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

Skip to comments.

A Smart Conservative Position on War on Drugs
Townhall.com ^ | December 16, 2012 | Debra J. Saunders

Posted on 12/16/2012 5:35:02 AM PST by Kaslin

"Mandatory sentences breed injustice," Judge Roger Vinson told the New York Times. A Ronald Reagan appointee to the federal bench in Florida, Vinson was railing against a federal system that forced him to sentence a 27-year-old single mother to prison life without parole because her dealer ex-boyfriend had stored cocaine in her house.

Note to D.C. Republicans: This would be a great time to take on the excesses of the war on drugs.

The Times was writing about conservatives, including Jeb Bush and former Watergate conspirator Chuck Colson, who advocate for smarter, more humane incarceration policies under the rubric "Right on Crime." In light of the GOP's need to woo more young voters, drug-war reforms offer an ideological good -- limited government -- and also might be politically savvy. Think: Ron Paul and his rock star status on college campuses.

Two areas cry for immediate action.

One: Sentencing reform. The single mother, Stephanie George, had prior drug convictions, which contributed to her draconian prison term. Even she says that she deserved to do time, but not the rest of her natural life.

What's more, her costly incarceration won't do anything to dry up the nation's drug supply or scare kingpins straight. Career dealers, like George's ex-boyfriend, who was released five years ago, know how to game the system and reduce their sentences by testifying against amateurs and patsies who think they can win at trial. As the judge explained, the guiltiest parties "get reduced sentences, while the small fry, the little workers who don't have that information, get the mandatory sentences."

When the federal government imprisons small-time criminals for life, the system grows too costly and too ineffective. It embodies the definition of big government. University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt found that American penal policies decreased crime in the 1990s. Since then, incarceration rates have risen so steeply that Levitt told the Times he now thinks that the prison population -- more than 2 million people are in prison or jail -- could be reduced by a third. If he's even half right, Washington should act.

President Obama was critical of mandatory minimums before he was elected to the White House. But he has failed to use his presidential power to pardon as he should. Obama has commuted only one sentence to date, and right now, a commutation is George's only hope of release.

Julie Stewart, who founded Families Against Mandatory Minimums, knows Democratic and Republican politicians who have issues with the war on drugs. Congress should not wait on the White House to enact sentencing reform; GOP members should lead the way.

Two: Marijuana. Though the Obama administration has rewarded sanctuary cities that choose to flout federal immigration law, the Obama Department of Justice has had a no-sanctuary approach to medical-marijuana dispensaries in states where voters have legalized medical use. In California, U.S. attorneys have gone to extremes, seizing assets without prosecuting dispensaries and suing landlords who aren't even distributing the drug.

In November, Washington and Colorado voted to legalize possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana. Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., opposed the Colorado measure, but he supports the Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act of 2012, which would exempt states with medical or recreational marijuana laws from the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Is Coffman ahead of Obama?

The administration has announced no policy change. Talking to ABC on Friday, Obama reiterated his 2008 view that arresting recreational users should not be a priority and said he does not support legalizing marijuana "at this point."

Marijuana Majority's Tom Angell is not impressed. "The federal government rarely goes after individual users," he noted in a statement. "The real question is whether the Obama administration will try to prevent voter-approved marijuana sales systems from being enacted or if they will force individual users to buy marijuana from the black market, where much of the profits go to cartels and gangs that kill people." And: The executive branch should reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.

"We want to put away the bad guys," former California GOP Assembly leader Pat Nolan, who served time in federal prison and now works for the Prison Justice Fellowship, stressed, but the federal system no longer is limited to hard time for hard crimes. Still, Nolan sees more conservative support for sentencing reform on the state level than on Capitol Hill.

It's time for a change. Smart conservatives should fight for government that works and an end to laws that do not. Compassionate conservatives must stand against laws that are harder on small fish than career criminals. Fiscal conservatives should oppose the policies that burn dollars without promoting public safety. Constitutional conservatives should stand up for states' rights.

And young conservatives instinctively understand this.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: drugs; drugwar; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd

1 posted on 12/16/2012 5:35:04 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I've recently changed my mind and now agree with Milton Friedman that drug laws and enforcement do more harm than good.

Not only that, I think it's a states' issue anyway. I'd like to see where the Constitution delegates authority to the federal government to allow its "War on Drugs."

2 posted on 12/16/2012 5:42:55 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Having said that the government is causing more harm than good in their “War on Drugs”, I must say that not enough people understand how harmful marijuana is. Marijuana causes psychosis in one form or another. It creates paranoia and attacks the central nervous system. Some people appear more affected than others, but it is a very harmful psychedelic drug.


