Posted on 03/25/2003 9:27:47 AM PST by Hacksaw
Even Roe itself didn't go that far.
"We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."
Are you ever right about anything?
Did I say "the unqualified 'right' to get an abortion", or do you prefer flailing straw men to addressing what I actually posted?
No, you've been both vague and dishonest.
To review:
1. Would you like to make the argument that every court that has ever considered the question of the constitutionality of Roe v Wade was wrong?
2. no other court can consider the question of the constitutionality of Roe v Wade.
That must be the new blend of coffee my manager drinks before he issues a project plan.
No, what I am saying is that Capone/Escobar it is a bad comparison. But I would suspect that if Capone was as violent as Escobar, overturning prohibition would have been much more difficult than it was, and Capone would not have enjoyed his Jesse James anti hero type status. Even the Cosa Nostra has a code of honor - the cartels have none.
I don't think so. Laws against prostitution do not create pimps. Laws against bank robbing do not create the safe crackers. These people have made their own free choice to violate the laws.
The question of how hard alcohol or cocaine prohibition is to overturn is quite apart from the question of whether it is right or wrong. If Capone were as violent as Escobar, would that make alcohol consumption morally wrong, and if the cocaine cartels weren't so violent, would you accept the legalization of cocaine?
Yes, if illegally purchased alcohol funded terror, it would be ceratinly wrong. For your answer to the 2nd question, mine is no - I support keeping it illegal.
So at some level, you do seem to understand that it would be the illegality of the act that would enable it to fund terror. You carefully phrased your statement to avoid the absurdity of the phrase "if legally purchased alcohol funded terror".
Now, why do you think it's any different in the case of cocaine?
Laws against prostitution create the circumstances in which pimping can happen. If prostitution was legal, prostitutes would have legal recourse against violence from their pimps and against the other violence from which a pimp protects them.
I have gone into why I am against drugs on other threads - I would rather not on this one because I was hoping it could stick to Escobar and Columbia. I lkeave it with the fact that we have enough problems with alcohol.
Now then, my furnace quit on me (and of course it is snowing now) so as the new "kinder and gentler" Hacksaw I will say that I respect your position but my mind is pretty much made up. Ever have to type with gloves :)
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.