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

Skip to comments.

Three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstasy smuggle
Reuters ^

Posted on 10/09/2002 4:34:44 PM PDT by RCW2001

NEW YORK, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Three Israeli nationals were arrested and accused of trying to smuggle $42 million worth of hallucinogenic Ecstasy pills to the United States from Belgium, the largest such drug seizure ever in Europe, U.S. authorities said on Wednesday.

The three men tried to smuggle 1.4 million pills inside diamond polishing tables bound for New York by ship from Antwerp, according to a statement from the office of Roslynn Mauskopf, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Tipped off by witnesses who saw two of the men stuffing the pills into three tables inside an Antwerp warehouse in August, authorities allowed the tables to be delivered -- without the pills -- to New York where they were put under surveillance.

The three men were arrested on Tuesday as they were retrieving the tables and trying to deliver the drugs to a buyer, the statement said.

The case marks the largest Ecstasy seizure in Europe and the third largest such seizure in the United States, with a wholesale value of about $14 million and a retail value of about $42 million, officials said.

Arrested were Nachshow Sinvanni, who allegedly wanted to buy 900,000 of the pills for distribution; and Ofir Lebar and Ofir Weizman, who were spotted packing the tables with drugs in Belgium, officials said. All three men live in Israel, authorities said.

They each were charged with conspiring to import MDMA, the technical name for Ecstasy and, if convicted, face a possible prison sentence of 20 years and a $1 million fine. ((New York newsdesk, 646 223 6280))


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: israel; jews; wodlist; zionism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last

1 posted on 10/09/2002 4:34:44 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
Just last month there was a bust in Houston of an international Ecstasy ring that involved Israelis and drug manufacture in the Netherlands.

This trio were idiots for making such a large move with the increased heat.

One of the brothers in the Houston ring is still at large (reportedly last seen in Spain trying to expand markert share).

2 posted on 10/09/2002 4:43:19 PM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: RCW2001
Stop persecuting these people! They've suffered enough!

They were going to use the proceeds of these illegal drug sales to open a Holocaust Museum in Antarctica.

4 posted on 10/09/2002 5:08:30 PM PDT by BushMeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD


5 posted on 10/09/2002 5:16:10 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Of cource, RCW2001 is the first to the punch to find something negative about the Jooos or Israel. Never a paricipant in his own threads: just anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli propaganda.

RCW2001: did you somehow miss the announcement of the Nobel Committee? They have awarded Nobel for economics to Dan Kahnemann, the first Israeli to have won the prize.

Why have you not posted that?

I know not why such use of FR for propaganda is condoned --- as I mentioned, RCW2001 does not participate in his own threads, he merely selects anything that negatively reflects on anyone or anything Jewish or Israeli.

I guess, JIm Robinson finds this to be in line with the stated guidelines. So, go ahead, RCW2001, fire aray: heep digging up dirt.

6 posted on 10/09/2002 6:33:22 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Democracy1154
Is your's a serious comment? Why in the hell would anyone want to legalize a dangerous substance like MDMA,which is clearly a hard drug with many negative impacts on society.It has been linked to major depression,and is merely a mutated speed product that causes harm to our young people.Just like the speed cooks,I hope they catch as many of these crooks as possible,this might be one good thing the DEA does.Not a safe drug,MDMA is a scourge that needs to be eliminated.
7 posted on 10/09/2002 6:41:23 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark; RCW2001
I know not why such use of FR for propaganda is condoned

Neither do I. But looking at this thing, the names sound more Arabic/Belgian thaan actually Jewish :).

And of course we know that our little fifth-columnist friend is currently hanging out at LibertyForum, where he takes talking points from the Grand Kludge Voegelin/LarryLied, who is on some of the most insane and frothing rants I have ever seen outside of the National Alliance site. They're probably exchanging bomb belts and mononucleosis right now ;).

8 posted on 10/09/2002 6:56:16 PM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister; TopQuark
They were going to use the proceeds of these illegal drug sales to open a Holocaust Museum in Antarctica.

Actually, nothing in this article says they were Jews, just that they were Israelis. Lots of different kinds of people there and at least 2 of the names don't even sound Jewish. If they are though, it only proves that SOME Jews are the same as y'all.
But, we are going to have to start a donation drive going to build something Jewish for sure. It would necessarily have to be an addition to the trophy room where the Nobel Laureates are honored. We are rapidly filling up the last one already. We won't have room for next year's.
Of course you guys wouldn't have that problem at all, now would you?

