Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prohibition
Townhall.com ^ | February 29, 2012 | John Stossel

Posted on 02/29/2012 1:43:05 AM PST by Kaslin

Unlike Bill Clinton, President Obama admits he inhaled!. "Frequently," he said. "That was the point."

People laugh when politicians talk about their drug use. The audience laughed during a 2003 CNN Democratic presidential primary debate when John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean admitted smoking weed.

Yet those same politicians oversee a cruel system that now stages SWAT raids on people's homes more than 100 times a day. People die in these raids -- some weren't even the intended targets of the police.

Neill Franklin once led such raids. The 33-year Maryland police veteran, now executive director of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, locked up hundreds of people for drugs and felt good about it.

"We really thought that these drugs made people evil," he told me.

But 10 years ago Franklin decided that drugs -- even hard drugs -- do much less harm to Americans than does the drug war.

"Drugs can be -- and are in many cases -- problematic. But the policies that we have in place to prohibit their use are 10 times more problematic."

The raids helped change his mind. "We end up with kids being shot ... search warrants being served on the wrong home, innocent people on the other side of the door thinking that they are protecting their home."

And the level of drug use remains about the same.

Still, most Americans support the drug war. Paul Chabot, White House drug adviser to Presidents George W. Bush and Clinton, told me: "We should be kicking down more doors. ... They're kicking the door of somebody who's a violent person."

Violent? People who get high are rarely violent. The violence occurs because when something's illegal, it is sold only on the black market. And that causes crime. Drug dealers can't just call the cops if someone tries to steal their supply. So they form gangs and arm themselves to the teeth.

"We have the violence of these gangs competing for market share, and people get hurt," said Franklin.

Especially kids. Drug gangs constantly look for new recruits.

"Some of these gangs have better recruitment programs than Fortune 500 companies. They know what to say to kids."

People think that if drugs were legal, there would be more recruiting of kids. Franklin says the opposite is true.

"Prohibition causes that. We don't have kids on the corner (saying), 'Pssst, I got a fifth of Jack Daniel's.'"

Kids rarely peddle liquor, and there's little violence around liquor sales because alcohol is legal. There was lots of violence before 1933, but that was because Prohibition forbade liquor sales. Prohibition gave us Al Capone.

"Organized crime existed well before Prohibition," Chabot replied.

That's true. But much less of it. The murder rate rose when alcohol was banned. It dropped when Prohibition was repealed.

"If we were to do away with our drug laws ... we know drug usage numbers will skyrocket," Chabot said.

But we don't know that.

It's logical to assume that, were it not for drug prohibition, drug abuse would be rampant. But 10 years ago, Portugal decriminalized every drug -- crack, heroin, you name it. The number of abusers actually declined.

Joao Goulao, Portugal's top drug official, said that before decriminalization "we had a huge problem with drug use ... around 100,000 people hooked on heroin."

Then they started treating drug use more like a parking ticket. People caught with drugs get a slap on the wrist, sometimes a fine.

Independent studies have found the number of people in Portugal who say they regularly do drugs stayed about the same. And the best news, said Goulao: "Addiction itself decreased a lot."

At first, police were skeptical of the law, but Joao Figueira, chief inspector of Lisbon's drug unit, told me that decriminalization changed lots of minds.

"The level of conflicts on the street are reduced. Drug-related robberies are reduced. And now the police are not the enemies of the consumers!"

And teen drug use is down.

All good news. But in American and in most of the world, the drug war continues, thousands are murdered and in ghettos the police are enemies of the people.

Governments should wake up and learn something from the Portuguese.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: drugs; drugwar; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 02/29/2012 1:43:07 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Zactly.


2 posted on 02/29/2012 1:47:24 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

He also smoked crack and gave a guy a blowjob in the back of a limo but no one cares about that.


3 posted on 02/29/2012 1:53:24 AM PST by abercrombie_guy_38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Isn’t it odd that pre-employment drug testing excludes certain legally prescribed drugs or “medications” and that if for example marijuana was legal, a person who tests positive would probably either lose or never get that job?

I’m not talking about the kinds of jobs where operating heavy machinery, handling hazardous materials or driving company vehicles are primary requirements.

There are so many stoners out there who don’t use illegal drugs or have drinking problems and yet they have high paying jobs in so-called “drug-free” workplaces.

I’d rather share an office cubicle with someone who smokes a little weed now and then than somebody who’s on major anti-depressants and/or pain medication(s).


4 posted on 02/29/2012 2:24:05 AM PST by equaviator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abercrombie_guy_38

I am guessing that was probably Obama’s average weekend night.


5 posted on 02/29/2012 2:25:53 AM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Drugs will never be legal in this country. Cops love the power Prohibition gives them. Not to mention the private prisons making a killing incarcerating people and using them for nearly slave labor.
The Feds will never give up the power. It’s that simple.
You can argue until you are blue in the face. They don’t care about anything except for their own wallets. Doesn’t matter how many lives get ruined because of a plant.


