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

Skip to comments.

Prosecutors are urged to fight against legalizing drugs like marijuana
Standard Democrat(Mississippi) | 12/29/02 | Scott Welton

Posted on 01/02/2003 5:17:17 AM PST by Sparta

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-297 last
To: biblewonk
"The feds hold money over states heads and seem to get all the states to jump through any hoops they want. These hoops are drivin by money interests obviously. Insurance companies hate paying for any accidents and are constantly lobbying for safety laws."

Sure this is what happens...but is it Right?! As for the insurance companies, why should they be required to pay damages when some drunk wraps his car around a tree?! If somebody's STOOOOPID enuff to drive drunk and gets in a wreck, he oughtta lose the protection he contracted for from the Insurance Company...whatever happened to Personal Responsibility?!

FReegards...MUD

BTW... ".08 is considered drunk regarding driving. It is only practicality that keeps them from arresting everyone as they walk out of bars."

Then the laws should be off the books, IMHO. If the cops have the ability to close down a particular restaurant by Arbitrarily Applying Justice outside that particular restaurant and not another down the road, then we've given too much Arbitrary Power to the Police.

281 posted on 01/03/2003 10:44:25 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
We don't live in a vacume and we violate each others rights constantly.

How does Joe's drug use violate anyone's rights?

282 posted on 01/03/2003 10:44:48 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
"Getting stoned or drunk is not done in a vacuum."

Then the stoney/drunk should be made to suffer the consequences resulting from those he/she impacts, not the Federal Leviathan. If you go to work drunk or stoned and can't perform yer job, it's the employer's responsibility to fire the bum or get him help if the employee's worth the trouble. Same way with the stoney/drunk's family, who should hold he/she accountable.

How the Federal Leviathan has insinuated itself into this equation is what I'm against...MUD

283 posted on 01/03/2003 10:49:11 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: budwiesest
Whazzup, dude?!
284 posted on 01/03/2003 10:50:24 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"please cite the number of a post that is reasonable."

IMHO, #222, #237, #249, and #278 are reasonable and open-minded, even if I don't agree with everything that is being said.

"All I see is more wiggling than a bait bucket."

That's to be expected...the WOSD is indefensible when looked at rationally, IMHO and yers. However, BW has mostly kept the debate civil and that is something that we don't always get the benefit of.

FReegards...MUD

285 posted on 01/03/2003 10:57:59 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
Sure this is what happens...but is it Right?! As for the insurance companies, why should they be required to pay damages when some drunk wraps his car around a tree?! If somebody's STOOOOPID enuff to drive drunk and gets in a wreck, he oughtta lose the protection he contracted for from the Insurance Company...whatever happened to Personal Responsibility?!

That's true of a lot of things. Why should my insurance company have to pay for all the sodomites aids medication. Why should medicare pay for a fake leg for my smoking diabetes ignoring motherinlaw. But we know better. You can't drive without insurance and if you get drunk and kill a bus load of kids your insurance pays. You also do the time. The insurance companies are only looking at the statistics and charts and trying to max profits. Same as everybody. And they do that be buying more and more laws. I did a lot of consideration of this when I had to pay 28 bucks for not wearing a seatbelt. THen there is the state that pays what the insurance companies which is another layer of the same thing.

286 posted on 01/03/2003 10:58:06 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
LOL...what, you holdin'?!

FReegards...MUD

287 posted on 01/03/2003 10:58:43 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
#222, #237

OK. (But what do you think of "We are not really that without liberty, and maybe the very slight risk makes it a little more fun"?)

288 posted on 01/03/2003 11:03:15 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Come on...is this the best you and I can argue about?! I told you I didn't agree with everything that was said, only that the argument was "reasonable" in its presentation, as compared to callin' you or I "paranoid." I have no doubt we can find something more substantive to disagree on if you'd like...LOL!!

SHEEESH and FReegards...MUD

289 posted on 01/03/2003 11:23:43 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
"I had to pay 28 bucks for not wearing a seatbelt."

Don't even get me started on that particular BigBrotherism...MUD

290 posted on 01/03/2003 11:26:58 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
Come on...is this the best you and I can argue about?!

Which part of "OK" did you not understand? ;-)

291 posted on 01/03/2003 11:31:30 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
LOL...MUD
292 posted on 01/03/2003 11:41:47 AM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
There are certain people that are targeted but when I go to a concert and smell all the weed, I know that the cops know it's there. What should I deduce?

I think you and I might deduce similar things, which is why I posed the question---more of a rhetorical one.

293 posted on 01/03/2003 11:50:24 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
Actually the seatbelt thing is a good micro example of the weed bigbrotherism if you think about it. It all boils down to "Who's gonna pay for the mistakes". Insurance companies and states and federal governments is the answer. It is both capitalism and socialism with the same result. Insurance is capitalism lobbying for laws and SS and T19 are socialism who also have purse strings to try to keep closed. I'm not saying I'm thrilled, I'm just analyzing reality.
294 posted on 01/03/2003 11:55:56 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
"Who's gonna pay for the mistakes". Insurance companies and states and federal governments is the answer."

That's what we need to focus on changing, IMHO. In exchange for the SocialSecurity of an ever-expanding Federal Leviathan taking financial responsibility for our personal mistakes, we are apparently willing to forfeit our civil liberties to far too much of a degree than I am comfortable with. I'm almost 40 years old and have never been in an auto accident that was my fault, yet I choose to pay for auto insurance to protect my earnings from the other nutjobs on the road out there. I also tend to wear my seatbelt, despite the fact that it has never saved my life, but I reject the notion that I can be ticketed if I happen to slip it off fer a few minutes to grab my wallet or whatnot. That is my choice...how come I can't have the flexibility of making other choices in which I accept the responsibility for my own actions?

I believe Social Security is another thing that I should have the Right to Opt Out of...maybe I believe I can make the 15+% FICA tax go further towards my retirement than the Federales can...why can't I choose to do so instead of the Feds mandating that I use their retirement system? Same things with drugs, IMHO...pot may not work well for me, but I shouldn't be willing to give the FederalLeviathan the Power to imprison me if I get a wild hair some evening and smoke some weed that happens to be growing in my backyard!! And if I am allowed the freedom to smoke this weed, how can I--in good conscience--deny this FReedom to some 21-year-old dude who lives in the projects?

IMHO, the WarOnSomeDrugs is entirely indefensible and I respect yer ability as a debater to keep trying to do the impossible without resorting to the name-calling that usually results from these debates.

FReegards...MUD

295 posted on 01/03/2003 12:45:51 PM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Hemingway's Ghost
"Poltroons!!"
(To be sung to the Beatles' "Hey Jude")

It's true!! The Left's been had...
Took a bad man and made him Prez'dent.
You Lib'rals, you let Slick into yer heart...
Now we must start to make it better!!
Poltroons, don't be afraid...
Righteous shall just go out and GIT HIM!!
The minute we accept Bill's corruption,
Then Slick will win...we'll 've sanctified SIN!!

Yeah, Willie says, "I feel yer pain."
Poltroons, be sane!! Don't tell me The World Will End Without him!
And don't you know y'all look like FOOLS, you shameless TOOLS,
Repeatin' lyin' words...yer part in Slick's Spin!!
Dah dah dah dah dah dah dah dah dah...

Hey News, you let US down...
Bill's a Felon...let's go and GIT HIM!!
Leftist Medyuh, you shouldda known from the start...
Still, there's time to report, unless yer all blinded!!

So sing out loud about Slick's sins...
Poltroons...DIG IN!! We're looking fer someone to believe in!!
Folks, don't you know Bill Clinton's screwed?!
Networks, you too!!
Left's Template offends all Good Americans!!
Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah nah Yeah...

Poltroons, don't look so sad...
Bill's a bad man, he'll go to Prison!!
You Lib'rals, you best be runnin' from Slick...
Or next election...will be a slaughter, slaughter, slaughter, slaughter,
Slaughter, slaughter...oooh!!
Yeh yeh yeh yeh yeh yeh yeh...dah dah dah dah...dah dah dah dah...
Poltroons...dah dah dah dah dah dah dah...
Poltroons....

Mudboy Slim (4 August 1998)

296 posted on 01/03/2003 1:37:01 PM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: GrandMoM
Studies show that most drug users' first illicit drug experience is with alcohol and/or cigarettes, because typically the users are underage at the time. By the time they get to pot, they have been using illegal susbstances. Marijuana use may lead to more drug use--I imagine it does--but it's not "the" gateway. There is no one gateway, but it is a fact that most first time pot smokers have already illegally used tobacco and alcohol.
297 posted on 01/19/2003 5:49:47 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-297 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