Posted on 09/10/2002 6:38:33 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
No. You asked me a direct question and I gave you a direct answer. I don't bother with those threads. I think they're gay, others don't. No skin off my teeth. Knock yourself out.
Planted on the rehab workers? They must have been planted on the rehab workers because so far the workers are the only ones we can establish possessed them because they won't swear that they found them on her.
But she is at this point, not above reproach. Is it also possible she got the drugs with the intension of using them? Yes.
The drugs that the rehab workers said (but won't swear) that the 'found' on her.
This is a crock.
Not unless you think we live in anarchy right now. After all, everything from beer to candy bars to Big Macs are currently legal and none of the government's buisness. Is this anarchy?
Yeah, right...
Well, it happened late yesterday, so it is in the paper today. That seems reasonable. When would you have preferred that it come out? Never?
If you think the low-life opportunistic parasites and useful idiots that make up the base of the Marxist Party in America (DemocRATS) aren't capable of taking advantage of the unfortunate situation involving Jeb's daughter, you are one naive dude.
Either that --- or you have something else going on.
Why, are you looking for some? ;)
Seriously, though, the place is called the Center for Drug Free Living. Its rehab. That’s where all the best drugs are. No one goes to rehab to quit, silly
And her offence was to try to feel better. By using unapproved substances instead of the approved ones.
She may be harming herself, but what has she done to violate your rights?
Uh nope but the glorification of the drug culture did, IMHO.
What actually 'came out'? and why is it a story at all?
For someone in the top ten of bitter people and use of vitirol on this forum, you sure spend a lot of time accusing others of it. Look in the mirror.
You are the king of vitirol.
I think you were responding to post #99, not my #100.
How easy it would be to find one of the people who work at that center who happen to dislike Republicans/JebBush/President Bush/ etc - or who are just a registered Demonrat OR have relatives living on the taxpayers - who would easily - for just the right sum of (secret) money - happen to find a stash of cocaine on this poor young lady - and call the police (sorta like the bar owner who called the police on the President's daughter) when with others they don't call police, they handle it internally.
Anybody who thinks this is anything other than one more dispicable, desperate Demonrat attempt to destroy Governor Jeb Bush is sadly mistaken, ignorant, or both.
You keep using that phrase. It misleads. Is it intentional?
Many people here who oppose the WOD also oppose the misuse of intoxicants.
Yes, because I tend to agree with him, perhaps not in magnitude but at least in the direction of the vector. I'll explain why:
Oh well, to answer your question. When it comes to the issue of drug legalization, yes, I get the sense that the pro-dope crowd does not want the government involved at all. That government is evil (knocking down doors, confiscating property, mandatory sentencing, etc.), that drugs are none of government's interest or business, and that government should get out of the way. Do I read the responses correctly? Is that not the definition of anarchy?
Why, part 1: look at how you framed the argument---pro-dope. Clearly you did this to demonize your opponent, which, to some, will then justify anything you do to further your case against him. I've been fighting on the "pro-dope" side of this argument for years, and I can say without a shred of slight-of-hand that while many of the people on my side have no problem with marijuana use, most would not recommend it as a cure-all panacea, a substitute for manna or water or anything else that's good. Most of us see marijuana like booze: a substance that can be both used responsibly and irresponsibly. Nobody actively promotes with any degree of seriousness a drug lifestyle. None. If they did, I'd have an issue with it.Why, part 2: Knocking down doors on warrantless searches (and often killing people in the process) and confiscating property without due process violate the societal contract we have with our federal government according to the Bill of Rights. There is no manufactored "ill" in society bad enough to warrant such government misbehavoir. Speaking out against that sort of behavior is the inverse of anarchy (no laws)---it is arguing and petitioning for a return to lawfulness---government lawfulness.
Why, part 3: Turning a blind eye to state lawlessness because, in your opinion, the ends justifies the means, is certainly statist in flavor. What other portions of the Constitution, including the Amendments, do you think the government can ignore to further its own agenda?
What do I hear from the pro-dope side? "Get the government out of my life". Read the responses yourself, that's where I get my info.
Quite frankly, I don't think you read the responses at all. I think you've made your mind up already and you're frantically searching for any scrap of theory you can to back up your already-formed opinion. Or perhaps you could be the one Pro-W.o.D. person who can tell me how supporting a New Deal-era interpretation of the Commerce Clause is conservative? Dane's passed on it, so has Kevin Curry, Destructor, and even Roscoe, who, otherwise, put up a mighty impressive constitutional fight.
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.