3 posted on 12/16/2012 5:52:42 AM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I think that a huge blow could be made against marijuana in a simple way: legalize, even encourage the industrial production of hemp.

Female marijuana plants are grown for the drug THC found in the resins they produce to catch pollen. Thus marijuana farmers cull all the male plants, because when a female plant is fertilized, they stop producing resin.

Even so, male marijuana pollen is so pervasive right now, that better drug quality female marijuana plants have to be grown indoors to keep them away from it.

Female hemp, however, while of the same species as marijuana, produces just trace amounts of THC in its resin, but male plants still produce vast amounts of pollen.

So if hemp production is legalized, there will be such enormous amounts of hemp pollen in the air that even indoors it will get to the female marijuana plants. Thus the quality and potency of the marijuana will significantly drop.

But there is a huge bonus beyond even this, because hemp is a tremendously versatile crop, producing a very high quality paper superior to wood pulp paper, *and* also very fine fabric similar to silk.

Hemp does not need prime farmland, either, just marginal land, with minimal irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide.

All told, wide scale hemp production in the US would be worth billions of dollars every year and employ tens of thousands of workers, directly and indirectly. And instead of grinding up good trees to make wood pulp, they could be used for much more valuable lumber.

TL;DR - Reduce marijuana potency, while creating a new industry and making billions of dollars.


4 posted on 12/16/2012 5:56:58 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
We as nation have poured billions upon billions of hard earned tax dollars into a black hole...war on drugs!

On it's face, it's a great idea. Attack narco-traffickers, growers at the source in an attempt to limit drugs entering America and on to the streets.

Then on the local level, hunt down distributors and traffickers from the user up in an attempt to curb drug activity.

Problem being, it's been a miserable failure. All these tax dollars simply evaporate in a never ending battle.

The federal government never really stepping in to do what is needed to stem the flow of drugs into America through the southern border, choosing instead to leave the border wide open.

Having this conversation, it's difficult to bring out the blatant hypocrisy of legislators when it comes to their selective enforcement of drugs.

We have a drug on our streets that is directly responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths over the decades and it is absolutely legal......Alcohol.

I'm not advocating a new prohibition on Alcohol, but it does beg a few questions. One of which would be, why does the government allow legal consumption of alcohol when there is countless studies on the ill effects of this drug on society, on individual health and our families?

I think it's time to rethink this multi-billion dollar debacle known as the war on drugs.

5 posted on 12/16/2012 5:59:53 AM PST by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Mandatory sentences breed injustice," Judge Roger Vinson told the New York Times. A Ronald Reagan appointee to the federal bench in Florida, Vinson was railing against a federal system that forced him to sentence a 27-year-old single mother to prison life without parole because her dealer ex-boyfriend had stored cocaine in her house.
Two areas cry for immediate action.
One: Sentencing reform. The single mother, Stephanie George, had prior drug convictions, which contributed to her draconian prison term. Even she says that she deserved to do time, but not the rest of her natural life.

Wrong! This perpetrator is three times the danger to the community than the dealer:

(1) She makes her home a safe base for the drug culture, thus infecting the community;
(2) She brings the drug culture home to infect her children, thus multiplying the future tolerance and spreading it; and
(3) She plays on the misplaced compassion of the bleeding hearts of the liberal, already drug-tolerant members of both the neighbors and of the law/justice segment.

In this, she needs twice the sentence, and perhaps death as a fitting cure and warning to her family and the community (same as though she drove negligently and caused disability and her own death); and the judge who would diminish rather than increase her penalty should be fired, perhapas jailed.

That can be a start on taking the conquering of a life of drug adventuring seriously. She did not heed the warnings of her first misadventures, and the justice system did not cause her to treat the drug life as a red-hot iron and forsake it.

To even consider the judge's attitude as viable means the general community does not take the drug problem seriously.

6 posted on 12/16/2012 6:02:55 AM PST by imardmd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A number of people I have known, friends, family, co-workers have had their lives destroyed by drugs. Yet so many people think that they can sit around and get high and it will not happen to them... Anybody that manufactures, imports or distributes quanties of illegal drugs should get a fast track trial, appeal,and excecution.... Dealers (indirectly) kill hundreds, enslave thousands and cause half of the crime in this land. But when they get caught only get 5 to 8 years in prison.....Make their trade to dangerous to persue...


7 posted on 12/16/2012 6:28:36 AM PST by virgil283 ( "He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew
Not only that, I think it's a states' issue anyway. I'd like to see where the Constitution delegates authority to the federal government to allow its "War on Drugs."

Well said. But, I hope you brought your fireproof undies.
8 posted on 12/16/2012 6:28:49 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Vin Suprynowicz, in his book “Send in the Waco Killers”, noted that before Prohibition was passed, everyone understood and agreed that the prohibition of alcohol would be unconstitutional without a Constitutionall Amendment.

But, after the FDR years of alphabet agencies and regulations, even as Prohibition was being repealed, there was no Constitutional issues raised when Congress passed the drug prohibition laws.


9 posted on 12/16/2012 6:50:28 AM PST by Mack the knife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mack the knife

Very true. I love the look on my friends’ faces when I asked them why booze needed a constitutional amendment, but drugs didn’t. Thanks in part to Scalia, interstate commerce trumps all now.


10 posted on 12/16/2012 6:56:43 AM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It is naive to think that the current body of drug laws will be changed, except to entrench it.

The money involved(in the 100s of billions) flows through the accounts of well-connected people who use all the devices of American Beltway influence to ensure their outlaw monopoly.

Bribes in the millions are mere nuisances to these untaxed lords of dope.

This is regulatory capture like no other. It will last as long as the progressive Roosevelt-launched American socialist regime lasts.

And that is unknowable.


11 posted on 12/16/2012 7:03:02 AM PST by headsonpikes (Mass murder and cannibalism are the twin sacraments of socialism - "Who-whom?"-Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

People who use illegal drugs to escape reality are cowards. Don’t like your reality? Change it. No culture values cowardice. Smoking choom to escape reality is just running away from reality, and ultimately, reality is still there ,just waiting for you. We don’t need more cowards in this country. Blowing weed changes nothing except moving money from your wallet to a Grifter drug dealer’s pockets. Legalize it, and create more cowards. And cowards are afraid of reality and they want someone to protect them from reality and there stands the Democrat party saying, “Here. Here. We understand. We know you’re afraid. Just give us some money and your vote, and we’ll take care of you.” Nope. We don’t need more frightened Democrats.


12 posted on 12/16/2012 7:21:16 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
"Hemp is Victory" the WW1 slogan for our win.

All good points you make here, the Constitution was written on hemp and the WW1 uniforms were crafted from hemp, we need hemp production here in Oregon to create jobs.

13 posted on 12/16/2012 7:32:26 AM PST by thirst4truth (www.Believer.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6

“People who use illegal drugs to escape reality are cowards. Don’t like your reality? Change it. No culture values cowardice. Smoking choom to escape reality is just running away from reality, and ultimately, reality is still there ,just waiting for you. We don’t need more cowards in this country. Blowing weed changes nothing except moving money from your wallet to a Grifter drug dealer’s pockets. Legalize it, and create more cowards. And cowards are afraid of reality and they want someone to protect them from reality and there stands the Democrat party saying, “Here. Here. We understand. We know you’re afraid. Just give us some money and your vote, and we’ll take care of you.” Nope. We don’t need more frightened Democrats.”

You post what is essentially the same argument in every marijuana thread. Please find one enumerated power in the Constitution that supports your views that the federal government has been granted the authority by the people to conduct the war on drugs or interfere in the personal lives of its citizens who choose to use drugs.

If an individual seeks to temporarily live in an alternate reality, be it drug induced, alcohol induced, through reading a book or watching a movie what business is it of yours or, more importantly, the federal government?

When you keep using the word “cowardice.” To quote Inigo Montoya (from a fantasy movie many millions viewed to escape reality, btw): “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”


14 posted on 12/16/2012 8:25:47 AM PST by FerociousRabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: virgil283

“should get a fast track trial, appeal,and excecution”

That’s what they did in China many years ago, just executed them if they were found in possession.

Maybe you would be happier living over there in China instead of in the U.S.


15 posted on 12/16/2012 8:34:37 AM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PapaNew

I agree with you on both points: the federal government should get out of it and let the states decide, and if it were up to me in my state, it would be legal. BUT . . . it’s also true that not enough people understand the dangers of marijuana. In a way, the two are related though. Alcohol and tobacco are legal and marijuana is classified in the same category as heroin and cocaine. At some point, every teenager is going to find out that in fact marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as heroin and cocaine, so then having been “lied to” by all levels of government, they figure it’s probably not dangerous at all. But that’s not true either, and it can become a problem.


16 posted on 12/16/2012 9:33:59 AM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
[Article]

In light of the GOP's need to woo more young voters, drug-war reforms offer an ideological good -- limited government -- and also might be politically savvy. Think: Ron Paul and his rock star status on college campuses.

As between government by rock-star (which we have right now) and good government by good laws, I'll take the latter instead.

Oh, you want to get over on the doper vote? Yeah, that'll work. Remember what happened to China in the 19th century, when the mandarinate was wrecked by opium and China lost her independence to the drug dealers.

Saunders is a whore and a troll.

17 posted on 12/16/2012 10:06:12 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FerociousRabbit
You post what is essentially the same argument in every marijuana thread.

Yeah, because it's a good argument, and a true one.

Please find one enumerated power in the Constitution that supports your views ....

Oh, is that your complaint? Okay, let's say arguendo that there was no federal law, but all 57 States had strong laws against the evil weed and all its psychotropic cohort. You'd still bitch, wouldn't you? Because you wanna smoke dope, and by God it's your right to smoke dope, and nobody's gonna tell you different! Who the hell is North Dakota/Illinois/Ohio to tell me I can't ingest/smoke/inject the sacred mushroom, the virtuous hemp-seed, the noble Afghan black, the mighty horse?

Get over yourself. You're just the online equivalent of a crack ho.

18 posted on 12/16/2012 10:17:27 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I think that a huge blow could be made against marijuana in a simple way: legalize, even encourage the industrial production of hemp.

Yeah, Woody, that'll wreck 'em.

And meanwhile you'll be running around out there having a great time getting wrecked.

19 posted on 12/16/2012 10:19:43 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

So where do you find it in the Constitution for the feds to regulate intrastate marijuana policies?


20 posted on 12/16/2012 11:07:33 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

No it’s not a good argument. It’s pathetic. The favorite tactic of the left is to resort to personal attcks when holding an opinion that cannot be supported by rational thought or facts.

You would fit in well over at DUmmyland.

And no, I don’t smoke marijuana and still find the WOD to be a monumental waste of resources, unconstitutional and an infringment upon personal liberty.

I will be sure to never post anything to you again. I respectfully ask that you do the same.


21 posted on 12/16/2012 11:56:18 AM PST by FerociousRabbit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
The first point is that the Constitution delegates no authority that I know of to the federal government to fight drugs. Therefore, it is a states' issue (10th Amendment).

The second point is that even at the state level, the war on drugs is futile (and unjust), does more harm than good, and should be abandoned or not taken up, IMO.

22 posted on 12/16/2012 12:30:21 PM PST by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Okay, your response was just opaque enough to make no sense at all. Unless it was off-hand, care to elaborate?


23 posted on 12/16/2012 2:08:55 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Okay, your response was just opaque enough to make no sense at all.

No, it wasn't. It made perfect sense, but you had to come back with something.

You guys want to party with drugs and are desperate to convince the rest of us to slack off. You want what you want. You're like a bunch of 16-year-olds. End of discussion, your answer is NO, you can't have what you want, because there are still enough adults in the room to keep it from you. You'll have to go over to Barack and his pals to get what you want.

24 posted on 12/16/2012 5:13:30 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FerociousRabbit
No it’s not a good argument. It’s pathetic.

It isn't pathetic at all -- it's firmly rooted in the experience of societies that indulged that kind of mind-altering behavior, including our own before Prohibition. China ruined herself, and European drug-tolerant states (the Netherlands, Switzerland) don't exactly present a rosy picture of unrestricted or slightly-restricted drug use.

It's malum in se and a social evil; and you can't get around that.

I will be sure to never post anything to you again. I respectfully ask that you do the same.

Suit yourself, but this is an open forum, and anyone can post to anyone else about anything, within JR's rules.

25 posted on 12/16/2012 5:20:36 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
So where do you find it in the Constitution for the feds to regulate intrastate marijuana policies?

The drug trade is international, and the fraction of it that is not international, is for the most part interstate.

Even granting arguendo that you are correct and that the federal drug laws are unconstitutional, you still bear the burden of showing why an objectively bad thing should be cossetted and coddled by a society that doesn't want its kids turned into choom monsters by self-interested suppliers.

26 posted on 12/16/2012 5:28:09 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
So name which clause in the Constitution you believe authorizes fedgov regulation of intrastate marijuana policies.
27 posted on 12/16/2012 5:43:37 PM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

I wrote about legalizing hemp. You say I want drugs. The two are not the same. Hemp does not contain any more than a trace amount of THC.

Since hemp reduces the potency of marijuana, I have to assume that you are pro-marijuana, and that you want it full strength to get the drugs you crave. It is you that is a drug crazed, 16 year old Obama supporter.

Which explains your muddled thinking.


28 posted on 12/16/2012 7:20:06 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
it's firmly rooted in the experience of societies that indulged that kind of mind-altering behavior, including our own before Prohibition.

Was Prohibition a good policy? Was our repealing it a mistake?

China ruined herself,

The USA never came close to that level of opiate use when it was legal here. (In fact, by the feds' own figures the percentage of addicts was lower then than now.)

and European drug-tolerant states (the Netherlands, Switzerland) don't exactly present a rosy picture of unrestricted or slightly-restricted drug use.

How do they not?

'Joao Goulao, Portugal's top drug official, said that before decriminalization "we had a huge problem with drug use ... around 100,000 people hooked on heroin."

'Then they started treating drug use more like a parking ticket. People caught with drugs get a slap on the wrist, sometimes a fine.

'Independent studies have found the number of people in Portugal who say they regularly do drugs stayed about the same. And the best news, said Goulao: "Addiction itself decreased a lot."

'At first, police were skeptical of the law, but Joao Figueira, chief inspector of Lisbon's drug unit, told me that decriminalization changed lots of minds.

'"The level of conflicts on the street are reduced. Drug-related robberies are reduced. And now the police are not the enemies of the consumers!"

'And teen drug use is down.'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2852352/posts

29 posted on 12/17/2012 9:18:22 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
I wrote about legalizing hemp. You say I want drugs. The two are not the same.

Old ploy worn out by Woody Harrelson. They are the identical taxon; you admitted it. Legalization of hemp = legalization of marijuana, the moral/legal crack in the dike the Left wants, in order to break down resistance to full legalization of marijuana => full legalization of drugs = Nirvana.

Call me after you've graduated high school.

30 posted on 12/17/2012 11:53:54 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Was Prohibition a good policy? Was our repealing it a mistake?

It created a lot of problems, but it solved one problem that would have otherwise gone unaddressed: the incidence of alcoholism fell, and overall consumption fell. Patterns of consumption also changed; white liquors and wine almost went away, and the nation's drinkers rotated to beer and brown liquors.

America in 1934 was a lot less lush and drunken than America in 1914.

Prohibition broke the freedom of drunkards and alcoholics and put the whip in other hands, esp. those of women who were Not Amused by their husbands' recreant behavior.

'Joao Goulao, Portugal's top drug official, ....'

....is in the same position as a Clintonoid or Obamarrhoid SecDef who is called upon to defend either DADT in the first instance or its repealer in favor of open catamitism and barrack-room sodomy in the other.

He likes his job and he knows what the politicians want, so he's not the best guy to ask.

Oh, and btw, "subverted authority" is a legitimate debating technique. Unlike appeals to motive, ad-hom, and all the rest of the Leftist toolkit.

31 posted on 12/17/2012 12:03:01 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

Such foolishness. Yes, technically a Wolf and a Chihuahua are both dogs, but cross breed them and you only get a mess.

Canada has legalized hemp production, and is expected to have 100,000 acres in industrial hemp being grown within the next two years; yet that has presented them with zero confusion about illegal marijuana.

Which means not only that your argument is foolish, but that you are stupider than a 16 year old Canadian.


32 posted on 12/17/2012 12:29:34 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Pennies and Nickels will NO LONGER be Minted as of 1/1/13 - Tim Geithner, US Treasury Sect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
Was Prohibition a good policy? Was our repealing it a mistake?

It created a lot of problems,

Did they outweight the (alleged) benefits?

but it solved one problem that would have otherwise gone unaddressed: the incidence of alcoholism fell,

More claims from you. I don't suppose I ought to hold my breath waiting for evidence.

and overall consumption fell. Patterns of consumption also changed; white liquors and wine almost went away, and the nation's drinkers rotated to beer and brown liquors.

America in 1934 was a lot less lush and drunken than America in 1914.

Yet another claim.

Prohibition broke the freedom of drunkards and alcoholics

And social drinkers.

and put the whip in other hands, esp. those of women who were Not Amused by their husbands' recreant behavior.

And you think this is conservative governance?

'Joao Goulao, Portugal's top drug official, ....'

....is in the same position as a Clintonoid or Obamarrhoid SecDef who is called upon to defend either DADT in the first instance or its repealer in favor of open catamitism and barrack-room sodomy in the other.

He likes his job and he knows what the politicians want, so he's not the best guy to ask.

What about Joao Figueira, chief inspector of Lisbon's drug unit, also quoted in favor of the new policy?

And what about producing any evidence whatsoever for your claim that "European drug-tolerant states (the Netherlands, Switzerland) don't exactly present a rosy picture of unrestricted or slightly-restricted drug use"?

Oh, and btw, "subverted authority" is a legitimate debating technique. Unlike appeals to motive, ad-hom

I searched and can find no evidence for your claim that "subverted authority" is a legitimate debating technique - nor for the implied claim that "subverted authority" is anything other than an ad-hominem appeal to motive.

33 posted on 12/17/2012 1:05:32 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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