Besides, you've talking about a method. I'm talking about an attitude.
Extinct, Robert. And, you realize you have most probably lined yourself up with very wealthy drug dealers, don't you, attitude wise?
Posted on 05/10/2006 7:31:03 AM PDT by cryptical
Besides, you've talking about a method. I'm talking about an attitude.
Extinct, Robert. And, you realize you have most probably lined yourself up with very wealthy drug dealers, don't you, attitude wise?
We know the libertarian platform is for open borders.
We know the libertarians are pro-drugs.
Which part of "FReepers" did you not understand?
Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?
As an example, check out this famed banned tool called MrLeRoy who suggested heroin being legalized
Did he support open borders ... or are you throwing up yet another smokescreen?
Can you name any FReepers who support both drug legalization and open borders, as you claimed?
Being shy only 1%, then the feds can just turn it over to the states, don't you think? They can do with simple legislation.
Extinct, I say.
Loser European nations legalize pot, allow open gays into their military, allow gay marriage laws, allow massive Muslim immigration -----
I see a pattern here of self destructive godless libertarianism
Except the ones that don't ... such as Sweden, a socialist state whose tough anti-drug laws you would have us imitate. Commie!
Pot and other drugs are for morons. Nations that legalize them are loony
Is alcohol a drug?
Pot does not equal alcohol, moron. You must be the 3000th moron who has tried that brilliant question on me
Correct. By just about any objective standard it's less harmful. (And I use neither, so you may want to come up with a more clever retort than "pothead").
" The taxpayers spend almost $8 billion a year enforcing the ban on marijuana "
...and the users spend (read : send out of the country) uncountable billions more.
Have you ever heard of the term "small 'l' libertarians?
I have never met any Freeper who supported the whole agenda of the Libertarian party.
Yeah I heard of the Small l libertarians. They are more like conservatives and less socially liberal.
There are so many differences I am surprised the big L's just didn't joint the local anarchist party.
No need -- that's the status quo. Witness California legalizing medical marijuana.
A federal amendment, similar in wording to Section 2 of the 21st amendment, is necessary to remove the power from the federal government and return it exclusively to the states.
"And, you realize you have most probably lined yourself up with very wealthy drug dealers, don't you, attitude wise?"
And you're lining yourself up with drug addicts. What's your point?
Even assuming you're right about that (and if you are, it's the first thing you've been right about), that does not equal support for open borders. So you STILL haven't supported your claim that any FReepers support both drug legalization and open borders.
By simply removing the scheduling system, and obeying the intent of the constitution, the regulation of drugs, a local issue, devolves to the states.
And you're lining yourself up with drug addicts. What's your point?
A syllogism:
Drug dealers enjoy much profit from the artificially high price of drugs.
The artificially high price of drugs are because they are illegal.
Any drug dealer with enough sense to breathe will want to keep them illegal, or their lifestyle is over.
Therefore, they use some of that immense wealth to lobby to keep drugs illegal.
Have a nice day.
That's not the way I read 1-8-3. My copy says interstate commerce. Is there some interstate commerce that Congress may not regulate? Any?
"By simply removing the scheduling system, and obeying the intent of the constitution, the regulation of drugs, a local issue, devolves to the states."
It's at the states right now. States have the power to regulate drugs under their police powers.
The situation right now is that the federal government has chosen to exercise their power to regulate the interstate commerce of drugs. The only way that power may be removed is by constitutional amendment.
That's how we did it with alcohol. That's why Congress was constitutionally incapable of setting a national minimum age in 1986 -- they had no power to do so.
False. As on so many threads before.
As soon as 100% of the pot trade is purely intrastate.
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.