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

Skip to comments.

Tancredo Says It's Time To Legalize Drugs; Former Congressman Says Drug War Lost
KMGH-TV ABC 7 Denver, Colo. ^ | 2009-05-20 | Steve Saunders

Posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385

DENVER -- Admitting that it may be "political suicide" former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo said its time to consider legalizing drugs.

He spoke Wednesday to the Lincoln Club of Colorado, a Republican group that's been active in the state for 90 years. It's the first time Tancredo has spoken on the drug issue. He ran for president in 2008 on an anti-illegal immigration platform that has brought him passionate support and criticism.

Tancredo noted that he has never used drugs, but said the war has failed.

"I am convinced that what we are doing is not working," he said.

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


TOPICS: Extended News; Mexico; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: borderinsecurity; congressmanleroy; dontbogartthatjoint; drugcrazedloonies; drugs; libertarians; lping; medicalmarijuana; prohibition; tancredo; wod; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-210 next last
He's right. The federal war on drugs is a failure.
1 posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:30 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bamahead; dcwusmc

ping!


2 posted on 05/21/2009 10:27:51 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

the proof is that prices keep getting lower....meaning every year the supply is greater.....


3 posted on 05/21/2009 10:30:47 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

And he would nuke mecca....he’s got my vote...


4 posted on 05/21/2009 10:31:56 PM PDT by Crim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

So is the war on poverty. What do we do about that? While we’re at it, Harry Reid says the War in Iraq is LOST. What are we doing still there? In addition, we no longer fight “terrorists” so why are we still in the mid-east?
Point is, every time some dumb-assed politician speaks, we don’t have to consider what he says as truthful.


5 posted on 05/21/2009 10:33:27 PM PDT by Dapper 26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I guess this means Tancredo is angling for the Libertarian nomination in ‘12.


6 posted on 05/21/2009 10:34:32 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Independent Party - 'The principled always win in the long haul' - www.AIPNEWS.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I’ll guess this may be a long & heated thread.


7 posted on 05/21/2009 10:35:05 PM PDT by umgud (Look to gov't to solve your everday problems and they'll control your everday life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

No taxes involved, I’m sure.


8 posted on 05/21/2009 10:35:34 PM PDT by Mark (Don't argue with my posts. I typed while under sniper fire..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The drug war is lost for losers (on drugs). Sorry Tom. I don’t buy it.


9 posted on 05/21/2009 10:37:09 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

All of the civil liberties that we have lost in recent times has been at the feet of the great War on (some) Drugs.

Currently Barry the Kenyan is trying to get us to buy into the idea that all the guns in Mexico is our fault so as to sing us onto some UN gun ban treaty.

Good ole war on drugs here...


10 posted on 05/21/2009 10:40:03 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Does Tancredo want to legalize illegal aliens as well? Just as strong a case could be made we’ve lost that war too.


11 posted on 05/21/2009 10:40:04 PM PDT by upsdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

It’ll take firearms and/or clear-thinking rational minds to turn this socialist ship of state around.


12 posted on 05/21/2009 10:45:31 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Good grief....Colorado Republicans have nothing better to work on?

Of course...Republicans are more comfortable in the minority.


13 posted on 05/21/2009 10:49:48 PM PDT by roses of sharon (NOTRE DAMIAN: ABORTION, YES WE CAN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour

Yep. The single greatest argument to end the “war on drugs” is that by doing so, we eliminate all this “no knock warrant” BS, as well as people (and their dogs) being shot on “tips” from some mid-level dope peddler who wants to weasel out of a stiff sentence for dealing who is called a “confidential informant” by the Feds or local LEO’s.

I can tally up the loss of liberty due to the WOD without even thinking about it:

- traffic stops
- dope sniffing dogs become a DIY warrant
- no-knock raids on houses (indeed, the very concept of a no-knock warrant)
- asset forfeiture
- financial laws against money laundering, the “know your customer” crap at banks
- thermal imaging of your house, looking for dope growing operations
- and the warrantless scans of utility bills

That’s just off the top of my head.


14 posted on 05/21/2009 10:56:24 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Tancredo’s right again. We, here in CO, need to make him a Senator.


15 posted on 05/21/2009 10:57:05 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Let’s see. He avoided the draft, was a public school teacher and wants to legalize meth, pot and heroine. No-go!


16 posted on 05/21/2009 10:59:31 PM PDT by familyop (combat engineer (combat), National Guard, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver
Does Tancredo want to legalize illegal aliens as well? Just as strong a case could be made we’ve lost that war too.

Really? What have we done to fight that war? How many billions have been spent? I don't think you have any case at all.

17 posted on 05/21/2009 11:00:07 PM PDT by TigersEye (Cloward-Piven Strategy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver
"Does Tancredo want to legalize illegal aliens as well?"

In other words, is he a liberaltarian?

"Just as strong a case could be made we’ve lost that war too."

Agreed. We should only reserve certain cities for drugs, prostitution, globalist slavery, gambling, etc...and build tall fences around them. If there had ever really been a "war on drugs," all of the drug dealers and addicts would be dead.


18 posted on 05/21/2009 11:05:14 PM PDT by familyop (combat engineer (combat), National Guard, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

really? is this his new big issue?? I thought the big issue was that we have a looter government attempting to bankrupt the nation


19 posted on 05/21/2009 11:09:30 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dapper 26
So is the war on poverty.

I disagree. The war on poverty is over, and we won.

The "war on poverty" metaphor worked when there were millions of Americans without basic shelter, running water, sanitation and electricity, and malnutrition was commonplace. Today, America's "poor" have decent housing, most with cars and color TV, and their primary nutritional problem is obesity.

The problems today are caused by a lack of family and community, caused in no small measure by the government programs that were designed to -- and succeeded in -- solving yesterday's problems. The solution is not more of the same.

The War on (some) Drugs is a different animal, and was wrong-headed from the beginning. Addiction is first and foremost a public health problem, not a criminal justice problem. Treatment is far from perfect, but it's a damn sight more effective than imprisonment, and at a fraction of the cost.

Instead of attacking the demand side of the equation, the neoprohibitionists have spent more than half a century focusing solely on the supply. After untold trillions of dollars spent and lives ruined by thoughtless "zero tolerance" policies and mandatory sentences, the drug warriors are still getting bitch-slapped by the Invisible Hand. There is no reason to believe that any amount of money, manpower or legislation will fill that bottomless pit, and yet we keep shoveling.

20 posted on 05/21/2009 11:09:52 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

“Addiction is first and foremost a -——— PRIVATE-—— health problem, not a criminal justice problem.”

There! Fixed it.

Oldplayer


21 posted on 05/21/2009 11:15:34 PM PDT by oldplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Then please hurry up and do so. Thanks!


22 posted on 05/21/2009 11:16:34 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The United States has not succeeded in eliminating drugs, but that in itself doesn’t mean we should give up.

You have to have a positive reason why drugs should not be a concern for the government, not just a “well, we can’t control it, so why bother”. After all, such an argument would prevent us from ever stopping abortion. And we’ve made shoplifting illegal for decades and people still shoplift.

If more people would use drugs if we stopped trying to fight it, that would mean we didn’t “lose”, we simply couldn’t win.


23 posted on 05/21/2009 11:17:17 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

And the War on Some Drugs is part of that looting... you know, asset “forfeiture” (grand theft, in other words), trashing the Constitution, all that sort of thing. It all ties together as you should well know. You’ve been around here long enough to have learned at least a LITTLE bit!


24 posted on 05/21/2009 11:19:27 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

WHERE in the Constitution is government handed the authority to ban substances which folks might ingest? WHERE? Please be very specific.


25 posted on 05/21/2009 11:21:06 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

“WHERE in the Constitution is government handed the authority to ban substances which folks might ingest? WHERE? Please be very specific.”

No where.


26 posted on 05/21/2009 11:30:53 PM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

of course.

But its not the major problem by far.

the looter government is out to stomp this nation into the ground and shooting at its toes isn’t going to stop them


27 posted on 05/21/2009 11:32:27 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I can see legalizing pot and maybe a few other substances and maybe decriminalizing a few others. I have a hard time getting on board with legalizing meth, coke, heroin, etc. Pot doesn’t turn people into slaves like coke, meth, and heroin.


28 posted on 05/21/2009 11:32:40 PM PDT by RC one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Allowing each of the different States to experiment in Unique legalization plans could yield positive results.

Just off the top of my head, I'd like to see one State try allowing ONLY Walgreen's to sell “single Day, One user” supplies; the buyer MUST pay with “plastic”. Each transaction would go into Walgreen's’ mainframe & lockout that buyer {from further buys] for 24 hours.

Another could try “only Home Delivery & only paid with Plastic”; that delivery MUST be to the Card Holder's “address of record”[the valid Billing Address]. Each transaction would be automatically reported to the Feds & Local Law Enforcement.

Yup, there are untried ways to limit Drug Abuse, and cripple the illegal drug profiteers.

29 posted on 05/21/2009 11:42:07 PM PDT by PizzaDriver (an heinleinian/libertarian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Oh, great. A nation of candle-watchers. Just what we need.


30 posted on 05/21/2009 11:43:08 PM PDT by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: devere

Precisely!


31 posted on 05/21/2009 11:44:34 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

It needs to be addressed, right along with all the rest. The abuse of the Constitution can, IMO, be traced right back to the WOSD and the war on guns and gunowners. They ALL need to be addressed and stopped.


32 posted on 05/21/2009 11:46:41 PM PDT by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Libertarians will never get me to go long with legalizing drugs until they successfully get rid of the social welfare state. All this will do is promote more bad behavior and allow a bunch pot smokers to do nothing other than live on taxpayer money. Put in personal responsibility into our system first where stupid people fail, and then and only then will I even entertain the idea.


33 posted on 05/21/2009 11:53:26 PM PDT by Cheap_Hessian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
WHERE in the Constitution is government handed the authority to ban substances which folks might ingest? WHERE? Please be very specific.

My favorite question! As best I can recall, I've seen 3 or 4 people come right out and endorse Wickard. Most often, the responses are awkward evasions or no answer at all.

34 posted on 05/21/2009 11:55:52 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cheap_Hessian; dcwusmc
Libertarians will never get me to go long with legalizing drugs until they successfully get rid of the social welfare state.

Who says that small-l libertarians don't want to get rid of the social welfare state, at least, at the federal level?

Social welfare and combating drug abuse are not among the constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal legislature, and as such, per the Tenth Amendment, are powers exclusively reserved to the individual States and to their citizens.

35 posted on 05/22/2009 12:04:42 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
I believe there are good arguments to make drugs legal.  I also believe there are good arguments not to.  I come down on the big NOT TO.

Why do some poeple want to legalize drugs?  Well, there seems to be two main reasons.

1. Some people believe adults should be able to do anything they please as long as they are not hurting others.
2. Those same people believe that by legalizing drugs, the black market will be eliminated and all problems with law enforcement will simply evaporate.

We have seen the down side of legalizing alcohol.  Yes, there are down sides.

Children gain access to alcohol.  Adults cannot control themselves, and drink alcohol and drive.  Others become alcoholics and destroy the family unit.  The work force is negative impacted.  Lives are ruined.  Society is negative impacted.

We can kid ourselves about how drugs are actually better than alcohol.  In some ways they may be.  In other ways they are much worse.  We will have the same problems with drugs that we now have with alcohol, but the legalization of drugs will spread the problems exponentially.  There will always be a class of people who wish to drink alcohol.  Others won't be tempted by alcohol.  But if you place all the drugs that people want to abuse within their reach, you will have people who want to abuse, morphine, Demerol, Fentanyl... and on and on.  Where would it end?  There would be forty new products if not more, that people would want to abuse.  There would be segments of followers for each one of them.  There would be abusers of each one of them.  And there would be children getting ahold of each one of them.

Ah yes, children.  It's my assumption that those who wish to legalize drugs would have the common sense to set an age limit under which you could not use these drugs legally.  Okay, since those drugs are now on the street, what happens immediately?  That's right, a black market pops up to make sure kids can now not only get access to alcohol as they have in the past, but now they can have access to all the other drugs too for a price.  So have you eliminated the problems with law enforcement by legalizing all the drugs?  No.  You'll still have the cops knocking down doors to stop pushers who supply kids.  And folks, these kids have expendable incomes, and there will be plenty of money to be made.

The only way to stop the black market problem would be to let any human that wanted to, have access to any drug they wanted.  Then you've got grade school kids shooting up Heroin if they want.  Look, I'm not saying all those who push for legalization will want this, even though I'm sure some would.  I still think this is a stark reality.  You can't stop the abuses of law enforcement unless you open the flood gates to everyone.

Well, if we're going to do that, we might just as well allow kids to have sex with adults at any age too.  What's the difference?  If we're going to allow them to F up their brains duirng the formative years, we might just as well let them trash the physical as well.

The truth is, even it if it's not the goal, the black market profiteers will have access to any drug they want under legalization.  Some folks will go in to get the drugs, and sell them to the profiteers.  So kids will have easy access to many narcotics.

We have enough problems today.  Do we really need to expand them exponentially?

I don't think so.

I know a lot of you will disagree with me.  I've had this discussion a number of times before.  I'm not changing my mind, and I know you aren't.  I just wanted to put some food for thought out there.

I would encourage others to make their own statements like I have.

I don't have the time to debate five to ten of you at the same time like I have a number of times in the past.

36 posted on 05/22/2009 12:09:40 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Obama is mentally a child of ten. Just remember that when he makes statements and issues policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
We should only reserve certain cities for drugs, prostitution, globalist slavery, gambling, etc...and build tall fences around them.

Slavery is unconstitutional and therefore is legitimately the business of the federal government. The Wickard decision makes drugs, along with health care, welfare, gun control etc. subject to fedgov control.

Do you think Wickard is in keeping with the original meaning of the Commerce Clause?

37 posted on 05/22/2009 12:10:46 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Abandoning all pretense of a war on drugs is like opening the doors of the alamo to santa ana. othing good can come of it...and it could only be the plan of wishful thinkers who are exhausted and confused.


38 posted on 05/22/2009 12:19:57 AM PDT by x_plus_one ("Salvation comes about though change in individual lives, not through the ending of unjust society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Yeah, I know... but Libertarians make a great mistake attacking social issues against conservatives before winning any economic ones against liberals. The government has an incentive to legalize drugs so they can tax it. It is an easier fight. Have you found an incentive for the federal government to get smaller?


39 posted on 05/22/2009 12:23:00 AM PDT by Cheap_Hessian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
[...] combating drug abuse are not among the constitutionally enumerated powers of the federal legislature, and as such, per the Tenth Amendment, are powers exclusively reserved to the individual States and to their citizens.

Not precisely true, FRiend. The federal government does have the right to control import/export into the country, and also interstate trafficking, so there is a proper role for the federal government in defining contraband.

That being said, I will meet you in the middle, and agree that the federal government has far out-stepped it's boundaries wrt the WOD. I will agree with the libertarians that states rights and private rights have been lost in the process, and need to be restored.

But I will still remain against the notion of legalizing all drugs, or a panoply of 50 different definitions, which would make interstate enforcement impossible. Some reasonable middle ground must be found.

I find the libertarian view to be short-sighted in this regard, as what one endorses, one will invariably get more of.

Who will pay for the increase in drug use? Crime will go up, legal or not... drug users cannot afford meth now, which is fairly reasonable to buy... but the nature of their addiction makes them useless as workers, so they steal for their fix. That will not change if their drug is legal. But since they cannot be processed by the system for their drug use, they will remain on the streets until caught actually committing a burglary.

And who will support the increase in unwed mothers and addicted children? More grist for the welfare system. What of all the illegitimate children pumped into the system?

Legalizing drugs will not make things better. It will make things predictably worse. And they are bad enough already.

40 posted on 05/22/2009 12:45:09 AM PDT by roamer_1 (It takes a (Kenyan) village to raise an idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
It's my assumption that those who wish to legalize drugs would have the common sense to set an age limit under which you could not use these drugs legally.  Okay, since those drugs are now on the street, what happens immediately?  That's right, a black market pops up...

"Pops up"? Do you mean there is no black market now? From CASA:

Marijuana continues to be easier to buy than beer: 23 percent of teens find it easiest to buy compared to 15 percent who find beer easiest to buy.

http://www.casacolumbia.org/absolutenm/templates/PressReleases.aspx?articleid=533&zoneid=66

_____________________________________

You left out one reason often cited for ending the War on Drugs - the belief that under the Tenth Amendment, fedgov should butt out of a state issue. Simple yes/no question: do you think Wickard is in keeping with the original meaning of the Commerce Clause?

41 posted on 05/22/2009 1:01:15 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Should we decriminalize?

It seems to me the question is not whether you or I should care about what a third party puts into his body, that is afterall a moral judgment, rather, the question is whether the government should care about what someone puts into his body?

Clearly the government has a constitutional right to regulate and criminalize drugs just as it has the right to regulate food and ethical drugs. The question is not whether it's constitutional but whether it is good public policy.

Seems to me that if a government prohibition on the use of drugs actually eliminated drug use, few except perhaps some aging hippies and top models would argue vehemently against such laws which would redeem so many wretched lives. But experience has shown that government fiat does not eliminate drug use. So the real question is, does government prohibition reduce drug use? And if it does, is the price worth paying? It is not entirely clear that the laws against drug use actually reduce their use because the prohibition itself creates a financial incentive which works to subsidize its use. The government has never found a way to eliminate or reduce drug usage without inserting a profit factor. Worse, the more the government is effective in reducing the inflow of illegal drugs, the more it creates a counter incentive of increased profitability by the law of supply and demand. Perversely, since the drugs tend to be addictive there is a physical compulsion to seek more of the drug and, since government efforts to eliminate it inevitably raise its price, users in withdrawal are tempted to finance their habits by becoming dealers. So it is not clear whether the government's efforts to reduce drugs by prohibiting their use actually does more harm than good.

One of the prices we pay for our government's campaign against drugs is certainly a loss of liberty. I tend towards the Libertarian's view that it is none of the government's damn business what I put in my body. However, I recognize that such usage inevitably presents a risk to society. I do not want inebriated drivers plowing into my automobile whether they are drunk on alcohol or drugs. But society has learned a hard lesson, that it is better to make the drunk driving the crime but not the consumption of alcohol itself.

Another price we pay is a loss of privacy. Mandatory testing of both government and private employees is to some degree intrusive. Queries about drug use and application forms are equally intrusive. Undercover agents operating in public bathrooms is an affront to our dignity. Eavesdropping of telephone conversations is unquestionably an invasion of privacy. It is the reduction, or rather the presumed reduction, if any, in the amount of drug usage obtained by these intrusions worth the price?

We pay a great financial price as well. The war on drugs costs us billions of dollars annually in enforcement and incarceration costs. Is this money well spent?

There is an insidious price as well: corruption and its handmaiden, cynicism. Our police, our border agents, our judges, one might say the entire criminal justice apparatus has been infected with a corruption generated by the huge profits to be made-profits which are there only because the government by its policies has created them. Inevitably cynicism results in the whole of the people beginning to despise rather than revere the rule of law.

Because drugs are illegal, the price is high and profits are enormous. Yet we send our boys to fight in Afghanistan to deprive Taliban chieftains of their poppy fields which finance at least indirectly the very terrorism we fight against. Would it not be better simply to eliminate the profits in poppies by legalizing the drug? Can we ever hope to bring sanity to Columbia while we in effect subsidize narcos by billions of dollars a year? Is the damage to our foreign policy, like the damage to our precious rule of law, worth what benefit we get from criminalizing drugs use?

On balance, I have to throw my lot in with William F. Buckley and say that the war against drugs is lost and we ought to try a new tact.


42 posted on 05/22/2009 1:09:28 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PGalt

Look what happened to organized crime when alcohol was legalized. They turned to other vices.

I have been predicting two events from the liberal presidency: legalizing drugs and the lowering of the age of consent. Any bets?


43 posted on 05/22/2009 1:11:23 AM PDT by Loud Mime (If Christians cannot unite in battle to save this nation, it will be lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Libertarians should show us where, exactly, the US Constitution says that drug fiends, due to their addictions, have rights to commit so many different crimes against other Americans. They steal, murder, consume far more than their share of tax revenues, entice kids to join them, violate families in several ways...all because of their drug-addled nature. The list of their crimes against the rights of law-abiding Americans is long.

As for “legislating morality,” the Constitution itself legislates morality. So it is with the laws of the states: the laws that are most often used to put drug zombies in prisons. Our legislatures should pass laws to execute them.


44 posted on 05/22/2009 1:33:18 AM PDT by familyop (combat engineer (combat), National Guard, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: familyop
. . . wants to legalize meth, pot and heroine.

I didn't know heroines were illegal.

45 posted on 05/22/2009 1:39:44 AM PDT by Misterioso
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
You have to have a positive reason why drugs should not be a concern for the government

No, the government has to have a positive and compelling reason for interfering with the private lives of citizens. "I don't like druggies" is insufficient.

46 posted on 05/22/2009 1:42:43 AM PDT by garbanzo (Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Misterioso
"I didn't know heroines were illegal."

Heh. Yeah, now we have to call them, "heroes," because so many drug-crazed feminists enforce their linguistic activism and sexual confusion in schools, businesses and government offices. ;-)


47 posted on 05/22/2009 1:45:27 AM PDT by familyop (combat engineer (combat), National Guard, '89-'96, Duncan Hunter or no-vote, http://falconparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
But since they cannot be processed by the system for their drug use, they will remain on the streets until caught actually committing a burglary.

BS. The idea of drug zombies is nothing more than drug war propaganda with absolutely nothing in empirical evidence to support it. The idea of "precrime" is so foreign and abhorrent to a free society it hardly bears mentioning.

48 posted on 05/22/2009 1:48:12 AM PDT by garbanzo (Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Society is negative impacted.

Society doesn't have rights - individuals do.

Okay, since those drugs are now on the street, what happens immediately?...So kids will have easy access to many narcotics.

What universe do you live in where these drugs aren't already on the street and kids don't have access to pretty much any drug they want?

49 posted on 05/22/2009 1:53:12 AM PDT by garbanzo (Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
What other people put into their bodies is really none of your, or my, business. Drugs have been around since alcohol was invented, actually before that even. Before the turn of the century(20th) and for a few years after drugs were legal in the US, in fact cocaine was used in making coca cola, not much, a very small, small amount. Drug users were no more plentiful then than they are now, just as people kept drinking when prohibition was in effect people keep using drugs whether they are legal or not. In fact, being illegal and such a great money maker for gangs and other drug dealers, children are more apt to become drug users and addicts simply because dealers push drugs onto children.

It is profitable don't you see? Legalize drugs, take the money out of it and the crime either goes away completely or close to it. No more money to finance well armed gangs, no more shoot outs on the border, drugs cause those shoot outs, drugs finance the gangs such as MS13.

Claiming the high ground is simply BS. Don't want to do drugs? Don't do them, I don't. The only ones who are damaged with legal drugs are the ones taking them, no one else. The people who are damaged when drugs are illegal are too numerous to count, but of course moralistic people can't be concerned about the many victims caused by the war on drugs. They have to make sure everyone lives just the way they want them to.

People who think drugs should be illegal are actually liberals, because they want to control what others do.

I am not a drug user, never have been, I am not a libertarian, never have been. I am a realist and a person who learns from history and I use common sense and not a moralistic desire to control other people.

50 posted on 05/22/2009 1:57:49 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-210 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