6 posted on 02/29/2012 2:55:40 AM PST by christx30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christx30

Yup..... As with back in the 1920s, prohibition has become very profitable for certain folks, both inside and outside of government(at the expenses paid in lives/livelihoods of others). Sadly, it looks like things are going to have to get FAR worse before they get better. What never stops amazing me is how our country/society simply refuses to learn from historical mistakes of the past.


7 posted on 02/29/2012 3:01:45 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: christx30

Not to metion how handy it is to have occupation armies in ghetto’s.


8 posted on 02/29/2012 3:24:23 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (Typed using <FONT STYLE=SARCASM> unless otherwise noted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: equaviator

Amen a thousand times over. I’ve spoken out against the WOD and the unintended consequences for years, but the tide against doing something besides what we now do, seems overwhelmingly fixed.

Frankly, the years before the government placed itself on the pinnacle of the drug trade were no worse than what we have at present, IMHO. The WOD gives police forces ammo to increase their numbers beyond reasonable, and the same goes for the size of government.

If one of the principles of conservatism, is smaller government, then one needs to shrink the reach, and focus of government. I don’t see the role of government shrinking any time soon.

I suppose to close, I might mention how good the propaganda wing of government is when it has proven next to impossible even to have medical use of MJ approved. I would be the first to agree that is a thinly veiled attempt to legalize recreational use, however, put a sunset clause on the bill and call it a test, and it probably still would go down to defeat.

Look at the medical issues surrounding “spice”, and tell me the legal (so far) pot substitute is less harmful than the real thing? The real difference, one is legal and can cause highly dangerous and sometimes deadly reactions, and the other is illegal and doesn’t.

There is much misinformation on what would or would not happen if government got out of the drug business, much of it hearsay and based on nothing more than opinion. We all have one on the subject. I would like to see something besides a war and it’s consequences.


9 posted on 02/29/2012 3:48:46 AM PST by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

drugs were legal at the turn of the century... the country was not filled with zombie like creatures wandering aimlessly in the streets... here is my main beef.. I am allergic to aspirin and aspirin products. I have psoriatic arthritis.. the only relief I can get is through narcotics, which I refuse to take. But, If I am having a real bad day, do you think a doctor will prescribe them to me? And risk getting investigated by the feds?

The war on drugs is stupid. Period.


10 posted on 02/29/2012 4:25:55 AM PST by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The drug war is necessary for the maintenance of the police state. It fulfils it’s purpose perfectly.


11 posted on 02/29/2012 7:47:17 AM PST by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Joao Goulao, Portugal's top drug official, said that before decriminalization "we had a huge problem with drug use ... around 100,000 people hooked on heroin."

Then they started treating drug use more like a parking ticket. People caught with drugs get a slap on the wrist, sometimes a fine.

Independent studies have found the number of people in Portugal who say they regularly do drugs stayed about the same. And the best news, said Goulao: "Addiction itself decreased a lot."

Facts are stubborn things. I'll have to keep this in mind next time some Chicken Little proclaims that legalization would make drug use skyrocket.

12 posted on 02/29/2012 2:01:12 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
ping
13 posted on 02/29/2012 2:02:45 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Written by a scumbag who reports against the horrors of government waste, yet who took a couple hundred grand of taxpayer money when his vacation house at the shore got damaged in a storm.

Typical self-centered, liberaltarian hypocrite whose motto is, “What’s good for me is good for me even if it harms others. To hell with everyone else.”


14 posted on 02/29/2012 6:33:38 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Written by a scumbag who reports against the horrors of government waste, yet who took a couple hundred grand of taxpayer money when his vacation house at the shore got damaged in a storm.

And that makes what he reports about Portugal false?

Typical self-centered, liberaltarian hypocrite whose motto is, “What’s good for me is good for me even if it harms others. To hell with everyone else.”

Decriminalization in Portugal helped many and harmed none.

15 posted on 03/01/2012 12:00:44 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Again, you pick and choose what you look at to determine what “helps” and what “harms.”

Sad, really, you’re inability to see past your own flesh.


16 posted on 03/01/2012 7:56:33 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Again, you pick and choose what you look at to determine what “helps” and what “harms.”

Sad, really, your inability to see past your own flesh.


17 posted on 03/01/2012 7:56:50 PM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Decriminalization in Portugal helped many and harmed none.

Again, you pick and choose what you look at to determine what “helps” and what “harms.”

Support your claim: state who was harmed by decriminalization in Portugal.

Sad, really, your inability to see past your own flesh.

Obviously false as my own flesh isn't in Portugal.

18 posted on 03/02/2012 7:55:20 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Support your own claim.

Open your eyes and stop lying to yourself and you’ll see the damage that drugs have done to America since they were popularized by your buddies the 1960’s radical leftists.

