Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Government Raid Victims of the "War on Drugs"
http://apll.freeyellow.com/raids.html ^ | ---

Posted on 09/03/2002 7:41:56 AM PDT by JediGirl

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-371 next last
To: Illbay
If you would stop the childish name calling for a second, you would realize that not every person opposed to the war on drugs is a libertarian or a drug user. In fact, I have not touched marijuana in over 15 years, my wife has never used it.

Whacky as I am, I think that giving the government profit incentive to raid people on specious tips in order for them to confiscate property is a bad thing. So sue me. I also think that there is no rationality in our policy. If we want to be a nanny state, let's ban fast food, cigarettes, and alcohol. Just because you may think your white woman might have sex with a darkie, doesn't mean marijuana is patently worse than a big mac, a single malt scotch or a carton of marlboros. Aspirin is a drug. Prozac is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. That is all many of us are saying. No knock raids at 2AM, without identifying yourself as a law enforcement officer, just so you can hopefully confiscate a $5 million ranch on the off chance there are a few pot plants there is a bad idea.

Here is the dogbyte12 proposal. Decriminalize marijuana. Tax the hell out of it. Stiffen sentences for furnishing it to minors. Use that tax money only to pay for treatment of the drug abusers so people who choose not to use drugs aren't paying for the others. Employers are free to drug test as they like. I am happy, most people are happy, except for prison guards, the ATF, and illbay.

61 posted on 09/03/2002 8:47:40 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
but outside of a few lawbreakers, it improved things tremendously.

Aside from the mess Mrs. Lincoln enjoyed the play, too.

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?

Have I said that it's not legal to have laws against dope? You're reading things into this discussion. It's stupid, certainly. Immoral, definately. Counterproductive without a doubt. It's not illegal (though it does rely upon the socialist shredding of the commerce clause)
62 posted on 09/03/2002 8:48:44 AM PDT by WindMinstrel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
bttt
63 posted on 09/03/2002 8:49:11 AM PDT by bassmaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
great post :)
64 posted on 09/03/2002 8:49:15 AM PDT by JediGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
...we have rights as human beings not necessarily listed in the Bill of Rights...

Yes, we do, but taking dope isn't one of them.

I'm sorry, but your continuing attempts to elevate free dope to the level of a civil right is just ludicrous.

It doesn't seem that way to you, because it is likely all you think about. But the laws are going to remain, and the War on Drugs--which we're winning--is going to continue, because the vast majority of people are NOT hopelessly addicted, and don't have the same mindset of those who are addicted and want to turn their addiction into some sort of pious virtue.

The rest of us, as I've said, see things a lot more clearly. We've all had and continue to have family or friends who are caught up in it, and we're sick of hearing how "wonderful" it is.

It's not. It's soul-destroying, and its effects reach far beyond the life of the single individual dope-addict.

That's why you can murmur and declaim all you want, but are no closer to "winning" on your issue than when I was a student in the 1970s.

65 posted on 09/03/2002 8:50:29 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
If I said anything abusive--which I don't even remember having done

"...in return for the far greater benefits of having a society that isn't totally overrun with dope-heads like you people."

"And it's not like you dope-heads haven't been lying to yourselves and everyone else in your lives for many years now, so what's one more?"

"Someone bogart your joint this morning?"

You don't remember saying anything abusive? The entirety of your pro-WOsD argument is "Anyone who disagrees with us is a dope-head". You and your ilk are absolutely incapable of debating with facts, science, and Constitutional law, because none of them are on your side. You instead constantly resort to personal attacks and blanket statements. But you know what - keep it up. People read these threads and see the absolute insanity of the WODdies. I can think of two former supporters of the WOsD here on FR who have publically stated that their views on the issue have recently changed. Both cited the attitude of the WODdies here as a chief component of their reversal. I imagine there are dozens more who have done the same. You can only read so many threads where WODdies ignore direct questions, distort numbers, and refuse to debate issues before you begin to realize that they must not have the facts on their side. So again, by all means, keep it up.

66 posted on 09/03/2002 8:50:51 AM PDT by truenospinzone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
There shouldn't be federal anti-drug laws.

I disagree. It is an interstate problem, and so the Feds will always be involved. That's just reality.

67 posted on 09/03/2002 8:51:41 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
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.

Oh, you mean those few lawbreakers like Al Capone, Meyer Lansky and pesky little incidents like the Valentine's day massacre?

The war on alcohol created big city gangs, extortion, murder, increased potentcy of the drug, and corrupted law enforcement.

