Posted on 02/18/2006 6:28:37 PM PST by MRMEAN
Spending billions in taxpayer dollars with no clear progress? Inserting government agents into Americans' private lives? Holding a million men and women in prison for what are mostly nonviolent crimes?
Please, how does any of that promote the values that principled conservatives hold dear?
None of it does, of course.
But now, seemingly all of a sudden, people on the left aren't the only ones expressing doubts about America's war on (some) drugs. Some of America's most energized conservatives - activists and intellectuals on the right - are openly asking, "Isn't there a better way to deal with drug abuse than the old lock-'em-up-forever approach?"
At week's end, thousands of conservative activists gathered in Washington for the annual CPAC, the massive Conservative Police Action Conference, half pep rally and half conservative family reunion. The attendees were regaled with the usual conservative litany - warnings about illegal immigration, attacks on the liberal media, throaty calls for a muscular war on terrorism. Dick Cheney and Karl Rove revved up the crowd.
"Conservatism is the dominant political creed in America," Rove declared approvingly.
But this power group of fired-up conservatives also heard something else, a message that seemed to come as a surprise to some in the sprawling meeting room: pointed and serious questions about America's 35-year campaign to rid the nation of heroin, cocaine, marijuana and other illegal drugs.
Who'd have expected this at a CPAC meeting? Extended comments from the podium by Ethan Nadelman, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, a man who has been called the invisible hand of drug reform in America. A former Princeton University professor, Nadelman has guided the national fight for medical marijuana and been a key player in the battle to ease the draconian Rockefeller-era drug laws in New York.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
And I gave it to you.
This reponse was for a different statement, but an equally ludicrous one, made by you.
Awww. Can't I stay and play? It's so much fun to poke holes in their claims ("illegal drug use increased") -- can you believe such an ignorant statement?
Still doesn't explain why legal medical marijuana sells for $480./oz. in California, does it? Who would have predicted that?
Yet some on this board will similarly say that if marijuana were legal, it would be cheap.
Placemark bump.
I would agree with them. The current situation in CA is not necessarily representative of what would happen were cannabis to be made completely legal. According to the feds, cannabis is not currently legal in CA, so how can you argue that the current price is comparable?
What is the profit margin on a pack of cigarettes? What makes you think that Altria or a similar company wouldn't add cannabis to their line? Prices are high because supply is constrained by current law. If it were to become completely legal, do you honestly believe that a plant that grows everywhere could command such premiums? It is the risk of arrest that is causing high prices.
Completely legal? Like milk?
Or legal, but regulated, like cigarettes? Who's to say that it won't be taxed at $200./oz.?
The pro-pot posters on this board seem to make whatever argument suits them at the time. Some say to legalize it, regulate it, and tax the hell out of it. Then you come along and say legalize it and it will be cheap.
Well, what's it gonna be, people?
"What makes you think that Altria or a similar company wouldn't add cannabis to their line?"
Will you give them immunity from lawsuits? Or should they take a hint from the tobacco companies and build up a huge contingency fund by charging what the market will bear -- and the market bears a whole bunch today, doesn't it?
LOL!
These "warriors"...glad they are on the other side!
They can't think, they can't reason, they can't understand anything.
One wonders how they are able to stumble through life.
Ah. So you think there's a correlation between arrests and use?
I didn't say arrests decreased. I said use decreased.
"Again I ask, show me a success that justifies the tax dollars spent on your Sin War."
Most kids smoke marijuana as their illicit drug of choice. Marijuana use is down. Less kids are smoking.
And that's worth one half of one percent of the federal budget. That makes twice now that I've answered your question.
You live in a different world.
There ought to be an island these people can go to where they can smoke all the weed they want and not endanger the rest of us or corrupt out children. Of course, someone would have to support this island, because no one there would want to do any work.
The libertarian in me says legal like lettuce (milk is seriously regulated in many markets)
Or legal, but regulated, like cigarettes? Who's to say that it won't be taxed at $200./oz.?
But I would settle for legal like cigarettes as long as people can grow their own. Can't help you with the taxes, govts. do all kinds of crazy things.
Then you come along and say legalize it and it will be cheap.
Legalize it and it will be cheap (taxes aside). The free market guarantees that anything as easy to create just about anywhere on the planet will be cheap.
Well, what's it gonna be, people?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's leave it just like it is. Ain't it wonderful? We've got the whole underworld smuggling, killing and laundering U.S. currency.
Without having lived in the contraband substance world - you couldn't understand the nuanced systems of relationships and distribution channels. It's really like one large multilevel marketing scheme that can change directions of flow in short order. Then when anyone is "busted" and branded with some label that handicaps employment opportunities, what might be the vocation of choice? - - - - - Hey, can you help me move these baggies of (your choice)?
Do you get loaded on cigarettes?
Notice how your questions are convienently ignored and the subject changed.
That is a way of life with some of these birds.
Don't you get it? They want it go up.
Drug use equals freedom, more drug use equals more freedom.
Yes, I did leave out fertilizer, land and labor.
The reason for leaving out fertilizer is that cannabis will grow on the most marginal of land and doesn't need notable amounts of fertilizer. Even if it did, the cost per plant would be in the small numbers of pennies.
The reason that I don't mention land is that we live in a land rich nation. A few patio "pots" would grow a years supply for anyone.
As far as "labor" It falls clearly under the heading labor of love.
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.