Posted on 12/06/2002 9:04:26 AM PST by Pliney the younger
The "will of the people" vs. government by fiat? Sure, I believe in the people.
I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
- William F. Buckley, Jr.
You may not agree, but I have a theory. The reason marijuana (or, really, any currently illegal drug) remains a federal issue is that people would vote to keep it illegal in their State anyway, so why bother changing things. This theory seems to be supported by the results of the latest round of marijuana initiatives.
That said, I do favor the States deciding the drug issue, but only after dismantling the Nanny State. I'm sure you've read the Ann Coulter article where she writes:
"It's not as if we live in the perfect Libertarian state of nature, with the tiny exception of those pesky drug laws. We live in a Nanny State that takes care of us from cradle to grave and steals half our income."
She advocates: "eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax."
I agree totally.
But don't you need more and more heroin the longer you are addicted for it to be a viable "fix." Will this just make their cravings even more intense?
That isn't the thread that I detected, but I'll take your word for it. Sometimes we see what we suspect, and I have already shown that I am as capable as the next guy of making that mistake.
When someone mentions majority will more than once, I bristle to think that anyone could think that anything like a pure democracy is a good thing. It is one of the most dangerous concepts ever advanced.
She advocates: "eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax."
I agree with MOST of those things, they are a good start.
As to the idea that laws which violate human rights are Ok if they are enacted on the local level, I find that abhorrent.
It would help if I didn't have to constantly guess at what you're trying to say. As another example:
"laws which violate human rights"
Not a clue as to what you are referring. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Or the right to enjoy the services of a prostitute? How can I possibly respond to your statement?
As to "pure democracy". You do not agree with the concepts of "propositions", "referendums", and "ballot initiatives"? It seems to me that, on a small enough scale, democracy works pretty well.
Open you eyes, ears and brain. The evidence is overwhelming. So much so that it is a waste of time to reiterate it here as it would just start an argument over the credibility of the evidence, etc. by those that refuse to admit drugs are harmful.
I'm sorry that you don't know what human rights are, but most people don't have to guess. They start with rights ENUMERATED (but not granted) in the Declaration of Independence and the bill of rights found in the Constitution. They are given by the creator, not the government and certainly not some goofy orgsanisation such as the United Nations.
How can I possibly respond to your statement?
It is difficult if you don't grasp the fundamentals of rights.
As to "pure democracy". You do not agree with the concepts of "propositions", "referendums", and "ballot initiatives"? It seems to me that, on a small enough scale, democracy works pretty well.
It may seem that way to you, but that doesn't make it so. Do I really have to go through the old tired list of things that can/have/will happen when the majority rules? Slavery is a start. Defend that popular inititive and we can move on if you want.
Are we going to go through every situation possible to see if you can understand them one by one?
Anything which doesn't violate the rights of another is included in those rights. Get that concept?
Provide evidence for your claim.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Liar.
Here's a free clue: there's a world of difference between questioning whether "Drugs distort and destroy the brain at a faster rate than alcohol" and denying that drugs are harmful. I have often stated that drugs---including the deadly addictive drugs alcohol and tobacco---are harmful. But the harm that adults do to themselves is none of your business or government's.
Gawd, those bastards hate the free market!
If you're gonna legalize it, legalize it. The price will come down. Anybody will be able to afford it. Crime associated with the artificially inflated price of narcotics will disappear. And the drug imbeciles will kill themselves off. Who cares?
Just don't ask the taxpayer to pay for someone else's drug habit (or their medical care once they begin their inevitable medical slide downhill).
Just my opinion.
I think that drugs have destroyed your ability to think.
You're mistaken---I use no drugs, including the deadly addictive drugs alcohol and tobacco.
I think that anti-drug mania has destroyed your ability to engage in honest debate. If, as you claim, the evidence is overwhelming that drugs distort and destroy the brain at a faster rate than alcohol, then it should be very easy for you to provide some of that evidence. If you don't, the likeliest explanation is that there is no such evidence.
Right. With free drugs they will rob to get food money. Or rent money. Because it is unlikely that a heroin addict will be able to hold a job. So lets give them free food and free housing. Then they won't rob anyone.
Wheeee! Isn't socialism fun?
Non sequitur. Because food is legal, one can afford it via panhandling, can collecting, odd jobs, day labor, etc.
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.