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

Skip to comments.

Is it time to rethink the war on drugs?
Tea Party Nation ^ | 12/13/12 | Judson Phillips

Posted on 12/13/2012 5:26:46 AM PST by Thad Lost

We have had the “War on Drugs” since the 70’s. In the 80’s, the “War” went from just skirmishes to an all out nuclear war on drugs.

Now, thirty years later what have we accomplished? Has the “War on Drugs” become just another epic government failure like the “War on Poverty” with the only thing accomplished being massive government spending and an equally massive erosion of our Constitutional Rights?

My perspective on the “War on Drugs” is a little different from most people. I practiced law for 24 years. Ten of those years were as a prosecutor. The rest were as a criminal defense lawyer. Three of my years prosecuting I spent as a drug prosecutor.

In my line of work I have met and worked with more drug dealers and users than the average person would see in a lifetime. I have no sympathy for drug dealers and while I have some pity for drug users, controlled substances of all kinds including Marijuana are something to be avoided at all costs.

The “War on Drugs” has created several things. None of them are really good. First it has created a massive government bureaucracy at not only the Federal level of government but also at the state and local levels as well. The Federal Government pumps billions of dollars out in the “War on drugs.” This money is spent on law enforcement, prosecutors, defense lawyers, prisons, corrections employees, social workers, advertising and the list goes on beyond belief.

(Excerpt) Read more at teapartynation.com ...


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: drugs; drugwar; liberty; limitedgovernment; prohibition; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-148 next last

1 posted on 12/13/2012 5:26:49 AM PST by Thad Lost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost
Back when the War on Drugs was launched in earnest, under Reagan, I decried the concept and the execution.

Thirty years later, every one of my predictions have been realized.

2 posted on 12/13/2012 5:29:21 AM PST by Lazamataz (LAZ'S LAW: As an argument with liberals goes on, the probability of being called racist approaches 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost
The feral government derives too much power from the war on drugs that aren't under the control of the big-government/big-corporate criminal complex.

They will never, under any circumstances, relinquish that power.

The drug laws are what enabled the feral government to take over the entire health care system.

3 posted on 12/13/2012 5:31:49 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state." - Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Senator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

I read the whole article and while this fella makes a lot of good points, his prescription to solve the probem is pure bunk and won’t work.


4 posted on 12/13/2012 5:35:35 AM PST by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

They need to let people do drugs freely, let’s hope that the low downs kill themselves, I’m tired of trying to force people to make wise choices. If people realized no one will stop them for poisoning themselves...but why put ourselves in harms way to stop them from being stupid.


5 posted on 12/13/2012 5:36:11 AM PST by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

Judson Phillips nails it.


6 posted on 12/13/2012 5:40:58 AM PST by ILS21R (Everything... IS... a conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

In a nutshell: YES. What we have done aint workin’—we need to try a new approach. All we have done is make drug cartels rich and financed death. Like the ban in alcohol in the 20s, all it did was give us organized crime. Strike it down.


7 posted on 12/13/2012 5:42:20 AM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

“Register” drug users? That’s a new one, but you know what, you’ll get just as big of a resistance to that as you would for registering guns.

And, honestly, drug cartels will really go away even if the price of drugs will get lowered? Doubt it. What would happen is they would steal the cheap drugs and resell them. They won’t just “go away,” they’ll find some way to adapt, and it’d still be illegal.


8 posted on 12/13/2012 5:42:45 AM PST by Thorliveshere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

War on Drugs, Poverty, etc., are just ways to taking money from some and giving to others, under the guise of some big social issue.

Several years ago, we saw some reports of US military guarding poppy fields in Afghanistan.

This election, we saw a couple of states legalize marijuana use.

==

The War on Drugs was lost when Congress founded it.


9 posted on 12/13/2012 5:42:57 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

I don’t see where in the Constitution something like the War on Drugs is authorized. Let state and local governments decide the issue.


10 posted on 12/13/2012 5:43:18 AM PST by Thane_Banquo ( Walker 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

The feral government is only interested in power. Period.


11 posted on 12/13/2012 5:46:02 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state." - Cornelius Tacitus, Roman Senator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

He has a somewhat good idea. I would actually prefer to legalize drugs, but having users register and be put off limits for some jobs might work, although you would still have illegal users and the war on drugs might continue unabated in this case. Take the money out of drugs and you will end the problems caused by gangs, also we can then disband our swat teams, which need to be done away with immediately, if not sooner.


