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

Skip to comments.

On Marijuana, Social Conservatives Trend Statist
NewsRealBlog ^ | June 23, 2010 | Walter Scott Hudson

Posted on 06/24/2010 9:12:15 PM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson

The central conceit of the Left is their regard for outcome above principle, results above rights. “Progressivism” repackages the age-old idea that society has a collective right superior to the individual’s. We saw this in the argument for universal health care, where the Left regarded the outcome of “universal coverage” above the principle of personal liberty.

Unfortunately, this conceit is not limited to the Left. Social conservatives are willing to borrow à la carte from statist arguments when the results suit their taste. No issue evokes this phenomenon more than drug control policy.

NewsRealBlog hosted much debate on the legalization of marijuana over the weekend. The discussion was prompted by Sarah Palin’s recent statement that private in-home consumption is a negligible concern. Calvin Freiburger objected to the characterization of prohibition as a liberty issue, citing among his supporters Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and John Locke. Though Calvin is clearly not a statist, his argument depends upon a fundamentally statist belief.

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


TOPICS: Health/Medicine; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: bongbrigade; commerceclause; drugcontrolpolicy; libertarian; lping; marijuana; nannystate; socialconservative; tenthamendment; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2010 9:12:18 PM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

I can’t think of a bigger crock of sh*t than to label opposition to legalizing drugs as progressivism.


2 posted on 06/24/2010 9:14:08 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson
Read Starving The Monkeys, and the scales will be peeled from your eyes...
3 posted on 06/24/2010 9:17:03 PM PDT by an amused spectator (Watching the MSM with Obama is like watching Joslyn James with Tiger Woods)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

Legalizing pot would at least carve a big hole in the income stream of Mexico’s drug cartels. And it would save our national forests which have become infested with the cartel’s marijuana farms. Other than that I’m not all that keen on having a society filled with potheads. Been there, done that, lived through the 60s.


4 posted on 06/24/2010 9:19:39 PM PDT by Pelham (without Deporting 20 million illegals border control is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

Statism??? You must be high...


5 posted on 06/24/2010 9:20:37 PM PDT by BreezyDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I can.
Demonizing/criticizing anyone who questions the effectiveness or the legitimacy of drug laws.

Let me give you a hypothetical example:
You are a young high-school teacher and one day, as you’re leaving, you find in the hallway you find a small bag of drugs that someone dropped.
Trying to be responsible you pick it up and turn it in to the police, who write a report and let you go.
A week or so after this incident you are arrested, on drug possession charges.
The drugs turned out to be heroin and the mere possession thereof is a felony-offense.

I hope that you didn’t enjoy voting or owning firearms.


6 posted on 06/24/2010 9:22:51 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

Calling all Liberaltarian Potheads!

Hope your zoning law repeals puts a whorehouse, abortion & pot stand right next to where your children play.


7 posted on 06/24/2010 9:26:28 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (RIP Bahbah. Did you plug the damn hole yet daddy? Palin/Cheney 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BreezyDog

I guess the libertarian in me sides with making marijuana legal. Regulate it, tax it and ticket it if driving under the influence. Take the money out of the traffickers and dealers hands and reduce the crime associated with it.


8 posted on 06/24/2010 9:26:33 PM PDT by Edison (I don't know what irks me more, the lying or the incompetence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Question all you want. Argue all you want. But it ain’t gonna happen. There are plenty of folks that think kiddie porn is fine and dandy too.


9 posted on 06/24/2010 9:27:46 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
10 posted on 06/24/2010 9:28:24 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I expect it would be sold in the same store that sells booze, beer and lotto.


11 posted on 06/24/2010 9:30:22 PM PDT by Edison (I don't know what irks me more, the lying or the incompetence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
"Been there, done that, lived through the 60s."

The 60's were more about chemicals, the 70's, now there was a decade all about pot. I find it amazing that medical marijuana was legalized here in Colorado just a couple of years ago. Now over 10% of the population needs medical treatments with pot. There are almost more dispensaries then liquor stores. It truly must be a miracle treatment.
12 posted on 06/24/2010 9:31:13 PM PDT by JoSixChip (You think your having a bad day?.....Just remember, somewhere out there is a Mr. Pelosi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pissant
There are plenty of folks that think kiddie porn is fine and dandy too.

