Posted on 04/20/2010 9:37:34 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
No just the s!*thole countries.
This is one of the reasons why I'm still pissed at carter. He cancelled the neutron bomb. The perfect weapon for such this purpose. Remove the undesirable elements and preserve the resources. Once again a democrat betrayed our best interests
Follow the Constitution. When it is violated, oppose the violation. Supporting one violation in order to mitigate the effects of another violation is still supporting a violation.
Follow the Constitution. When it is violated, oppose the violation. Supporting one violation in order to mitigate the effects of another violation is still supporting a violation.
Agree completely, but that knife cuts both ways -- which is why there can be no freedom in a welfare state. You have to cut both set of chains at the same time so that freedom for one does not mean slavery for another.
The Constitution would point to this being an issue for the states (whether drugs are legal and at what age they may be purchased).
Nothing about taxing or licensing its use or distribution.
To set up another industry under the ATF wouldn’t reduce the level of federalism in our states.
I was the victim of a hit and run driver but I could still claim on his insurance. As it was just after 2am when the bars get out, (and we had his license plate) it is fair to say that he was drunk.
Additionally a claim could be made against him in court for money. The victim is no more dependent on the State for the damage by the drunk driver than if he was hit by a train walking across the tracks at night.
When a bus driver hits a pedestrian or car, THEN the “state” is liable for the costs.
So voting FOR legal pot in California is going to end the welfare state there? I don’t believe it for a second.
I'm all for cutting both chains at the same time, but requiring both chains to be cut before either one of the others is cut, is still supporting a violation of the Constitution. Cut what chains you can when the opportunity arises.
Agreed. It's a state's prerogative under the Tenth Amendment. The New Deal Commerce Clause has effed us big time.
The only role for fedgov with respect to intoxicants should be 1) stopping illegal foreign imports and 2) stopping imports into a state in violation of that state's laws.
I never said that it would. You might want to address that to Ken.
It appears we would have to become several magnitudes more repressive than Iran or China to accomplish that.
If it comes down to a choice between liberty or social order, I will choose Liberty and rely on my guns and guts to survive the social chaos that may (or may not) ensue. Others will choose 'a little temporary safety' in exchange for the chains of tyranny.
What you or I think is right in theory, is to some extent irrelevant.
Until Forgotten Man feels the weight of those economic chains to supporting drug abusers, lifted off him, he is going to be far less likely to vote for legislation that allows drug users their freedoms. When Forgotten Man knows that he doesn't have to carry the financial weight of anyone else's drug abuse, Forgotten Man will be far more receptive to legalizing drugs.
The Forgotten Men carrying the weight of the abusers with their tax dollars, by far outnumber those who want drugs legalized. Until you convert those people now carrying the weight by unlocking them from their economic chains to the drug abuser, you will likely never get them to unlock your chains barring you from taking drugs.
Perhaps that isn't the way it should be, but it is the way it is. It isn't a justification, but rather my take on the current situation.
I hardly call banning a hazardous and crime provoking substance "tyranny".
But, if you insist, lets just do away with all laws that regulate behavior (and they ALL do) and just have anarchy. Lots and lots of liberty for everyone!!!! But no safety for any but the richest and the most heavily armed.
The question is not if we will have laws that regulate private behavior, we will, the question is, Where is the line.
If what Forgotten Man thinks is relevant, then what you and I think is relevant too. We have 2 votes to his one.
Until Forgotten Man feels the weight of those economic chains to supporting drug abusers, lifted off him, he is going to be far less likely to vote for legislation that allows drug users their freedoms. When Forgotten Man knows that he doesn't have to carry the financial weight of anyone else's drug abuse, Forgotten Man will be far more receptive to legalizing drugs.
Next time you see him, explain to Forgotten Man that heroin, cocaine etc. would still be illegal under State laws, even if federal drug laws were overturned tomorrow. Educate him on the importance of honoring the Tenth Amendment and restoring the original Commerce Clause.
If he still supports the federal war on drugs, then I would ask Forgotten Man if he might have a vested interest. Prohibition has created a vast industry - rich drug cartels, lawyers to defend and prosecute drug offenders, federal grants to local agencies, etc. - and a lot of people would take a hit if Uncle Sam ended it.
Maybe Forgotten Man is concerned about his wallet, but not for the reason he is saying.
If Iran and China can't control their addicts, how much authoritarianism would it take to control the addicts here in the USA? Even doing away with Habeus Corpus and the Right to a fair trial wouldn't be extreme enough, as witness China and Iran.
How about deputizing 100,000 yahoos to shoot suspected dealers/users on site? That would destroy our nation faster than any drug habit could.
well it’s been fun but I’m done tweaking the pot heads for this time around. Have fun everyone.
The guy stealing to support the legal habit doesn't have to steal anywhere near as much...
I don't have anything to do with drugs and recommend everybody on the planet do the same; every drug problem in the world would vanish within five days if the whole world were to do that...
Nonetheless that's never going to happen, hence the "War on Drugs(TM)", instituted under Richard Nixon. This is the single biggest issue I have with Republicans and there is little if anything to choose between demmy and pubby pols on the issue. The "war on drugs" leads to
It is that final item which some would use as a pretext to eviscerate the second amendment, which is the link pin of the entire bill of rights. Consider the following from the former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection under the Bush administration no less:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/17/weapons-ban-urged-to-rein-in-mexican-drug-war/
The former head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection called Monday for the U.S. to reinstitute the ban on assault weapons and take other measures to rein in the war between Mexico and its drug cartels, saying the violence has the potential to bring down legitimate rule in that country.Former CBP Commissioner Robert C. Bonner also called for the United States to more aggressively investigate U.S. gun sellers and tighten security along its side of the border, describing the situation as "critical" to the safety of people in both countries, whether they live near the border or not.
Mexico, for its part, needs to reduce official corruption and organize its forces along the lines the U.S. does, such as a specialized border patrol and a customs agency with a broader mandate than monitoring trade, Mr. Bonner said in an exchange of e-mails.
"Border security is especially important to breaking the power and influence of the Mexican-based trafficking organizations," Mr. Bonner said. "Despite vigorous efforts by both governments, huge volumes of illegal drugs still cross from Mexico..."
The problem here clearly is not guns and it is clearly a problem of economics. The drugs one of these idiots would use in a day under rational circumstances would cost a dollar; that would simply present no scope for crime or criminals. Under present circumstances that dollar's worth of drugs is costing the user $300 a day and since that guy is dealing with a 10% fence, he's having to commit $3000 worth of crime to buy that dollar's worth of drugs. In other words, a dollar's worth of chemicals has been converted into $3000 worth of crime, times the number of those idiots out there, times 365 days per year, all through the magic of stupid laws. No nation on Earth could afford that forever.
A rational set of drug laws would:
Do all of that, and the drug problem and 70% of all urban crime will vanish within two years. That would be an optimal solution; but you could simply legalize it all and still be vastly better off than we are now. 150 Years ago, there were no drug laws in America and there were no overwhelming drug problems. How bright do you really need to be to figure that one out?
Like one day's use of tobacco or alcohol...
A significant portion of the cost of those activities is taxes.
Add in insurance from overly-litigious users and cynical extortion by politicians/lawyers, and it is obvious that the bulk of the cost of these activities comes from non-rational sources.
good points...
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.