What it takes to get banned from FR? (Vanity)

This whole thing is a red herring. LadyDoc is not even talking about MrLeroy as far as I can tell, which is the topic of this thread. Maybe this Le-Roy character was banned for being a troll or a bigot or inflammatory comments about this or that - I doubt many people on this thread really care too much, as I usually try to ignore the trolls.

MrLeroy, who this thread was started about, was apparently banned for being 95% single issue poster (boy, I could certainly be accused of that at times) and maybe being on the wrong side of the issue for the tastes of JimRob and the Admin Mods. Those of us who are on the same side would like to know if we're also skating on thin ice.

We know very little of the 'facts' outside of these:

1. MrLeroy posted almost exclusively on WOD threads.
2. MrLeroy was notified at one time by the admins not to 'promote drug use'
3. MrLeroy is now no more on FR.

Since his admonisment (adMINishment?), and even before, I don't believe I ever saw MrLeroy 'promote drug use' by any reasonable standard. He was vehemently anti-WOD, which is a statement that applies to probably 40% of the people on these threads. If you read them often enough, you'll realize that most of the inflammatory BS comes from the pro-WODders who repeatedly hurl insults and use make-believe phraseology like 'liberdopians' and call anyone with a different viewpoint a doper or a stoner. For posters like CinFla, Dane, CWOJackson et. al. the MO is to present some totally vacuous or nonexistant "argument" and then demand acceptance of it as axiom as the standard of a reasonable person.

The only regular pro-WOD posters who haven't lost their cool at one time or another seem to be robertpaulsen (who engages in reasoned debate on the subject for the most part, arguing from a drugs are destructive stand) and Roscoe (who presents the laws and ruling as currently enforced, arguing from a rule of law stand).

MrLeroy was not anti-Catholic, anti-semetic, and as far as I have seen in his posts, not anti-anything save abortion and the WOD. Debating with other conservatives on FR has been a great learing experience for me personally, as I'm sure it is for others. The last thing I would want is for it to turn into a sounding board for the Straussians and neoconservatives with no alternative viewpoints.

Ping to those mentioned - thank you for providing such a fine example.

I would add:

1a. MrLeRoy posted almost exclusively anti-WOD or pro-legalization articles.
1b. The large majority of the anti-WOD or pro-legalization articles were posted by MrLeRoy.

As to "promoting drug use", that's a tough call. Stating that Congress doesn't have the authority, or that this should be a states issue, or that some drugs should be decriminalized, or that medical marijuana is a legitimate issue, that's one thing.

But going on and on, post after post, article after article, I can see where, maybe, one gets the impression that this is starting to look like "promotion".

If I said (insert NAMBLA activity here) should be legal, and I posted numerous articles about it, and I always responded positively to it in my posts, I daresay I'd be catagorized as "promoting" it.

"I've never seen him urge anyone to do drugs."

No, neither have I. Plus he has denied ever doing that. But.

He did draw one important distinction -- he thought drugs should be legal for adults. If one is merely arguing for legalization, not usage, why draw a distinction? There were no age limit laws against drugs before.

Unless. Unless one is aware that promoting drug legalization today "gives the green light" to drug usage. Then one would advocate "adults only".

I am not saying that MrLeRoy was promoting drugs. If this were the year 1800, I would say it's ludicrous.

But this is the year 2003 where the definition of "legal" is synonymous with "acceptable".

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're the only one who doesn't understand my post. I think it's a safe assumption.

When drugs were legal, no distinction was made as to age. Up until 1924, for example, heroin was legal (and AMA approved). Just plain old legal -- not "legal for adults only" or "you must be 21" or even "prescription only".

MrLeRoy has called for drugs to be "re-legalized" (I believe that's his term), but for adults only. Here's the question to you: Why "adults only"? Seriously.

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.