12 posted on 12/13/2012 5:46:13 AM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost
Registering drug users will change the whole dynamic.

For the worse.

This guy is an effing retard.

13 posted on 12/13/2012 5:47:00 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud
I think it will work. Look what happened with alcohol. It's legal but you still can't go to work drunk.

People will take drugs whether its legal or not.

14 posted on 12/13/2012 5:47:11 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

I see your point, but here is the problem with that.

Unless the definition of drug abuse changes from a “disease” to something less medical, something like “criminal” then there is no chance.

Someone in the workplace is eventually going to either kill themselves or others and the lawsuits are going to roll in.


15 posted on 12/13/2012 5:49:32 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (You cant bring something to its knees that refuses to stand on its own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: calex59
He has a somewhat good idea. I would actually prefer to legalize drugs, but having users register and be put off limits for some jobs might work

The users, registered or not, are already banned from jobs require drug tests.

I do think the WOD needs to be greatly changed or mostly done away with, I just don't care for this fella's prescription.

16 posted on 12/13/2012 5:50:02 AM PST by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

Judson,

I think you’re on to something. Take away the profit motive for drugs and a lot of organized drug crime will evaporate. I have some ideas to share with you. Look at how Spain handles drugs. Not perfect but a world of improvement from the user’s end of things.


17 posted on 12/13/2012 5:54:33 AM PST by JT Hatter (Who is Barack Obama? And What is He Really Up To?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

Well and good if we can completely insulate the rest of society from them. Don’t think theres any practical way of doing that. Really, its not about drugs but about making sure the rest of us have a place outside the radius of their train wreck.


18 posted on 12/13/2012 5:57:33 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

I always suspect that people who advocate legalizing drugs haven’t lived around people who use them much.

In the pretend world that libertarians inhabit the impact of drug users’ irrational behavior and psychotic thinking on others is simply ignored.


19 posted on 12/13/2012 5:58:51 AM PST by Pelham (Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“The feral government derives too much power from the war on drugs that aren’t under the control of the big-government/big-corporate criminal complex.
They will never, under any circumstances, relinquish that power.”

I agree with your statement. What will be intereting is when the states that are now legalizing marijuana find that they too can profit — they will build big state regulatory agencies and collect taxes, taxes and more taxes — all f which will go towards self-perpetuating their larger governments and their power.

Then it will be a battle royale over states’ rights v federal government intrusion and extra-constitutional activities. Which one gets the power?

No government, local, state or feral relenquishes power easily. I see the legalization of marijuana by states as a conservative’s dream issue. It promotes federalism, adheres to states’ rights, limits federal government, grants individual liberty and (through social Darwinism) may eventually promote individual responsibility.


20 posted on 12/13/2012 6:00:25 AM PST by FerociousRabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Thorliveshere
The author makes the following points which, however unpalatable, appeared to be unassailable:

1. By any stretch of the imagination, this war has failed.

2. The second casualty has been Constitutional Rights.

3. the “War on Drugs” has created powerful criminal enterprises.

4. the “War on Drugs” has been a failure and has created more problems that it has solved

5. Liberty also means we have the right to make stupid choices.

6. we have created massive criminal enterprises that would die if drug use and distribution were regulated instead of being made contraband.

7. insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result


21 posted on 12/13/2012 6:05:01 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

“...irrational behavior and psychotic thinking on others is simply ignored.”

And how is that different from the irrational behavior and psychotic thinking of non-drug users? I see no conservative argument in your post , just an irriational and, possibly, psychotic statement :)


22 posted on 12/13/2012 6:05:55 AM PST by FerociousRabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost
Now, thirty years later what have we accomplished? Has the “War on Drugs” become just another epic government failure like the “War on Poverty” with the only thing accomplished being massive government spending and an equally massive erosion of our Constitutional Rights?

Yes.

Some questions actually do have simple answers...

23 posted on 12/13/2012 6:09:12 AM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost
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?

24 posted on 12/13/2012 6:13:08 AM PST by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

“If you want to be a registered drug user, you are not going to get public assistance. If you want to get high, you can do it on your own dime.”

This will never happen, registered drug users will become a whole new entitlement class.


25 posted on 12/13/2012 6:16:37 AM PST by PMAS (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thorliveshere

“What would happen is they would steal the cheap drugs and resell them.”

No, they would do like every other criminal organization does when one of their rackets disappears because the laws change. They’ll just focus on other rackets that are still profitable.

Stealing the “cheap drugs” to sell doesn’t make any sense at all. Why steal the drugs to sell when there is no longer any large profit in selling the drugs? That makes about as much sense as the mob hijacking Budweiser trucks just because they used to sell booze during prohibition.


26 posted on 12/13/2012 6:24:15 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

It’s not ignored at all. The point you are missing is that the War on Drugs doesn’t do much of anything to mitigate any of those effects, in fact, I would say it only exacerbates them. So, why should we keep doing the same thing that we know never works? That seems like a great way to perpetuate these same problems forever.


27 posted on 12/13/2012 6:30:20 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FerociousRabbit

“And how is that different from the irrational behavior and psychotic thinking of non-drug users?”

Oh that’s right... the amount of irrationality and psychotic behavior found in non-drug users is so similar to the numbers found among drug users. /libertarian idiocy off


28 posted on 12/13/2012 6:31:50 AM PST by Pelham (Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: umgud
You're right! Bureaucrats & their enablers cannot resist wielding control over people.

“If you want to be a legal drug user, then you register.”

Uh, we already have millions of legal drug users - people who drink alcohol. Shouldn't they register as well? Alcohol DOES destroy more lives than all other drug abuse combined. Alcohol IS a drug & it is used specifically to get high.

(Waiting for the circular argument that alcohol is legal but illicit drugs are not.)

Let's tattoo a “D” on drug users - their hand would be appropriate, & an “A” on alcohol users. Perhaps a “P” for prescription drug abusers, & a huge “G” for gluttons.

Registration as a drug user would publicly, legally doom a person to mediocrity, at best, whether the person is capable or not.

Now, before you scream back that drug use dooms a person to mediocrity, registration or not, YOU'RE WRONG. Responsible drug use is no more debilitating that having a drink after work or taking a pain pill for a sore back. Contrary to your misconceptions, many successful people use illicit drugs. I have known doctors, lawyers, accountants, politicians, & computer whiz’s who use illicit drugs - years ago, of course.

OTOH, ABUSE of anything will be harmful to anyone. One or 2 drinks aren't bad - they may be good for you, but a fifth a night & you are doomed. Same for illicit drugs & cheese burgers. It is drug ABUSE that is the problem, not drug use.

Given that no other way of dealing with drug abuse has been tried in the US other than policing, & therefore, nobody has a viable solution to the problem, I suggest that the Feds get COMPLETELY out of the illicit drug policing business, & let the states try innovative ideas to solve the abuse problem, & leave responsible recreational drug users ALONE.

Finally, as a matter of principle & freedom, should the gov’t have the right to tell you what you may & may not consume?

29 posted on 12/13/2012 6:34:18 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

Well, I see some interesting excuses for people to use illegal drugs. One guy writes that illegal drugs keep him from climbing a clock tower and killing people. A common response for people using illegal drugs is because people drink alcohol. I know, I don’t understand that one either. Taking illegal drugs to escape from reality is cowardice. Attempting to escape from reality has another name.....insanity. No culture values cowardice, yet we want to make it easier for people to use illegal drugs and behave in a cowardly manner. I see article after article and post after post every day on Free Republic lamenting how Democrats vote. Many people vote Democrat because they’re afraid. Obama “cares” about them. He’ll take care of them. Conservatives recognize the insanity of that type of thinking. But, here at Free Republic, many supposed conservatives are fine with people using illegal drugs to escape reality and behave in a cowardly manner. If you think that escaping from reality is a good thing, then look at the Democrat policies. They are unrealistic. But, for some here at Free Republic, the unrealistic Democrat policies are bad, but people escaping from reality is OK. That’s a gaping inconsistency. You want to know how to stop illegal drug use? Call illegal drug users what they are....cowards. Use the word that describes illegal drug use for what it is.....insanity. “No man is an island.” Every toke, every snort, every shot somebody attempting to escape reality takes affects me. They affect you. You can hope that you can live in your bunker and avoid them, but they vote. They influence others to escape reality. Our Republic requires brave people. Fight or surrender. There is no hiding. How many people successfully hid in the Soviet Union? None. Fight or surrender.


30 posted on 12/13/2012 6:38:06 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman; FerociousRabbit

“It’s not ignored at all. The point you are missing is that the War on Drugs doesn’t do much of anything to mitigate any of those effects, in fact, I would say it only exacerbates them.”

I see. So in the world you inhabit the war on drugs actually increases drug use.

BTW, I think we have all noticed the social benefits conferred upon us by Bath Salts, which as far as I know are perfectly legal. But then face-eating is pretty common among non drug users, who are noted for their irrational behavior.


31 posted on 12/13/2012 6:38:06 AM PST by Pelham (Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
I don’t see where in the Constitution something like the War on Drugs is authorized. Let state and local governments decide the issue.

Agreed. Let the "laboratories of democracy" work, and see what they come up with. If we decide we absolutely have to have a national policy, then look at what those laboratories produce and then pick the best one and draft and ratify an amendment to enact it. That's how it's supposed to work. This open-ended grant of power to the federal government over anything Congress can "find" to "have a substantial effect on interstate commerce" is bullshit.

32 posted on 12/13/2012 6:40:05 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Excellent post!

I must say though, that if you drink alcohol, then you use drugs as surely as a pot smoker. If you do not, then my apologies, in advance.


33 posted on 12/13/2012 6:40:52 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
I always suspect that people who advocate legalizing drugs haven’t lived around people who use them much.
In the pretend world that libertarians inhabit the impact of drug users’ irrational behavior and psychotic thinking on others is simply ignored.

And in my experience War on Drugs (WOD) advocates fail to consider the impact of government's irrational behavior and psychotic thinking in pursuing such contraconstitutional policies.

What has the WOD done to the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Amendments? Given there was an amendment needed for prohibition, why is there no such amendment needed for the WOD's authorization? What has the necessity to justify the WOD under the "commerce clause" done in interpretation of that clause?

34 posted on 12/13/2012 6:44:48 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

Practically speaking, there are several problems.

To start with, marijuana needs to be separated from both other illegal and pharmaceutical drugs, breaking the paradigm that the FDA is be the single monopoly authority that determines what pharmaceuticals and non-pharmaceuticals (OTC and alternative medicines and herbal medicines) people can use.

And breaking this monopoly has all sorts of ramifications, such as legalizing the consumption of raw milk, unless it is outlawed at the state level, and raising the question of why the federal government is involved with regulating alcohol and tobacco.

But then, there is a huge problem coming down the pike of an enormous number of Americans addicted to prescription opiates and synthetic opiate painkillers; who now that they are being reformulated to make them harder to abuse, will in great numbers turn to cheaper and more effective heroin.

In 2010 alone there were 15,000 opiate and synthetic opiate fatal prescription pill overdoses in the US. Estimates are that 5 million Americans are misusing these drugs, with no clear picture on how many of them are addicted.

And the movement to heroin, costing only a quarter as much as the equivalent prescription medicine, is happening a lot faster and in greater scale than was expected.

Current methods of exchanging a methadone addiction for heroin addiction are clearly insufficient to handle this huge increase in addicts.

Last but not least are all the other illegal drugs, such as methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and numerous pharmaceutical type brain drugs, as well as weird blends of who knows what such as bath salts.


35 posted on 12/13/2012 6:48:47 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

“So in the world you inhabit the war on drugs actually increases drug use.”

I did not say it increased drug use, but that it exacerbates the negative effects. It turns drugs into expensive commodities, which encourages illegal behavior by drug users to get money to obtain those expensive commodities. The profits from those commodities fund the activities of criminal gangs, which engage in all sorts of other criminal and antisocial behavior. Drug users are also funneled into the criminal world and penal system, which just encourage them to engage in other kinds of crimes as well. All of those things result from the War on Drugs.


36 posted on 12/13/2012 6:49:05 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: varmintman

Who sells the addicts their heroin and crack?


37 posted on 12/13/2012 6:49:24 AM PST by bramps (Sarah Palin got more votes in 2008 than Mitt Romney got in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

Drug use & alcohol use are one & the same, done for exactly the same reason - to get high. Alcohol is an intoxicant DRUG.

So, if drug users are cowards, escaping reality, then every beer drinker in America is a coward, escaping reality.

See what that idea gets you at a ballgame or office party!


