Posted on 08/23/2011 3:18:46 PM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy
Thomas Sowell on the War on Drugs
Milton Friedman on the War on Drugs
So you’re saying that he should have send it registered mail so that postal employees don’t help themselves to it? That’s very reassuring.
That’s why people like you are not fit for high office in this country.
Ummmmmm - hate to break the news to you, but the government DOES purposefully poison drug users. Go look up some common pharma drugs that can be abused.
If the drug is statistically safer than cigarettes or booze, you should legalize it unless you are prepared to begin a new Prohibition against cigarettes and booze. The assumed self righteousness of people who want their government approved addictions protected while threatening others using a less harmful, nonaddictive substance with no knock SWAT teams ready blow away your dog and you over a controlled vegetable, is hypocritical, reprehensible, And ludicrous in a so-called “land of the free”.
No, but a Kenyan Muslim who sells out Israel is.
It sure stirred the crap didn’t it?
I would bomb their cars and houses with Napalm. I would bomb the basements, I would shoot the thread-hijackers and their enablers just as I would a traitor in wartime.
I would poison them like they deserve, and I would force feed them large quantities of heroin. Would they die? Who cares?
These people are ruining good discussion and debates. Abusing the First Amendment. These people are destroying good threads. Torturing them. But I would turn all thread-hijackers that are caught lose, with a stern warning that the next time they do it they get executed.
War is war, fight it like a war or STFU and get out of the way.
We don't live in a land of the free. We live in a land with statist politicians and their sympathizers who would love nothing more than to tell you that you can no longer eat fast food, that you can no longer fire people without good cause, and that you cannot own weapons to protect yourself. You are too irresponsible to consume drugs responsibly. DRUGS ARE EVIL, except those that we tax heavily. Those two are okay. You still can't use one of them in restaurants or public places, however. Nope.
Good Move. Hope it works.
I was kidding by the way. You certainly drove traffic to the thread.
Better stock up on ear plugs because the screaming from those who make money from the WOD will be ear-splitting.
Better stock up on ear plugs because the screaming from those who make money from the WOD will be ear-splitting.
Hey, much respect to you for fighting the good fight all these years, sir. I've seen you get savaged on these boards and get attacked as a druggie who wants to give drugs to children, etc. These arguments come from weak-minded individuals that refuse to face facts when it comes to the WOD, namely that it is an unconstitutional failure. I think it's amusing that the Tenth Amendment has only recently come into vogue again -- Rick Perry even wrote a book about it. Where were these people for the past 30 years? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they're talking about it now, but you still see lots of people that selectively decide which parts of the constitution they think we should obey and which we should not.
I think once we get to the point where a major candidate for president is talking about stopping the War on Drugs, you are going to see violence like you will not believe. The Mexican drug cartels make SO much money from Americans using drugs, and I don't think they'll go quietly into the night when we get to the point where an anti-War on Drugs guy who looks like he is going to win is running for president. They will attempt to assassinate him. It is almost inevitable. The drug cartels will attempt to assassinate him, and if they succeed, that will provide the War on Drug proponents with a little bit of ammo. Some people will say that we can't end the War on Drugs because the cartel leaders are now terrorists and attacking powerful politicians. Others will say that we must because once we succeed, the Mexican cartel thugs will die like the roaches that they are. I think that interesting times are ahead for this country.
Let's say you had a po box. Anyone with a box within maybe 5 feet of yours can, in fact, be accessed from your box ~ open the door, reach in with your handy dandy box emptier, and you can use a mirror on a stick, and your emptier to go through all the mail and find what pleases your eye.
Envelopes with money kind of stand out.
This is a common method for stealing.
I didn’t have a P.O. box. We lived in a house on a street where there were only two other houses, and my neighbors wouldn’t have done that. It was a postal employee.
“P. O. box AT THE POST OFFICE” ~ that’s what you said. Then you concluded that it had to be taken by an employee.
If you re-read my post, you'll see that I never used the word "completely". I'm aware of the "spent leaves" they used. Also, I don't appreciate misattribution.
But you're wrong when you say that cocaine was completely removed from Coca-Cola in 1903. They continued to use min(u)scule amounts of it in their product until 1929
Some preparations for diarrhea in Europe also used morphine in the 80s. That doesn't make such opiates any less dangerous. I know just too many people that died due to being hooked on that virulent garbage. Do you know any heroin addicts?
Are you also aware that Bayer pharmaceuticals made Heroin available for use in cough elixirs as well as aspirin in the 20th century? It offered real relief for whooping coughs as well as bronchitis
I would never advocate reintroducing prohibition. It's a grave error to lump all drugs together though. Methamphetamine addicts that prostitute themselves would not cease to do so if their drugs were legal. So what to do upon a theoretical re-legalization?—how to engage in effective rehabilitation upon cases of severe addiction?
So what is your solution? Should we ban alcohol? You mentioned alcoholics that prostitute themselves. Are these women? Geez. I wouldn't want to see what an alcoholic prostitute looked like. Probably as bad as the meth-addict ones
You get a failing grade in reading comprehension. Let's look at what I said:
"When I was 13, my grandmother made the mistake of sending me $100 by first-class mail for my birthday, instead of mailing me a check. When the envelope got to me, it had been opened and re-taped, and there was no money in it. I think I know what happened to it though. Some drug addict obviously broke into the post office and took the money. It wasn't anyone who worked for USPS."
I didn't mention a P.O. box. I don't know the intricacies of how mail delivery works, but I'm assuming that when it gets to my local post office, it is sorted before being given to the mail carrier. Am I right in assuming that? So what I was saying is that a postal employee somewhere in the chain must have removed the money from the envelope. It could have been the mailman (unlikely), or it could have been someone like a mail sorter at either my grandmother's local post office or at my local post office.
Now if you are referring to the incident involving dwcusmc (instead of the incident that I described), which I believe you are, that’s a cop-out. Chances are that it was in fact a postal worker who stole his money. You just don’t want to ADMIT it.
Both great videos. I love Milton Friedman’s easy way of explaining things.
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.