Drugs are ruining our young. Yet you pretend that it is the illegality of those drugs and not drug-usage itself that is the cause of the problem.

You are liar, and a liberal, and a troll and you belong at the DemocRAT Underground, not on a conservative forum.

Go away, liberal troll.


19 posted on 03/03/2012 9:05:38 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Decriminalization in Portugal helped many and harmed none.

Again, you pick and choose what you look at to determine what “helps” and what “harms.”

Support your claim: state who was harmed by decriminalization in Portugal.

Support your own claim.

What claim do you imagine me to have made?

Open your eyes and stop lying to yourself and you’ll see the damage that drugs have done to America

I've never denied the damage done by drug use - nor by alcohol use. The point is that banning alcohol or other drugs has not been shown to decrease that damage, but clearly does damage of its own.

since they were popularized by your buddies the 1960’s radical leftists.

They're not my buddies and won't become so no matter how often you repeat it.

Drugs are ruining our young. Yet you pretend that it is the illegality of those drugs and not drug-usage itself that is the cause of the problem.

Wrong. Both are problems - but the problems of illegality are accompanied by no demonstrable reduction in the problems of use.

20 posted on 03/05/2012 9:17:16 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

So where is that list of benefits to both society and the individual since your buddies the 1960’s radical leftists popularized the recreational use of drugs?

Where is that list of benefits?

You keep flapping your gums, but all you keep saying is:

“I want to do drugs legally and to hell with all the damage it causes to others.”

You are a typical, leftist, self-centered liberaltarian.

You are a troll.

Go back to leftist cesspool that is the DU where you and your liberal ideology can bathe in indolent, drugged fantasies about the utopia of Amsterdam, where the streets are littered with burned-out druggies like NYC is covered with with food wrappers.


21 posted on 03/06/2012 5:40:17 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Do you see how silly is the basic point in this last post of yours?

Recreational drug problems cause problems.
The increased use of recreational drugs since the 1960’s has increased those problems.
Keeping drugs illegal has not eliminated those problems.
Therefore, make them legal (and far more prevalent) and the problems may go away.

How could someone be so foolish as to truly believe that string of illogic?

Here is the logical conclusion to your argument:
Therefore, if you make the recreational use of drugs even more prevalent, those problems will continue to increase and they will increase not at the same rate but exponentially as those people who will not try drugs because they are illegal will try drugs and a percentage of them will be harmed by that usage.

That is how logic works.

But not in the liberal mind that has only its own selfish interests at heart.


22 posted on 03/06/2012 5:44:04 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe

Your points are valid. Because of the nature of man there will be no utopia (perfect solution) in this world.

Sometimes though, I just want to get the “test” over and see how low we can go............................

On the other hand I really don’t want to experience what it is like when God stops restraining evil.


23 posted on 03/06/2012 5:52:07 AM PST by PeterPrinciple (Lord, save me from some conservatives, they don't understand history any better than liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
So where is that list of benefits to both society and the individual since your buddies the 1960’s radical leftists popularized the recreational use of drugs?

Where is that list of benefits?

Where is the post where I claimed any such benefits? The article supports my statement that decriminalization in Portugal had benefits.

24 posted on 03/06/2012 10:48:16 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
banning alcohol or other drugs has not been shown to decrease that damage, but clearly does damage of its own.

Keeping drugs illegal has not eliminated those problems.
Therefore, make them legal (and far more prevalent) and the problems may go away.

That's not my argument. Re-read what I wrote (above, in bold).

25 posted on 03/06/2012 10:51:23 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PeterPrinciple

I’m pretty sure Obammie the Commie will win re-election.

If he does, we will see in the next four years just how far and fast a once great nation can sink into the sewer.

You’ll have your answer then.

Have a bug-out plan.


26 posted on 03/08/2012 5:50:41 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

You claimed that the harm done to society is because of the illegality of the drugs and that if recreational drug usage were simply made legal, society would benefit.

Amsterdam is a hellhole. For thousands of individuals and for its society at large. No benefit there.


27 posted on 03/08/2012 5:53:02 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

So you’ve acknowledged that since the recreational use of drugs made popular and socially acceptable by your ideological forebears (the 1960’s radically self-centered) the result has been overall damage to those individuals unfortunate enough to have been ruined by drugs (Google “meth addiction”) and to society on the whole.

Yet you want to legalize drugs and thereby guarantee that recreational drug usage will become more prevalent, which will result in even greater harm to individuals and society (which impacts those individuals who do not use drugs).

You also stated that there should be no restrictions on which drugs are illegal and when I quoted Ron Paul who made the same statement, you implicitly agreed.

So what other human behaviors should not be restricted?

Should the state sanction euthanasia for any reason whatsoever?

And, if so, why not have state-sanctioned Russian Roulette so that those people who decide to off themselves can do so in a manner that enables state-sanctioned gambling?

