Posted on 07/30/2002 5:59:48 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
I know, it's because they're stupid. Sorry, my mistake
They're smart enough to attack the author rather than say what they really think about the subject. They know socialists get shredded and stomped on here.
Thats kind of the point here. It isn't only about the LP anymore. Your guys (Conservatives) are coming around to the insanity of fighting this "W"OD the way we are.
Once again, if you have problems with he points presented in the article why not debate them?
Then why did you raise it? The LP was not mentioned ONCE in this article, and the word libertarian was only used three times.
The point is that for YEARS now the LP have posted such long winded tripe, to NO AVAIL...
Well, now Bill Buckley has picked up the canard. Seems to me, given the broad cross section of political thought represented by the seven writers in this article, that the issue has gone WAY beyond the LP.
The LP cannot get out of single digits, and are becoming laughable.
But state referenda that challenge federal drug policy get passed by wide margins. Seems to me, once again, that this issue has much broader appeal than you think.
Buckley is a great mind, but this time he is wrong. It is a STUPID political, and social, idea to legalize drugs...
That is your opinion. Maybe you could bother to back it up with facts that bolster your opinion. Oh, and a lot of the debate is NOT about blanket legalization, but instead seeking a better method to dealing with drug abuse than what we are doing now. Perhaps you should read the article and THEN start commenting. Or is the article too long-winded for you to bother doing such?
My point is after what seems to be MILLIONS of words in these LONG WINDED postings, the LP has gained NO GROUND... and in fact, the last national elections show them losing ground, despite the propaganda claiming otherwise.
The point of third parties is not always to win elections. Third parties have a long history of influencing policy in the two main political parties, even if they never win an election. And the LP seems to be succeeding in that regard, as more and more Americans are coming around to the notion that the current approaches in the drug war are wrong.
Translastion: I will not debate this, because I cannot
I'm glad we cleared that up. Thank you for your time.
Here's to the values of the united states going further down the drain.
And where's our LEO's? Why, they're out in BFE pulling up acres of feral ditchweed hemp, while the local sheriff is counting them at $1,000 each for the commercials he's going to do for his re-election campaign, and wondering if the property owners have any nice cars or houses he can get.
But even then, there is no agreement as to the implementation of a drug legalization policy, and that's when everything falls apart. Buckley envisions a "federal drugstore" that offers drugs at the cost of production. This would, supposedly, lower the cost of crime, turning a $1000/week cocaine habit into a $20/week cocaine habit (they won't have to steal as much). With all due respect to Mr. Buckley, this is utter nonsense. A federal drug store chain run like the post office? Drugs at cost with no taxes added? All drugs legal? What is that guy smoking?
You've got to love Mr. Nadelmann's argument: " societies ... control and manage drug use through community discipline, including the establishment of powerful social norms."
He expects society to step in with community discipline, yet look at the communities where drugs are prevalent -- see any discipline? He expects society to set up "powerful social norms" -- this from a society that de-stigmatizes out-of-wedlock pregnancy? In your dreams.
Mr. Schmoke is included in this essay, yet he is not in favor of legalization, just treatment of habitual users. He is in direct confict with Mr. Buckley on the concept of the "federal drugstore".
And so the arguments go. This is why proponents of drug legalization can't be specific. When you get down to, "Just how will you implement legalization?", the real stupidity emerges. Legalization is a concept; 20 dopers have 20 different definitions. And it's a shame to see a powerhouse like Mr. Buckley weigh in the way he did.
There isn't a single one of us here that does not see the scuples in most American values. We just don't think the Government should be coercing these values, and we do not cease to be people of moral character because of this.
So why are you, according to your own post, wasting your time here?
Calling an argument a name doesn't refute it. Perhaps if you tire of 'refuting' the argument all the time, you can just point us to the same, devastating refuatation that you're so sure is out there. Post a link maybe. But you don't even do that.
All you have is ad hominems, insults, derision, snideness, elitism, etc.
None of those things are convincing, constructive, useful, or compelling. They are however, small minded, feeble, weak, and totally unconvincing.
It's telling that you consider debating facts a game.
Most (the GREAT majority) at this forum do not wish to stay in a perpetual circle jerk wasting time with such a SILLY argument as legalizing drugs,
Once again, you are taking the tone of the article, which is a serious effort by people re-considering the current approaches to the drug war, and trying to instead make this into an LP issue about blanket drug legalization. That is called bait-and-switch, and is not the mark of an honest person.
but this is the way your small band want to spend you time. Terrorist are arrested with plans to poison our water supply, but you boys want to talk about legalizind drugs.
Some of us can handle more than one issue at a time.
You boys have posted hundreds of LONG WINDED, detailed "arguments" for your side. They have been rejected, period.
So you consider a referenda in California, mandating treatment instead of incarceration for 1st and 2nd time non-violent drug offenders, to be rejection? BLACK KNIGHT ALERT.
Many of the "evidences" you boys put forth are sky-is-falling red herring tripe,
I suppose, then, that you are one of those folks who think the WWF is real.
but those of us who live in the real world have better things to do than argue with people who want to legalize addiction.
So lame, yet so predictable. Stake the debate to the most extreme side, rather than address the issues in the middle. You may be capable of fooling yourself, but that is only a reflection upon you...
Considering the drug war has all-but-flushed the Bill of Rights down the toilet, your point seems rather absurd...
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.