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 ...
Most of our laws are based on morality [crime] -- laws against murder, theft, assault, etc.
What's the problem with that?
Robert Bork's answers [revised for factual clarity]:
"-- This results in what may be seen as moral relativism or the privatisation of morality. One person's morality being as good as another's, the community may not adopt [unconstitutional] moral standards in legislation. --"
"-- This viewpoint is often expressed by the common and wholly fallacious [Constitutional] remark that "You can't legislate morality." Indeed . . . we [should] legislate little else. --"
I believe our society is better off without legal marijuana than with legal marijuana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God created cannabis and the U.S. federal government banned it. Now before it was banned, there were no turf war deaths over it. (firing up a J and shaking my head)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So the U.S. federal government should be in the business of preventing citizens from sin?"(winston2)
Most of our laws are based on morality -- laws against murder, theft, assault, etc. What's the problem with that?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it's cool to crush a fetus's brains out and throw him/her in the garbage but dare I light a joint. (biting my lip in disgust and anger)
Not cool. Constitutional.
See if you can figure out who on this thread that Hitler's comments apply to.
The lie is that MJ is dangerous and has been rightfully outlawed.
Here is what Hitler said about lies:
"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."
"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it."
Its also OK for queers to have anal sex, which is a known cause of AIDS, a fatal disease. I guess RP is OK with that too. After all, the govenment condones it.
Then the WODdies are going for the big win ... I've seldome seen a lower intellectual level than their posts.
I think we can agree that because something is constitutional doesn't mean that it is good for us. So to carry that to the topic at hand - because Harry Anslinger was able to dupe the federal government into starting a war against cannabis users doesn't mean we have to continue it till Kingdom Come does it?
Certainly in the 70 years since that time, people would have figured out they were duped? Are you telling me that no one's caught on to Harry's scam? His lies and propaganda?
What's going on here, winston2? Why haven't we reversed everyhing this man did? A conspiracy, perhaps?
Sure. Whatever floats your boat. I'm not into that, however.
They have not only swallowed the big lie hook, line and sinker but now they espouse the big lie themselves.
Their lives have turned into one big lie.
But thay are lacking enough brain power to understand that they have been duped.
If you tell a lie often enough, everyone will believe it.
Well, almost everyone. Some on this thread, that's for sure.
Which explains why I limit the words in my posts to you to three syllables, max.
"I guess RP is OK with that too." He replies, "Sure".
RP thinks gay anal sex is OK. But smoking MJ is bad.
A real sharp thinker. Head comes to a point.
Certainly in the 70 years since that time, people would have figured out they were duped?
Are you telling me that no one's caught on to Harry's scam? His lies and propaganda?
What's going on here, winston2?
Why haven't we reversed everyhing this man did? A conspiracy, perhaps?
Yep, -- a conspiracy of dunces bobby, -- dupes like you that have been swallowing the big lie about the WOD's for generations.
That's what the libertarians claim, when they're not busy promoting drug legalization.
That could have been the motto of the Proposition 215 proponents.
That could have been the motto of the Proposition 215 proponents.
Birds of a feather...
At least they got to hear the message.
Now, can you say the same thing about a Pro-Life message at a RAT Convention?
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.