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

Skip to comments.

FRNCC - "Diversity, Drugs, and a Racist Bake Sale..." By Jonathan David Morris
Free Republic Network ^ | 10-6-03 | Jonathan David Morris

Posted on 10/06/2003 12:05:21 PM PDT by Bob J

FRN Columnists' Corner

"Diversity, Drugs, and a Racist Bake Sale: Misadventures in Modern Capitalism "

By Jonathan David Morris

Last week, the Thought Police thought to send a couple of rent-a-cops over to Southern Methodist University to shut down a -- get this -- bake sale. That's right, a bake sale. Not just any bake sale, of course, but a bake sale hosted by the Young Conservatives of Texas. Here's why: They were selling cookies at race-based prices.

"A sign said white males had to pay $1," according to the Associated Press, while other rates included "75 cents for white women, 50 cents for Hispanics, and 25 cents for blacks."

The event was meant to make a statement on affirmative action, which, as you may know, was deemed Constitutional -- somehow -- by the Supreme Court this summer.

Now, the bake sale's untimely end is troubling for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that no cookie I know of ever used a racial slur (for what it's worth, black-and-white cookies have been living in perfect harmony for years). But more important here is the curious line of thinking -- the obvious double standard -- behind the shut down.

For example, the AP quotes SMU sophomore Matt Houston saying the Young Conservatives "were arguing that affirmative action was solely based on race. It's not based on race. It's based on bringing a diverse community to a certain organization."

Well, that's an interesting theory and all, but what exactly is "diversity" if it's not based on race, class, or gender? I can tell you one thing: It's certainly not based on a diversity of opinions. If that were the case, the bake sale would've continued uninterrupted.

Yet student center director Tim Moore insisted it "was not an issue about free speech." As Mr. Moore would have it, "It was really an issue where we had a hostile environment being created."

Hostile, you say? Hostile how? The fact is, this was a free speech issue. It's become not only unpopular but also "hostile," apparently, to so much as suggest there might be alternatives to affirmative action. If you dare believe there's a better way to equality, you're instantly branded a hatemonger. Hell, I'm almost tempted to erase this entire paragraph and start fresh, for fear that what I'm saying will net me a bunch of nasty "JDM is a racist jerk" emails -- but this urge to self-censor just shows how bad it's gotten.

I know I'm not alone in thinking there's a better way to equality than institutional discrimination. If we're really so interested in advancing the cause of African-Americans (amongst others), we should stop pushing people forward "because they're black" and instead start removing their roadblocks to freedom and personal achievement.

One way to do this is to end the War on Drugs.

If you're surprised to hear me say that, you're not alone -- I was surprised when I came to that conclusion recently, too. For the longest time, I'd always thought, "Well, doing drugs is wrong, and dealing drugs is wrong," and I'm still not keen on either of them, but then I realized the same things can be said about eating or selling a Big Mac. That doesn't mean we should cheer the people who've taken McDonald's to court, does it? I would certainly hope not.

Now, think about this for a second here: What's the knock on inner city neighborhoods? That they're filthy and crime-infested, right? We've all heard the stories. Impoverished black kids can't even go out to play because they'll get caught in the line of fire in a war they've got nothing to do with. Worst of all, their fathers aren't around to protect them half the time because they're either missing in action, dead, or serving jail time -- all because there's millions of dollars to be made off illegal substances that people are going to use regardless of whether or not they're allowed to.

This doesn't need to continue. If America's got any interest in upholding the traditional family -- and if we believe it's the answer to the question of poverty -- we'll remove the market restrictions that make drug dealing attractive to the most aspiring amongst the poor. The risks of getting caught are obviously worth it to them; that's basic economics, and we ought not look surprised.

I pity the man who turns to cocaine, heroin, or some other such substance to get him through. It's not the sort of decision I'd make, personally, but there's an obvious market of people who would. So it only stands to reason that many poor folks -- who, due to past injustices, quite often are black -- see this market and decide to capitalize on it. That's why it's called capitalism. With no CVS on the corner to compete with them, these people stand to make a fortune selling drugs -- and making a fortune, after all, is what Americans like to do.

Drug abuse can adversely affect a family, don't get me wrong, but it's going to affect a family regardless of whether drugs are illegal. Same goes for fast food and alcohol, and gambling, and all-around bad attitudes. People who make poor decisions aren't criminals. They're people. In a free society, people ought to be free to screw things up and live with the consequences. It's the only way they're ever going to learn. But when we try to solve addictions by eliminating narcotics, we only create a new set of problems that affect a larger number of people on the whole.

Or look at it this way: Used car salesmen don't go around shooting each other. Drug dealers do.

Prohibition created organized crime nearly a century ago, and it continues to do so today. Between drive-by shootings and putting people in prison for the crime of irresponsibility, we're depriving impoverished children of the one thing they need more than anything else: A stable home.

This, above all else, is the key to getting more minorities into college classrooms. Not affirmative action. Not quotas or goals. Just a strong and supportive environment in which to grow and learn.

Ending the drug war will save countless billions in taxpayer money -- money that could just as easily go to rehabilitation clinics or preventative drug abuse education (though that's another issue for another time). Oh, and you know all those commercials the government ran last year linking drugs to terrorism? Yeah, well, ending the drug war will put those middlemen out of business, too.

Those Young Conservatives down in Texas weren't radical rightwing peddlers of hate, you know. They were entrepreneurs. They sold a whopping three cookies and brought in all of a buck fifty, but they made the best of the First Amendment by making a statement true to their hearts -- or at least that's what they would've done if only they weren't shut down. On various levels -- from free speech to free trade -- we're slouching away from the individualistic spirit that made our country strong.

Things won't get better till our actions, and transactions, speak louder than our words.

© 2003 Jonathan David Morris. All rights reserved. www.readjdm.com.


TOPICS: Free Republic
KEYWORDS: bakesale; frncc; jdm; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 10/06/2003 12:05:21 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Bttt...
2 posted on 10/06/2003 12:19:24 PM PDT by Chad Fairbanks (My idea of housework is to sweep the room with a glance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Strong Conservative Forums Help Prevent Candidates Like This From Winning Elections

Finish Strong. 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-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

3 posted on 10/06/2003 12:20:57 PM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
bong...
4 posted on 10/06/2003 12:27:17 PM PDT by cryptical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J; jmc813
Drug abuse can adversely affect a family, don't get me wrong, but it's going to affect a family regardless of whether drugs are illegal. Same goes for fast food and alcohol, and gambling, and all-around bad attitudes. People who make poor decisions aren't criminals. They're people. In a free society, people ought to be free to screw things up and live with the consequences. It's the only way they're ever going to learn. But when we try to solve addictions by eliminating narcotics, we only create a new set of problems that affect a larger number of people on the whole.

Or look at it this way: Used car salesmen don't go around shooting each other. Drug dealers do.

This guy makes a dangerous amount of sense.

5 posted on 10/06/2003 12:29:48 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
If the drug warriors get ahold of this, you'd better be wearing your Nomex coveralls.
6 posted on 10/06/2003 12:32:57 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (In for the monthly deal since 3 quarterlies ago - support Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; Bill D. Berger; ..
WOD Ping
7 posted on 10/06/2003 12:42:47 PM PDT by jmc813 (Arnold needs to drop out now for the good of the party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
What is this author's FReeper name?
8 posted on 10/06/2003 12:43:52 PM PDT by jmc813 (Arnold needs to drop out now for the good of the party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Diversity - the Universal Racism
9 posted on 10/06/2003 12:44:27 PM PDT by BSunday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Bump for later.
10 posted on 10/06/2003 12:47:41 PM PDT by StriperSniper (The socialist revolution is almost complete.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BSunday
BUMP
11 posted on 10/06/2003 12:49:35 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"This guy makes a dangerous amount of sense."

Well, when you make baseless, theoretical statements like, "In a free society, people ought to be free to screw things up and live with the consequences", of course.

Can you point to where this happens today in our society?

12 posted on 10/06/2003 12:53:35 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Not offhand. Does that somehow invalidate his statement?
13 posted on 10/06/2003 1:01:45 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
It happens anyway. How many people do you think have used illegal drugs? 1%? 5%? 10%? It's a damn lot I tell you, and the VAST majority are never caught. Why do you think that when the LA police made 20 TON cocaine bust a few years ago, the street price of coke didn't drop a penny?! The demand is too great and the supply is too large. People already do screw up their lives with drugs, and then "recover." Seems to be far to damn popular now days to be "in recovery".
14 posted on 10/06/2003 1:40:40 PM PDT by Clock King
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
"How many people do you think have used illegal drugs?"

The largest is marijuana. Here's the chart:

The only users I'm concerned about are the habitual users (past 30 days), and that's been flat for 15 years at 5%, and down significantly since 1979.

One more for comparison, cocaine, the #2 illegal drug:

Habitual users (past 30 days) is 0.7%, down from 3.0% in 1985. Hallucinogens at #3 add another 0.6%. These are not big numbers.

But that's not my point. My point is that drug users do not "suffer the consequences" today, nor will they if drugs are legalized. Drug users cost me money for everything from their hospitalization costs to court-appointed rehab. From stealing to feed a habit, to lost productivity and accidents on the job.

We live in a cradle-to-grave nanny state. Legalization would just add to the existing burden.

Now, if we first get rid of the nanny state today, then the author might have a point when saying that drug users would "suffer the consequences". But we haven't and he can't.

15 posted on 10/06/2003 3:03:33 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Still missing the absolutely necessary parallel wherein the exact same bake sale for the exact same reasons with very similar prices was allowed in a protest against "The Man".

It was a California someone have the link?
16 posted on 10/06/2003 3:04:41 PM PDT by Maelstrom (To prevent misinterpretation or abuse of the Constitution:The Bill of Rights limits government power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
"Read JDM". He has a website at www.readjdm.com.
17 posted on 10/06/2003 7:11:55 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I'm just the editor! Personally, I swing both ways on the WOD, I'm not advocating a position here. JDM wrote a good article so we posted it the Free Republic Network website! If someone submits a good counter argument, I'll post that also.
18 posted on 10/06/2003 7:13:52 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Drug users cost me money for everything from their hospitalization

So do overeaters---going after them next?

19 posted on 10/07/2003 6:13:09 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Drug users cost me money for everything

I would argue that drug users SAVE you money since they tend to die sooner and don't burden the country with medicare, social security, etc. in their old age.

20 posted on 10/07/2003 6:18:11 AM PDT by twittle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"So do overeaters---going after them next?"

Overeating is not illegal.

Really a stupid analogy, but I'm getting used to seeing that from you.

21 posted on 10/07/2003 6:44:54 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: twittle
"I would argue that drug users SAVE you money since they tend to die sooner and don't burden the country with medicare, social security, etc. in their old age."

I've seen that same argument, backed with statistics, used for smoking tobacco. IIRC, that argument didn't go anywhere.

I don't expect it to work for drugs either, even if you could prove it.

22 posted on 10/07/2003 6:49:33 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I don't expect it to work for drugs either, even if you could prove it.

So you're gonna stick to your position regardless of the proof?

23 posted on 10/07/2003 6:53:04 AM PDT by twittle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Drug users cost me money for everything from their hospitalization

So do overeaters---going after them next?

Overeating is not illegal.

But by your costs-me-money logic it should be.

24 posted on 10/07/2003 7:09:31 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: twittle
My "position" is that public acceptance of a product is unswayed by the claim that the product saves money by killing people off sooner.

If you have proof, then my statement would read, "My "position" is that public acceptance of a product is unswayed by the fact that the product saves money by killing people off sooner.

The fact that cigarettes save money this way did not deter people from raising cigarette taxes, advertising against smoking, and banning smoking just about everywhere.

As an argument to legalize drugs, it's a poor one. IMO.

25 posted on 10/07/2003 11:13:36 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Big difference between keeping something illegal versus making something illegal.

And you're going on record to state an equivalence between doing drugs and overeating?

26 posted on 10/07/2003 11:17:33 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Bob J
Excellent article, I concur 100%.

Get ready for the heat, my friend, and enjoy your new state of enlightenment.

Feels pretty good to think for yourself, huh?
27 posted on 10/07/2003 11:28:50 AM PDT by bc2 (http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Activities are illegal even though they are not criminal. Here are two really simple examples: owning and using pistols and "assault weapons", and owning and using narcotics.

Neither one is a criminal act, guns don't hurt anyone, and neither does drug use.

But once ACTUAL CRIMES are involved (theft, fraud, murder, etc) then that is when we need to punish people.

Owning guns is not a crime unless you use them to commit CRIMINAL ACTS.

Owning and using drugs is not a crime unless you have committed a crime to aquire the drugs.
28 posted on 10/07/2003 11:33:42 AM PDT by bc2 (http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"guns don't hurt anyone, and neither does drug use" is wrong, I meant to say drugs only hurt the user.

sorry about that!
29 posted on 10/07/2003 11:37:51 AM PDT by bc2 (http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bc2
"Owning and using drugs is not a crime unless you have committed a crime to aquire the drugs."

Uh, no. Owning drugs is indeed a crime.

Congress does not use, nor is it interested in, your definition of "criminal act".

Sorry.

30 posted on 10/07/2003 11:46:58 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
tell me what makes owning drugs "criminal" as opposed to "illegal".

good luck.
31 posted on 10/07/2003 12:12:07 PM PDT by bc2 (http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
*yawn*

didn't think you could...
32 posted on 10/07/2003 12:24:28 PM PDT by bc2 (http://www.thinkforyourself.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Drug users cost me money for everything from their hospitalization

So do overeaters---going after them next?

Big difference between keeping something illegal versus making something illegal.

Difference? Sure. Big? Prove it.

And you're going on record to state an equivalence between doing drugs and overeating?

No, I'm going on record to state that overeaters, like drug users, cost you money.

33 posted on 10/07/2003 12:32:04 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"No, I'm going on record to state that overeaters, like drug users, cost you money."

Why are they costing me money, MrLeRoy? Is it too much to ask that we fix that little socialist loophole before adding drug users to my financial burden?

At least, that's the way I'm voting.

34 posted on 10/07/2003 3:59:53 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: bc2
I was perfectly content with 'illegal'.

You're the one who stepped on your soapbox with your "criminal acts, actual crimes, assault weapons, guns, etc." little tirade which had absolutely no relevence to what I was referring."

If you're happier with "unlawful acts" instead of "criminal acts", knock yourself out.

I don't suppose you have a point in all this irrelevent blather of yours?

35 posted on 10/07/2003 4:08:39 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bc2
See 18.
36 posted on 10/07/2003 6:32:22 PM PDT by Bob J
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"So do overeaters---going after them next?"
Overeating is not illegal.
Really a stupid analogy, but I'm getting used to seeing that from you.

You are way too fast to call others stupid.

And don't be so hooked on the legal/illegal issue. The history is full of laws making so many things illegal, when in fact it was exactly these laws which were wrong.

By your standard, the mass killing of Jews in Germany would have been perfectly OK if legalized by the Reichstag.

37 posted on 10/07/2003 9:53:38 PM PDT by ConvictHitlery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
1980's: Reagan in office, marijuana use levels off.
Early 1990's: G. H. W. Bush in office, pot use declines.
1992: Pot use soars, Clinton in office:"I didn't inhale".
2000: G. W. Bush elected, marijuana usage again drops.

See any connection? I do....
38 posted on 10/08/2003 5:59:26 AM PDT by rwr8084
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ConvictHitlery
You are way too fast to call others way too fast. I said his analogy was stupid. I didn't say he was stupid. (I thought it, however).

"And don't be so hooked on the legal/illegal issue.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 was passed by both (elected) houses, signed by the (elected) President, and has withstood, unanimously, numerous federal constitutional challenges. I think, in a nation based on the rule of law, it prudent to be "hooked on the legal/illegal issue".

And put away your "banning drugs = killing Jews" argument. It's disgusting.

39 posted on 10/08/2003 7:07:03 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
No, I'm going on record to state that overeaters, like drug users, cost you money.

Why are they costing me money, MrLeRoy? Is it too much to ask that we fix that little socialist loophole before adding drug users to my financial burden?

At least, that's the way I'm voting.

Would you also vote to ban overeating---and alcohol, whose abuse also costs you money---if given the opportunity? If not, why not?

40 posted on 10/08/2003 11:35:55 AM PDT by MrLeRoy (Call me Diogenes---I'm still searching for an honest Drug War defender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Would you also vote to ban overeating---and alcohol, whose abuse also costs you money---if given the opportunity? If not, why not? "

No. Would you?

Since these activities are already legal, I would much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by these activities, rather than trying to make them illegal.

I believe they tried that once with alcohol, only to reverse themselves 13 short years later.

41 posted on 10/08/2003 12:18:26 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I would much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by these activities, rather than trying to make them illegal.

Why would you not also much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, rather than trying to keep (some) drugs illegal?

42 posted on 10/08/2003 12:22:04 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (Call me Diogenes---I'm still searching for an honest Drug War defender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Why would you not also much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, rather than trying to keep (some) drugs illegal?"

I would vote to keep the financial burden placed on you, only because you support it's legalization. But I doubt that piece of legislation would pass constitutional muster.

Now, if you're asking if I'd much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, then the answer is yes I would.

Why can't I do that, yet keep those drugs illegal? Why must I also vote to make them legal?

Let me summarize. I would be more inclined to hear your argument for drug legalization if I didn't have to support the drug user. Not that I would necessarily agree with legalization, but I would be more receptive to hearing about all the positive effects of across the board drug legalization.

43 posted on 10/08/2003 1:07:11 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
if you're asking if I'd much rather vote to eliminate the financial burden being placed on me by drug use, then the answer is yes I would.

Why can't I do that, yet keep those drugs illegal?

You can---but why would you?

I would be more inclined to hear your argument for drug legalization if I didn't have to support the drug user.

Are you likewise less inclined to support alcohol's legality because you have to support the alcohol user?

44 posted on 10/08/2003 1:16:45 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Why can't I do that, yet keep those drugs illegal?" "You can---but why would you?"

Did you think that my only objection to legalizing drugs was the fact that they are a financial burden on the rest of us?

This question has been answered my me in numerous other posts over the years. That's where you'll find my answer.

45 posted on 10/08/2003 2:51:27 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
This question has been answered my me in numerous other posts over the years.

Have any reasons that I haven't already shown to be invalid in other threads?

46 posted on 10/08/2003 3:18:37 PM PDT by MrLeRoy (The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. - Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Have any reasons that I haven't already shown to be invalid in other threads?"

I must, since I'm still against the legalization of drugs.

BTW, it's not necessary to invalidate my reason -- we agree, for example, that there is a financial burden placed on us by recreational drug users.

But just because you point out that a similar burden exists for alcohol and overeating doesn't make me slap my forehead and proclaim that it's not fair that drugs aren't similarly burdening me.

Or did you think that your arguments were so clever and compelling that I'd stupidly vote to legalize drugs despite the fact that it would cost me more money?

Is this an example of you invalidating one of my objections? No wonder I'm still against drugs.

47 posted on 10/08/2003 3:46:27 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I wrote the article.

The way I see it, other people's drug use shouldn't be costing us money at all. Yet, because it's illegal, we pay for incarceration. We pay for treatment. We pay for the additional cops needed to enforce the laws. We pay for the war that results when terrorists gain power through the drug trade. We pay for the state colleges that socially engineer their student populations based on race, to make up for all the poor kids who aren't making it to college because their dads aren't around to help them with math homework all their lives.

My take is that we shouldn't be paying for any of this stuff. Whether drugs are legal, whether they're illegal -- we shouldn't be paying for other people's crappy decisions with our own hard-earned money. I know it sounds callous, but maybe people will stop screwing up when they realize the system's not going to save them every time around.
48 posted on 10/08/2003 5:20:54 PM PDT by Read JDM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Read JDM
"we shouldn't be paying for other people's crappy decisions with our own hard-earned money."

I agree.

But you can't unleash legal drugs on a nanny state like ours without expecting to increase costs to the taxpayer. As Ann Coulter states in an excellent piece, "It's not as if we live in the perfect Libertarian state of nature, with the tiny exception of those pesky drug laws."

This country of ours has a ways to go in the areas of personal responsibility, tort reform, and the dismantling of our socialist-leaning government before I'm comfortable with supporting a relaxation of our current drug laws.

49 posted on 10/08/2003 5:47:40 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But, then, what's the plan? Where do we start?
50 posted on 10/08/2003 5:55:59 PM PDT by Read JDM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 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