USS Stephen W. Groves Scores Interdicts 8.1 Metric Tons of Cocaine

Navy Newsstand ^ | 9/15/2006 12:05:00 PM | USS Stephen W. Groves Public Affairs

[Know your rights]

Moonman62's point -- Prohibition was a failure because it wasn't prohibition -- personal consumption was allowed.

Moonman62 said Prohibition wasn't prohibition because personal consumption was allowed, but he did not say that made it a failure.

[Know your rights]

That's a very different statement from his: "folks who are in business and have to fight to stay in the game think the druggie crowd is not worth hiring.

Not any different than saying, "folks who are in business and have to fight to stay in the game think the criminal crowd is not worth hiring."

The ones who do checks think so, the ones who don't don't ... none of which explains his implied relevance of nonuniversal drug testing to drug laws.

[Know your rights]

Are you saying that the many employers that don't test don't take the drug laws seriously?

Non sequitur.

It's a followup question relevant to your statement. Duck away.

You asked for the relevance, I gave it to you.

You didn't give me any relevance that Moonman62 could have been implying.

[DesScorp]

"Druggie Libertarians are deeply saddened"

They're lighting up their bongs in remembrance...

[robertpaulsen]

Moonman62 said Prohibition wasn't prohibition because personal consumption was allowed, and I say that made it a failure and I say that's how it's different than todays drug laws.

[robertpaulsen]

"The ones who do checks think so, the ones who don't don't"

You can't assume that.

"none of which explains his implied relevance of nonuniversal drug testing to drug laws."

Since when does relevance require universality?

[investigateworld]

Now what about my other question: "Should the voluntary choices of SOME employers be forcibly imposed on ALL?"

Answer: All? No. but in some occupations, ya, I'd like to see it mandatory. You know like airline pilots, truck drivers etc.

Starbucks? Well I'd just leave it up to the employers.

I'm just pointing out that employers find it just not worth it to employ druggies.

[RichInOC]

While on patrol in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in early August, Stephen W. Groves took down a “go fast” loaded with an estimated 2.6 metric tons of cocaine...

"Cocaine's a hell of a drug."

[Know your rights]

Prohibition wasn't prohibition because personal consumption was allowed, and I say that made it a failure

So is "personal consumption was allowed" part of your definition of "failure," or did allowing personal consumption cause its failure?

and I say that's how it's different than todays drug laws.

Are today's drug laws by definition not a failure because personal consumption is not allowed? If not, then by what definition are they not a failure?

[Know your rights]

Since when does relevance require universality?

Moonman62's statement about drug testing admits of no other rational interpretation.

[Know your rights]

Now what about my other question: "Should the voluntary choices of SOME employers be forcibly imposed on ALL?"

Answer: All? No. but in some occupations, ya, I'd like to see it mandatory. You know like airline pilots, truck drivers etc.

Me too ... including the drug alcohol.

I'm just pointing out that employers find it just not worth it to employ druggies.

SOME employers. As long as you're not trying to present that as an argument for continued illegality of drugs, we have no disagreement.

[halfright]

Damn...Bubba C lost his weekend supply......

[robertpaulsen]

"So is "personal consumption was allowed" part of your definition of "failure,"

Allowing personal consumption is a failure of prohibition -- a failure of the concept. And I say it was one of the reasons Prohibition failed.

"Are today's drug laws by definition not a failure because personal consumption is not allowed?

It's rather that today's drug laws are undermined by "allowing" personal consumption. That "allowing" could be medical marijuana, decriminalization, low-priority enforcement, or simply law enforcement looking the other way.

[Know your rights]

today's drug laws are undermined by "allowing" personal consumption.

Just a few posts ago you said Prohibition's allowing personal consumption is "how it's different than todays drug laws." Now you say today's drug laws allow personal consumption. Get back to me when you've made up your mind.