Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do Conservatives Still Love the Drug War?
Campaign for Liberty ^ | 2010-04-02 | Jacob Hornberger

Posted on 04/04/2010 6:51:11 AM PDT by rabscuttle385

An article by a conservative named Cliff Kincaid, who serves as editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report, provides a perfect example of how different libertarians are from conservatives and, well, for that matter, how there ain't a dime's worth of difference, when it comes to individual freedom, between conservatives and liberals.

The article concerns the drug war and is entitled, "Dopey Conservatives for Dope." Ardently defending the continuation of the drug war, despite some 35 years of manifest failure, Kincaid takes fellow conservatives to task who are finally joining libertarians in calling for an end to the drug war. He specifically mentions columnist Steve Chapman, whose article "In the Drug War, Drugs are Winning," which was posted on the website of the conservative website Townhall.com, was apparently what set Kincaid off.

Chapman made the point that it is the illegality of drugs that has produced the drug gangs and cartels, along with all the violence that has come with them. The reason that such gangs and cartels fear legalization is that they know that legalization would put them out of business immediately.

Consider alcohol. Today, there are thousands of liquor suppliers selling alcohol to consumers notwithstanding the fact that liquor might be considered harmful to people. They have aggressive advertising and marketing campaigns and are doing their best to maximize profits by providing a product that consumers wish to buy. Their competitive efforts to expand market share are entirely peaceful.

Now, suppose liquor production or distribution was made a federal felony offense, just like drug production or distribution. At that point, all the established liquor businesses would go out of business.

However, prohibition wouldn't mean that liquor would cease being produced or distributed. It would simply mean that a new type of supplier would immediately enter the black (i.e., illegal) market to fill the void. Those suppliers would be similar in nature to the current suppliers in the drug business or, say, Al Capone -- that is, unsavory people who have no reservations about resorting to violence, such as murdering competitors and killing law-enforcement officers, to expand market share.

At that point, the only way to put these Al Capone-type of people out of business would be by legalizing booze. Once prohibition of alcohol was ended, the violent liquor gangs would immediately go out of business and legitimate businesses would return to the liquor market. The same holds true for drug prohibition.

The big objection to the drug war, however, is not its manifest failure and destructiveness but rather its fundamental assault on individual freedom. If a person isn't free to ingest any substance he wants, then how can he possibly be considered free?

Yet, for decades Kincaid and most other conservatives and most liberals have taken the audacious position that the state should wield the power to punish a person for doing bad things to himself. In fact, the drug war reflects perfectly the nanny-state mindset that has long afflicted both conservatives and liberals. They feel that the state should be a nanny for American adults, treating them like little children, sending them to their jail cell when they put bad things in their mouths.

Kincaid justifies his statism by saying that drugs are bad for people. Even if that's true -- and people should be free to decide that for themselves, as they do with liquor -- so what? Why should that be any business of the state? If I wish to do bad things to myself, why should the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, and John McCain wield the power to put me into jail for that?

Quite simply, Kincaid: It ain't any of your business or anyone else's business what I ingest, whether it's booze, drugs, candy, or anything else. I am not a drone in your collective bee hive. I am an individual with the natural, God-given right to live my life any way I choose, so long as my conduct doesn't involve the initiation of force against others.

For decades, conservatives and liberals have been using the drug war as an excuse to assault freedom, free enterprise, privacy, private property, civil liberties, and the Constitution. They have brought nothing but death, violence, destruction, and misery with their 35-year old failed war on drugs. There would be no better place to start dismantling the statism that afflicts our land than by ending the drug war.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; bongbrigade; dopeheadsforpaul; doperforpaul; druggiesunited; drugs; editorial; lping; nannystate; passthebongpaul; tenthamendment; tokers; wantmydope; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-626 next last

1 posted on 04/04/2010 6:51:12 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bamahead; Bokababe; dcwusmc
It ain't any of your business or anyone else's business what I ingest, whether it's booze, drugs, candy, or anything else. I am not a drone in your collective bee hive. I am an individual with the natural, God-given right to live my life any way I choose, so long as my conduct doesn't involve the initiation of force against others.

I like bourbon chocolates.

2 posted on 04/04/2010 6:53:26 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The liberals love the drug war because it makes the convservtives complicit in their abuse of the commerce clause.


3 posted on 04/04/2010 6:57:52 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
makes the convservtives complicit

Makes them complicit? I see more and more "Conservatives" happily skipping along hand in hand with the leftists when it comes to the "Drug War".

4 posted on 04/04/2010 7:01:26 AM PDT by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The problem with this brand of “libertarianism” is that it is simply a license to be a drug induced burden on society-meaning you play, we pay.

We curentlyhave enough of a burden due to such “legal” behaviors-thousands of alcohol related fatalities on the roads each year, more boating and other machinery realted “operating under the influence” casualities. Thusands of drug related deaths due to overdose and crime.

Alcohol is legal, but much of the behavior it involves is less than responsible, let alone legal and moral.

Legalizing (and taxing) these drugs (including alcohol) is not the answer. The answer lies in education and making its use so much less rewarding than it currently is.


5 posted on 04/04/2010 7:02:34 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Why do libertarians still love a nut-job like Ron Paul?
6 posted on 04/04/2010 7:04:49 AM PDT by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

Personally I fail to see why we continue to call it a drug war. Its really all about access for all products and “services”.


7 posted on 04/04/2010 7:05:18 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I am an individual with the natural, God-given right to live my life any way I choose, so long as my conduct doesn't involve the initiation of force against others.

Well, this statement was certainly not well thought-out. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of offenses that are non-violent but have a direct negative impact on either society as a whole or an individual.
8 posted on 04/04/2010 7:05:42 AM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
The problem with this brand of “libertarianism” is that it is simply a license to be a drug induced burden on society-meaning you play, we pay. We curentlyhave enough of a burden due to such “legal” behaviors-thousands of alcohol related fatalities on the roads each year, more boating and other machinery realted “operating under the influence” casualities. Thusands of drug related deaths due to overdose and crime. Alcohol is legal, but much of the behavior it involves is less than responsible, let alone legal and moral. Legalizing (and taxing) these drugs (including alcohol) is not the answer. The answer lies in education and making its use so much less rewarding than it currently is.

I think your whole post boils down to one thing, this Country has lost the capacity to hold an INDIVIDUAL personally accountable. These days, its always someone or something else's fault.

9 posted on 04/04/2010 7:05:49 AM PDT by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

When I was younger I held to the more libertarian view that drugs are someone else’s problem, a matter of individual choice. But my life experience has taught me that the war on drugs, in some way, must be continued, just as much as we criminalize murder or theft.

The war on drugs goes hand in hand with the larger idea of being committed to one’s family. I’m not talking about the wishy washy liberal notion of “love”. I’m talking about actually making a commitment to the people you are spending your life with - your wife, your children, your parents, brothers and sisters.

When someone is on drugs, they can’t honor their commitments. They simply can’t. Always with someone who has a drug problem, there are other family members who suffer from emotional and financial neglect. People on drugs say they can “keep it together”, but then destructively rationalize their own selfish interests at the expense of everyone around them. There are countless children who do not have holiday gifts or parents around because their parents are stoned. There are coworkers left holding the bag on a project and putting their own jobs at stake because someone is stoned or drunk. There are mothers who weep, fathers who break, children who resent, companies that founder, all for the supposedly harmless and individual benefit of the physical sensation of being high.

The thing that ultimately causes the conservative to be different and better than his or her liberal counterpart is commitment. Liberals avoid commitment in anything. They assault marriage, religion, all largely because you have to make a commitment. For them, I suppose, this shallower life
without genuine trust is something, but for me, as a conservative, real social bonds and familial bonds formed by commitment honored and trust forged is more than any lets all go our own way talking points uttered in a movie, and yes, I prefer to do deal with people who can make a commitment as much as I can. The commitmentless life of individual drug and sexual moires and self-entertainment is simply not for me, and I think it is right to call these people as faithless and ruinous as they are.


10 posted on 04/04/2010 7:06:03 AM PDT by tjbandrowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I don't know if Conservatives “love” the war on drugs”. Many I know (self included)have always been opposed to it. Many of the people who end up in jail( and on our dime), are small time repeat offenders, who mainly sell drugs to pay for their habit; and the big fish are rarely ever brought down. Most of the violence associated with the drug trade is usually over “sales” territory between rival cartels/gangs. The war always targeted supply, and not demand. America's appetite for drugs is the same if not more, than it was 25 years ago.
As long as people want to buy it, somebody is going to try and sell it. Do I have a solution?? No. But the current modus operandi isn't working.
11 posted on 04/04/2010 7:07:09 AM PDT by skully (I Hope Obama gets Gonorrhea for screwing America!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
The problem with this brand of “libertarianism” is that it is simply a license to be a drug induced burden on society-meaning you play, we pay.

The problem with your argument is the implicit assumption that everyone who consumes alcohol or imbibes another substance must be causing harm to society, an assumption that is NOT true.

We curentlyhave enough of a burden due to such “legal” behaviors-thousands of alcohol related fatalities on the roads each year, more boating and other machinery realted “operating under the influence” casualities. Thusands of drug related deaths due to overdose and crime.

Then punish people for the crimes they have committed.

Legalizing (and taxing) these drugs (including alcohol) is not the answer. The answer lies in education and making its use so much less rewarding than it currently is.

Any government that can tell you what you can and can't consume can also make decisions for you with regard to your health care.

12 posted on 04/04/2010 7:08:54 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tjbandrowsky
so all that necessitates a Nanny State? Because we are too stupid to make decisions for ourselves we need others to make decisions for us?

No thanks, we see where all that has taken us.

It's time for liberty and personal responsibility. Once you decide that use of naughty vegetables is a reason to deprive someone of their liberties you are playing for the other team.

13 posted on 04/04/2010 7:16:23 AM PDT by corkoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

One additional thought-I always wonder if the folks who write these “legalize dangerous and addictive drug” articles would be the first ones who would go out and purchase/use (I suppose at the local pharmacy? With a prescription, maybe?) said substances and proceed to drive, fly, walk the doggie etc while under the “infulence”. Talk about revenue generation-think of all the addintional cops the government would buy in order to “regulate” the use thereof? Ridiculous I say.

While I am at it, how many more lawyers? Think of all the additional suits brought by grieving parents and families over the “________ while under the influence” deaths and serious injuries....

Think of the unintended consequences and the law of third order effects and maybe you’ll realize the war on drugs IS the lowest cost option.

In any case, plan on a ton of bricks falling on you (speakign figuratively, of course) if you, under the influence of any legal or illegal substance, kill main or injure me or mine.

Enjoy your wonderland theories, but don’t think they’ll come to fruition on my watch.

Best;


14 posted on 04/04/2010 7:16:29 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
The problem with this brand of “libertarianism” is that it is simply a license to be a drug induced burden on society-meaning you play, we pay.

I'm a libertarian and disagree. This is part of the consistency of libertarianism: people should be made to live with the consequences of their bad decisions. Abuse drugs all you want, but don't come to me (through the governement) to bail you out.

15 posted on 04/04/2010 7:19:39 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The two “wars” that I can think of that weren’t really wars - War on Drugs and War on Poverty - have both been dismal failures. Does that tell us something? I believe that it does.


16 posted on 04/04/2010 7:20:32 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
Think of the unintended consequences and the law of third order effects and maybe you’ll realize the war on drugs IS the lowest cost option.

There already are lots of cops going after folks and lots of lawyers, largely because of the "war" on drugs.

Your argument is a strawman.

17 posted on 04/04/2010 7:21:22 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
This is part of the consistency of libertarianism: people should be made to live with the consequences of their bad decisions.

It's a pity too many confuse libertarianism with libertinism.

18 posted on 04/04/2010 7:22:18 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

It’s not even about government, at this point. If you’ve got a spouse that suffers, a child that suffers, or a family and a community you neglect through your selfish behavior, you are hurting people.


19 posted on 04/04/2010 7:24:15 AM PDT by tjbandrowsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“The problem with your argument is the implicit assumption that everyone who consumes alcohol or imbibes another substance must be causing harm to society, an assumption that is NOT true.”

Got any number to prove your comment? If not all, how many then, are indeed causing harm?

I certainly understand your perspective and I agree on the point that many behaviors are potentially injurious to others, but drving a car is not the same as driving one under the influence of any state altering substance.

I heard of a story where a boy was killed by his neighbor’s push lawn mower-he ran over a baseball and the mower threw it across the yard and hit the boy-Certainly that is not the same as if the man ran the boy over becasue he was seeing horrible insects crawling on his skin due to the heroin coursing through his veins, no?

Let’s not give into the “revenue generation” and “my personal freedom” story lines concerning legitimatizing dangerous substances, that is so beneath thinking, caring people.

Happy Resurection Day, in any case!


20 posted on 04/04/2010 7:25:42 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I am an individual with the natural, God-given right to live my life any way I choose, so long as my conduct doesn't involve the initiation of force against others.

Which sounds fine and dandy until you have to deal personally with a crackhead or a meth-head. I think pot should be decriminaized. But crack and meth and other hard drugs should carry some kind of legal sanction to apply against those who do cross a line.

21 posted on 04/04/2010 7:26:41 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The only place for the fed in the “drug war” is at the border. Drug policy is a states’ rights issue. Let the voters in each state decide.


22 posted on 04/04/2010 7:28:37 AM PDT by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

There has never been a “Drug War”. If there had been, the borders would have been closed and the supply coming in reduced to the point where street drugs would have increaed exponentially in cost to the point that use would be insignificant.

Only a pothead would be incapable of recognizing this.

That said, the usual dictatorial class of government beurocrats have used drug laws as an excuse to form quasi military units to storm into the homes of the citizenry, but you relly have to have zero knowledge of human history to claim they would not have simply used a different strawman to accomplish this had they not used drug laws.

Come to think of it, they did. The circumvention of the courts through gamewardens precedes usurpations through drug laws.

If the little stoners here can prove that hadn’t really happened and it all started with drug laws, I will quit ridiculing them as much.


23 posted on 04/04/2010 7:29:11 AM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Okay, Will it work this way as well?

“Abuse all the children you want, since you are free to be a pedophile, but don’t complain when the other folks stone you in the town square for your harm to thier innocent children”. Sounds good huh?

Best;


24 posted on 04/04/2010 7:29:20 AM PDT by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War" (my spelling is generally korrect!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I suppose it is quite possible to classify any crime as “products and services”.

If drugs, why not prostitution, or pornography or bestiality or what ever. After that, why not rape. Hey it’s only a disagreement over price after all.” ... or why not murder ... it is called a “contract”.

I’m being sarcastic but the point is, without laws based on morals... laws intended to prevent the degradation of the society into brutish anarchy, without those markers of acceptability, then first the family disintegrates, then when all bonds of fellowship are broken, we are little more than animals. Each scrapping and fighting to get by.

I strive to the sublime, not the profane.
I believe my society should do the same.


25 posted on 04/04/2010 7:29:32 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tjbandrowsky

One could and many did make the same arguments about alcohol and we found out that the cure was much worse than the disease. Prohibition of alcohol was no more successful than prohibition of other drugs, some of which are probably far more benign, e.g., marijuania. And, no, I do not.


26 posted on 04/04/2010 7:30:32 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Because they believe they are right and want people to think as they do? Or because they do not believe people should be able to make their own lifestyle choices?


27 posted on 04/04/2010 7:31:40 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Correction:there are tens of thousands of cops , lawyers , and drug dealers whose incomes depend on drugs being illegal.

And in the case of the poverty programs there is a huge number of bureaucrats,lawyers,poverty pimps ,and their clients who all depend on the governments continuing to forcibly confiscate the wealth of the productive members of society.

Prohibition of alcohol was a failure that the people and government eventually recognized and mostly repealed.It is long past time the same was done for the War on Drugs AND the War on Poverty.Truthfully all these are more about government controlling people than government helping people.

28 posted on 04/04/2010 7:33:08 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ..



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
29 posted on 04/04/2010 7:33:31 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Rape and murder involve coercion. It is within the legitimate purview of government to prevent coercion.


30 posted on 04/04/2010 7:33:40 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tjbandrowsky

What aboout those people that partake in drugs, but don’t cause any suffering?


31 posted on 04/04/2010 7:33:48 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

Shaking down teachers for their paychecks and threatening to kill school children don’t have a lot to do with drugs as far as I can see.


32 posted on 04/04/2010 7:33:57 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

Prohibition of drugs has worked out no better than prohibition of alcohol. A lot of people who are worried about legalization are afraid of what the coloreds will get up to.


33 posted on 04/04/2010 7:35:50 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The naked casuistry of the high priests of Warmism would make a Jesuit blush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

You should try the Drambuie ones sometime. Oh man...


34 posted on 04/04/2010 7:36:09 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
So let's say, then that we put an end to the war on drugs and let people ingest whatever they wish.

As a small business owner would I then be allowed to fire an employee for coming to work late after a coke binge or for returning from lunch stoned on pot brownies? No harm was inflicted on me, right?

Nope. NLRB, EEOC, unions, and whoever else could stick their weenie into the pot would fight my right to a productive business atmosphere. It'll be argued that they have "a disease" and not only do I have to allow them time off for rehab, if they choose it at all, after all they have a "right" to suck blow up their snoot, I have to pay for it and the on site counsellors to help them manage their dependency.

I'm all for live and let live, but if drugs are legalized a lot of other "nanny state" laws will have to be changed to satisfy the peripheral effects of a doped up population.

I always thought liberals opposed the war on drugs because it led to a lot of moral relativism, navel gazing and a "tuned out" population that was too busy chasing imaginary bunnies around the apartment and not paying attention to all the other things government does.

35 posted on 04/04/2010 7:36:11 AM PDT by infidel29 (baracKARL obaMARX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

Drug users could end the “drug war” today...if they wanted to.


36 posted on 04/04/2010 7:36:27 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
A lot of people who are worried about legalization are afraid of what the coloreds will get up to.

Damn, you should get a job for MSNBC they way you flick the race card out there like that.
37 posted on 04/04/2010 7:38:38 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior

do you favor banning liquor?


38 posted on 04/04/2010 7:38:49 AM PDT by Daveinyork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

So could the people that started it, I would think.


39 posted on 04/04/2010 7:38:59 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
Got any number to prove your comment? If not all, how many then, are indeed causing harm?

Producing statistics is not necessary to show the validity of my statement, since all I need to produce is one example to show that not everyone who consumes alcohol or imbibes a controlled substance must (necessarily) be causing harm to society.

I certainly understand your perspective and I agree on the point that many behaviors are potentially injurious to others, but drving a car is not the same as driving one under the influence of any state altering substance.

While I will agree with you that driving a car on a public road while under the influence, I don't think that discrete consumption in reasonable, non-excessive quantities on one's own private property poses any danger to anyone.

What constitutes "reasonable" and "non-excessive" is subjective, however.

In any regard, I can agree that yes, generally, most controlled substances now subject to prohibition are dangerous, but I don't believe that it's the Government's proper role to make decisions for individuals with regard to their consumption, just as it's not the Government's proper role to decide whether someone must purchase health insurance. It is a matter of personal responsibility and a function of a proper upbringing, none of which can be induced by mere legislation.

40 posted on 04/04/2010 7:39:06 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

Liberals want the government to be your Mommy. Conservatives want government to be your Daddy. Libertarians want it to treat you like an adult. – Andre Marrou


41 posted on 04/04/2010 7:39:31 AM PDT by RatsDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Manly Warrior
Oh,BS!

The ol' slippery slope argument that if government doesn't control you ,other people will suffer.

That is the argument socialists use to deny the right to self-defense,bearing arms,how much water you can use,what windows you may put in your new house,ad infinitum.

42 posted on 04/04/2010 7:40:01 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

Duly noted!


43 posted on 04/04/2010 7:40:02 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: infidel29

Can you do that stuff with drunks now?


44 posted on 04/04/2010 7:40:17 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to...otherwise, things would be different)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

There seems to be a lot that goes along with drug use that is getting little attention. I’ve known several drug users in the past few years who have nearly died from pneumonia that resulted from smoking drugs. I knew one who did die. Then their is the MRSA that seems to be prevalent among those who use a needle. I’ve known one of those, also. These aren’t street people, these are young people in their prime of life, that had so much potential, and threw it all away to get high.


45 posted on 04/04/2010 7:40:26 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

Well put.


46 posted on 04/04/2010 7:41:43 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76

Excellent. There is no rational basis for treating “drugs” differently from alcohol. The Federal law is simple — it is a crime to transport alcohol into any state in violation of the laws of that state. That is as far is it should go with marijuana and cocaine.


47 posted on 04/04/2010 7:42:02 AM PDT by jay1949 (Work is the curse of the blogging class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
This is part of the consistency of libertarianism: people should be made to live with the consequences of their bad decisions. Abuse drugs all you want, but don't come to me (through the governement) to bail you out.

And therein lies the rub. Do you believe that our society would allow people to live with the consequences of their decisions to use drugs and risk destroying their lives and the lives of others? I don't. Show me a proposal that says, "Drugs will be legal, but the government will not be there to rescue you from your mistakes," and I might sign up. Otherwise, it is just me picking up another liability for the behavior of another.

48 posted on 04/04/2010 7:42:13 AM PDT by TN4Liberty (My tagline disappeared so this is my new one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: infidel29
As a small business owner would I then be allowed to fire an employee for coming to work late after a coke binge or for returning from lunch stoned on pot brownies?

Sure it is your right as owner. Private Companies; along with publicly held, have no drug use policies in their terms of employment across this country. I believe it more depends on the state you are in.

Many here will probably agree, at the FEDERAL level, this war on drugs needs to cease. Let the states and their voters decide what a citizen can do within that state.

49 posted on 04/04/2010 7:42:13 AM PDT by Michael Barnes (Call me when the bullets start flying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
So could the people that started it, I would think.

That's right, drug users.
50 posted on 04/04/2010 7:42:52 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-626 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
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson