Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Carroll: Tancredo's next crusade?
The Denver Post ^ | 04/05/2009 12:30:00 AM MDT | Vincent Carroll

Posted on 04/05/2009 4:36:51 PM PDT by ChrisInAR

What do you talk about at lunch with Tom Tancredo? I thought I knew, but to my surprise (and relief), we spent much of the hour discussing the wisdom of legalizing drugs rather than rehashing our disagreements over illegal immigrants.

"The status quo isn't working," Tancredo says, meaning the war on drugs has failed — spectacularly. And while that's hardly a novel insight, most people who reach it don't take the next step of questioning the drug war itself.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: aliens; border; illegalaliens; illegals; immigration; legalizemarijuana; marijuana; mexico; regulatemarijuana; tancredo; warnextdoor; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 next last
To: ChrisInAR
Treat it like booze, do what you want in your own home, just don't take a dime from my pocket to pay for your health care.

Freedom, deal with it.

51 posted on 04/05/2009 6:55:11 PM PDT by DTogo (Time to bring back the Sons of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

The Terry Anderson Show...

Terry’s guest tonight will be Jose Compean...

Call Terry LIVE 9-10 PM PST at (866) 870-57521

LIVE stream at http://krla870.townhall.com/

http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=listenliv

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2223032/posts?page=1


52 posted on 04/05/2009 7:08:46 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

“The status quo isn’t working,” Tancredo says, meaning the war on drugs has failed

So the same can be said for the millions of illegals coming into the U.S. for the past many years.

So Tancredo must be for leagalizing the illegals already in the U.S.”

YUP. Good analogy.

Amnesty is not the solution to illegal immigration, its a surrender to it.
Legalization is not the solution to illegal drug use, its a surrender to it.


53 posted on 04/05/2009 7:22:51 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts; All

Especially to our rights..


54 posted on 04/05/2009 7:56:23 PM PDT by KevinDavis (No one should question our "Dear Leader"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Wilhelm Tell; All

I know what you mean.. This one of my big beef with Ronald Reagan.. I think a little to far with the WOD...


55 posted on 04/05/2009 7:57:32 PM PDT by KevinDavis (No one should question our "Dear Leader"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

Tancredo must have been hanging around with Ron Paul too much.


56 posted on 04/05/2009 9:37:13 PM PDT by Crusader4Christ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Do you really want the federal Government to keep on telling what is good or bad to put in our bodies... Didn’t prohibition tell you something???

No. Hanging around potheads (in my past) tells me a lot more. Potheads are impossible to have a rational conversation with.

57 posted on 04/06/2009 5:53:57 AM PDT by raybbr (It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: merican
Mexico does not produce cocaine and they only produce a small amount of heroin.

I guess you missed his point. They will BEGIN to produce those drugs once the market for pot had dried up.

58 posted on 04/06/2009 5:57:54 AM PDT by raybbr (It's going to get a lot worse now that the anchor babies are voting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
“I guess you missed his point. They will BEGIN to produce those drugs once the market for pot had dried up.”

There are very few places in the world where coca will grow, Mexico is not one of them. Almost all coca is grown in the mountains of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru. They can grow poppies to make heroin in some parts of Mexico, but their yields aren't very good so they buy most of it from other places that are much more suitable for opium poppies. Their marijuana yields are pretty good. They're getting 1,200 kilos per hectare on average, a little over a thousand pounds of dried bud per acre. They now produce more marijuana than any other country in the world. They also produce most of the methamphetamine consumed here, which they don't have to grow. Without marijuana, they'll keep producing meth and just continue to import most of the cocaine and heroin to smuggle and sell here. They get it pretty cheap and after they smuggle it and get it to the towns where it will be distributed it is worth several times what they paid for it. But, total demand for all cocaine, meth and heroin consumed in this country is only in the hundreds of tons compared to many thousand tons of marijuana. Far more marijuana is consumed here than all other illegal drugs combined. They make most of their money from marijuana sales, and they aren't going to be able to increase their returns from these other drugs much because they are already satisfying almost all of the demand for them.

59 posted on 04/06/2009 6:35:05 AM PDT by merican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR

Sold his soul to Slick Willard. He needs to go away.


60 posted on 04/06/2009 7:03:58 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChrisInAR; Clintonfatigued; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; ...
"The status quo isn't working," Tancredo says, meaning the war on drugs has failed — spectacularly ... why not let individual states decide, he asks, and then enforce their own drug laws? Aren't states supposed to be this nation's "laboratories of democracy"?



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
61 posted on 04/06/2009 7:41:59 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

BINGO! Thats why I have thrown Tommy Boy under the bus as well.


62 posted on 04/06/2009 7:47:54 AM PDT by RatsDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol
Pot heads, or boozers causing accidents.
Both drugs and booze are mind altering.

Would you support alcohol prohibition? And why do you post in meter?

63 posted on 04/06/2009 7:50:15 AM PDT by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RatsDawg

I haven’t exactly thrown him under the bus but I certainly disagree with him on this issue and the bank bailout. I just think the pro legalization conservatives should be very carefull of who they align themselves with.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/soros-infiltrates-conservative-movement/


64 posted on 04/06/2009 7:53:35 AM PDT by cripplecreek (The poor bastards have us surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Of course, if you are currently doped up, you can hold off until you sober up sometime after noon tomorrow.

Wow, that didn't take long for you to run out of logic and start tossing insults, did it?

How can you be so anti marijuana without being at least equally anti alcohol?

Seems that you are another inconsistent (unprincipled) Conservative who just enjoys the idea or limiting others' liberies.

65 posted on 04/06/2009 8:14:24 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Not at all.

Are you for allowing sex with animals, allowing people to devise chemical or radiological weapons, or for allowing people to go blindfolded into shopping malls and randomly firing?

If not, then you are against other people’s liberties, too. Otherwise, you’d let such people do those things until they have hurt another and then punish them.


66 posted on 04/06/2009 8:19:59 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Legalization is not the solution to illegal drug use, its a surrender to it.

Marijuana and cocaine weren't always illegal.

We only have an illegal drug problem beause we made them illegal, as what happened with booze.

Should the federal government be regulating citizens' vices?

67 posted on 04/06/2009 8:21:46 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Are you for allowing sex with animals, allowing people to devise chemical or radiological weapons, or for allowing people to go blindfolded into shopping malls and randomly firing?

Please come up with adult arguemnts that aren't moronic.

68 posted on 04/06/2009 8:23:25 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

I notice you have no way of defending “liberty” as you define it.

Please come up with a consistent argument.


69 posted on 04/06/2009 8:24:37 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

First off you are inconsitent if you do not also advocate a return to banning alcohol, a substance much more harmful than pot.

Second, you seem unable to grasp the notion of consenting adults pursuing activities that do not inherently infring on the rights of others.

Third, you seem to be the type to want to regulate vices...not all sins are criminal and not all crimes are sins!

Vices involving consenting adults don’t infringe on others’ rights.

The idea that someone will safely manufacture WMD’s next door to me or in my neighborhood is too ludicrous to discuss. Animal sex has nothing to do with this other than seeming to be something that draws your interests...and murdering other people ...if you have to have me tell you how wrong that is then you really are too dense to be on this forum.


70 posted on 04/06/2009 8:30:49 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

First of all, you can’t defend your position. All you can do is attack mine.

Second, alcohol is specifically allowed because of the Constitution and the Amendment that did so. It was illegal for a period of time, as you may recall. When we get a Constitutional amendment to allow drugs, then maybe your argument might make sense.

Third, vices between a consenting adult and his/her animal also don’t infringe on other people’s rights.

Fourth, I am not sure how one can have a vice of something illegal. Can you explain that to me? I have no problems with people having vices. I have a problem with people having illegal vices and their wanting to make such a vice completely legal, when, in fact, NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has done so.

You are the self-described libertarian. So, tell us what other liberties you think we shouldn’t have while insisting some currently illegal actions should be “liberties.”


71 posted on 04/06/2009 8:49:59 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; SoCalPol; ChrisInAR; bamahead

“Drugs are bad for you.” Undoubtedly. Most things are, if nut used properly. SO WHAT? Is it YOUR business that your next door neighbor smokes a joint in the privacy of his own home? (Hint: the CORRECT answer is “NO.”) Do you want your kids smoking pot? If not, raise them up in a manner that when they get older and out on their own, they will not be TEMPTED to do so. That’s YOUR responsibility, not government’s.

I am 61 years old, never smoked a joint, never been tempted to. Won’t, even when it’s re-legalized. I barely have a drink of the mind-altering DRUG, alcohol, anymore. Maybe every other month or so. But it’s NONE OF MY BUSINESS (nor YOUR business) what my neighbor does, as long as it doesn’t get out in the streets. You are hopeless busybodies, sticking your noses in where one day they’ll get cut off for you.

The origins of the war on some drugs are interesting (and I KNOW you’ve been made aware of them), because there was not one WHIT of evidence that regulation was desirable for “medical reasons.” It was and yet is all about control over the lives of others by miserable jack- and jenny asses like you. If you truly believe that drugs are bad for people, PREACH IT FROM THE STREET CORNERS. I’ll come along and hold your coats. BUT GET THE GOVERNMENT BACK OUT OF IT. The war on some drugs (but not others) has torn up our constitution to the point that we now have an undocumented moron living at 1600, getting ready to slide the knife in for the coup de grace. Thanks a LOT, drug warriors.


72 posted on 04/06/2009 9:21:46 AM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
First of all, you can’t defend your position. All you can do is attack mine.

Certainly can and quite easily. Starting with some "Golden Rule" philosophy.

Alcohol was made illegal with a Constitutional Amendment. Back then they knew that they needed an Amendment to do that, and it then makes reason that without a similar amendment the WOD is not Constitutional as was Alochol Prohibition.

You make a GRAVE ERROR in thinking that the Constitution grants rights to individuals; it lists some rights of individuals and states, but restricts the fedgov, NOT the individual.

Third, vices between a consenting adult and his/her animal also don’t infringe on other people’s rights.

It seems you are making the case for beastility, not me. I thought that it didn't need to be stated that it should be two HUMAN adults!! But if you wanna screw your own goat on your own property out of view of the rest of us, I won't lift a finger to stop you!

Fourth, I am not sure how one can have a vice of something illegal. Can you explain that to me? I have no problems with people having vices. I have a problem with people having illegal vices and their wanting to make such a vice completely legal, when, in fact, NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD has done so.

To call gambling, drinking, smoking, carousing, etc vices is quite accurate. Some are legal some are restricted and regulated, some are taxed. Why should the US government be involved at all in vices?

Remember, pot was once legal while alcohol was illegal. This isn't a moral issue or else you have to admit that morals fluxuate.

You are the self-described libertarian. So, tell us what other liberties you think we shouldn’t have while insisting some currently illegal actions should be “liberties

You claim to have libertarian leanings but I don't find any truth to that statement at all.

IMO, liberty means that adults do as they please as long as it doesn't inhereintly infringe on the rights of others, doesn't involve fraud, initiation of force, or coersion.

The Consitution does not restrict individuals; it restricts government.

Government should not be in the business of enforcing religious views of one group onto others (Blue Laws, religously caused dry counties, etc)

Freedom is too much for most to handle; most can't handle their own and don't want others to have it either.

There is absolutely no reason that I or the government should be involved in what you read or don't read, what you may or may not ingest or inhale, what you watch on TV, listen to on the radio, etc.

So why would you care what others do in similar categories?

73 posted on 04/06/2009 9:29:46 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; SoCalPol; ChrisInAR; bamahead

There is no country in the world that has fully legalized marijuana use. So, any argument you make in favor of making it legal is strictly theory. You are here arguing that something which is currently illegal will make the crime associated with it, lessen. This has never been done with marijuana, so we are to take your esteemed word that this is the right thing to do.

This argument that “what my neighbor does, as long as it doesn’t get out in the streets,” is fine. However, if you believe this as your sole criteria, you therefore believe bestiality in your own home is okay, that people should be allowed to create and use chemical and radiological weapons (as long as it stays on their property), and that shooting from one’s property with a blindfold is fine, again, as long as it never hurts another.

I don’t think you are that consistent, so, please, tell us why some behaviors our society deems “bad” should be legalized, while other behaviors our society claims are bad should categorically remain illegal.

Gosh, if we legalized rape, rape statistics would immediately drop to zero (you know, it’s no longer “illegal”). Interesting stance, there, huh?


74 posted on 04/06/2009 9:32:03 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
Unfortunately for you, you have made your own GRAVE ERROR. All of the Amendments are considered the Constitution. Without a doubt, rights can be taken away by the Constitution through Amendments. Alcohol was just one example. A Constitutional amendment against abortion would do the same, taking a deemed "right" away from people who currently "enjoy" it.

You are the one saying that whatever one does, as long as they don't hurt another, should be fine. You are also the one who claims this shouldn't be fine. Get your thinking straight. As you say, “...why would you care what others do...” in creating chemical bombs for fun, as long as you are never a victim of them?

It's funny, but you didn't describe how someone can have a vice with something illegal. I'll help you here: Maybe it is because they did something illegal and can't stop it anymore. Do you really think legalizing something that creates a vice so bad that it makes people continue to break the law is a good idea? Get real.

In reality, you are against truly against some liberties that never used to have a law against them (bomb-making, etc.) while being for something that is currently illegal and without positive merit.

75 posted on 04/06/2009 9:41:47 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

“When we get a Constitutional amendment to allow drugs...”

THERE is the root of your problem. We do not need a Constitutional amendment to “allow” the People to do something. The Constitution is a limit on the authority of the GOVERNMENT’S authority. YOU are laboring under the misapprehension that We, the People, need governmental permission to do ANYTHING. You have drunk the Koolaid of big government, of Woodrow Wilson, of FDR, of LBJ, of Bush I and II, of Clinton and Obambi. No wonder your mind is such a skull full of mush.

We, the People, can do ANYTHING we like that does not constitute an infringement on the EQUAL rights of others, that does not INITIATE any form of aggressive action against others. GOVERNMENT must live under the bonds of the Constitution. READ IT AND WEEP. Read the other writings of the Founders. Get your head out of your butt and you might even be able to see and to smell fresh air, rather than what you’re used to.


76 posted on 04/06/2009 9:42:51 AM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
So we do have the God-given right to create bombs, marry and have sex with an animal, and even drive drunk (as long as we don't veer toward someone)?

Amendments are as much a part of our Constitution as the original Constitution wording. They “amend” the wording and intent of the original document. Some Amendments take away what might have been legal, while others don't.

So, we've always had same-sex marriage and the other things mentioned above? I mean, if the Constitution allows it, it should have been pretty common after 225+ years, right?

77 posted on 04/06/2009 9:48:57 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Unfortunately for you, you have made your own GRAVE ERROR. All of the Amendments are considered the Constitution. Without a doubt, rights can be taken away by the Constitution through Amendments. Alcohol was just one example.

The only example and it was a mistake that got corrected.

You are the one saying that whatever one does, as long as they don't hurt another, should be fine. You are also the one who claims this shouldn't be fine.

Yes...no, you are mistaken.

It's funny, but you didn't describe how someone can have a vice with something illegal.

Yeah, gambling is illegal in some places, as is drinking or purchasing liquor in some places...pot would be a vice. So?

Just looks to me that you can't answer for your own inconsistencies and busy body attitude and now are trying to project your problems with freedom onto me.

Sorry, won't work.

In reality, you are against truly against some liberties that never used to have a law against them (bomb-making, etc.) while being for something that is currently illegal and without positive merit.

No, you are inventing silly ideas that you can then attack, in doing so you may seem smart compared to yourself but you are the only one that thinks so.

Maybe you should try to stay FOCUSED and not bring in your thots on beastiality and bombs. Just a thot.

78 posted on 04/06/2009 9:54:28 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

What IS your fixation with bestiality? Personally, I find it distasteful, but if you can get your animal to voluntarily consent, then be my guest. (or not.) Maybe you don’t wait for that consent. I guess PETA might want to talk to you, in that case.

I DO NOT CARE ONE WHIT about other countries and what they allow or not. Are you one of those like that SCOTUS justice who thinks we need to take other nations’ laws into account when we judge our OWN laws? Sure sounds like it to me. And pot was NOT ALWAYS illegal in this country. Up to the time when Harry Anslinger demonized pot by associating its use with Mexicans and Black Jazz Musicians who just wanted to have sex with white women, there never was a bit of MEDICAL problem with it. In fact there were, as I understand it, numerous MEDICAL USES for hemp, listed in the pharmacopoeia of the day.

And I am nothing if not CONSISTENT. If your action initiates any form of aggression against another, then it may rightly be regulated or prohibited (your murderous proclivities and fixation with rape and involuntary sex are covered under this... INCLUDING having sex with children). If NO ONE but you and your VOLUNTARY associates are involved, HAVE AT IT. Of course, you do need to get the ASPCA to approve your animal sex partners, but hey, that would be a snap for YOU!

And as for your other strawmen, I won’t even bother. When you learn how to make a focused response in a debate, you’ll find you do a LOT better.


79 posted on 04/06/2009 10:02:35 AM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; dcwusmc; SoCalPol; ChrisInAR
... that people should be allowed to create and use chemical and radiological weapons (as long as it stays on their property) ...

With the same strawman argument you used here, once could also justify that reloading brass on one's on property should also be prohibited. After all, you're dealing with dangerous chemicals, explosives, and materials.

So where does common sense stop and liberalism begin? Right there.

The fact is that if someone chooses to use marijuana in their home, recreationally, it harms no one but the person who makes that choice, unless that person goes out and does something stupid while high. But- there are some who want to use the police power of Gov't (ie: the DEA) to tell you what you can do in your own home, because they don't particularly like the behavior or the potential that you may do something stupid while high.

If someone chooses to reload brass in their home, it harms no one, unless that same person takes said reload and goes on a killing spree. There are some who want to use the police power of Gov't (ie: the BATFE, FBI, etc) to tell you what you can do in your own home, because they don't particularly like the behavior or the potential that you might go out on a killing spree.

Using Gov't as the all powerful regulator of the behavior of personal choices that certain groups may not approve of isn't something I'd expect from someone with a 'ConservativeMind'.
80 posted on 04/06/2009 10:25:00 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
This is going to be fun. I’ve asked ChrisinAR and katya8, who are proponents of full legalization of marijuana, to find out how many countries allow marijuana to be grown, sold, bought, and smoked.

So what? In 1776 would you have asked Thomas Jefferson what other countries support his stance?

This is a liberty issue. You want to control what others put into their bodies, and that control has resulted in an all out war and the destruction off our 2nd and 4th amendment rights. But at least you get to sit at home knowing that if somebody is having a good time in a way you don't approve of that the government can break down his door and haul him off to jail.

81 posted on 04/06/2009 10:29:57 AM PDT by Ron Jeremy (sonic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

How many people have been killed in traffic accidents or other tragedies by a pot smoker in your home town over the last year? How about in your home state, how about providing one single case? I bet you can’t....


82 posted on 04/06/2009 11:18:30 AM PDT by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

and the torture for those who don’t get capital punishment will help encourage those who continue to take drugs to straighten up.

Are you a former member of the Taliban?