9 posted on 10/09/2002 7:04:12 PM PDT by Nix 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Clearly RCW2001 has an "agenda", but I see no reason why his posts shouldn't be allowed on FR. It's not like he's posting stuff from neo-Nazi rags -- this is a Reuters wire service article. We read lots of good stuff about Jews and Israelis here; why should the negative news be censored?
10 posted on 10/09/2002 7:18:22 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: Rocksalt
You must have missed last weekend's thread about the joys of Ecstacy. Some on FR think that it's no more harmful than baby asprin.
12 posted on 10/09/2002 9:11:12 PM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RCW2001
good post.
13 posted on 10/09/2002 9:15:30 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Democracy1154
And so you endorse an illicit hard drug because doctors prescribe drugs that have side effects.MDMA is something that is unregulated in it's manafacture,and is of unknown purity.I saw a episode of "NOVA' on TV once that detailed how a dozen people had gone into a permanent catatonic state as a result of a bad batch of MDMA. It has been proven to cause major longterm depression among the many teens who use it. Do we need additional causes of depression in society at this point?Just the conditions of this current society can cause this condition,you don't even need the good doctor's drugs.I cannot condone or justify the use of hard drugs,maybe you can.
14 posted on 10/09/2002 9:19:29 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hillary's Lovely Legs
I view it as no better than LSD,which has been known to seriously disorient people with repeated usage. In the case of MDMA,how else could we end up with a whole culture of kids running around with pacifiers hanging out of their mouths,listening to mind-numbing fractal beats at high volume.I'd say this substance is disorienting,and anyone who says it's safe is probobly dope freak themselves.The people who make and distribute this stuff prey on our young minds and I have no sympathy for them at all.
15 posted on 10/09/2002 9:28:07 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BushMeister
Stop persecuting these people! They've suffered enough! So, if there are three thugs amongh the Jews, it is not true that, as a people, the Jews suffered immensely throughout European history?

How liberating for your conscience: since not all Jews are saints, that absolves you from the sins of your forefathres.

Guess what? That is exactly why Europe is rabidly anti-Israeli now: the imperfections of Israeli politics cleanse the European conscience from their own dictatorships, from the mass expulsions, foreced conversion, and mass murder of the Jews.

And you, so-called conservative with conscience, are in bed with the bigots, my friend.

16 posted on 10/10/2002 6:09:38 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, GovernmentShrinker. However, you have misunderstood me, as many others in the past when I spoke of this. We all are so tired of censorship, that we might be all too quick to see it everywhere.

I was not trying to sensor a topic, a post, or words. Not only this is not my personal forum, I do believe that words should be countered with words.

If you reread my post, you will find that I was speaking of something else. This is a discussion forum, and articles --- from whatever sources -- are posted for discussion. IF you observe for a while, you will find that RCW2001 does not participate in ANY of the anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish threads he starts. This is not an agenda: agenda is a something that one DESIREs, or plans for, to occur. This is BEHAVIOR. And this behavior, in my opinion, is use of FR for personal purposes, contrary to those stated by Robinson.

Your remark amounts to "we can learn something form everyone." Fine, let's learn. Let RCW2001 tell us what he/she thinks. That is what I am talking about.

Instead, she/he shoots for something else. A small contingent on FR that sees the Joooos as the culprit of all evil in America and the world comes to these posts like bees to honey. They will elevate whatever truth about an individual Jew to all Jews: for millennia that was the favorite twist of anti-Semites. "See, I am a good person, I am. I am not against people in general, but, as you can see, them Jooos really deserve punishment." So, if you find one Jewish criminal --- they are all criminal. If one rabbi said something extreme- ---- that's what all Jews and Judaism are all about.

Just look at the post of BushMeister above: not that we caught three Israeli thugs, we should not feel bad about the suffering of the Jewish people as recently and terribly as in the Holocaust. Then, of course, FReepers with conscience, whether Jews or Gentiles, point out that criticism of individual Jews is just that --- criticism, but elevating it to the evil of the entire race is anti-Semitism. This is a discussion of what, exactly? What do we leant from this? That Holocaust, which is denied openly by posters like LarryLied, actually happened.

Most of these threads deteriorate in this manner. And, where is RCW2001 amidst all of this? Nowhere to be found. Never a participant in his own threads.

In sum, GovernmentShrinker, I am not against a topic of discussion. I am against RCW2001 using people's conscience to promote a fight and to promote anti-Semitism. This is against the stated by Jim Robinson policy, but those that violate it seem to be condoned. He is the boss; let him decide. All I did was to attract your attention. It is for you to decide whether this behavior and, essentially, manipulation of you and me by RCW2001, is OK with you.

17 posted on 10/10/2002 6:41:19 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt; *Wod_list
MDMA is something that is unregulated in it's manafacture,and is of unknown purity.

That's an argument IN FAVOR of legalizing it. When alcohol was illegal, it was unregulated in its manafacture and was of unknown purity.

18 posted on 10/10/2002 8:11:44 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark; RCW2001; GovernmentShrinker
And, where is RCW2001 amidst all of this? Nowhere to be found

You must forgive his absence. He's part-time occupied with posting antisemitic drivel on MuslimAccess and rants against FR on that Palestinian Authority rag, you know :)).

19 posted on 10/10/2002 8:43:27 AM PDT by Cachelot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
I've never quite understood the aversion to ecstasy. Reading through its effects, both short and long-term, it sounds like a more fun version of hard liquor.

Can you tell which drug I'm talking about here?:

Consumption makes the user more outgoing and friendly, more likely to engage in sexual behavior. Continued use leads to disorientation and dehydration. The next morning the user often feels terrible and sick. Long-term overuse leads to liver and brain damage.
20 posted on 10/10/2002 9:20:36 AM PDT by spodbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
I agree that it's poor form to start a thread and then not stick around at all to participate. But I've seen plenty of it on FR, and as long as it's going to be allowed for one agenda or poster, it's only fair to allow it across the board. There was a poster (may even still be around -- his name has slipped my mind) who for several months kept posting links (no full article) to his own articles on some third rate Web news/opinion rag -- he'd post the first couple of sentences and then a link, and never participated in the threads. It was pretty clear that he was just trying to generate hits to his website.
21 posted on 10/10/2002 1:33:25 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Well I am totally in favor of legalizing pot,which I don't smoke,for exactly the reasons you claim MDMA should be legal for.But I dont feel MDMA should be legal or condoned in any way due to it's extremly dangerous nature.It's a hard drug,not suitable for recreational use.The same goes for Meth.They are poisons.
22 posted on 10/10/2002 6:01:12 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: spodbox
Did you see the "NOVA" segment that detailed a dozen people ending up in a catatonic state from a bad batch of MDMA? These folks could not even blink an eyelid.The batch was traced to the inventor of MDMA,a bathtub chemist from Berkley I belive.MDMA is a hard drug,which first appeared in powdered form,much like Meth.The chemical structure is basically a mutated Meth.Then it showed up as tablets,for easier marketing and appeal for the masses,many people think it's not dangerous because it is in pill form.I have heard that once it enters the body,it stays permanently in the spinal cord.The people who are making and marketing this stuff are preying on our youth,they are an evil breed of criminals who disrequard human life and futures.They are no different than the Speed cooks who cause trouble in our society.MDMA is not a safe drug,and the more of our young people that know that,the better.
23 posted on 10/10/2002 6:12:04 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
I dont feel MDMA should be legal or condoned in any way due to it's extremly dangerous nature.

Please cite the text in the Constitution that empowers the federal government to prevent adults from doing "dangerous" things. Thanks.

24 posted on 10/11/2002 6:09:47 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
Did you see the "NOVA" segment that detailed a dozen people ending up in a catatonic state from a bad batch of MDMA?

When the drug alcohol was illegal, there were dangerous bad batches of that drug. Legalization solved that problem for alcohol and can solve it for MDMA.

I have heard that once it enters the body,it stays permanently in the spinal cord.

Sounds like urban legend to me.

25 posted on 10/11/2002 6:12:25 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
I know not why such use of FR for propaganda is condoned -

You call facts propaganda ?.. I find your reaction so typical. How about for once, address the issue, attack the message, but stop attacking the messenger !

26 posted on 10/11/2002 6:16:10 AM PDT by DreamWeaver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
It is an urban legend. Originally, it was for LSD, but that has been disproven. So now it's been revived fro MDMA.

Rocksalt: I suggest you go read a few books that aren't published by the government.
27 posted on 10/11/2002 9:52:58 AM PDT by spodbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Are you saying this substance is not dangerous and should be legal and more widely available? I think it is a clear danger.
28 posted on 10/11/2002 5:49:59 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
I'm not saying there is anything in the constitution that empowers the goverment to protect us from dangerous things.I am saying this substance is harmful to our youth,it is a hard drug and that there are laws against making and selling it which might actually make sense.There is no medical usage for this stuff and I think there are good reasons for keeping it illegal.
29 posted on 10/11/2002 5:54:28 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
Are you saying this substance is not dangerous

Of course not. Many things are dangerous but legal---alcoihol, tobacco, gasoline, ....

and should be legal

Yes.

and more widely available?

