Posted on 06/16/2010 9:58:48 AM PDT by logician2u
Are you really a moron or do you just play one?
As far as your claim that was a typical libertarian response, I'm calling you a bald faced liar right here and right now.
I've been on more than a couple drug war and libertarian threads and have never seen that argument, let alone have it terms a "typical libertarian argument".
C'mon...have some personal integrity.
I understand your point, but I still have to disagree.
Mainly I guess my view is this: It’s not the government’s job to decide that for someone.
If they take drugs and then do something illegal, then by all means they should be punished to the full extent of the law.
As for alchohol, you have to admit it too hurts others than the user. Drunk driving? Neglected kids?
All that is horrible. But it is the person, not the substance that is responsible.
You have lots of rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. In fact the Framers were so concerned about this point being spelled out so no one could make any mistakes about it they included this:
Amendment the Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
There's no explicit Constitutional right to drink alcohol. But when we banned that the 22nd Amendment had to be ratified and the Volkstead Act passed.
Drugs support an underworld of evil and hopelessness and ending the "drug war" will only allow more victims to be dragged into the pit.
Which is exactly what happened after Prohibition ended. We're now a nation awash in hopeless alcoholics dying on every streetcorner.
Oh, that never happened? Sorry.
Have a good day.
If enough drug kingpins and high level dealers had been tried, convicted and summarily executed, the "war" might now be just a footnote.
You should have used a comma. Though I’m not a drinker, I hate the pain and loss caused by alcohol over the centuries, but it doesn’t maintain a worldwide network and sub-culture of narco-terrorism and death.
I am benevolent, aren’t I? Drunken jerks peeing in my doorway get driven off. But I don’t mind if someone has a drink or two.
Surprisingly, there is a difference between a drink or two and drunkenness. Perhaps someday you will discover it, NOOB.
How about we outlaw the abuse of prescription pain meds but allow legitimate use?
Or would that just be too crazy?
“Public drunkeness is the crime, “
Agreed, so I wouldn’t ban alcohol, as I stated.
Not all drugs contribute to all the anti-social activities I listed.
What sort of anti-social behavior comes from pot smoking? Milder forms, such as paranoia, lack of focus/concentration, indifference to the needs of others legitimately vulnerable to you, reduction of good inhibitions as to your personal behavior, acceptance of harder drug usage, general laziness and worthlessness.
There are exceptions, but they don’t make the rule. Just like sometimes some people can jump off a bridge get survive. However it is still a bad harmful thing to jump off of a bridge.
I'm out. I have some on order but they won't be in till the end of the week.
Though I’m not a drinker, I hate the pain and loss caused by alcohol over the centuries, but it doesn’t maintain a worldwide network and sub-culture of narco-terrorism and death.
Actually it does. Alcohol abuse causes millions of deaths annually. And alcohol prohibition a la the Capone era is what caused the gangsterism. (Is that a word? It is now.)
Once alcohol was re-legalized the gangland warfare to control its distribution ended. We have narco-terrorism precisely because the stuff is illegal. When was the last time you saw the Budweiser guy and the Miller guy shooting it out over territory?
It doesn't happen because the alcohol trade is legal, regulated, and taxed.
Now I personally think that deliberately putting something in your body that makes one more stupid than one already is falls under the heading of a very poor long term survival strategy. But that doesn't mean I think we should make it a Federal matter.
There's absolutely NO Constitutional authorization for Congress to tell us what we can and can not put into our bodies. They can't tell us not to smoke pot any more than they can regulate the amount of salt in our food. In fact if you allow them to regulate one, you've pretty much agree that they can regulate anything they wish.
Best,
L
It makes me sad that people who claim to be conservatives twist their logic to rationalize drug use as "personal responsibility". Delusion.
You won’t ban alcohol, but it can be credibly argued that alcohol use and abuse has the greatest detrimental impact upon society, if only through its prevalence.
Personally, I consider most of the anti-pot arguments to be government-sponsored BS. There isn’t a week the goes by where they don’t find yet another adverse effect of marijuana. Low testosterone, low sperm count, etc., etc., etc.
Seriously, anything with that many side effects should be fatal ON CONTACT. The fact that it can be easily grown and used, without industrial-level processing, and as such remains resistant to taxation, surely has nothing to do with it, right?
Now, let’s start talking about the adverse effects of the “War On (Some) Drugs”.
Have you read “Saying Yes - In Defense of Drug Use” by Jacob Sullum? He goes through the (so-called) recreational drugs & discusses the effects. He also interviews responsible users. A lot of the worry about irresponsible use is just hype by gov’t or anti-drug folks. The reality isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be. It’s an interesting read, regardless of where you stand on the issue.
I don’t use drugs, but I’m certainly tired of the militarization of our police forces. That has got to stop & it would be stopped if we could stop the WoD.
Less gov’t, more freedom.
It's called "hyperbole." You might want to learn about it sometime.
Yes....but again, the difference is that with alcohol, it has to be abused repeatedly before someone usually ends up being a child neglecter and drunk driver.
On the other hand, ingesting even a small amount of a hullucinogen, on time, can cause someone to be a direct danger to everyone else they come in contact with. Like I said, there IS NO responsible use of those types of drugs.
Sullum, of course, had the advantage of being able to hand-pick his sample of "responsible drug users," whereas the rest of us don't....
I'm making the case for Liberty and Constitutional Government. I'm very sorry that you can't see that.
Or did you think I'm a drinker and you could pretend I'm a hypocrite?
You know I would never do such a thing. We've almost always had a very civil relationship you and I. Almost always.
Sorry. I never drink anything but Cream Soda, never have, and I somehow escaped the drug trap that got lots of my friends and family.
A good Cream Soda is a thing of beauty. You're quite fortunate in not having much experience with the negative effects of drugs and alcohol. I have a feeling your share ended up in mine.
It makes me sad that people who claim to be conservatives twist their logic to rationalize drug use as "personal responsibility"
But it is and it's most certainly not the province of the Feds to tell us what adults can and can not put into our bodies. There's not one word of that mentioned in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution granting the Feds such authority.
None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
What pains me is seeing otherwise sensible Conservative people contort their own logic to grant the Feds a power which plainly doesn't exist. If you want to grant that power to the Feds, there's a mechanism for that. It's called the Amendment Process.
I'd disagree with doing it, but at least that would be Constitutional.
No, it’s called a lie and you got busted.
Hyperbole would be that you tell a million lies. Or is that even an exaggeration, let alone hyperbole?
Wait...wait...drug warriors have a million justifications for subjecting OTHER individuals to supreme state power.
Yes, that is better.
“it can be credibly argued that alcohol use and abuse has the greatest detrimental impact upon society, if only through its prevalence.”
No, it can be credibly argued that alcohol ABUSE alone (drunkenness) has the greatest detrimental impact upon society. Moderate alcohol use, without drunkenness, is no problem. Caffeine use is actually a boon to society; and tobacco use truly harms only the user, if that. Second hand smoke arguments are a crock.
As for arguments against pot being government sponsored BS, I am not leaning on any government sponsored BS. I am relying on my own personal experience and observations.
My list of side affects is not all-inclusive, i.e., not every drug does every side effect to its nth degree every time. Indeed then they would be fatal ON CONTACT.
Instead, they destroy by degrees, harming the user as well as innocent people in their wake - unless the user stops before serious damage(s) are done. And so they are touted as somehow “harmless,” just because we all don’t instantly drop dead at the moment of first use.
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.