Posted on 03/12/2006 8:51:58 AM PST by llevrok
Thanks for posting that. First time I've seen or read his comments.
Sounds good to me, people need to quit identifying themselves by party, and arrange their priorities to supporting those that would vote to make this country better, not fill their pockets. We need to grab the control of this govt back from the govt, and return to constitutional limits. Given the numbers of citizens, this should be a simple task. Of course given the same numbers of illiterate people, and those that are corrupt at heart, impossible.
Pretty silly when any movie person can get under a countries skin so much.
My first thought was Columbia as in movie company, too. It would sound logical that a bigwig in H'wood would object to an actor suggesting that the cocaine supply be stopped!
Drugs are coming in right thru our open porous borders so what country should we really invade?
Say's Law says (get it? "Say" "says"?) otherwise...
Yeah, I quit allowing myself to be called "Republican" about 20 years ago. Of course, then people call me "liberal" and things get ugly.
What side an actor is on is completely irrelevant. To make their individual statements into a news story just seems utterly ridiculous to me.
Well said. Bears repeating.
As immoral as it may seem, not a bad idea. Given something like 75-80% of most crime is related to drug use/trafficking, so why not give it a whirl? I would make sure the media picks up on all the dead dopers being sent to the morgue (we'd need to rent out a few football fields all over the country, primarily the big cities) and then make sure our young people see what happens when you play with fire. Unfortunately, there is so much corruption involved with dope money on both sides of the border I don't think it will ever end. As long as people have a weakness of some kind, hang around the wrong people and can figure out a way to pay for the habit once they're hooked, it will go on. Which brings about the other option of legalizing it and controlling it via the government. Although that's morally reprehensible as well, we do it now with alcohol and tobacco being taxed (heavily) and somewhat controlled by government, so.....
No, it is where there is not harsh enough punishment for those supplying that the drug trade florishes. I think one of the reasons many politicians aren't eager to address the Illegal immigration problem is because they know that it will adversely effect the drug trade from which they benefit. Some of their biggest campaign donors are probably involved and are profiting from the trade more so than anyone is profiting from the use of illegal labor which is a myth used to justify lax border enforcement. Most of the benefits from illegal alien labor are not passed down to consumers and more than 2 thirds of money earned ends up flowing to Mexico while most illegals here take advantage of our welfare system and health resources. I think that the cocain trade could be stopped best by creating a custom biological organism that will either target the plants or target the substance in users bodies causing an adverse allergic reaction or an immunity to the effects of the drug. We have the tools to do such things and some of the research has been completed already. We have choices we can spend scientific resources to create a novel way that would permanently disable the drug trade or we can use force.
So. You're not a supply-side economist, then?
I plead ignorance on economic matters, though I did just take delivery of Dr. Sowell's book on the subject in an attempt to educate myself.
But I think my previous comment may not be at variance with supply side philosophy, since it addresses a real demand, rather than one which is centrally manipulated by authority.
I've always been of the opinion if we didn't want the stuff, the Columbians wouldn't manufacture it. Don't really know what to about drugs. The WoD is entirely to dangerous to personal freedom, and drugs are entirely too dangerous to leave it alone.
I was just attempting a little humor. I didn't believe you'd actually take me up on the point. I should known better than to try that with a FReeper! LOL
And where billions of tax dollars are spent to block the supply-bilions wil be made by criminal cartels who defy the blockade and provide the supply. Most of those consuming the available supplies will be unable to afford the drugs and will become criminals themselves in order to buy the supplies.
The war on drugs is more evil and destructive than the drugs themselves could ever be.
Flame away folks.
That's what I thought too. I thought maybe they didn't want their great lead actors getting fat if they stopped their habit...
Bruce Willis, one of my favorite actors. He is a true American.
Whoops, sorry. If I knew more about economics, I'd probably have seen where you were coming from :-)
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.