Market demand would determine that.

30 posted on 10/14/2002 6:39:15 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
I'm not saying there is anything in the constitution that empowers the goverment to protect us from dangerous things.

Good, because there isn't.

I am saying this substance is harmful to our youth,it is a hard drug and that there are laws against making and selling it which might actually make sense.

So you're happy with violating the Constitution? I hope you have the decency to not call yourself a conservative.

31 posted on 10/14/2002 6:41:09 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"I'm not saying there is anything in the constitution that empowers the goverment to protect us from dangerous things.

Good, because there isn't.

"I am saying this substance is harmful to our youth,it is a hard drug and that there are laws against making and selling it which might actually make sense."

"So you're happy with violating the Constitution? I hope you have the decency to not call yourself a conservative."

Where is it in the constitution that there are to be no laws protecting the citizens from reasonable harm?I'm all for reasonable freedoms,but your comments make me think you would favor a lawless society,at least where dangerous drugs are concerned.I'm assuming you would be in favor of legalizing all drugs,requardless of how dangerous they are?
32 posted on 10/14/2002 2:59:12 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Market demand would determine that"

At what expense? Would millions of the healthy minds and bodies of our youth be too much of a price to pay for your tastes? Would this be too high a price to pay for your vision of "freedom"?
33 posted on 10/14/2002 3:02:40 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
Where is it in the constitution that there are to be no laws protecting the citizens from reasonable harm?

As the Tenth Amendment makes quite clear, this is the wrong question. The correct question is: Where is it in the Constitution that Congress is authorized to pass laws protecting the citizens from reasonable harm?

34 posted on 10/15/2002 6:20:40 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
At what expense? Would millions of the healthy minds and bodies of our youth be too much of a price to pay for your tastes? Would this be too high a price to pay for your vision of "freedom"?

Alcohol and tobacco are by far the greatest scourges of American youth and adults. When you can answer your own questions as they apply to alcohol and tobacco, you'll understand my position (or you'll have come out for banning alcohol and tobacco).

35 posted on 10/15/2002 6:23:30 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Alcohol and tobacco are by far the greatest scourges of American youth and adults. When you can answer your own questions as they apply to alcohol and tobacco, you'll understand my position (or you'll have come out for banning alcohol and tobacco"

As I stated before,I am not in favor of alcohol and tobbacco prohibition. One reason is these are the choice of your average working man,which MDMA,heroin,etc. are not. Alcohol and Tobbacco are not even in the same league as hard drugs such as MDMA. I'm not for making anything illegal,I think citizens should have as many freedoms as possible,but I think the only positive aspect to legalizing all drugs would be elimination of the black markets for these substances.There's no easy solution to the drug problem,there is no black and white absolutes on this issue.
36 posted on 10/15/2002 7:19:43 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
I am not in favor of alcohol and tobbacco prohibition. One reason is these are the choice of your average working man,which MDMA,heroin,etc. are not.

Why is popularity a justification for legalization of deadly addictive drugs?

Alcohol and Tobbacco are not even in the same league as hard drugs such as MDMA.

Nonsense. Alcohol is highly addictive, and tobacco is #1---more addictive than heroin or cocaine. And alcohol can kill you in a single evening of use.

the only positive aspect to legalizing all drugs would be elimination of the black markets for these substances.

"Only"? That's a HUGE benefit. Think of what the black market involves: innocents killed in drug-turf wars; user deaths due to contaminants and unexpectedly high purities; inflated prices that motivate crimes by users (whereas winos can get their next fix by collecting cans or panhandling); enriched criminals; and corruption of the justice system by criminals' riches.

There's no easy solution to the drug problem

The only problem not solved by legalization is the self-destruction of some users---but there is NO governmentally imposeable solution to that problem.

37 posted on 10/16/2002 12:07:31 PM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Nonsense. Alcohol is highly addictive, and tobacco is #1---more addictive than heroin or cocaine. And alcohol can kill you in a single evening of use."

Compare these substances with marijuana.You cannot OD on pot,it is easily grown by anyone,almost anywhere.