I guess it takes all kinds. Even fanatical lunatic types that would think to equate use of a mild intoxicant with the rape of children.

13 posted on 06/24/2010 9:32:24 PM PDT by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Edison

Wouldn’t matter with Liberaltarians in charge. They are against zoning laws so anything goes.


14 posted on 06/24/2010 9:33:19 PM PDT by Clint N. Suhks (RIP Bahbah. Did you plug the damn hole yet daddy? Palin/Cheney 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: pissant

>Question all you want. Argue all you want. But it ain’t gonna happen. There are plenty of folks that think kiddie porn is fine and dandy too.

Funny you should mention that. There was a case wherein a church fired an employee for kiddie-porn which they found on his church-issued laptop. So, they took the laptop to their lawyer, who then erased all the porn because it is illegal to have in ANY circumstance. Unbeknownst to them, there was a case against the [former] church-employee that opened up a couple of days prior to the discovery, firing, & taking the laptop to their lawyer. The prosecution then slapped an “obstruction of justice” charge on the Lawyer for deleting the porn, which was illegal to possess, from his client’s computer and thereby destroying evidence.

There’s a no-win situation for you:
1) Keep the porn-ridden PC as evidence, and you’re in violation of the law.
2) Delete the porn from the PC so that it may then be handled by its proper users, and you’re in violation of the law.


15 posted on 06/24/2010 9:35:44 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Minn

Funny. Who said anything about rape. All kinds of 12 year olds would be willing to give a show for a price.

And that mild intoxicant has these kind of consequences, ace.

Terrace man charged in heroin overdose death
http://heraldnet.com/article/20100624/NEWS01/706249892

Trial ordered for man tied to Bangor teacher’s heroin overdose
http://articles.mcall.com/2010-06-23/news/mc-bethlehem-heroin-teacher-20100623_1_death-of-gina-riso-heroin-overdose-paraphernalia

Mom spreads support after son’s heroin overdose
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2386838,4_1_JO13_HEROIN_S1-100613.article


16 posted on 06/24/2010 9:36:28 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

There are no liquor stores in residential neighborhoods now. (sarc) Only there are street dealers outside selling dime bags and the gov’t doesn’t get a cut. The price of pot could drop a few bucks, the govt could make a killing and the cartels that pocket the money will be SOOL. ($h!T out of luck.)

How are kids going to be adversely affected. Think the “only buzzed” commercials.


17 posted on 06/24/2010 9:40:37 PM PDT by Edison (I don't know what irks me more, the lying or the incompetence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pissant
"I can’t think of a bigger crock of sh*t than to label opposition to legalizing drugs as progressivism."

You have mischaracterized the author's position.

He equates opposition to legalizing MARIJUANA to STATISM, which it clearly is. And, socons share that common propensity with lefties...just on different issues.

18 posted on 06/24/2010 9:43:53 PM PDT by Mariner (The Government-Union Complex must be destroyed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

“The 60’s were more about chemicals”

Not in my experience. I mean you did see all kinds of stuff floating around but the major drug of choice was pot in my part of SoCal.


19 posted on 06/24/2010 9:45:45 PM PDT by Pelham (without Deporting 20 million illegals border control is meaningless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pissant
"But it ain’t gonna happen."

Marijuana will be legal in Calif come Nov 2010.

20 posted on 06/24/2010 9:46:38 PM PDT by Mariner (The Government-Union Complex must be destroyed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: pissant
Funny. Who said anything about rape. All kinds of 12 year olds would be willing to give a show for a price.

For a law and order type, you sure seem clueless to the fact that 12 year olds can't consent, and any sexual activity with them is rape. Kiddie porn is such a serious crime because it is only possible to produce it through rape. But I guess as long as nobody is high when the kids are being raped, no harm no foul, right?

