War on drugs - is it really 'right'?

Newsday ^ | February 12, 2006 | Ellis Henican

[Texas Eagle]

It's not a war on drugs, it's a battle against drug use.

And it is right.

[Supernatural]

The "warriors" remind me of dogs too stupid to even be housebroken. Within one year of their lives, those dogs will show that they can't learn much of anything else either.

[tpaine]

Mojave - Are the old addicts still pushing recreational drugs on a conservative website? PATHETIC

If you ever read the enemy over a DU, the same message from either similar or same people push the procreational drug agenda there.

They are like a cancer.
615 CA guy


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


To: Deb

-- Deb, I don't honestly know whether I could live with legalized drugs or not. All I'm trying to do is get a real debate started. I know that the current drug war is a colossal failure, and I know that it is destroying our Constitution.

I want my rights back. All of them. Don't you?
You asked a while ago, why I allow the people who are for legalized drugs to post.
Well, many of them are not as nutty as you might believe. They take a purely Constitutional stand and from that viewpoint I have to agree.

I enjoy their posts (at least some of them) and some of them will make you think. Besides that, as long as they're not spamming or violent or vulgar or abusive or disruptive, they've got a perfect right to post here. I've noticed several of our regular posters are turning violent and vulgar and disruptive, lately. I don't know why. Maybe I said something wrong or farted in church or something. I don't know. It sure has a tendency to flush out your friends and sure makes for some pretty strange bedfellows.
Oh, well. We shall wait and see how this one pans out.

From: Jim Robinson 43 05/25/1999 00:26:04 PDT

[Supernatural]

Hitler also said, "How fortunate for governments that people do not think".

He would have loved to have the "warriors" as his loyal subjects.

[robertpaulsen]

No, I said I have no problem with your engaging in anal sex.

[A CA Guy]

I bet you can't show me one where he is pro-recreational drug use.

I've had people on these threads boast of being such rotten parents that they do the drugs in front of their minor children before. They they say idiotic things like let the children decide for themselves if they want to use or not.

It is so against everything conservative that is is ridiculous to read most of the time.
Conservatives want to be the best they can be, not the most medicated.

[Supernatural]

How can you have no problem with something I don't do?

Your posts are becoming more and more irrational.

Miss your meds for the last month or something?

[Mojave]

And "medical marijuana" can treat any resulting AIDS.

[Supernatural]

Post from a "warrior". Hippies, and pathetic types obsess about drugs, not stable adults.

No group obsesses more about drugs than the "warriors". The most pathetic types of all. Unstable "adults", for sure.

[tpaine]

Guy wrote:

I bet you can't show me one where he is pro-recreational drug use.

I wouldn't bother. JR made his position clear. -- He's like most of us that oppose you drug warriors. --
--- We base our opposition on Constitutional grounds, -- and you oafs chatter on about 'rec drugs'. Get real.

I've had people on these threads boast of being such rotten parents that they do the drugs in front of their minor children before. They they say idiotic things like let the children decide for themselves if they want to use or not.

Yep, just as you clowns goad your opposition, I'm sure they goad you back. What else is new?

It is so against everything conservative that is is ridiculous to read most of the time.

So are your ridiculous defenses of the 'war'.. Read JR again about how our rights are being ignored in that phony war.

Conservatives want to be the best they can be, not the most medicated.

Kumbya guy, -- talk to the hand.

[A CA Guy]

Well, the bottom line is you want your recreational drugs.

That is not mainstream to anything in America and is as popular and odd as beastiality or being a pedophile.

We also don't need to grow addicts or addiction.

[tpaine]

Guy wrote:

I bet you can't show me one where he is pro-recreational drug use.

I wouldn't bother. JR made his position clear. -- He's like most of us that oppose you drug warriors. --
--- We base our opposition on Constitutional grounds, -- and you oafs chatter on about 'rec drugs'. Get real.

I've had people on these threads boast of being such rotten parents that they do the drugs in front of their minor children before. They they say idiotic things like let the children decide for themselves if they want to use or not.

Yep, just as you clowns goad your opposition, I'm sure they goad you back. What else is new?

It is so against everything conservative that is is ridiculous to read most of the time.

So are your ridiculous defenses of the 'war'.. Read JR again about how our rights are being ignored in that phony war.

Well, the bottom line is you want your recreational drugs.

Typical, - you can't make a rational reply, so you revert to 'rec-drug bull'. Pitiful.

That is not mainstream to anything in America and is as popular and odd as beastiality or being a pedophile.

Lordy, now you 'tar brush' the issue with your sexual obsessions. Bizarro.

We also don't need to grow addicts or addiction.

Of course we don't, we need to end the Fed WOD's, and let States/localities reasonably regulate the issue, -- just as our Constitution intended. -- Just as they regulate booze.

[A CA Guy]

I like law enforcement against drug law.
Drug law helps reduce the size of the problem that would be without drug law.

Drugs come and go from many places and none of those places are our friends.

Anarchy would be necessary to get your will done and I doubt it will happen.

[tpaine]

We also don't need to grow addicts or addiction.

Of course we don't, we need to end the Fed WOD's, and let States/localities reasonably regulate the issue, -- just as our Constitution intended. -- Just as they regulate booze.

Anarchy would be necessary to get your will done and I doubt it will happen.

Daft reply. I advocate State regulation, as per our Constitution, and you equate that to anarchy.

Get lost guy. - You're trolling.

[A CA Guy]

You need the Fed WOD because it has become too big a problem to go by each state.

Also, as you know, the drug users and pushers would use various states against each other for their own good, when in fact they should be dealt with the same way across the country.

As long as we get drugs coming in from everywhere, you will have a Fed WOD.

Soros love you position and finances it.
That is conservative? HA!

[tpaine]

I "need" the WODs? - And tar baby Soros.. Rant on guy..

[A CA Guy]

Hey, Soros is financinf your pro-drug efforts, not conservatism.

[tpaine]

Soros obsessions are funny. Get out the nets.

[A CA Guy]

He usually backs what isn't good for America, but that could make himself rich by manipulating markets.

[Supernatural]

You can't reason with fools.