Drugs like MDMA require laboratorys to make them.Legalizing these drugs would require either the goverment or drug companys to manafacture them.Thus you would have goverment control,or control by drug corporations.Pot,on the other hand is hard for the goverment to control,because it is so easy to grow.so you tell me,how can drugs that require difficult processes to make ever be free of goverment control,FDA control etc.? Good luck getting through this hoop,and talking about private companys being in control of these substances won't help,as some form of regulation will still be required. I'm listening and willing to consider something that might work.I'm also interested to hear how the UK's legalized heroin and cocaine programs have reduced addictions.My understanding is their program is geared towards maintaining people already addicted,not enabling just anyone to walk in and have access.Cheers.

38 posted on 10/16/2002 6:49:04 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
Drugs like MDMA require laboratorys to make them. Legalizing these drugs would require either the goverment or drug companys to manafacture them. [...] how can drugs that require difficult processes to make ever be free of goverment control,FDA control etc.? [...] some form of regulation will still be required.

Hard liquor (which I've never heard of anyone making at home) is legal and made by the private sector but regulated; I advocate the same approach for other manufactured drugs.

39 posted on 10/17/2002 6:20:34 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Hard liquor (which I've never heard of anyone making at home) is legal and made by the private sector but regulated; I advocate the same approach for other manufactured drugs."

Never been to Tennessee I suppose.Good White Lightning down in those parts.Not too difficult to make.

Well,guess what-I agree with your position that there would be positive aspects to legalizing all drugs.The black marketeers would lose their hold on the illicit drug market,that would be one benefit.But I would not agree with legalizing hard drugs to the point that it made access to them easy and readily availible to everyone.Giving addicts,who are already addicted cheap drugs(this is what the UK did some time ago) does make sense,it prevents them from having to break into my house and steal my computer to maintain their habit.This has happened to me before,I awoke at 8:30 on a saturday morning to find a junkie across the room from me and my wife in our bedroom.With an 8 inch Bowie knife down his pants,which the police discovered when they busted him down the street.Believe me,I am well aware of the need to stop the crime associated with narcotics.But I cannot see any wisdom in making drugs available to anyone who wants to shoot up.It is obvious there is a huge desire for illicit drugs here in the US. Some sort of handle needs to be kept on the problem. A "free for all", with narcotics being sold in state run stores would be a death sentence for millions of irresponsible americans. There's no shortage of idiots out there,I'm sure you would agree with that.Sure you could say they are responsible for their own actions,but reality is they are not.
40 posted on 10/17/2002 6:15:51 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
We read lots of good stuff about Jews and Israelis here; why should the negative news be censored?

Since this poster never explains his posts, but continually posts negative stories about Jews, I believe that we are entitled to draw our own conclusion. If there is some reason for posting this article except to insinuate "Jews = Criminals," some point he is trying to make about an issue, the poster ought to have told us what it is. Since he hasn't, he has only himself to blame if he is viewed by civilized people as an antisemitic crackpot.

I don't make any assumptions about your own views, since I don't remember encountering you on FR before, but the phrasing of your remark (copied in above) is a little troublesome to me. This article is not "negative news" about Jews. It is negative news about Nachshow Sinvanni, Ofir Lebar, and Ofir Weizman, who are, as it happens, Jews. For this to be negative news about Jews, there would have to be some link between the criminal behavior of these men and the fact that they are Jews.

That is, I fear, what the poster is trying to insinuate, but I hope you will not, in the immortal words of Dan Ackroyd in Dragnet, let him drag you down into his private hell.

41 posted on 10/17/2002 6:41:29 PM PDT by Southern Federalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Southern Federalist
See my post #21.
42 posted on 10/17/2002 8:04:42 PM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Southern Federalist
That way to funny!!! LOL...
43 posted on 10/17/2002 8:18:09 PM PDT by RCW2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
A "free for all", with narcotics being sold in state run stores would be a death sentence for millions of irresponsible americans. There's no shortage of idiots out there

I know of no evidence that millions of people want to use heroin or crack; can you provide any such evidence?

And how is it moral or just to impose all the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility?

44 posted on 10/18/2002 8:13:41 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
There are millions of hard drug users in the US right now.If these substances were legal and readily available,even more would be using them.But I agree the war on drugs is not fair to responsible citizens.I favor legal access for those already addicted.Widespread availability would be a nightmare.Maybe cancel the WOD and legalize drugs for those aldeady addicted.
45 posted on 10/18/2002 3:26:38 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
If these substances were legal and readily available, even more would be using them.