It would be like the new televised poker games that you, just with people who were going to commit suicide or euthanasia blowing their brains out.

“That’s absurd!”

Yes, it is. I am using the absurd to point out the absurd. And my argument to you is the same argument I use for those who support same-sex marriage.

Those who support same-sex marriage say that restricting marriage to those of opposite sexes is unfair and that people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. They also argue that it is a form of discrimination and therefore a violation of the US Constitution. I argue that it is not a violation of the USC but that it is the will of the people carried out through legislation. I further argue that, if it were, then it would be unconstitutional to legislate against any marriage. Brothers could marry brothers. Sisters could marry sisters. Fathers could marry sons, and mothers could marry daughters. And, of course, why not polygamy?

I ask if they support all of this and they say no of course not, only homosexual couples. That is where they lose the argument, because they contradict themselves. They do not oppose setting the rules. They only oppose those rules when others set them and they don’t like them. They believe in restrictions of some sort, even they won’t acknowledge it.

You and the rest of the liberaltarians (not libertairans, liberaltarians) also defeat your own argument for the same reason.

I have posited many scenarios of “what else should not be restricted” and you gave no logical legitimate response, because you know, if you have any conservatism in you whatsoever, that you do not agree with completely unrestricted behavior. What this means is that you acknowledge and believe you benefit from traditional Judeo-Christian morality and justice in many aspects of your life, and that you do not want those abandoned because you know the societal fallout from completely lifting all morality and green-flagging unfettered individual behavior would reduce America to a hellhole. If you dislike nannies, then I’d have to assume that you also understand that if America reached such a state of degradation and decay, you are fully aware that the iron fist of the state would smash down hard on individual liberty to ‘fix’ that societal problem and our liberties would be gone forever. This, as I stated earlier, is why constitutional American patriots who support the Founding Fathers believe in the need for voluntary restraint of individual behavior so that liberty will not become license, which is a license inevitably revoked by the State.

You know that you do not want brothels and crack houses operating legally next door do you. You do not want people coming in to your office on meth and heroin. You do not want pornography and sex toys on every channel and on the checkout stand at every store where you and your family will not be able to avoid it. I find it hard that you want to walk with your family past drug addicts slouched against the walls of 1 out of 2 blocks that you walk by or that you want children in school to have even easier access to those drugs that will destroy them and break the hearts of their families. You do believe in restrictions, just your own set of restrictions that will enable you to indulge in a behavior that you want to without fear of prosecution. And then you admit that lifting the selective set of restrictions that you oppose will harm individuals and society, yet you still say they should be lifted.

As I said at the beginning, this liberaltarian argument is nothing more than the self-indulgence the 1960’s radicals imposed upon us for their own decadent pleasure, at the expense of our national culture. Most probably were not aware that that breakdown of our culture was planned and implemented by communists and socialists with the express goal of destroying our nation and creating a vacuum of morality, history, ideology, and prosperity...a vacuum that they planned to fill with the Iron Fist of the State.


28 posted on 03/08/2012 6:13:23 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
You claimed that the harm done to society is because of the illegality of the drugs

But not the ONLY harm - me, post #20: "I've never denied the damage done by drug use - nor by alcohol use. The point is that banning alcohol or other drugs has not been shown to decrease that damage, but clearly does damage of its own."

and that if recreational drug usage were simply made legal, society would benefit.

The experience of Portugal with decriminalization (as discussed in the article) supports that statement.

Amsterdam is a hellhole. For thousands of individuals and for its society at large.

Baloney.

"In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[25][26] The monthly prevalence of drugs other than cannabis among young people (15-24) was 4% in 2004, that was above the average (3%) of 15 compared countries in EU. However, seemingly few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.30%), well below the average (0.52%) of the same compared countries.[26]

"The reported number of deaths linked to the use of drugs in the Netherlands, as a proportion of the entire population, is together with Poland, France, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic the lowest of the EU.[27]"

25. "EMCDDA Annual Report 2009, ch 3 page 43". Emcdda.europa.eu. 2008-06-24. Retrieved 2011-04-20.
26. "Microsoft Word - Swedish drug control FINAL_14feb_merged.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2011-04-20.
27. "EMCDDA: Mortality due to drug-related deaths in European countries". Emcdda.europa.eu. 2007-11-08. Retrieved 2011-04-20.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands#Results_of_the_drug_policy

29 posted on 03/08/2012 7:50:51 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
overall damage to those individuals unfortunate enough to have been ruined by drugs (Google “meth addiction”) and to society on the whole.

People damage themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods - should we ban those too? Or should we remain a nation founded on liberty? I choose liberty.

Yet you want to legalize drugs and thereby guarantee that recreational drug usage will become more prevalent, which will result in even greater harm to individuals

That doesn't necessarily follow from increased use. For example, legalization will remove the incentives for users to use in ways that make abuse and addiction likelier - like getting as high as possible when one gets high (as drinkers did during Prohibition) and spending lots of time planning one's next high.

and society (which impacts those individuals who do not use drugs).

Society is impacted when people damage themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods - should we ban those too? Or should we remain a nation founded on liberty? I choose liberty.

You also stated that there should be no restrictions on which drugs are illegal and when I quoted Ron Paul who made the same statement, you implicitly agreed.

Paul and I each wear pants, too - what of it?

So what other human behaviors should not be restricted?

Should the state sanction euthanasia for any reason whatsoever?

And, if so, why not have state-sanctioned Russian Roulette so that those people who decide to off themselves can do so in a manner that enables state-sanctioned gambling?

It would be like the new televised poker games that you, just with people who were going to commit suicide or euthanasia blowing their brains out.

“That’s absurd!”

Yes, it is. I am using the absurd to point out the absurd.

One can oppose intentional suicide as legal entertainment (as I do) without thereby agreeing to all government action against any degree of self-harm. See above on people damaging themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods.

I have posited many scenarios of “what else should not be restricted” and you gave no logical legitimate response,

Bullsh!t.

because you know, if you have any conservatism in you whatsoever, that you do not agree with completely unrestricted behavior.

Of course not - that's your straw man. I support resricting rights-violating behavior (where rights means real individual rights, not fictitious "rights" like the liberals' "right" to health care or the statists' "right" to live in a drug-free society - which drug criminalization hasn't and can't achieve anyway).

This, as I stated earlier, is why constitutional American patriots who support the Founding Fathers believe in the need for voluntary restraint of individual behavior

And as I've stated several times with no response from you, there's nothing voluntary about banning things.

so that liberty will not become license, which is a license inevitably revoked by the State.

You know that you do not want brothels and crack houses operating legally next door do you.

As I've said, I support zoning regulations.

You do not want people coming in to your office on meth and heroin.

Nor drunk; I support employers' right to test for any drug.

You do not want pornography and sex toys on every channel

There will always be a market demand for porn-free channels - and TVs will always have off buttons.

and on the checkout stand at every store where you and your family will not be able to avoid it. I find it hard that you want to walk with your family past drug addicts slouched against the walls of 1 out of 2 blocks that you walk by

Baseless hysteria - we don't encounter alcohol addicts anywhere near that often.

or that you want children in school to have even easier access to those drugs that will destroy them and break the hearts of their families.

Since kids report that they can now get marijuana more easily than cigarettes or beer, it follows that the best way to restict their access to drugs is to make them legal for adults only (thus giving those who sell to adults a disincentive to sell to kids - namely, the loss of their legal adult market).

You do believe in restrictions, just your own set of restrictions that will enable you to indulge in a behavior that you want to without fear of prosecution. And then you admit that lifting the selective set of restrictions that you oppose will harm individuals and society, yet you still say they should be lifted.

People damage themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and fatty foods - should we ban those too? Or should we remain a nation founded on liberty? I choose liberty.

As I said at the beginning, this liberaltarian argument is nothing more than the self-indulgence the 1960’s radicals imposed upon us for their own decadent pleasure, at the expense of our national culture. Most probably were not aware that that breakdown of our culture was planned and implemented by communists and socialists with the express goal of destroying our nation and creating a vacuum of morality, history, ideology, and prosperity...a vacuum that they planned to fill with the Iron Fist of the State.

Legal alcohol has done us less harm than Prohibition, and legal drugs will do us less harm than the War On Drugs.

30 posted on 03/08/2012 8:23:51 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Go and move to Amsterdam, if you really believe it is such a paradise.

Anyone who has been comments on what a cesspool it is.

Yet you and the rest of the liberaltarians want to turn American into Americadam.

Leave and take your self-indulgent decadence with you.

The rest of us are trying to save a country that is falling into ruin thanks to the destruction of your buddies the 1960’s radicals who were radically self-centered.


31 posted on 03/10/2012 9:53:36 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

I’m going to copy-and-paste and reply to your comments just so that you can see how annoying and stupid it is.

But this:
“Baseless hysteria”

is too priceless.

That is exactly what your leftist buddies, the 1960’s radicals kept saying about those of us who warned against the evils of communism and socialism.

So far, you are in great company, with all those leftists and collectivists who tear down America by destroying our culture. And when decadence and ruined lives is the result, THEY (as you will be) are the ones calling for greater governmental control.

Again, you’d be more at home at the DemocRAT Underground, troll. Why not leave FR and go home?

I’ll post detailed replies to your inane commentary later.


32 posted on 03/10/2012 10:00:04 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“I choose liberty.”

...he said, pounding his chest, waving the flag, and looking skyward.

Now that is just hilarious.

Drug addiction is not liberty, it is slavery. And it is the worst type of slavery because it owns you for the rest of your life.

And you and your self-indulgent cronies want to cast that broad net of slavery over thousands upon thousands or people (as any realistically thinking Patriot knows would be the result) and thump your chest trying to convince everyone that this type of addiction, this type of self-indulgent behavior that would require yet another iron-fisted bureaucracy is somehow supporting of “liberty.”

Put the crack pipe down and go back to DU, troll.


33 posted on 03/10/2012 10:11:41 AM PST by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Go and move to Amsterdam, if you really believe it is such a paradise.

Anyone who has been comments on what a cesspool it is.

You think you've met everyone who's been to Amsterdam?

34 posted on 03/12/2012 11:36:25 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
I find it hard that you want to walk with your family past drug addicts slouched against the walls of 1 out of 2 blocks that you walk by

Baseless hysteria - we don't encounter alcohol addicts anywhere near that often.

But this:
“Baseless hysteria”

is too priceless.

That is exactly what your leftist buddies, the 1960’s radicals kept saying about those of us who warned against the evils of communism and socialism.

I gave a reason why your scenario is baseless hysteria - a reason I'm not surprised you're evading.

I’ll post detailed replies to your inane commentary later.

I look forward to it - but I won't hold my breath.

35 posted on 03/12/2012 11:41:40 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Drug addiction

Not everyone who uses a drug becomes addicted to it.

is not liberty, it is slavery. And it is the worst type of slavery because it owns you for the rest of your life.

Wrong as usual - 12-step meetings all across the country are full of people who have gotten the better of their addictions and quit.

What do you propose to do about the people enslaved by alcohol addictions? Do you support banning that addictive drug?

36 posted on 03/12/2012 11:45:16 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Wow. Talk about a brilliant non sequitur.


37 posted on 03/12/2012 7:10:09 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Funny how you ask for specifics then go floating off into generalizations.

“Baseless hysteria.”

No, it isn’t.

Is what has happened to our teenagers through promiscuity (encouraged by your buddies the 1960’s radicals) with higher STDs, higher pregnancy, higher abortion, higher suicide, baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.

Is higher drug addiction in any area that enables recreational drug usage baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.

Is the destruction to individual lives and to the lives of families that results when someone becomes addicted to drugs baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.

You are completely incapable of extrapolation and logical extension. You need to put the joint down. The weed is rotting your brain.


38 posted on 03/12/2012 7:13:50 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

People who go through 12-step programs (I’m sure you know many of them) will be the first to tell you after they have gotten off drugs that they are addicted for life. Just one usage will set the off and it is that first usage after recovery that they fear most, because they know it is the recommencing of their addiction.

The fact that you believe people who were addicted and got control of their drug/alcohol usage through a 12-step program are free of addiction and that their lives return to what they were before they began using drugs and alcohol should be all the evidence that anyone on this board needs that you have no idea what you’re talking about and that your only concern is being able to go to the liquor store and purchase weed, cocaine, LSD, crank, heroin, or meth to your heart’s content. And that if 20% of the population experiments with these easily accessible drug and only 5% of them become addicted, well that’s too bad. To hell with them and to hell with the taxpayers that have to pay for their treatment and unemployment because, damn it all, you want to get stoned.


39 posted on 03/12/2012 7:17:56 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
You are liar, and a liberal, and a troll and you belong at the DemocRAT Underground, not on a conservative forum.

Go away, liberal troll.



Spoken like a true leftist who can't defend his position in a debate. Thou dost project too much.
40 posted on 03/12/2012 7:28:57 PM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Amsterdam’s Coffeeshops
By Rick Steves

While Amsterdam has long been famous for its nicotine-stained “brown cafés,” these days “coffeeshop” refers to a place where the Dutch gather to buy and smoke marijuana. While hard drugs are strictly illegal and there seems to be no interest in making them legal, marijuana is sold openly in coffeeshops throughout the Netherlands.

Wandering around Amsterdam, every few blocks you pass a window full of plants and displaying a red, yellow, and green Rastafarian flag — both indications that that coffee shop doesn’t sell much coffee. I ducked into the Grey Area Coffeeshop near Anne Frank’s House.

A round table at the front window was filled with a United Nations of tourists sharing travelers’ tales stirred by swizzlesticks of smoke. The table was a clutter of tea cups, maps, and guidebooks. From the looks of the ashtray, they’d been there a while.

Taking a seat at the bar next to a leathery forty-something biker and a Gen-X kid with two holes in his body for each one in mine; I felt more like a tourist than I had all day. The bartender, sporting a shaved head and a one-inch goatee, greeted me in English and passed me the menu.

I pointed to a clipped-on scrap of paper. “What’s ‘Aanbieding: Swarte Marok?’”

“Today’s special is Black Moroccan,” he said.

Swarte Marok, Blond Marok, White Widow, Northern Light, Stonehedge, Grasstasy... so many choices, and that’s just the wiet (marijuana). Hashish selections filled the bottom of the menu.

Above me dangled a tiny Starship Enterprise from a garland of spiky leaves. And behind the bartender stood a row of much-used and apparently never-cleaned bongs reminding me of the hubbly-bubblies that litter Egyptian teahouses. With a flick of my finger, I set the Enterprise rocking. The bartender said, “Access to the stars. That’s us.”

When I marveled how open-minded the Dutch are the bartender explained, “We’re not open-minded, just tolerant. There’s a difference. Wiet is not legal ... only tolerated.”

I asked, “Does this toleration cause a problem?”

Handing a two-foot-tall bong and a tiny baggie of leaves to a woman with a huge dog tied to the bike rack outside, he said, “My grandmother has a pipe rack. It has a sign: `A satisfied smoker creates no problems.’”

“That was tobacco, wasn’t it?”

“Yes, it’s from the 1860s. But this still applies today.”

I asked the guy with all the holes why he smokes here.

Speaking through the silver stud in his tongue, he said, “Some young people hang out at coffeeshops because their parents don’t want them smoking pot at home. I smoke with my parents but come here for the coffee shop ambiance.”

The older guy in leather laughed. “Yeah, ambiance with a shaved head,” he said, as the bartender handed him his baggie-to-go.

Alone with the younger guy, I asked about the sign with a delivery boy on it.

“In Holland we have pot delivery services,” he explained, “like you have pizza delivery in America. Older people take out or have it delivered.”

A middle-aged woman hurried in and said, “Yellow Cab, please.”

She presented the bartender with a small, stickered card. “Buy twelve, get one free,” he explained to me, and handed her a baggie saying, “I cut you a fat bag.”

With a “Dank U wel, Peter,” she tossed it into her shopping tote and hurried out.

“This coffeeshop would never be possible in the United States,” I said.

A coffeeshop owner and a customer are happy to demonstrate their paraphernelia. Marijuana is not legal in Amsterdam — only tolerated.
“I know,” Peter, the bartender, agreed. He showed me snapshots of Woody Harrelson and Willy Nelson, each in this obscure little coffee shop, and continued. “America’s two most famous pot smokers told me all about America.”

The kid chimed in. “Hollanders — even those who don’t smoke — they believe soft drugs... you know, pot, hash... it shouldn’t be a crime.”

“What do your parents think?” I asked.

“They think the youth have a problem. My dad says, `Holland will get the bill later on.’”

“And other countries... doesn’t legal pot in Holland cause them a problem?” I asked.

“Actually, it’s not legal here,” he reminded me, “just tolerated. Officially, we can’t legalize anything because of all these world treaties.”

“The French complain about Holland’s popularity with drug users, but they have a worse problem with illegal drugs,” Peter added. “Here, the police know just what’s going on and where.”

“But what about hard drugs?”

“These are the problem. Europe comes to Holland for more than the pot. Most Dutch agree that these hard drugs should be illegal. We Dutch — I think because pot is tolerated — handle our drugs better than the kids who travel here to get high. But, like everywhere, we have a hard drug problem.”

Peter points to a chart on the wall that shows how to avoid bad XTC pills. “The police give us this chart. My English friends cannot believe they help in this way. They call our Politie the `polite-ies.’

“You don’t see the Dutch dying from heroin overdoses,” Peter continued. “But every time I read the newspaper it seems another German is found dead on the floor of a cheap Amsterdam hotel room.

“But pot,” he said, fingering a perfectly rolled joint, “this is not a problem.”

“American prisons are filled with pot offenders,” I said.

“Take your choice,” he said. “Allow for alternative ways of living or build more prisons. Here in Holland, pot is like cigarettes. We smoke it. We pay taxes. We don’t go to jail.”

For up-to-date specifics, see the latest edition of the Rick Steves’ Amsterdam, Bruges & Belgium guidebook. We also offer free-spirited tours of the Low Countries.

Source: ricksteves.com


41 posted on 03/12/2012 8:01:44 PM PDT by AnTiw1 (...after two decades in a mormon hell, i will not live in a country with a mormon president...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
Go and move to Amsterdam, if you really believe it is such a paradise.

Anyone who has been comments on what a cesspool it is.

You think you've met everyone who's been to Amsterdam?

Wow. Talk about a brilliant non sequitur.

The people I'm addressing follow it just fine. You may too, if you ponder the meaning of your word "anyone."

42 posted on 03/13/2012 9:58:33 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
I find it hard that you want to walk with your family past drug addicts slouched against the walls of 1 out of 2 blocks that you walk by

Baseless hysteria - we don't encounter alcohol addicts anywhere near that often.

“Baseless hysteria.”

No, it isn’t.

Is what has happened to our teenagers through promiscuity (encouraged by your buddies the 1960’s radicals) with higher STDs, higher pregnancy, higher abortion, higher suicide, baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.

Is higher drug addiction in any area that enables recreational drug usage baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.

Is the destruction to individual lives and to the lives of families that results when someone becomes addicted to drugs baseless hysteria? No. It’s fact.

What does any of that have to do with the prevalence of drug addicts slouched against the walls?

And how does drug addiction "enable" recreational drug usage?

43 posted on 03/13/2012 10:03:55 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
And it is the worst type of slavery because it owns you for the rest of your life.

Wrong as usual - 12-step meetings all across the country are full of people who have gotten the better of their addictions and quit.

People who go through 12-step programs (I’m sure you know many of them) will be the first to tell you after they have gotten off drugs that they are addicted for life. Just one usage will set the off and it is that first usage after recovery that they fear most, because they know it is the recommencing of their addiction.

What you say is neither contradictory to their "having gotten the better of their addictions" nor supportive of your claim that they are "owned for the rest of their lives."

The fact that you believe people who were addicted and got control of their drug/alcohol usage through a 12-step program are free of addiction and that their lives return to what they were before they began using drugs and alcohol

I never said either of those things - I correctly said they "have gotten the better of their addictions and quit," that is, they are no longer using and have a plan to remain nonusing so are not "owned."

What do you propose to do about the people enslaved by alcohol addictions? Do you support banning that addictive drug?

No response?

44 posted on 03/13/2012 10:09:41 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

What do you propose to do about the people enslaved by alcohol addictions? Do you support banning that addictive drug?

No response?

Here’s my response, DH.

Are you familiar with the Russian cross? Why don’t you go and Google it?

Wait, I’ll save you the trouble, here’s a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Cross

That wiki page explains very well what happens when a group of self-indulgent adolescents such as yourself give in to substance abuse of any kind.

Quite simply, Russia is dying, and excessive alcohol consumption is a large part of the reason.

And you want to replace alcohol with meth and crack and cocaine and heroin and LSD.

You are a pathetic, 1960’s-style radically self-indulgent troll. You need to move out of your mommy’s basement, stop smoking weed, and grow up. And you need to go back to DU, where you belong, troll.


45 posted on 03/15/2012 5:54:38 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rottndog

Have you read the thread?

I’ve have posited a logical argument and he bombards me with emails and absurd threads that have no history or fact behind them, just his desire to legalize substances that have a history of destroying lives and families and societies.

And I’m the leftist? Read my posts going back for years. I’m as hardcore to the right as you can get.

I suppose in your world that being a patriotic American means handing the culture over to anarchists, perverts, drug-users, and flag-burners, because that’s freedom. And then, when the country falls completely to hell and the iron fist of the state takes over, you look around stunned asking what happened. Brilliant strategy you’re backing there. Look around at any hardcore socialist/communist state and you’ll find the culture of each and everyone of those nations was first destroyed, creating a cultural vacuum that enabled the leftists to move in and take over.

Maybe you ought to put the crack pipe down yourself.


46 posted on 03/15/2012 5:58:58 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Go and Google “non sequitur” and you’ll find that you were being fallacious.

I have never met anyone who went to Amsterdam and came back and said, “America should do exactly what Amsterdam has done because that place is so much better than America” or anything even remotely similar to that.

I have met I think two people who liked Amsterdam. They were both in their early 20’s, very much burn-outs, with no jobs, were not looking for jobs, and spent a lot of time playing video games. Of course, what they are saying is that they like cesspools.

There is the crowd you are addressing.


47 posted on 03/15/2012 6:04:16 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

“What does any of that have to do with the prevalence of drug addicts slouched against the walls?

And how does drug addiction “enable” recreational drug usage?”

Are you kidding me?

Do you really have so much difficulty with basic reading comprehension? How could you so completely switch my premise and conclusion? Were you joking?

Legalizing drugs increases the prevalence of drugs.
Legalizing drugs culturally condones recreational drug usage.
The increased prevalence and cultural condoning of recreational drug usage increases recreational drug usage in a society.
Increased recreational drug usage in a society increases the percentage of citizens who become addicted to drugs.

If you have trouble following that logic, which is the logic I’ve been using to lead you out of your darkness, then there’s no way you can intelligently engage in this conversation. If you are a drug user, you are defeating your own argument that legalizing drugs is no big deal.


48 posted on 03/15/2012 6:08:40 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Prepare for survival. (Ron Paul is the Lyndon Larouche of the 21st century.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
What do you propose to do about the people enslaved by alcohol addictions? Do you support banning that addictive drug?

Quite simply, Russia is dying, and excessive alcohol consumption is a large part of the reason.

That doesn't answer the question: Do you support banning the addictive drug alcohol? (Free clue: it's a yes or no question.)

49 posted on 03/16/2012 10:13:48 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rottndog; Ghost of Philip Marlowe
he bombards me with emails

For the record, Ghost first FReepmailed me - and is now apparently miffed that I won't let him have both the first and the last word in that exchange.

50 posted on 03/16/2012 10:16:31 AM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson