FRNCC - "Diversity, Drugs, and a Racist Bake Sale..." By Jonathan David Morris

Free Republic Network ^ | 10-6-03 | Jonathan David Morris

[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.

[robertpaulsen]

"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.

[twittle]

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?

[MrLeRoy]

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.

[robertpaulsen]

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.

[robertpaulsen]

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?

[bc2]

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?

[bc2]

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.

[bc2]

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

sorry about that!

[robertpaulsen]

"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.

[bc2]

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

good luck.

[bc2]

*yawn*

didn't think you could...

[MrLeRoy]

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.

[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.

[robertpaulsen]

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?

[Bob J]

See 18.

[ConvictHitlery]

"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.

[rwr8084]

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....

[robertpaulsen]

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.

[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.

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