And that mild intoxicant has these kind of consequences, ace.

Terrace man charged in heroin overdose death

Trial ordered for man tied to Bangor teacher’s heroin overdose

Mom spreads support after son’s heroin overdose

Hate to break it to you Sport, after you went to all the effort to dredge up all those links that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but we're discussing marijuana here, not heroin.

OneWingedShark was simply pointing out the arbitrary nature and stupid application of many drug laws, not advocating for the legalization of heroin. If your wondering what the topic is, it's always useful to perhaps, I don't know, read the headline maybe.

21 posted on 06/24/2010 9:52:11 PM PDT by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson; pissant

There is a difference - a big difference - between a Libertarian and a Conservative.

Both hang out at FR.

I am a conservative, myself.

It is Libertarians who want to legalize recreational drugs. Not Conservatives. Which is one of several reasons why I am not a Libertarian.

All Libertarians and Conservatives really have in common is a pro-capitalism, limited (to varying degrees) government position.

Foreign policy, all the social issues, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You will find the Libertarians with the Liberals there.

It is wrong for you, Hudson, to label conservatives statists. Conservatives believe in rule of law; statists deem the state above the law.


22 posted on 06/24/2010 10:36:51 PM PDT by Persevero (It's going to be a long summer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

You’ve struck a nerve again. Funny, it never fails to draw out the statists when the topic of Prohibition II comes up. All their fancy talk about “smaller, less intrusive government” goes right out the window when it comes to what THEY don’t like. Consistency is utterly foreign to them as a concept. And they wonder why they can’t keep hold of the reins of power.

To paraphrase Churchill (I believe), it’s the job of progressives to make all these monumental screwups, whilst it’s the job of conservatives to keep them from being corrected.


23 posted on 06/24/2010 10:45:04 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

There are, indeed, differences. But ANYONE who calls for laws to repress the private, non-coercive behaviors of others is a statist in my book. There is no place in a free society for such bullbleep. If you don’t like drugs, do as I do and LEAVE THEM ALONE. I promise you, no one will come along and force you to smoke a joint or snort some coke or anything of the kind... unless you’re a young male child and your government propaganda center has determined that you need to be doped up for the convenience of the teacher and administrators. It is just as wrong to forcibly drug someone as it is to forcibly PREVENT someone from taking a recreational substance IN THEIR OWN HOME (public behaviors are a whole ‘nother topic) as it is to prevent someone from buying a firearm to protect themselves as it is to REQUIRE them to own a weapon they do not want... It’s all part and parcel of the SAME thing... something called INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, something the Founders went to great lengths to ensure we would have unless we keep on the road we’re on and piss it all away.


24 posted on 06/24/2010 10:58:19 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

There are, indeed, differences. But ANYONE who calls for laws to repress the private, non-coercive behaviors of others is a statist in my book. There is no place in a free society for such bullbleep. If you don’t like drugs, do as I do and LEAVE THEM ALONE. I promise you, no one will come along and force you to smoke a joint or snort some coke or anything of the kind... unless you’re a young male child and your government propaganda center has determined that you need to be doped up for the convenience of the teacher and administrators. It is just as wrong to forcibly drug someone as it is to forcibly PREVENT someone from taking a recreational substance IN THEIR OWN HOME (public behaviors are a whole ‘nother topic) as it is to prevent someone from buying a firearm to protect themselves as it is to REQUIRE them to own a weapon they do not want... It’s all part and parcel of the SAME thing... something called INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, something the Founders went to great lengths to ensure we would have unless we keep on the road we’re on and piss it all away.


25 posted on 06/24/2010 10:59:20 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I can’t think of a bigger crock of sh*t than to label opposition to legalizing drugs as progressivism.

You're right. It's statism.

26 posted on 06/24/2010 11:00:32 PM PDT by TigersEye ("Flotilla" means "pirate ships running supplies to terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
it would save our national forests which have become infested with the cartel’s marijuana farms

More likely legalizing pot will be followed by legalizing the illegal invaders who grow the stuff. Then we'll redistribute our national forests to the invaders so they can keep growing drugs on them.

27 posted on 06/24/2010 11:05:58 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Are your comments generally this full of non sequitor ?


28 posted on 06/24/2010 11:14:33 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
All Libertarians and Conservatives really have in common is a pro-capitalism, limited (to varying degrees) government position. Foreign policy, all the social issues, we are at opposite ends of the spectrum. You will find the Libertarians with the Liberals there.

Baloney. I am Pro-Life, against the Gay agenda, for a strong national defense (which doesn't include the idiotic "nation building" liberal position Neo-Cons hold) and I am against the secular humanist indoctrination of children in public schools.

You want to believe what you wrote because it creates cover for your un-conservative drug prohibition position. You either support the Constitution in all circumstances or you don't. That is a conservative position.

29 posted on 06/24/2010 11:15:34 PM PDT by TigersEye ("Flotilla" means "pirate ships running supplies to terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Good post. Bull’s eye.


30 posted on 06/24/2010 11:17:19 PM PDT by TigersEye ("Flotilla" means "pirate ships running supplies to terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; pissant

I am afraid experience teaches us that it doesn’t stay “in the home.”

Also, “in the home” are dependent children, and more rarely dependent elderly and handicapped, who aren’t ok with the adults having their private drug abuse “in the home.”

The differences between Conservatives and Libertarians on the social agenda (gay agenda, abortion, drugs, prostitution, pornography, public nudity/sex, etc.) are pretty clearly staked out and have been for decades. I didn’t just invent them.

You hold the Libertarian position. Own it. Don’t blame Conservatives for not being Libertarians. We aren’t pretending to be Libertarians.


31 posted on 06/24/2010 11:24:01 PM PDT by Persevero (It's going to be a long summer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

“Baloney. I am Pro-Life, against the Gay agenda, for a strong national defense (which doesn’t include the idiotic “nation building” liberal position Neo-Cons hold) and I am against the secular humanist indoctrination of children in public schools.”

Pro-Life views can be consistently held in the Libertarian Party, IF they acknowledge the unborn to be an individual human being. Unfortunately the vast majority of the Libertarian Party apparently does not. I am glad you do.

I am unaware of how you could oppose the gay agenda from a strict Libertarian viewpoint, but I’d be glad to hear it.

As for defense, the classic Libertarian position as I understand it is akin to the Swiss: actual defense of our borders only. No treaties, no fighting for allies: for example, a Libertarian would not approve of WW1, WW2, Korea, VietNam, Desert Storm, or the current conflict. If you disagree with that I’d love to know why.

As for public schools, you probably oppose public schools, as do I.


32 posted on 06/24/2010 11:28:10 PM PDT by Persevero (It's going to be a long summer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Protecting life, marriage and national security all require action by the state.


33 posted on 06/24/2010 11:29:09 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: pissant
But it ain't gonna happen.

Rasmussen had the California ballot measure to tax and regulate marijuana leading on 11-22-2009 as follows:

49% support
38% oppose
12% undecided

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/california/49_in_california_favor_legalizing_taxing_pot

________________________________________________

It appears that CA voters are leaning toward the idea that...(wait for it)...

***Marijuana is a relatively minimal problem!***

34 posted on 06/24/2010 11:48:39 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
I am unaware of how you could oppose the gay agenda from a strict Libertarian viewpoint, but I’d be glad to hear it.

Did I say I was a libertarian? I am a conservative and that is why I support legalization of drugs. You are a statist. A pick-and-choose Constitutionalist. A smorgasbord patriot. ;^)

35 posted on 06/24/2010 11:51:44 PM PDT by TigersEye ("Flotilla" means "pirate ships running supplies to terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Indeed they are and prohibition does not fit any of those proscribed duties of the state. Particularly Fedzilla.


36 posted on 06/24/2010 11:53:04 PM PDT by TigersEye ("Flotilla" means "pirate ships running supplies to terrorists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

I hold the pro-founders, Constitution, Declaration of Independence position, which in a number of respects is similar to some of the libertarian positions. I have no use for any form of statistism, whether from the left or right. I will defend freedom for all, even the unpopular. I am a strong advocate of not hindering any non-coercive behavior which does not threaten the safety of non-participants. Above all I believe in minding my own business. Though I do reserve the right to use my power of moral suasion to convince someone not to harm himself or herself. I will never condone using the LAW to regulate another person’s voluntary private behavior. And I will continue to hold people who DO want laws outlawing such behaviors accountable as lousy, vile statists. Any questions?


37 posted on 06/25/2010 12:06:19 AM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

I really don’t care whether adults choose to smoke marijuana or not. I would require them to submit to random drug testing on the job, though, especially if they work for the government, because I want to make sure that we are getting something for our tax dollars. Private industry will, of course, continue to drug test for the same reason.


38 posted on 06/25/2010 12:11:48 AM PDT by Eva (Aand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant
I can’t think of a bigger crock of sh*t than to label opposition to legalizing drugs as progressivism.

Drug criminalization at the federal level is based on the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause, the basis of most other Progressive regulation. After the failure of alcohol Prohibition, it has been the sop of the Left to buy off people like you on the "Right" and make you a fellow traveller in their corruption of the Constitution. You can still ban drugs at the state level and from abroad, but attempts to do that with alcohol 1900-1919 failed completely because we were a free people, right or wrong.

So, yes, you are a Progressive, Statist, Leftist, useful idiot, fellow traveller in the overall destruction of the United States. I hope you think keeping a few, very few who have a mind to, of your neighbors from having a toke was worth it.
39 posted on 06/25/2010 1:19:25 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Persevero; pissant
It is Libertarians who want to legalize recreational drugs. Not Conservatives.

Rubbish. I want to "nuke" Iran and overturn Roe v. Wade. And I want the original interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. With the death of New Deal Commerce Clause (a subset of getting rid of the cancer of Jurisprudence in general) goes the biggest single chunk of Statism. An incidental effect of that is to make almost all federal drug laws unconstitutional. The trade-off is worth it IMO. My post #39 applies to you as well as pissant.

If drugs were legalized outright and stand-alone, perhaps you (and, say, Antonin Scalia) would no longer support the New Deal Commerce Clause and, deprived of a majority, Statism would collapse today.

Of course, you can go along with the Left and support their perversion of the Commerce Clause until they don't need you anymore. Then maybe we'll have Socialism AND legal drugs, the worst of all worlds.

I would not have a principled objection to a drug Prohibition Constitutional Amendment, but I would warn against one on historical and pragmatic grounds. The current regime is doing no better than was done with alcohol.
40 posted on 06/25/2010 1:46:20 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
I don't have anything to do with drugs and recommend everybody on the planet do the same; every drug problem in the world would vanish within five days if the whole world were to do that...

Nonetheless that's never going to happen, hence the "War on Drugs(TM)", instituted under Richard Nixon. This is the single biggest issue I have with Republicans and there is little if anything to choose between demmy and pubby pols on the issue. The "war on drugs" leads to

It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/weapons-ban-urged-to-rein-in-mexican-drug-war/

The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.

Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.

Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.

"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."

The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.

A rational set of drug laws would:

Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?

41 posted on 06/25/2010 2:04:06 AM PDT by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
A rational set of drug laws would:...

The real issue is not what kind of federal drug law but whether to have federal drug laws. See posts #39-40

150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?
42 posted on 06/25/2010 3:37:16 AM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL OR REBEL! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson
Supporting the federal drug war in general requires adopting and supporting the liberal expansive New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the "substantial effects" doctrine. Clarence Thomas gets it.

Marijuana prohibition particularly has an onerous history, starting with the lies and manipulations of Harry Anslinger and the blatantly unconstitutional enforcement of the Marijuana Tax Act. Then we had the Shafer Commission report.

Raymond Shafer was apparenly a man of good politically conservative values and tried to objectively report the results of the resarch into the effects of marijuana, without trying to cherry pick or manipulate the date to reach a pre-ordained conclusion or "spin" the results. He got pilloried and the report buried.

Most of the information you do see coming from the government can be traced back to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. You'll find they have a long and odious history of liberal political activism and manipulating their research data and spinning their publications to support it.

It's all out of whack.

43 posted on 06/25/2010 4:03:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks

I’ve lived in countries that don’t have zoning laws.

Heck, my last apartment in South Korea was below a church... which was below a video store...which was below a gym... which was below a massage parlor.

So, tell me again how bad it gets without zoning laws?


44 posted on 06/25/2010 4:55:02 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Minn
For a law and order type, you sure seem clueless to the fact that 12 year olds can't consent, and any sexual activity with them is rape. Kiddie porn is such a serious crime because it is only possible to produce it through rape. But I guess as long as nobody is high when the kids are being raped, no harm no foul, right?

As much as I hate child pornography, I can't let this argument stand, because it ignores one basic avenue of child pornography very common in Japan.

That is the animated cartoons (anime). It's a pretty common sight to see DVDs of animated child porn.

And your assertion is that the only way to create child porn is via rape. So, my question is, how does any child get raped in anime?

And if there isn't any rape, then is it legal (should it be legal)?

45 posted on 06/25/2010 5:03:06 AM PDT by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Walter Scott Hudson

On murder social conservatives trend statist.

On rape social conservatives trend statist.

On DUI social conservatives trend statist.


46 posted on 06/25/2010 5:15:07 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Outstanding strawmen. But par for you drug warriors.


47 posted on 06/25/2010 6:10:58 AM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Progressivism is not Statism.


48 posted on 06/25/2010 6:13:26 AM PDT by listenhillary (You might be a modern LIBERAL if you read 1984 & said "YEAH! That's the world that I want!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

If I may, I’ll take a crack at the question as to how a L/libertarian can oppose the gay agenda.

The gay agenda wants laws to be passed that confer upon them the same privileges extended to heterosexuals (e.g., marriage, automatic transfer of certain benefits upon death), as well as laws that make them “more equal” (e.g., hate crime laws). Not to forget of course the desire to require that everyone accept their [public] behavior, while at the same time not tolerating the behaviors or actions of those who disagree with them.

A libertarian, on the other hand, would likely first believe that marriage is an issue which with the state shouldn’t even be involved (it’s a contract between two individuals, barring any religious aspects of course), so they probably would be against gay marriage primarily because it’s yet another case of the government getting involved where it shouldn’t. Likewise for any other position where the gay agenda advocates for special rights, privileges or protection — at the end of the day, the state shouldn’t be involved in this.

In short, the gay agenda wants the government to use its power to enforce special laws aimed only at other gays (or for laws restricting the actions of those who are against the gay agenda). The libertarian does not want the government to take any of these measures. The libertarian can be aligned with a person who happens to be gay, but not a person who supports the gay agenda.


49 posted on 06/25/2010 7:23:51 AM PDT by nostrum09
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
While I'm not a libertarian on most things, I've about come to the conclusion that criminalizing things that people choose to do to themselves will always end up like Prohibition. The law ends up costing more than the habits. When I think of all the money that ends up in the bad guys pockets, and the costs in human deaths, and law enforcement, I have to conclude that maybe we should try something else.

How many people now smoke as compared to 20 years ago? Smoking is legal, but somehow the government managed to keep it to a minimum by advertising and making laws confining places where one can smoke. Alcohol is legal, yet drunk driving is punished. Could we not do the same thing with drugs? If the use of drugs is confined and made socially unacceptable, wouldn't that eventually cause a decrease in use? Just asking for the sake of debate.

There is always going to be people who choose to destroy their lives. We can offer as much help to them as possible in order to improve their chances of becoming useful citizens, but ultimately, I believe that we all live lives that are determined by the choices we make. Those who choose Jesus Christ have the best chance of having a good and fruitful life, and are equipped to give the maximum help to those who make poor choices.

50 posted on 06/25/2010 8:46:47 AM PDT by WVNan (The Murmurous, presided over by Nobodaddy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-179 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