Posted on 12/13/2001 3:32:50 AM PST by CrossCheck
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:49:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
On Oct. 25, six weeks after the worst terrorist atrocities in our history, the United States was bombing Afghanistan, Colin Powell was discussing a post-Taliban government, investigators were grappling with anthrax in the mail, and federal agents were . . . well, they were going after pot smokers in California. If John Ashcroft had been around during the Chicago fire, he would have been handcuffing jaywalkers.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Acting like Hillary today I see, leaving out the arguement that firearms save more innocent people than kill.
Oh well, like I stated before you Libertarians will do anything to justify your drugs, even parrot Hillary and Sarah Brady.
Impeaching Clinton didn't feed any hungry babies. That you, Cheryl?
Ha - You obviously don't live in NYC. Or, if you do, you don't live in my neighborhood.
Crime in NYC started its drop in the Dinkins administration. Crime everywhere in the U.S. dropped during Rudy's.
Huh? We know what type of household produced Johhny Jihad. A liberal one. I would bet you dollar to donuts, that Johnny Jihad's parents would be all for marijuana and other drug legalisation.
I sure do. I'm almost on the fence on this issue. I've argued on FR for both sides because I keep changing my mind. Recent events and the consideration of the lifestyle of the people who break into my truck and steal my stereo, or offer drugs to my pre-teen kids has me on the other side of the fence right now. Another thing that has me on the drugs are bad side of the fence may seem unrelated but it is the fact that I've taken up bicycling to work. Now I realize just how many people out there have no business at all behind the wheel of any car that is not a playstation car.
So far your argument has been that people who use drugs steal. People who don't use drugs steal. People who use legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco steal. You may be able to argue that those who use illegal drugs steal at a higher rate than those who don't. However, it would be the illegal nature of the substance that leads to extreme price inflations. How much did alchol cost when it was illegal? I'll have to look up the cost comparisans with todays dollars, but the price is always higher in a black market. Legal drugs leads to lower prices which means that less people steal to get money for drugs.
You can always find examples that prove either side of the argument. You can look at places where drugs are legal and paint them as utopia or you can look at other places where drugs are legal and paint them as hell on earth. I'm sure my opinion on the matter also has a lot to do with the fact that I'm raising kids in a world that seems disgusting in a lot of ways.
p.s. Did sinkspur ever get back to us on the theological basis for Mariology?
No but read your mail.
Conditioned thought is much more comfortable than skullsweat and research.
I'll bet that the minidrugczars have to use a whole box of bandaids when they come off one of these threads. They usually get sliced into wafers thin enough to use under an electron microscope. Coupled with their vicious phraseology and insensitivity to mortal wounds sustained in these arguments, I tend to think of them as sadomasochists.
Oooooo *sigh*, Brutal, you're such a man! (hit me again). 
I take more exception to your method of lobbing logical fallacy upon logical fallacy than I do to you actual beliefs. This is no different. Even as a conservative, I can realize that liberal households do not equal treasonous children, even though this child happened to become one. For you to suggest it does is dishonest.
It couldn't happen quickly enough.
Prolly expensive as hell, too.
No they are not Bad. They are inanimate objects and have no powers other than what is done with them by a human. Humans make decisions, the drugs are materials that will just sit there forever until a human moved them.
They could hardly be more wrong..
- In a society that can decree people right or wrong on majority whim, other fanatics are the judges.
You really don't understand the concept of rights at all. There is no "right" to have others behave in a way pleaseing to you. If that were the case, I could make you go away by invoking my right to Freep in a low ignorance, nonsense free environment.
the druggies would concede that DUI, DWI, and sale to minors (under 21) could be penalized as attempted manslaughter and allow for no Medicare/Medicaide coverage of drug related illness. You wanna fry your brains; go ahead. Don't get us to pay for it, your future health problems, or get our kids hooked on drugs.
You'd never get a Kennedy to vote for it as long as DWI was included...
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.