Posted on 10/27/2014 4:28:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
As is your Right, as much as mine to vote for someone I believe would mirror my own values from the start....no needing poking/prodding to follow the Rule of Law/Constitution. When the (R) already state they will ‘work w/ Dems’ or ‘pass immig. ‘reform’’, just what do you believe a phone/fax will accomplish??
1) I’d rather work within the party to change a plank or two..
2) A) No kids (not for lack of trying unfortunately) B) Schools are a whole other can of worms. Parents should be responsible for the payment and assurance in the education of their own brood. What did you expect gov’t indoctrination centers to DO otherwise??
As for C) Houston/etc. - rogue gov’t, that’s plain to see to everyone. IMHO, the backlash is beginning, as people are noting it no longer is about ‘acceptance/tolerance’. Again, as a (L) I see an easy solution: remove gov’t from the equation (biz licenses, etc.)
3) There is no way to determine ‘peaceful’, but there is a way to ensure visas/etc. are followed...HARD jail time, deportation, tracking....You know, the actual JOB of gov’t. Again, no SS/welfare/etc. there is little to entice anyone to overstay their welcome.
4) I’ve never seen anything to the contrary (IE: punishment fits the crime); nor would I support excessive/tiered: robbery on booze vs. pot vs. is still robbery, I see no argument to make one weigh more than the rest.
Appreciate the deliberation. I don’t believe our two parties to be THAT ‘out of sync’; but it’s been too many years since *I* have heard anything BUT lip-service from the (R) party to cast my lot.
No, a few little variations in concoctions have not had any great meaning in the drug world, but if it were legal to play with all the drugs and drug cocktails and creation of new ones by big business and marketing them, then the last 50 years of getting stoned would have destroyed us.
As it is, because of the laws, very few Americans could even name one of those variations, whatever they might be.
So you think the only reason everybody and their nephew doesn't use "bath salts" or other mystery crap is lack of an open marketing campaign? You need to associate with a better class of people - I don't know anyone who could be paid to mess with some new untested junk. Or are you making the elitist assumption beloved of liberals: that everybody except you and (some of) your friends is an idiot who needs government to run his life?
they wouldn't have to worry about safety concerns or side effects or fatalities, since they would all fit the libertarian area of recreational drugs.
libertarians believe the law has a proper role in punishing actual direct harms such as you describe.
Libertarian position: “ We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, since only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes.”
Do libertarians want drugs to be legal, or not?
The contradiction is only in your mind - if sellers failed to inform buyers of known potential safety concerns or side effects or fatalities, buyers would be victims of fraud.
You think that basement labs and amateurs are equal to creating new drugs with the big boys if the pharmaceutical companies put their minds to it, and that they get marketed to American youth and the hip just as well as Super Bowl ads?
You really think that if it became legal to do so, and to advertise the products, that the world couldn’t find ways to market new drugs to Americans?
Libertarian position: “ We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes, since only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes.”
Do you libertarians want drugs to be legal, or not?
I haven't even compared them, much less said that. There is no shortage of established studied recreational drugs - no reason has been presented here to think "new drugs" could ever be more than a niche market regardless of advertising. And the big boys, as deep and easily serve-able pockets, have infinitely more incentive than basement labs and amateurs to ensure product safety and fully disclose potential risks.
if the pharmaceutical companies put their minds to it, and that they get marketed to American youth
I oppose legalization for minors.
Libertarian position:
Still no contradiction, no matter how often you repeat it.
Do you libertarians
Nice try at sneaking that in; I don't coonsider myself a libertarian.
You just keep posting nonsense to support the libertarian agenda.
If you get your agenda, then you will learn just what the big boys can create and market to the public.
You just keep posting nonsense
Feel free to present a reason to think that, given no shortage of established studied recreational drugs, "new drugs" could ever be more than a niche market regardless of advertising.
No, until you get your libertarian legal drugs it is merely opinion.
But if you ever see the big boys start spending billions to create recreational drugs, in my opinion, they will be more appealing than “bath salts”, and with 100 million dollar ad campaigns on Oprah and the Super Bowl, and prominent shelving at the 7/11 and Safeway, they will have wider dispersal.
No, until you get your libertarian legal drugs it is merely opinion.
OK - and given the number and variety of established studied recreational drugs, it's a paranoid opinion.
But if you ever see the big boys start spending billions to create recreational drugs, in my opinion, they will be more appealing than “bath salts”,
That's setting the bar low - to succeed, new drugs would have to be more appealing than established studied drugs such as pot.
prominent shelving at the 7/11
More paranoia - what 7/11 can shelve is determined by local licensing, and I've never seen one carry anything stronger than beer.
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.