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
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

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