The war on drugs created....

The definition of stupidity is trying the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

68 posted on 09/03/2002 8:51:53 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: Illbay
Barry McCaffrey crossed with Janet Reno alert. (Probably two of your heroes.)
70 posted on 09/03/2002 8:53:53 AM PDT by 11B3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
What part of "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" do you not understand?
71 posted on 09/03/2002 8:55:17 AM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: truenospinzone
"Someone bogart your joint this morning?"

You might look again. That was a semi-humorous reply to the rhetorical question "did you forget to take your Prozac this morning?"

Either you CAN'T read, or your agenda won't permit you to see the whole picture. As I said before, "dope-head" etc., are generally used slang terms for "drug user."

I submit that the term is perfectly applicable.

It's like Dr. Laura Schlessinger's use of the term "shacking up," which people dislike in reference to living outside of wedlock, or "slut" for a woman of negotiable affection.

It's too bad that it offends you, but I'm offended by this notion that I need to stand back so my kids and grandkids can inherit the hell-on-earth that you folks want to make of this nation.

72 posted on 09/03/2002 8:57:14 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
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?

That is exactly the point it is a state issue not the federal gov't. thanks for proving our point. Leave it up to the state not the fed.'s....
73 posted on 09/03/2002 8:57:31 AM PDT by vin-one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
tell ya what illbay. I have a deal for you. I will submit to any drug testing that you so choose. You must pay for it though. When I come back clean, you will go hide back under the rock ya came from? Is it a deal?

My drug history ended at 18 when I joined the military. I was tested for 3 years non stop, and when I got out at 21, I didn't feel the need to use drugs. More than anything else, the thing that shows me people of your ilk are losing the debate, is that you resort to calling everybody druggies in place of debating the issue on it's merits.

74 posted on 09/03/2002 8:59:04 AM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
but unfortunately, friend, the rest of us see it clearly, and we're heartily embarrassed for you.
So glad you're able to speak for "the rest of us".
75 posted on 09/03/2002 8:59:23 AM PDT by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
And no, I don't believe that people who are obsessed with this issue aren't users. It just flies in the face of logic.

Well gee, that sets up one of those terrifying "direct questions" that you WODdies seem to be so incapable of answering. Give it a try:

Are you involved with the Law Enforcement or Regulation side of the WOsD in any way? Are you an LEO? Do you work for the DEA?

76 posted on 09/03/2002 8:59:32 AM PDT by truenospinzone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: truenospinzone
I can think of two former supporters of the WOsD here on FR who have publically stated that their views on the issue have recently changed

I was pro-WOD (up to 2 weeks ago) until I saw the multitude of reports of innocents being killed by black pajama clad American style Gestapo agents. I then took a hard long look at the moral implications and reallized that I did NOT want to live in a country that would shred it's basic founding beliefs in an attempt to control an others morality. Besides that I also came to realize that the WOD was NOT an effort to help America be better, BUT was instead a HUGE and thinly disguised cash cow for various criminal enterprises passing themselves off as LE agencies.

77 posted on 09/03/2002 8:59:34 AM PDT by 1_American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
..terrorists flock to the drug trade -- and earn hundreds of millions of dollars in profits. They then use that money to finance violence against innocent people, corrupt law enforcement, wage civil wars, and destabilize governments around the world....can we put those victims names up on this list too..?

78 posted on 09/03/2002 9:00:17 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JediGirl
The WOD needs to go, but that Aguilar fella, he died of his own stupidity. A guy is parked near your house so you go get a gun to scare him off of public property? What a kook. He pretty much deserved what he got. Don't go pulling guns on people without being prepared that they'll pull one on you in self defense. ALso, don't try and be a macho man and scare people away.

If I was a gun owner and some guy came out with a rifle because he didn't like where I was standing, I'd sure as hell pump a few holes in him too.
79 posted on 09/03/2002 9:00:20 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
I understand it perfectly.

What you don't understand is that the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you that dope-smoking, shooting up, etc., are all God-given civil rights that have been enshrined in law.

I'd LOVE to see a show of hands here, as to who are religious--and I mean SERIOUSLY religious, not members of the Church of What's Happening Now.

There are far too many folks who have lost all sight of notions of greater good, and higher authority. A pity, because that's the REAL fundamental basis for our Constitutional rights.

We DON'T have the constitutional right to do evil, period.

80 posted on 09/03/2002 9:00:27 AM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 361-371 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson