Posted on 12/06/2012 2:25:44 PM PST by Responsibility2nd
"I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts, and if somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody else any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems that we have in society."
The “surrender moneys” are the ones that think everyone should just STFU about having their doors kicked in, their dogs shot, their property confiscated, and their gun rights infringed and accept that this is just how it has to be in order to “win”.
You already said “Evidence, please” in post 125. In order to spare you embarrassment, I was kind enough then to refrain from mentioning a cool site called Google. You may have heard of it.
Do your own damn research. Then come back and tell me I was right.
My answer to the problem of "illegal" drug abuse is the same as my answer to the abuse of any other mind altering substance.
Education about its effects
The right of employers to test and to fire those impaired
Swift punishment for anyone putting others at risk while impaired
End of story.
""If we're talking about pot, I'm not for the legalization of pot. I think that would just encourage our young people to think that it was OK to go ahead and use it.”
You have made a very effective argument against yourself. If it was a free market the US could no longer keep the prices propped up. Driven by a free market, prices would crash. The US is in effect keeping the prices high and profits even higher with the current policy.
I get it. You maintain the gubmint benefits from the WOD.
It does
Yet we know (from ending Prohibition) that legalization will ONLY INCREASE the power and control of government in our personal lives.
Please cite one example of a dynamic entry in the last ten years to bring to justice a dangerous gang of Moet Chandon distributors or Glenlivit pushers. What unconstitutional asset asset forfeiture laws have been passed to stop this out of control nuisance? How many dogs have been shot or houses burned down to protect the kids from breaking into the family liquor stash?
On both sides.
Let's cut the crap.
Abuse of drugs is a bad thing.
A government big enough to combat those issues is FAR worse.
/thread
It's not NJ's job to do your homework for you - YOU made the claim so the burden is on YOU to back it up ... or be exposed as a lazy ignoramus.
Alcohol use dropped dramatically in the first couple of years of prohibition and then rose gradually to about 80-90 percent of the pre-prohibition level by 1930. It remained at about that level throughout the 1930's after repeal.
Yeah. And let me rub it in... er ah, I mean remind you that you and your type are in the minority here at FRee Republic.
And beside; not “everyone” gets their doors kicked in.....
And I see what you did there. Now you are trying to tie gun right infringements to the WOD.
That’s a stretch.
Do you agree with the quote in #161. Yes or no.
Another made-up "fact". There are no polls on FR any more, so there's no way to be sure who's in the minority.
And even if "my type" was, so what??
May I reiterate...
So what??
No.
That's the Drug Warriors' stock in trade.
Absolutely! We need to move towards banning even more drugs, since they have a clearly adverse effect on our society.
Keep the ban on marijuana, cocaine etc., and add to that the even more insidious drugs out there.
Alcohol, nicotine (all tobacco products) and a good many of the current prescription drugs (Oxycontin kills more per year than heroin and cocaine combined) should all be banned completely. Imagine all the government jobs that will create!!
And while we're cracking down, let's make urine tests (and blood tests) mandatory for any paycheck, be it from an employer or a government agency. We want to treat everyone equally fair.
Well yes, heaven forbid. When one embarks on an endeavor of any sort, especially where endeavor = war, does it not make sense to define, up front, what constitutes success? How else would you define success or failure unless you had a baseline against which you can measure your efforts?
In the software world, for example, one does not waste time, money, and resources designing, building, and releasing into the marketplace an application without first defining a success metric, and measuring all efforts against that metric, whatever it may be. To do otherwise would be foolish, no?
It boggles the mind that you cannot - or will not - grasp this basic principle.
Essentially, what you're vigorously "arguing" for, here, is equivalent to spending unlimited time, money, and resources in developing and building an application that you can't even conceive of in your own mind, let alone "sell" to others. You're passionately arguing for a blank check to conduct an open-ended crusade, and you, one of your cause's most ardent proponents, don't even know what success looks like.
How in the world can you convince others to get on board if you can't even define what you want to accomplish?
And we're not talking about mere things like money here, because this is the political realm. We're dealing, also, with abstracts like freedom, liberty, federalism, and the principles of limited government . . . in an era in which the federal government is asking citizens to pay more to achieve even less.
You style yourself as the one of the only "true" conservatives worthy of commenting on Free Republic, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, ma'am, but what you really are is a progressive who has latched on to a progressive cause because it "feels" to you to be a conservative issue. And that's because you've gone beyond the theoretical and personalized it, making your enemies somehow subhuman in comparison to you. Anyone who has followed your posting history on Free Republic knows you loathe anyone who, by your standards, falls into the "liberal" or "libertarian" categories; you're merely advocating to give the federal government the power to crush anyone you deem unworthy to share in our great American experiment.
That's how progressives handle things. You don't like someone or something? Invent a government power to crush the opposition, and by all means, demand that the US military step in to do your dirty work for you.
That’s a stretch.
The DEA was a willing participant in Fast and Furious.
You wanna use the software world to boost your argument? Fine. Tell me when that perfect software is written. Define it please. Let me know when we can end our need for new software. When we have that perfect "success metric" and no new metrics are necessary.
Anyone who has followed your posting history on Free Republic knows....
.... that I'm a happily married man. Just pointing that out since you don't even know that about me. Just as you know nothing about social conservatism.
You don't like someone or something? Invent a government power to crush the opposition, and by all means, demand that the US military step in to do your dirty work for you.
Dirty work? Hell yes. I respect the dirty work as you call it the military does. And if you don't agree that our borders are important enough to defend, then I suppose - like Ron Paul - you would like to slash in half our military budgets.
How libertarian of of you.
The DEA was a willing participant in Fast and Furious.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And the DEA answers and reports to.......?
(Hint. His initials are E.H.)
Abuse of drugs is a bad thing.
Did anyone here suggest otherwise?
A government big enough to combat those issues is FAR worse.
Amen!
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.