Not necessarily; the fact that alcohol use rose during the last several years of Prohibition shows that there is no ironclad correlation between legal status and level of use. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

But I agree the war on drugs is not fair to responsible citizens. I favor legal access for those already addicted.

Legal access for those already addicted does not address my question: "how is it moral or just to impose all the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility?" That would still place the remaining costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility.

46 posted on 10/21/2002 8:08:51 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Not necessarily; the fact that alcohol use rose during the last several years of Prohibition shows that there is no ironclad correlation between legal status and level of use. Do you have evidence to support your claim?"

No,admittedly that was just speculation,but obviously lots of people want drugs,and I feel use would likely skyrocket if they were more readily available.

"Legal access for those already addicted does not address my question: "how is it moral or just to impose all the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility?" That would still place the remaining costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs on responsible citizens in order to protect irresponsible ones from their own irresponsibility."

I can't dispute what you are saying there,It would ideally be best if we did'nt have to protect people from their own stupidity/weaknesses.But is this reality-I don't think so.there is no shortage of idiots/weakness out there and I feel some people DO need to be protected from themselves.Either that or we can adopt a don't care attitude and let people drop like flys.That would do something for the population problem,but would show we really don't care about people.You are right though,there are some really good points for legalization,but I feel there are bad arguments for it too.It would be increased freedoms for some,but others would suffer negative impacts.


47 posted on 10/22/2002 6:50:41 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
alcohol use rose during the last several years of Prohibition

obviously lots of people want drugs

They're already getting them despite the War On Some Drugs.

and I feel use would likely skyrocket if they were more readily available.

So the rest of us should bear the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs because of your fact-free "feeling"? Sounds like liberal emotionalism-as-policy to me.

I feel some people DO need to be protected from themselves.Either that or we can adopt a don't care attitude and let people drop like flys.That [...] would show we really don't care about people.

Sounds like liberal Nanny State-ism to me.

48 posted on 10/23/2002 2:29:45 PM PDT by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"They're already getting them despite the War On Some Drugs."

Your wish for more libertys and personal responsibilitys is commendable.It's just I feel your solutions are not realistic.Addiction to narcotics is much more rapid and compulsion to use sets in alot quicker than alcohol.You can't refute that point ace.

"So the rest of us should bear the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the War On Some Drugs because of your fact-free "feeling"? Sounds like liberal emotionalism-as-policy to me."

No,this is common sense.Look at it this way-you make an effort to keep the deadly poisons in your kitchen such as pipe cleaner out of the reach of small children.They don't have the ability to discern what they are,and need to be protected from them.But you would make no effort to keep deadly poisons out of reach of people who cannot discern what is good for them.I'm all for personal freedoms,but the fact is,with dangerous drugs,many others besides just the user are impacted.Over dose is much easier than with alcohol-no comparison.The WOD is costly no doubt.But would the costs of taking care of people addicted to narcotics be good either.You can't say don't care for them,let them die,because alot of decent people get hung up on drugs and do recover.

"I feel some people DO need to be protected from themselves.Either that or we can adopt a don't care attitude and let people drop like flys.That [...] would show we really don't care about people."

"Sounds like liberal Nanny State-ism to me."

Maybe my attitude on this issue does reek of liberal state-ism,but I am not defending the WOD,just giving my own spin on what the realitys of this situation are. As I said before,I am all for personal libertys and as little goverment control as is reasonable.I repeat reasonable. But some laws are necessary in order to have a civilized society.And some laws exist for the common good.Storm troopers busting into peoples houses in search of drugs is abhorable,this is true.Taxpayer money being wasted on the WOD is something I do not like to see.The real solution longterm would be for people to stop using drugs and there would be no market for them.This will never happen,granted,but I do not feel making them more available is a solution.
I have a friend,a fellow I worked with who is currently doing 7 years in a state pen as a result of drug addiction.He is an extremely bright young man,who was the head teller at the bank.He handed the money out at the beginning of the day,and counted it at the end.He also worked at a computer store where he was the top salesman.Drugs took over his life and he lost control quickly.He made his choices,true,but all this really impacted his family and friends.Drug users cause alot of chaos in everyones lives.The reality is drugs are poisons and they cannot be used safely.I'm all for people who are already addicted having access to them instead of having to commit crimes to get them.But no civilized country I'm aware of has legal narcotics available for anyone who desires them.There is a reason for that.







49 posted on 10/23/2002 6:06:32 PM PDT by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-155 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