38 posted on 12/13/2012 6:52:57 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

“Attempting to escape from reality has another name.....insanity.”

If that were true, then we’d all be insane. Every person who drinks a beer, plays a video game, reads a work of fiction, goes to the movies, plays recreational sports, goes on a camping trip, etc. All of them, insane, according to your definition.

Or, maybe, it’s instead true that every human being needs some escape from reality, in part to maintain their sanity, and drugs are just an unhealthy one to choose.


39 posted on 12/13/2012 6:53:27 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

The War on Murder has been a dismal failure, too.


40 posted on 12/13/2012 6:56:41 AM PST by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

I wasn’t discussing the monetary effects of prohibition.


41 posted on 12/13/2012 6:57:46 AM PST by Pelham (Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da
Could you define ‘responsible drug use’ as far as heroin, cocaine, and crack are concerned?

Have you ever drank alcohol? Smoked pot?

42 posted on 12/13/2012 6:59:36 AM PST by bramps (Sarah Palin got more votes in 2008 than Mitt Romney got in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da

So, if drug users are cowards, escaping reality, then every beer drinker in America is a coward, escaping reality.

See what that idea gets you at a ballgame or office party!


It would get you shunned for being an ignorant boor.


43 posted on 12/13/2012 7:09:27 AM PST by bramps (Sarah Palin got more votes in 2008 than Mitt Romney got in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

How extensive is your contact with drug users?

I’m not surprised to see that your objections are confined to legal arguments rather than addressing the impact of drug use on those around drug users. I suspect your experience is either nil or nothing more than smoking a few joints in college.

BTW, is it just a coincidence that the rise of the drug culture paralleled the rise of leftism in American culture? Those of us who grew up in the 60s could hardly fail to notice the connection.


44 posted on 12/13/2012 7:09:33 AM PST by Pelham (Betrayal, it's not just for Democrats anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
How extensive is your contact with drug users?

Admittedly not too much: I know one (prescription drug) who was shady, and one MJ who is a pretty great guy.

I’m not surprised to see that your objections are confined to legal arguments rather than addressing the impact of drug use on those around drug users

Maybe that's because I'm actually more interested in Law than Sociology.
Does that invalidate my viewpoint? Or arguments?

BTW, is it just a coincidence that the rise of the drug culture paralleled the rise of leftism in American culture? Those of us who grew up in the 60s could hardly fail to notice the connection.

And I can hardly fail to notice the correlation between statism and the proliferation of laws, especially those which are selectively applied.

45 posted on 12/13/2012 7:31:19 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da

Ditto


46 posted on 12/13/2012 7:34:24 AM PST by umgud (No Rats, No Rino's)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

Neither was I, strictly speaking. The economics of it is tied in with the rest of it, so it’s not reasonable to think you can discuss the issue without looking at it.


47 posted on 12/13/2012 7:47:27 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Thorliveshere
And, honestly, drug cartels will really go away even if the price of drugs will get lowered? Doubt it.

 

Excellent observation. If dangerous drugs are legalized, who will be there to profit from them? The Drug Cartels, of course. And why would the price of drugs be lowered? The demand will only increase, the supply will be less, the gubmint will tax the hell out of it (like tobacco) and the Cartels will benefit.

48 posted on 12/13/2012 7:52:26 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Thad Lost

Nah, the war on drugs fuels the fascist state. Legalize most recreational drugs and let Darwin, the god of progressives take over.


49 posted on 12/13/2012 7:58:08 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelham
In the pretend world that libertarians inhabit the impact of drug users’ irrational behavior and psychotic thinking on others is simply ignored.


Warrants repeating in bold font.

 

In the pretend world that libertarians inhabit the impact of drug users’ irrational behavior and psychotic thinking on others is simply ignored.

 

Libs are great at claiming they don't care what others do in the privacy of their own homes. Yet then when they wake up and see a culture of doped out welfare collecting freeloaders, they act surprised and disgusted that they have to pay for this.

Same with gay marriages. Libertarians are OK with what two consenting adults do. Yet when their perversions are naturally taken to the next level, these morons want to stop that?

Actually, based on the Glenn Beck thread from 2 days ago, its clear that libertarians not only support legal drugs in America, they support gay marriages too.

Libertarians (see tagline) ~ hoc ptui!


 

 

50 posted on 12/13/2012 8:02:53 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-148 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