Government Raid Victims of the "War on Drugs"

http://apll.freeyellow.com/raids.html ^ | ---

[Eagle Eye]

Obviously, you don't mind cracking a few eggs to make an omlette.

Collateral damage in the Wo(some)D doesn't bother you a bit, does it?

Don't you realize that innocents' death at the hands of the government runs opposite to any definition of freedom one can imagine?

Guess not.

[Illbay]

This type of thread is mainly for bleeding heart libertarians, conspiracy theorists and people who support drug legalization.

Agreed. I find it humorous, their crocodile tears. They give money to narco-thugs who are responsible for killing thousands and thousands of times more people than those they allegedly care about.

Of course I say "allegedly"; the only thing they REALLY care about is feeding that habit of theirs. It's sad.

[WindMinstrel]

ahh, ok then, prohibition was a good thing. Thanks for playing -- here's your Rice-a-roni™

[JediGirl]

Even when I was a drug warrior, I could come up with better arguments against the drug war then calling everyone dopeheads.

Even when I was a drug warrior, I could come up with beter arguments for the drug war than calling everyone dopeheads.

[BlazingArizona]

Same here. I am willing to accept this vanishingly small number of "victims" (assuming they are even real people; we have only the say-so of this advocacy website)

I can vouch for the Arizona case being real. AND...there was another no-knock wrong house raid in Phoenix last week. This time, it wasn't drug agents, but federal marshals looking for "a suspect". This far, the marshals' office has stonewalled all local media efforts to find out who was being sought.

[clamper1797]

And further, I consider the repeal of Prohibition to be yet another mistake of the FDR administration.

Oh Boy ....

[JediGirl]

Agreed. I find it humorous, their crocodile tears. They give money to narco-thugs who are responsible for killing thousands and thousands of times more people than those they allegedly care about.

Of those here who use any kind of drug, has your dealer to your knowledge killed anybody? Would you prefer buying from a legitimate business or from a dealer?

[Illbay]

Ah, you mean like "Pern's" #8 on this thread? If I said anything abusive--which I don't even remember having done--it was likely in response to this guy's vicious rant.

Or is it okay to tell someone to "**** off" if they post anything that disagrees with this Libertine shibboleth?

[11B3]

I don't either - on either substance - and I agree that the world would be a better place without alcohol. However, since a neurotoxin like ethanol is legal I fail to see where Congress should be allowed to decide which types of drugs are "legal". The WOD is purely for LE's monetary and egotistical gain. Nothing more. And it is un-Constitutional as hell.

[Eagle Eye]

make your case without the personal insults and name calling, please.

Now you've completely disarmed him!

(oops! Did I cross the line with that remark?)

[Admin Moderator]

#15

that goes for you too.

[Illbay]

However, since a neurotoxin like ethanol is legal I fail to see where Congress should be allowed to decide which types of drugs are "legal".

I fail to see why allowing one destructive force to exist means you need to allow others.

I mean, since we have crime in our society, I guess we ought to ALL become criminals, instead of just restricting our umbrage to the few.

And this silly bit about "unconstitutional" really means "I don't like it, and anything I don't like is unconstitutional."

We have proscriptions in this society against all kinds of stuff, and we always have. There is no Constitutional guarantee that protects doping.

[BlazingArizona]

Dopers are thorough losers; that was true when I was a kid, and it's just as true now.

I don't like dopers any more than you do. I just resent having my Constitution torn up for the sake of catching a few potheads. Remember the days when you could carry a large sum of money when you traveled, and all you had to worry about was the bad guys?

[WindMinstrel]

wait, Illbay, tell us more about how Prohibition shouldn't have been ended. Was it working well? Is prohibition a valid government aim? This keeps getting better!

[JediGirl]

There was an interesting debate on freerepublic that i saw today over whether there is anything in the constitution that says we have a right to privacy...I'll have to find it.

Anyway, I like to think the Bill of Rights isn't the final say on all of our rights---that we have rights as human beings not necessarily listed in the Bill of Rights and that it's sad to need an amendment to the constitution to show that we really do deserve a certain right and to keep the government out of the areas of our lives in which it does not belong.

[11B3]

I'm sorry, I thought that some of the attacks on your ability to grasp complex issues in a logical manner might have been unfounded. I was wrong.

[Illbay]

...tell us more about how Prohibition shouldn't have been ended.

What do you want to know? It addressed a real problem: Alcohol was ruining American life--it still does.

Was it working well?

Of course. The conventional wisdom championed by the Democrat Party over the years was that it wasn't, but outside of a few lawbreakers, it improved things tremendously.

Is prohibition a valid government aim?

Sure. That's why they put it in the Constitution. You know, the document you folks think supports your claim?

After repeal, a great many states continued prohibition, and many counties, especially in the more law-abiding, more religious South, continue that law.

So I would ask YOU: If it is legal for a county in, say, Alabama or Louisiana, to prohibit the sale of alcohol, then why is it NOT legal to have laws against dope?

LOVE to hear you answer that one (if you do, you'll be the first dope-champion I've heard do so).

[clamper1797]

make your case without the personal insults and name calling, please.

Do you think that's possible ????

[Illbay]

I was wrong.

You are, but not for the reasons you think.

[JediGirl]

So I would ask YOU: If it is legal for a county in, say, Alabama or Louisiana, to prohibit the sale of alcohol, then why is it NOT legal to have laws against dope?

There shouldn't be federal anti-drug laws. It should be left up to the states. I've heard many people answer this question.