Drugs and terrorism and insulting ads

Boston Globe ^ | 1/13/2003 | Cathy Young

[MrLeRoy]

Stay away from children.

I am no threat to children---mine or anyone else's---but I will be sure to keep them away from lying, lazy cowards like you, Jackdaw.

[tdadams]

Funny that it is "George" filling up his SUV.

I thought that too. Could you imagine the howls from the DNC if the protagonist of this ad had been named Al, Richard, or Tom?

[Britton J Wingfield]

Unless you made all drugs legal for all people, there'd be some sort of market for illegal drugs.

Of course. Even different levels of taxation can create a black market, like cigarette sales in different US states. I was referring to incoming smugglers. Nothing is perfect, but that should not be allowed to keep things from being made better.

[Crusher138]

Uhhh...if you smoked marijuana like some smoke cigarettes, say 40 joints a day, not only would you be blitzed out of your mind, but I am sure that your lungs wouldn't be in too good of shape.

I've got a stoner buddy of mine who is 58, has emphasema, and has never smoked tobacco in his life.

I won't even go into other issues like pot related driving fatalities or homes burnt down because someone dozed off while tokin' his doobie...

[Hacksaw]

I am no threat to children---mine or anyone else's---but I will be sure to keep them away from lying, lazy cowards like you, Jackdaw.

Right. If I found you promoting your drug propoganda among children, I would give you the butt kicking you richly deserve. You are a parasite and a hanger-on. I weep for the kids you claim you have. And you are an embarassment to Catholics - you care nothing for your fellow man and mock morals.

Why not become an atheist as LP's like to identify themselves as? Do you drink the "deadly and addictive drug alcohol" at communion and lecture the pastor?? Or do you throw aside your so called principles? I suspect you do.

[tpaine]

Hacksaw, MrLeRoy is one of those on this board who profess, "I don't do X, I don't advocate anyone else doing X, but I think X should be legal". I know, I know, sounds hypocritical doesn't it?
33 -RP-

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all."
Jim Robinson, 5/9/01 155

Your 'hypocritical' smear extend to JR's statement just above, paulsen? -- How bout you, 'hack'?

[MrLeRoy]

If I found you promoting your drug propoganda among children

I make all my statements age-appropriate; the only thing I would say or have said to children about drugs is 'don't do them---they mess you up.'

you care nothing for your fellow man

Quintessential liberal rhetoric: opposing Big Government means you don't care.

Why not become an atheist as LP's like to identify themselves as?

Because I'm not an LP member and I believe in God.

Do you drink the "deadly and addictive drug alcohol" at communion

No.

[MrLeRoy]

Uhhh...if you smoked marijuana like some smoke cigarettes, say 40 joints a day, not only would you be blitzed out of your mind, but I am sure that your lungs wouldn't be in too good of shape.

I've got a stoner buddy of mine who is 58, has emphasema, and has never smoked tobacco in his life.

None of that contradicts philman's point: 'Marijuana isn't "deadly", but it is psychologically, not physically, addicting and can be used or abused like any other drug. Alcohol and nicotine are physically addicting and can be "deadly", depending on many factors.'

I won't even go into other issues like pot related driving fatalities

There are many alcohol related driving fatalities; should we ban alcohol?

or homes burnt down because someone dozed off while tokin' his doobie...

Homes have burnt down because someone dozed off while smoking a cigarette; should we ban tobacco?

[philman_36]

Uhhh...if...
Yeah, "if", and a big "if" that is.
I've got a stoner buddy of mine who is 58, has emphasema, and has never smoked tobacco in his life.
And? Your point? Why haven't you turned him in to law enforcement for his drug use abuse?
'Cause he's your "buddy"? 'Cause he is no "threat"? What gives?
I won't even go into other issues like pot related driving fatalities or homes burnt down because someone dozed off while tokin' his doobie...
I didn't go into other issues like alcohol related driving fatalities or homes burnt down because someone dozed off after sucking down a few quaffs of their favorite beverage either. To do so seemed unnecessary.
Burning down their home would indicate the alcohol drinker was smoking something besides a joint too, namely tobacco.

[philman_36]

Thanks. Should've read down first, but I like defending my position myself too. None other can speak my mind like I can.

[Hacksaw]

I make all my statements age-appropriate; the only thing I would say or have said to children about drugs is 'don't do them---they mess you up.'

Yet you promote them on this conservative forum.

"you care nothing for your fellow man " Quintessential liberal rhetoric: opposing Big Government means you don't care.

Nope. You need to learn a thing or two about your duties to others. Because Conservatives are not anarchists does not make them liberals. -And especially on drugs. If you people held the 2nd as important as legalizing drugs, you would truly be a force.

Secondly, parasites do not own this forum and get to define what their opponets are.

Because I'm not an LP member and I believe in God.

I didn't seem to read stories about Jesus promoting drugs to kids.

[Hacksaw]

A+Bert junior, why even bother to reply to me? Two hits - me hitting you and... um.... me hitting you again.

[Destructor]

"It's hard to think of a more blatant insult to the intelligence of the American public than this crass attempt to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11 for the antidrug agenda. Do terrorists sometimes benefit from drug profits? The answer is yes."

Your darn right they do! This attempt to villify the owners of SUVs is straight out of the Liberal handbook. Comparing SUV to drugs is a lame argument from the getgo.

The "big oil companies" are not giving money to terrorists, or sanctioning terrorism in any way. The money for oil is given to the individual leaders of Middle Eatern countries that may, or may not give it to terrorist organizations. Pick out any product that we sell those same countries, and you could make the same bogus argument. For example: Bread producers fund terrorism, so anybody (here in the U.S. ) that eats a sandwich is supporting terrorists.

Recreational drugs on the other hand are illegal. The governments of most of these nations are not engaged in the sale of illegal drugs to fund terrorists. This enterprise is operated by the terrorist organizations themselves, and the criminal underworld.

[tpaine]

Hacksaw, MrLeRoy is one of those on this board who profess, "I don't do X, I don't advocate anyone else doing X, but I think X should be legal". I know, I know, sounds hypocritical doesn't it?
33 -RP-

"There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to wage war against the citizens of the United States, no matter how well-meaning the intent. The Bill of Rights means just as much today, as it did on the day it was written. And its protections are just as valid and just as important to freedom today, as they were to our Founders two hundred years ago. The danger of the drug war is that it erodes away those rights. Once the fourth amendment is meaningless, it's just that much easier to erode away the first and then the second, etc. Soon we'll have no rights at all."
Jim Robinson, 5/9/01 155

Your 'hypocritical' smear extend to JR's statement just above, paulsen? -- How bout you, 'hack'?
66 tpaine


-- "why even bother to reply to me? Two hits - me hitting you and... um.... me hitting you again."
72 hack

Brillant retort. - Thanks.

[tpaine]

If you people held the 2nd as important as legalizing drugs, you would truly be a force. -hack-

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820965/posts

[MrLeRoy]

Yet you promote [drugs] on this conservative forum.

STILL telling this lie?! For shame.

"you care nothing for your fellow man"

Quintessential liberal rhetoric: opposing Big Government means you don't care.

Because Conservatives are not anarchists does not make them liberals.

No, your blubbering liberal rhetoric makes you a liberal. Deal with it.

I didn't seem to read stories about Jesus promoting drugs to kids.

Nor do I--to kids or adults. I didn't seem to read stories about Jesus lying about people He disagreed with.

[MrLeRoy]

The money for oil is given to the individual leaders of Middle Eatern countries that may, or may not give it to terrorist organizations. [...] Recreational drugs on the other hand are illegal. [...] This enterprise is operated by the terrorist organizations themselves, and the criminal underworld.

Not all criminals are terrorists; it is true of both oil and drugs that the money is given to persons that may, or may not give it to terrorist organizations.

[Crusher138]

My point was that marijuana, like alcohol and tobacco, can be "deadly."

Heck, asprin can be "deadly."

Salt can be "deadly."

Difference is if I take an aspirin and get behind the wheel of a car, I am no more likely to cause an accident than if I hadn't taken the aspirin. Same cannot be said for smoking a joint or having a drink.

I reassert my position that it is reasonable for society to restrict or prohibit the use of products for the safety or it members. While it may appear arbitrary that alcohol is legal, but marijuana is not, such distinctions are based on historical use and cultural norms.

[MrLeRoy]

While it may appear arbitrary that alcohol is legal, but marijuana is not, such distinctions are based on historical use and cultural norms.

How do "historical use and cultural norms" justify the @ss-backward policy of banning the less dangerous drug while allowing the more dangerous drug?

[MrLeRoy]

Simple---they can't and don't.