Posted on 12/22/2010 7:28:12 PM PST by Mandingo Conservative
“No one should go to prison for the possession of a drug, unless they are caught selling them to kids or something similar.”
We’ll just wait for them to blow a store clerk’s brains out during a robbery or mowing someone down on the sidewalk or perhaps shoving their kid in the microwave. Then we’ll arrest them.
Bull shit!
Such things wouldn't often happen, but since we have a prohibition, government makes it a certainty. If anyone has a doubt, see the 1920s era prohibition. We are reliving it. What is it they say about LEARNING from history, or being doomed to REPEAT it?
Some people haven't learned......
She should have served her whole sentence.
More bleeding heart liberal garbage. Now she’s probably on welfare and votes democrat, while the rest of society suffers by having a former crack head roaming free. People found with crack on their person need to get life or the chair, preferably the chair, before they are allowed to destroy America from inside any further.
I’d rather have my kid drink that use cocaine or meth.
My son has a beer from time to time. It doesn’t bother me at all.
If he did coke or meth it would bother me a great deal. I would not want him having kids in that case, either.
You needn’t lump in the social conservative position of keeping drug abuse illegal with the social liberal position of more Medicare, more Social Security, more foreign aid and more spending.
Many of us, myself included, favor drug abuse laws but are not at all interested in socialistic welfare systems.
“I won’t be a hypocrite, I’ve done my fair share of drugs”
You’re not a hypocrite. You know what you AREN’T missing.
If you used drugs, stopped, and say people shouldn’t use drugs, people say: Hypocrite! You used drugs yourself!
If you didn’t use drugs, and say people shouldn’t use drugs, people say: You don’t know what you are talking about!
So, you can’t win with those who don’t acknowledge that drug abuse hurts MANY people, not just the people using.
“We’ll just wait for them to blow a store clerk’s brains out during a robbery or mowing someone down on the sidewalk or perhaps shoving their kid in the microwave. Then we’ll arrest them.”
Why not just wait for a car crash or plain ol’ child neglect? Happens a lot sooner.
Saved me a post. Thank you for putting this up!
Right.
Nobody forced her to remain involved with her abusive ex boyfriend. If you know he’s a dope pusher, get the hell out of there.
This isn’t exactly hard folks. Work hard, keep your nose clean.
Many of us, myself included, favor drug abuse laws but are not at all interested in socialistic welfare systems.
Yeah, we're all a bit different. I lump them all together because they're all manifestations of more government than I think we need.
But we all have different tolerance levels for government.
Quite true. Of course, if these substances weren't illegal there would be no massive amounts of money involved.
The illegality creates the high prices.
I am continuously amazed at those who think CA agriculture could be saved by legalizing pot, as if a legal product would maintain the same high price. In actual fact, of course, pot as a legal commodity would quickly drop in price, as has every other farm product.
High price could be maintained by taxation, but set too high it would create a black market for untaxed dope and we're back to somewhere near where we started.
Small government is going to require a return to an earlier culture where crime problems were largely solved by the citizens - sometimes with permanent results. Republicans don't seem to want that any more than Democrats do.
FRiend, do you want your babysitter or pharmacist to be legally doing pot? You can say you don’t know they’re not doing it now, but more than likely they aren’t because it’s illegal. Legalizing it just opens a Pandora’s Box of new problems. What’s next? I like LSD and you like meth arguments. The lawyers would love this. We either have standards or we don’t. This is one of them.
If you reread my post, you’ll notice I didn’t say I was in favor of legalization of pot.
My comments were strictly with regard to the economic consequences of legalization on the price of the stuff and the consequent crime and murder to control distribution. You may note that organized crime immediately lost control ofd alcohol sales when Prohibition was repealed. When legal the trade just wasn’t profitable enough to support the massive overhead of a criminal organization.
You are correct there are good arguments on all side of legalization. You point out one. Why pot and not LSD? An equally good one is: Why alcohol and not pot? Alcohol really does cause greater disruption to society than pot would more widely used, as it would be when legal.
I don’t want my babysitter or pharmacist high on pot, but they I don’t want them trying to do their job while drunk, either.
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.