83 posted on 04/06/2009 11:23:14 AM PDT by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster

Nope, I just enjoy the idea that, when the mere thought that jail won’t curb a behavior, worrying about creative tortures that might be inflicted can be.

After all, these criminals unilaterally tortured the innocent person they maimed. I just want to see them get a huge dose of their own chosen fun.


84 posted on 04/06/2009 11:30:06 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Ron Jeremy

If I desired the liberty to make bombs in my basement, would you say I should have that? I mean, that was allowed in Jefferson’s time. As was gay marriage and marriage to animals, right?

After all, it is a liberty issue.


85 posted on 04/06/2009 11:31:56 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Pot heads don’t torture people and they aren’t violent, you know this, I know this and anybody with a modicum of social intelligence knows this.
Torturing somebody because they smoked a joint is worse than barbaric and to even entertain the idea points to mental instability.
When somebody smoked pot they only harm themselves to a small degree. Smoking pot does not infringe upon anybody’s liberty or property. Smoking pot does not lead people to commit crimes. Drinking alcohol on the other hand....


86 posted on 04/06/2009 11:46:24 AM PDT by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; cripplecreek
Honestly, I don't want government to be that arbiter, but in a society in which I have to pay for you once your head rots too much from drugs, you've indentured me in a way that should be illegal to start. I want you to rot your own brain and you be completely responsible for that decadence.

The truth is that we have a government to be an arbiter of some sort in all of our lives, meting punishment to those who wronged us—even libertarians agree to this use of government.

The problem we are describing with government is that it has taken on the roll of pre-deciding many things as being “wrong” or “right” which were once left up to the individual or to the State. Often, once could argue such laws were for “a good cause,” to prevent things a simple majority of society thought were somehow grotesque or too risky. But our Constitution allows us to limit ourselves and others through law, so this is to be expected.

What is the point at which such regulation becomes too much? I would argue we are well past that place. However, the arguments for legalizing currently illegal substances or behavior cannot be made simply because it is a “liberty” we should have. The truth is that our laws can have a protective effect on our society from time to time. Encouraging people to take up currently illicit drugs will really only spread the problem of drug use (it will be at every drug store and supermarket) while having completely unpredictable results on “lessening the drug war.”

You see, there will always be a drug that seems “edgy” to people precisely because it isn't yet illegal, and therefore, it becomes desirable to many. So we can legalize literally all drugs in an attempt to curb the “edgy-ness” and to, from the arguments of many here on Free Republic, “defund the drug gangs.” There is absolutely no evidence that legalizing will do such a thing, but there is plenty of evidence that when you put mind-altering substances on a table at a party, that a huge number of people will try them. If they are legal, such items are freely available and, some argue, cheaper because they are mass produced (sure, they are taxed, but when the tax is too high, people again buy illegally - CrippleCreek has a link about that). Does having a cheap, readily-available supply of crank, cocaine, pot, etc. really sound like the cure for getting drug crime off the streets? Or does it remind us of Opium dens of yore?

We have enough problems with what is currently legal. Why complicate it by saying illegal drugs made legal will make using those substances easier for our society to handle, ESPECIALLY when no other society in the world has shown that works?

By the way, not even pot is truly legal to buy, sell, grow and use anywhere in the world. Why screw us up here in the US with millions more druggies causing crime and using our insurance/welfare resources?

87 posted on 04/06/2009 11:55:19 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster
If you read my original post, you'd understand.

I believe anyone who commits a crime on a drug meant only for recreational fun should be held liable as though the crime was premeditated. I also believe a torture penalty for such offenses is only fair, as the crime they committed against an innocent should be used as the means by which they are punished, three-fold over.

88 posted on 04/06/2009 11:57:30 AM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; bamahead; cripplecreek; TheKidster
I also believe a torture penalty for such offenses is only fair, as the crime they committed against an innocent should be used as the means by which they are punished, three-fold over.

TROLL ALERT!

89 posted on 04/06/2009 12:05:22 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster

I will tell you skippy, here in San Diego with over 3 million people and Calif. with millions more, what do you think

also Sept 2008 the wreck of the Metrolink in LA
that collided head on with a Union Pacific freight train
killing 25 passengers - the engineer tested for marajuana.


90 posted on 04/06/2009 12:08:18 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

:-) Yeah, a troll with something like 5000+ posts.

Hehe.


91 posted on 04/06/2009 12:15:15 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

He tested for it but was he actually high at the time. Marijuanna components stay in the system for up to 90 days after use.


92 posted on 04/06/2009 12:17:34 PM PDT by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

You’re just saying stupid things for the attention.

That is a troll and it doesn’t matter how long you been here or how many posts.

Saying stupid or controversial stuff just to provoke people to respond is trolling


93 posted on 04/06/2009 12:18:23 PM PDT by Eagle Eye (Defending RINOs is the same as defending Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: TheKidster

Since you have way to much time on your hands, why don’t
you send for the report.


94 posted on 04/06/2009 12:23:14 PM PDT by SoCalPol (Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
No, I am saying precisely what I mean, not caring about attention from you or others.

Although a torture penalty is not legal in the US, it once was, as were public hangings and such. I am for bringing that all back and making punishment for heinous crime palpable again to all who might commit a crime.

It doesn't seem too fair that a criminal can pick an innocent person out and hurt them in whatever way they would like, while those left behind know the bad person is watching Oprah in a nice temperature-controlled room, with food and exercise equipment on hand to further ease their time.

However, I'm not for allowing inmates to hurt one another. I believe any negative stuff that happens to a person behind bars should only be prescribed by a judge, not randomly allocated by a fellow inmate.

I hope that helps you understand. By the way, ever watch "24"? If you have ever found yourself rooting for him while he's torturing someone "for a cause," you are in a worse position than that which I advocate.

95 posted on 04/06/2009 12:27:39 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: SoCalPol

Nah I’ll just let you keep making things up, it’s funner.


96 posted on 04/06/2009 1:03:30 PM PDT by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

“Marijuana and cocaine weren’t always illegal.”

Neither was slavery. Not a good argument.

And if you dont think booze creates problems today ... just look at the death stats on drunken driving for your answer.

“Should the federal government be regulating citizens’ vices?”
Good question.
But certainly more offensive than punishing us for our vices is when Govt punishes us for our VIRTUE!

Which we do today. By that I mean taxation of the responsible to pay the bills of the irresponsible. Nobody has convinced me that legalizing drugs wont make that welfare-addled system worse. For those of us who are responsible non-drug-using citizens, it’s not a gain to our freedom to see legal drug use, just a burden to our wallet.


97 posted on 04/06/2009 2:34:23 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
Honestly, I don't want government to be that arbiter, but in a society in which I have to pay for you once your head rots too much from drugs, you've indentured me in a way that should be illegal to start. I want you to rot your own brain and you be completely responsible for that decadence.

YUP. That's the nub of it.

Face it, my drug-desiring FRiends, the socialists have us in a corner. We are the SUCKERS for their entire social engineering scheme. For us taxpayer, turing 'potheads in jail' into 'potheads on welfare' is a distinction without a difference to our wallet. So ... If you want YOUR freedom ... LIBERATE US RESPONSIBLE TAXPAYERS FIRST!

98 posted on 04/06/2009 2:39:34 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
But certainly more offensive than punishing us for our vices is when Govt punishes us for our VIRTUE!

Well said!

99 posted on 04/06/2009 3:10:01 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Cancel liberal newspaper, magazine & cable TV subscriptions (Free TV-dtv.gov). Stop funding the MSM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: WOSG; ConservativeMind
Gentlemen, in your reading and understanding of the Constitution, do you think authority is delegated to fedgov to regulate vice under the Commerce Clause? Or do you think the states retained this authority under the Tenth Amendment?
100 posted on 04/06/2009 3:36:57 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-130 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson