Posted on 09/25/2002 11:22:22 AM PDT by Edward Watson
Thought I'd share my work in progress on this issue. I must thank all who've helped me make my arguments better and hope others will also find flaws in the article. It appears the footnotes are chopped off when I post on this forum and the table are wrecked. Oh well, hopefully, everyone gets the gist.
Well done! I couldn't agree with you more.
You've done a terrific job, and here it is for free!
Now, are you sure we couldn't squeeze in just a little free beer?
Just kidding - keep it up!
For Mr. Watson to be consistent, yes, free beer would have to be provided to alcoholics. And free cigarettes to smokers.
"My fellow Americans, make no mistake about it. If I'm elected you will have free porterhouse steaks for life. I guaran-dam-tee it."
At first you will have to cook them yourself. And later, legislation will be needed to provide people with cooks since not everyone the ability, or the proper kitchen to cook the steaks properly.
But what to do with all the excess prison space and LEO's?
The end of the alcohol war brought us the BATF and NFA 34. What will the end of the Drug War bring?
Free-Drug programs are socialistic when conducted by the government. This is un-ehtical and immoral.
End the Drug War, but let the druggies get thier own damn drugs. I don't like the idea of my money financing liberal schools and Christian faith-based organisations. I sure as hell am not going to allow my tax money to buy some hop-head his next fix. Nor do I want to pay for anyone's stupidity for making piss-poor personal decisions. Let them "Darwin" themselves out of the gene pool.
Why is it anytime someone is given something for free, some people object citing it is socialism? There’s nothing wrong with assisting those who fall between the cracks of capitalism. Some people are incapable of competing in the marketplace. Some people cause more harm than good when placed in a capitalistic arena. Some people are mentally incapable of supporting themselves. What then must be done to them?
I find it obscene some people would rather have addicts prostituting themselves or victimizing others for drug money than part with $15 cents a day or $54 a year to help drug addicts.
At any rate, thank you for your objection, I've included it in the article.
5. Why not free beer?
The difference between booze and drugs is the fact we don’t have a widespread illegal trade in alcoholic beverages that is fueling crime (unlike during the Prohibition).
My primary interest is crime reduction. For this, we must target the source of this crime. Cost reduction to government agencies is only secondary. If the current drug cartels switched to alcoholic beverages, they will have to compete against established producers - odds are they won't be able to compete - hence no need for free booze (sorry guys).
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.