The drug war vs. the war on terror

Chicago Tribune ^ | December 13, 2001 | Steve Chapman

[CrossCheck]

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.

[Wolfie]

Tell ya what. Let's take decrim off the table altogether, and just pass those provisions for alcohol use.

[southern rock]

You also are a person who puts drugs users on the same moral plane as land owners, firearms owners, home schoolers, and pea farmers.

They are on the same moral plane - NEUTRAL. Drugs are every bit as morally neutral as firearms. They are just inanimate objects. Please explain why you feel that drugs are immoral. Why is it morally wrong to take drugs?? And please don't say, "because it is against the law", because that is not a moral reason.

[alpowolf]

What, and be consistent? Not allowed!

[southern rock]

That's right, they don't want to kill us all, they just want a steady harvest of our car stereos and wallets and our teenagers money. Other than that they are really decent people.

Well, that describes the folks that came up with asset forfieture pretty well. But you forgot homes and cars on your list.

[southern rock]

I know that you have to ignore the fact that Guiliani's tactics of taking your precious potheads and crackheads off the street was a major factor in the transformation of NYC,

What transformation?? NYC is a cesspool. Always has been, always will be. That just comes with being a large city. Nothing will change that, ever.

[Nate505]

Acting like Hillary today I see, leaving out the arguement that firearms save more innocent people than kill.

No....your argument is that 'guns protect lives. How many lives have a needle/joint/pipe etc. protected.' My argument is that guns have also killed more innocent people than a needle/joint/pipe etc., not that guns have killed more people than they have saved. It's a pretty simple argument....try to keep up, ok?

Oh well, like I stated before you Libertarians will do anything to justify your drugs, even parrot Hillary and Sarah Brady.

Does being a ninny impair memory? I'm not a Libertarian, and I think I've told you that a hundred times or so...

[JohnGalt]

You would be willing?

Are you suffering from totalitarian dillusions?

I'd settle for you simply respecting the Bill of Rights.

[biblewonk]

When you break the law, you risk losing liberty and property don't you? Jews broke the law of the Pharoh when they refused to kill their baby sons and Osama broke the law two. There is quite a spectrum of laws and they are not all good nor are they all bad.

[Dakmar]

Can we add tobacco, coffee, red-meat, and cheese to the list? These substances take years off a persons life, so let's go ahead and regulate them. They've banned public smoking in a lot of cities, should be ok to consider it sinful and flog people for it, so why not do the same for beef. The government is always right. ;-)

[steve50]

The states have every right to pass any penalty they wish for DUI and DWI, as long as it follows the "equal protection under the law" principals.

As for Medicare and Medicaide I see no provision of the Constitution that compels the feds to provide health care. I do see a provision that keeps the feds out of my home, papers, and property. We are not allowed to play "bait and switch" with the Constitution.

If we wish to outlaw hemp it takes an admendment, I would love to see the wording.

[tacticalogic]

When you break the law, you risk losing liberty and property don't you?

Under the rules of engagement for the WOD, you don't have to break the law, or even be accused of a crime to lose your property.

[packrat01]

You would be willing?

I'd like to start with alchohol, but them good-ol-boys (in the legislature) need their booze.

Are you suffering from totalitarian dillusions?

Not me. I'm wanting everyone to own up to personal responsibility. Drunk drivers should be charged with attempted manslaughter. Persons who kill while intoxicated, should be hung. Actually, negligenct drivers who kill should be hung. You've got your views...

I'd settle for you simply respecting the Bill of Rights.

I have the utmost respect for individual rights. The BoR didn't grant them. I'm trying to inject reality into a divisive issue. There are a lot of people between the far-left and the far-right who have no care for what you ingest. They just don't want to have to play bumper cars with you...

Are you arguing AGAINST personal responsibility?

[realpatriot71]

Dane is a trolling disrupter. I'm not even sure why anyone responds to him. He never makes any sound logical arguments against legalization, but rather resorts to ad homenem attacks. I know it's fun to point out how much of an idiot he is, but I think that's what he wants. He wants us to spend time "fielding" his ludicrous accusations and logical fallacies, in the meanwhile we are not able to put together as rational a debate. From now on, and I hope the rest of you will hop on board, I will no longer respond to a thing Dane says.

Peace.

[packrat01]

You're arguing from where they don't have the authority to do the things they do. It doesn't matter to you, that the boot on your face isn't really authorized.

I'm arguing from what they have the POWER to do; any damn thing they want. Change their rulebook, because you'll never get them to follow THE rulebook; The Constitution.

Did I write that right?

[steve50]

The boot does matter because it is unconstitutional. A lot of our recent laws like hate crimes, affirmative action and many others need to be approved by Constitutional Admendment. Try to write a hate crime law that doesn't allow minorities to be prosecuted without violating "equal protection".

[packrat01]

Welcome.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...

[William Terrell]

I have the utmost respect for individual rights. The BoR didn't grant them.

Of course. The BOR restricts the federal government from legislating against them. Which is exactly the point. The federal government is legislating against them.

[packrat01]

I read it the same way you do. How do you win against a monster? Freedoms have been lost on the slippery slope. We either have to win them back a few at a time and take what we can, or all at once the harder way.