Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstasy smuggle
Reuters ^

Posted on 10/09/2002 4:34:44 PM PDT by RCW2001

NEW YORK, Oct 9 (Reuters) - Three Israeli nationals were arrested and accused of trying to smuggle $42 million worth of hallucinogenic Ecstasy pills to the United States from Belgium, the largest such drug seizure ever in Europe, U.S. authorities said on Wednesday.

The three men tried to smuggle 1.4 million pills inside diamond polishing tables bound for New York by ship from Antwerp, according to a statement from the office of Roslynn Mauskopf, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

Tipped off by witnesses who saw two of the men stuffing the pills into three tables inside an Antwerp warehouse in August, authorities allowed the tables to be delivered -- without the pills -- to New York where they were put under surveillance.

The three men were arrested on Tuesday as they were retrieving the tables and trying to deliver the drugs to a buyer, the statement said.

The case marks the largest Ecstasy seizure in Europe and the third largest such seizure in the United States, with a wholesale value of about $14 million and a retail value of about $42 million, officials said.

Arrested were Nachshow Sinvanni, who allegedly wanted to buy 900,000 of the pills for distribution; and Ofir Lebar and Ofir Weizman, who were spotted packing the tables with drugs in Belgium, officials said. All three men live in Israel, authorities said.

They each were charged with conspiring to import MDMA, the technical name for Ecstasy and, if convicted, face a possible prison sentence of 20 years and a $1 million fine. ((New York newsdesk, 646 223 6280))


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: israel; jews; wodlist; zionism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 next last
To: MrLeRoy
"Responsible cocaine users would no more use the crack form than responsible drinkers drink straight Everclear. It's the illegality of (some) drugs that has encouraged their increased potency---just as Prohibition turned drinkers from beer and wine to liquor."

The increased potency and "more bang for the buck" has nothing to do with it.Right.Uh huh.


"Ah, the anti-drug-freedom position in a nutshell: 'My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

You are simply parroting pro-drug rhetoric I've heard from scores of druggies.Maybe you're right.Lets just open up the floodgates and see what happens.

101 posted on 11/05/2002 6:48:29 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"You have your opinion,

Which is a conservative one.

I have mine.

Which is a liberal one."

A little frustrated huh? This thread is entitled "three Israelis accused in NY of Ecstacy smuggle. Three foreigners brought a substance that has absolutly no redeeming value,no medical use,is nothing but a dangerous poison and a blight on our youth.I am advocating not making substances available to the general public.You are saying in the interest of personal freedoms they should be legal.I am saying a common sense solution would be registered addicts having access.I am saying the WOD should be ceased,but I am admitting there is no easy solution to the drug problem here in the US. Your assertion is that drugs should be sold and dispensed under goverment controls(all legal drugs are licensed by the FDA,and will continue to be).

Your comments sound like those of many liberal democrats,mine sound like those of many conservatives I have heard.

"your position of trading one form of goverment control for another."

"Still telling this lie? Shame on you."

How is this a lie-you would allow the goverment to control illicit drugs.Are you denying this?

"False; you said, "it's not working real well with the substances that are legal at this point."

What's working so well about it? Rampant alcoholism,sky high taxation on alcohol and tobbacco.Do we need more problems from substances that clearly are bigger problems.All your mumbo-jumbo about crack being no more dangerous than alcohol is naive reasoning in my opinion.The goverment scientists who came up with that kind of conclusions have obviously never been out in the street.

"I'm pointing out the logical consequences of your statements. If you don't like them, rethink your statements."

And my opinion is your logic just won't work if it ever did actually come to fruition. I too feel the WOD is an exercise in futility.But you know and I know it's going to be a long time before Heroin and crack are legal in the US.





102 posted on 11/05/2002 7:21:28 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"Responsible cocaine users would no more use the crack form than responsible drinkers drink straight Everclear. It's the illegality of (some) drugs that has encouraged their increased potency---just as Prohibition turned drinkers from beer and wine to liquor."

The increased potency and "more bang for the buck" has nothing to do with it.

Nothing to do with what? Are you even trying to address what I wrote?

"Ah, the anti-drug-freedom position in a nutshell: 'My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

You are simply parroting pro-drug rhetoric

No, I'm taking a consistent stand for freedom---whereas you are parroting the liberal/socialist dogma, "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others."

103 posted on 11/06/2002 10:40:29 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"You have your opinion,

Which is a conservative one.

I have mine.

Which is a liberal one."

A little frustrated huh?

Not in the least---just calling a spade a spade. "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others" is a liberal/socialist position.

there is no easy solution to the drug problem here in the US.

There is NO governmental solution to the problem of adults harming themselves with bad choices, as the history of Prohibition proves.

(all legal drugs are licensed by the FDA,and will continue to be).

False; neither tobacco nor alcohol are under the FDA's jurisdiction.

Your comments sound like those of many liberal democrats,mine sound like those of many conservatives I have heard.

Unlike liberal Democrats and phony "conservatives," I take a consistent stand for individual freedom. "Conservatives" who support individual freedom only when it suits them are phonies.

"your position of trading one form of goverment control for another."

"Still telling this lie? Shame on you."

How is this a lie

As I've pointed out several times and you have never rebutted, what I advocate is not a mere trade but a LESSENING of goverment control.

What's working so well about it? Rampant alcoholism,

Define "rampant." I didn't have to step over any drunks on my way to work today.

sky high taxation on alcohol and tobbacco.

Are you seriously claiming that this is a problem with the LEGALITY of tobacco and alcohol?! That's just comical.

Do we need more problems

Whenever there is true freedom there is the potential for self-harm. To a true conservative that is not an argument for restricting freedom.

crack being no more dangerous than alcohol [...] The goverment scientists who came up with that kind of conclusions

Why are you misrepresenting my position? I never said that, nor did the USDoJ.

have obviously never been out in the street.

Observations "out in the street" are neither randomly selected nor comparable against a control group, so they prove LESS about general conclusions than scientific observations do.

"I'm pointing out the logical consequences of your statements. If you don't like them, rethink your statements."

And my opinion is your logic just won't work if it ever did actually come to fruition.

Nonresponsive. You claimed that people should be allowed to kill dealers of legalized narcotics, and you agree that alcohol is also a harmful substance, so the logical consequence is that people should be allowed to kill dealers of alcohol.

104 posted on 11/06/2002 11:02:17 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Responsible cocaine users would no more use the crack form than responsible drinkers drink straight Everclear. It's the illegality of (some) drugs that has encouraged their increased potency---just as Prohibition turned drinkers from beer and wine to liquor."

No responsible drinkers usually do not drink everclear.Many do drink 80 proof scotch though.All I'm saying is that just because something is legal,does not mean people won't seek out high potency levels.I belive the same would be true with crack vs. Garden variety cocaine,Heroin vs. raw opium etc.

"No, I'm taking a consistent stand for freedom---whereas you are parroting the liberal/socialist dogma, "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others."

With freedoms come responsibilitys.The word dogma would more apply to your rigid approach.But I respect your quest for freedom non the less.
105 posted on 11/06/2002 8:00:24 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Not in the least---just calling a spade a spade. "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others" is a liberal/socialist position."

With freedoms comes responsibilitys.

"There is NO governmental solution to the problem of adults harming themselves with bad choices, as the history of Prohibition proves.

So the solution is to give each and every adult the right to access crack and Heroin-Our reasoning differs here,you believe this would be a road to increased personal freedoms,I think it would be opening a can of worms.The history of prohibition does not necessarily equate with the WOD.Legal drugs might create a completely different dynamic.

"False; neither tobacco nor alcohol are under the FDA's jurisdiction."

Sorry I confused you-I was refering to prescribed medicines.Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.

"Unlike liberal Democrats and phony "conservatives," I take a consistent stand for individual freedom. "Conservatives" who support individual freedom only when it suits them are phonies."

How come so many conservatives are against the legalization of drugs then? You can't tell me every conservative who is against drug legalization is a phony.Some of them probobly realise the ramifications and realitys this would entail.You refuse to admit or simply want to accept some of the realitys that would be created if everyone was permitted access.Drugs should be decriminalized (personal possession,use)and addicts treated as sick people,not criminals.

"As I've pointed out several times and you have never rebutted, what I advocate is not a mere trade but a LESSENING of goverment control."

But you would permit the goverment and/or private industry to profit off of drugs.I can't accept that.

"Define "rampant." I didn't have to step over any drunks on my way to work today."

My office is in a downtown area where we do oftentimes have to deal with nasty drunks.I don't call the cops on them when they are passed out or unruly.I'll send one over your way if you feel you are missing out.

"Are you seriously claiming that this is a problem with the LEGALITY of tobacco and alcohol?! That's just comical."

I'm saying the goverment should not have the ability to tax my tobbacco and booze.Yes,that's a problem.

"crack being no more dangerous than alcohol [...] The goverment scientists who came up with that kind of conclusions

Why are you misrepresenting my position? I never said that, nor did the USDoJ."

Refer back to your post #66. You cite a report that claims drugs such as PCP do not cause any more propensity for violence than alcohol.And I agree alcohol is linked with tons of violence.But I think any study claiming that PCP is no more dangerous than alcohol is seriously skewed.

"Observations "out in the street" are neither randomly selected nor comparable against a control group, so they prove LESS about general conclusions than scientific observations do."

OK-how about when a study proports to be subjective,but is actually quite biased.That's not uncommon.

"And my opinion is your logic just won't work if it ever did actually come to fruition."

"Nonresponsive. You claimed that people should be allowed to kill dealers of legalized narcotics, and you agree that alcohol is also a harmful substance, so the logical consequence is that people should be allowed to kill dealers of alcohol."

I sure didn't ever say people should be able to knock off dealers of alcohol. But yes,armed citizens could in my opinion control narcotics trafficing more effectivly than legalization could. I think it's seriously unlikely either will happen at anytime soon.Thanks for the debate-you're not half bad.











106 posted on 11/06/2002 10:01:24 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
just because something is legal,does not mean people won't seek out high potency levels.

I didn't say crack use would disappear (the War On Some Drugs let that genie out of the bottle)---but it would most likely be less than it is today.

"No, I'm taking a consistent stand for freedom---whereas you are parroting the liberal/socialist dogma, "As part of a greater society,we also have responsibility to others."

With freedoms come responsibilitys.

"Responsibility" means not violating the rights of others; it does not mean "exercising your rights only in the ways Rocksalt approves of." Drug use does not violate the rights of others.

107 posted on 11/07/2002 6:38:39 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"There is NO governmental solution to the problem of adults harming themselves with bad choices, as the history of Prohibition proves.

So the solution is to give each and every adult the right to access crack and Heroin

Yup.

you believe this would be a road to increased personal freedoms

BY DEFINITION it would increase personal freedom.

The history of prohibition does not necessarily equate with the WOD.

They were initiated with the same arguments, and had the same evil effects. If you want to argue a significant difference, the burden is on you to provide evidence.

Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.

So what?

"Unlike liberal Democrats and phony "conservatives," I take a consistent stand for individual freedom. "Conservatives" who support individual freedom only when it suits them are phonies."

How come so many conservatives are against the legalization of drugs then? You can't tell me every conservative who is against drug legalization is a phony.

They're either phonies or they haven't thought it through.

You refuse to admit

I don't refuse to admit any truths. (I do reject some anti-drug-freedom hysteria posing as truth.)

or simply want to accept some of the realitys that would be created if everyone was permitted access.

Yes, just as we all accept the realities created by legal alcohol and tobacco.

"As I've pointed out several times and you have never rebutted, what I advocate is not a mere trade but a LESSENING of goverment control."

But you would permit the goverment and/or private industry to profit off of drugs.I can't accept that.

You accept it right now---private industry profits off of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. (Or do you support changing that?)

My office is in a downtown area where we do oftentimes have to deal with nasty drunks.

I don't see that as "rampant" alcoholism; perhaps you do. Should we ban alcohol to end that problem? If not, why not?

"Are you seriously claiming that this is a problem with the LEGALITY of tobacco and alcohol?! That's just comical."

I'm saying the goverment should not have the ability to tax my tobbacco and booze.

Why should tobacco and alcohol be more protected than food or gasoline---or income?

Refer back to your post #66. You cite a report that claims drugs such as PCP do not cause any more propensity for violence than alcohol. [...] any study claiming that PCP is no more dangerous than alcohol is seriously skewed.

So to you the only meaning of "dangerous" is "violence-causing"?

"Observations "out in the street" are neither randomly selected nor comparable against a control group, so they prove LESS about general conclusions than scientific observations do."

OK-how about when a study proports to be subjective,but is actually quite biased.

The burden is on the study's critics to prove bias (as critics of recent anti-Ecstasy studies have proved). You can't just say 'I don't like that study's conclusions so it must be biased.'

"You claimed that people should be allowed to kill dealers of legalized narcotics, and you agree that alcohol is also a harmful substance, so the logical consequence is that people should be allowed to kill dealers of alcohol."

I sure didn't ever say people should be able to knock off dealers of alcohol.

It's the logical consequence of what you have claimed.

108 posted on 11/07/2002 7:00:28 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"I didn't say crack use would disappear (the War On Some Drugs let that genie out of the bottle)---but it would most likely be less than it is today."

You are entitled to speculate just as I do sometimes.That's your gut feeling,and I go by intuition alot too.

"Responsibility" means not violating the rights of others; it does not mean "exercising your rights only in the ways Rocksalt approves of." Drug use does not violate the rights of others."

No drug use does not violate the rights of others,in theory,but behaviors related to drug use are oftentimes known to.If drugs are legalized there might be a whole lot of people accounting for their actions.

109 posted on 11/07/2002 9:32:13 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"So the solution is to give each and every adult the right to access crack and Heroin"

"Yup."

That scares me-but you know that.

"BY DEFINITION it would increase personal freedom."

But it might be a little more freedom than many can handle.

"The history of prohibition does not necessarily equate with the WOD.

They were initiated with the same arguments, and had the same evil effects. If you want to argue a significant difference, the burden is on you to provide evidence."

True there are many valid comparisons between the two.My intuition tells me there would be quite a bit of difference in the actual effects of easy access to narcotics and I have already made my concerns about the addictive propertys of narcotics.I totally agree with you that there would be many benefits to legalization.But I feel the side effects would be a nightmare and have MANY hidden drains on society.

"Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.

So what?"

Goverment control ok with you? What happened to true freedom?

"How come so many conservatives are against the legalization of drugs then? You can't tell me every conservative who is against drug legalization is a phony."

"They're either phonies or they haven't thought it through"

You are certainly entitled to your opinion,but it just might be that many don't feel full-on legalization is wise,or that other's freedoms would be infringed upon as a result.

"we all accept the realities created by legal alcohol and tobacco."

And some of the realitys are not that great.Some of the realitys of dope use might be much worse(my personal feeling)do we need a legal "needle park" in every town?

"You accept it right now---private industry profits off of the drugs alcohol and tobacco. (Or do you support changing that?)

Change it-I've already taken matters into my own hands and brewed homebrew. I've seen people growing tobbacco in the past too,and it's not hard.It's not that I mind somebody profiting off the stuff,I just don't like the goverment control aspects.

"I don't see that as "rampant" alcoholism; perhaps you do. Should we ban alcohol to end that problem? If not, why not?"

Come on,you know and I know there's a hell of a lot of alcoholics out there in the US and they are a real vailid problem.No,we should not ban alcohol,I feel the current situation is tolerable.You might be right,it might be tolerable with drugs too,but as I have said before,the potential for people to O.D. is alot higher with narcotics. I'm taking this into account.

"Why should tobacco and alcohol be more protected than food or gasoline---or income?"

My ideal would obviously be to have no taxes. I suffer through them because I realise our infrastuctures would collapse without them.But I prefer the least amount of taxes to the maximum amount generally.

"So to you the only meaning of "dangerous" is "violence-causing"?"

No-there are many dangerous aspects to narcotics.You and I both know that.

"The burden is on the study's critics to prove bias (as critics of recent anti-Ecstasy studies have proved). You can't just say 'I don't like that study's conclusions so it must be biased."

Short on time at the moment,but when I have time I will read it thoroughly and give you my opinion on this.

"I sure didn't ever say people should be able to knock off dealers of alcohol."

"It's the logical consequence of what you have claimed."

Never said that but still think it might be a very effective control for narcotics dealers who prey on communitys.


















110 posted on 11/07/2002 10:15:01 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"I didn't say crack use would disappear (the War On Some Drugs let that genie out of the bottle)---but it would most likely be less than it is today."

That's your gut feeling

False; I have offered facts and logic in support of that position.

"Responsibility" means not violating the rights of others; it does not mean "exercising your rights only in the ways Rocksalt approves of." Drug use does not violate the rights of others."

No drug use does not violate the rights of others,in theory,but behaviors related to drug use are oftentimes known to.

Ditto for alcohol; should we ban that drug? Suppose we found that shooters of abortionists often had been reading anti-abortion literature prior to their crimes; would that be a good reason to ban anti-abortion literature?

111 posted on 11/12/2002 7:09:27 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"BY DEFINITION it would increase personal freedom."

But it might be a little more freedom than many can handle.

Who are you, or anyone else, to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"? If a simple majority thinks you stay up too late, or don't eat healthy, should we decide you can't "hanlde" the freedom to set your own hours and choose your own meals?

My intuition tells me

When your intuition has some facts on its side, let me know.

"Tobbacco and alcohol are controlled by the ATF,which as you know is a GOVERMENT AGENCY.

So what?"

Goverment control ok with you? What happened to true freedom?

As I've explained over and over again, I prefer more freedom, even if incomplete, to less freedom. Is that really so difficult for you to comprehend?

it just might be that many [...] feel [...] that other's freedoms would be infringed upon as a result.

Then they're wrong---as you agreed in your previous post.

(my personal feeling)

I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?

do we need a legal "needle park" in every town?

"Needle park" was a stupid anti-freedom idea---why encourage junkies to publicly congregate by granting them freedom only in a small space?

It's not that I mind somebody profiting off the stuff

You, post 106: "you would permit the goverment and/or private industry to profit off of drugs.I can't accept that." Let me know when you've made up your mind.

No,we should not ban alcohol,I feel the current situation is tolerable.

You, post 102: "What's working so well about [legal alcohol]? Rampant alcoholism [...]" Let me know when you've made up your mind.

the potential for people to O.D. is alot higher with narcotics.

ODs are largely CAUSED by the illegality of drugs and the consequent variability in purity. Legalize drugs and you end most ODs.

"Why should tobacco and alcohol be more protected than food or gasoline---or income?"

My ideal would obviously be to have no taxes. I suffer through them because I realise our infrastuctures would collapse without them.But I prefer the least amount of taxes to the maximum amount generally.

You didn't answer the question: Why should tobacco and alcohol be MORE protected?

"So to you the only meaning of "dangerous" is "violence-causing"?"

No

Then why did you equate them in post 106? You: "You cite a report that claims drugs such as PCP do not cause any more propensity for violence than alcohol. [...] any study claiming that PCP is no more dangerous than alcohol is seriously skewed."

"The burden is on the study's critics to prove bias (as critics of recent anti-Ecstasy studies have proved). You can't just say 'I don't like that study's conclusions so it must be biased."

Short on time at the moment,but when I have time I will read it thoroughly and give you my opinion on this.

Has five days been enough time?

"I sure didn't ever say people should be able to knock off dealers of alcohol."

"It's the logical consequence of what you have claimed."

Never said that

What part of "logical consequence" do you not understand?

but still think it might be a very effective control for narcotics dealers who prey on communitys.

Why would it be any less effective against dealers of the drug alcohol?

112 posted on 11/12/2002 7:37:49 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Crack use will never dissapear,as long as cocaine and baking soda exist.Making cocaine more commonly readily available would make it easier to make the finished product.How could it not?Do you think crackheads will suddenly say they prefer a product that takes longer to affect them and is not as powerful ounce for ounce just because one or the other is suddenly legal?

"No drug use does not violate the rights of others,in theory,but behaviors related to drug use are oftentimes known to.

Ditto for alcohol; should we ban that drug? Suppose we found that shooters of abortionists often had been reading anti-abortion literature prior to their crimes; would that be a good reason to ban anti-abortion literature?"

Throughout our discussion on this issue,we have examined the relative dangers of legal and illicit substances.I have stated that I feel narcotic drugs are a lot more dangerous than alcohol in general.I still feel my points about narcotics having a propensity to hook people into addiction cycles much quicker than alcohol is an argument that has merit in ascessing the situation and examining the subject of possible narcotics legalization.No I don't feel it is the job of goverment to protect people from dangerous things.But I do feel it would be wise to make every effort to keep narcotics out of the hands of children.And I think these substances would reach the hands of children much more easily if they were more readily available in our society.That would seem a responsible thing to do.Neither you nor I have the right to place children in danger,and I will say again that I think behaviors linked to drug use do violate the rights of others oftentimes.Comparing alcohol and narcotics is like comparing candle wax to rocket fuel.Or at least diesel to rocket fuel.Both are dangerous,but rocket fuel is much more volatile.
113 posted on 11/12/2002 5:57:02 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Who are you, or anyone else, to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?"

I don't decide this,or any1 person-If drugs are to be legalized,I feel it should be by vote of the people,since this would affect everyone.A supreme court decision would be too narrow a band of opinion on this subject.

"to set your own hours and choose your own meals?"

This does not seem like a really great comparison.Neither of those are associated with lots of crime.Watch that sugar intake though......

"When your intuition has some facts on its side, let me know."

Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings.Remember,behind every study there is a motivation and funders.I've done research enough to know this.

"As I've explained over and over again, I prefer more freedom, even if incomplete, to less freedom. Is that really so difficult for you to comprehend?"

No. Incomplete,true,as I said before,I applaud you quest for true freedoms.I feel you have great intentions.Do these intentions=realistic choices?

"it just might be that many [...] feel [...] that other's freedoms would be infringed upon as a result." (RS)

"Then they're wrong---as you agreed in your previous post."(Mr. LR)

Drug use itself is a non-violent crime.No infringement there.The ramifications of legalized narcotics involve many possible infringements on the rights of others.Can't you admit this?

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

I just don't hear alot of Repubs touting legal drugs.The ones I do are generally pro drug.Which attitude sounds more liberal or conservative? You tell me.I have always heard a ton of liberals in favor of legalization.

"Needle park" was a stupid anti-freedom idea---why encourage junkies to publicly congregate by granting them freedom only in a small space?"

It makes it much easier to haul away the bodies that are the inevitable result of legalized narcotics.Easier to keep an eye on them.Easier to run the needle exchange that helps keep them alive.

"It's not that I mind somebody profiting off the stuff"

Should have read "not that I mind people making profits"-just not on drugs that are like selling people cyanide pills. Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself? Might make you some healthy profits.

"What's working so well about [legal alcohol]? Rampant alcoholism [...]" Let me know when you've made up your mind."

It's not working all that well.Some people are able to use it responsibly,some aren't.I feel it is tolerable.When prohibition went away,all of the inherent problems didn't.Here's a big important question for you sir:

Since the goverment,me,and whoever else does not have the right or need to protect us from dangerous behaviors,why should a police officer be able to arrest me for DUII when I'm not harming anyone,have not hit anyone or any vehicles,and the only proboble cause to pull me over is a taillight out? this would seem to be an infringement on my personal freedoms according to you.It's a victimless crime until I've hurt or hit someone.

"ODs are largely CAUSED by the illegality of drugs and the consequent variability in purity. Legalize drugs and you end most ODs."

Horsepucky-You give proof this time ace.OD's are caused by someone taking too large a dose,and the legality of the substance has absolutely no bearing on someone's desire of one concoction over another.Pure,stabilized quality would NOT mean a junkie would not want more and more.

"You didn't answer the question: Why should tobacco and alcohol be MORE protected?"

They are already here,and they are immensely more survivable for most.You can draw all the comparisons you want between narcotics and D&A,but they are two individual subjects,with unique solutions.

"The burden is on the study's critics to prove bias (as critics of recent anti-Ecstasy studies have proved). You can't just say 'I don't like that study's conclusions so it must be biased."

I'll read it more thouroughly when I have time,no five days has not been enough time due to meetings,work,conference,I know'I've got lots of excuses,but you haven't heard the last of me on that study.

"Why would it be any less effective against dealers of the drug alcohol?"

Oh it would be quite effective against them as well,but that's a possibility you have raised,not me.

I'll read that study and get back at you in the next day or so-Take care-RS















114 posted on 11/12/2002 7:16:23 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
Crack use will never dissapear [etc.]

I already agreed with that.

I still feel my points about narcotics having a propensity to hook people into addiction cycles much quicker than alcohol is an argument that has merit

You have yet to provide any evidence for your claim.

I do feel it would be wise to make every effort to keep narcotics out of the hands of children.And I think these substances would reach the hands of children much more easily if they were more readily available in our society.

By that logic, everything that's dangerous for children should be banned for adults---alcohol, knives, cars, ....

115 posted on 11/13/2002 3:13:21 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
Who are you, or anyone else, to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?"

I don't decide this,or any1 person-If drugs are to be legalized,I feel it should be by vote of the people

Who is a majority to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?

"to set your own hours and choose your own meals?"

This does not seem like a really great comparison.Neither of those are associated with lots of crime.

But alcohol is. If a simple majority thinks you drink too much, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink?

"When your intuition has some facts on its side, let me know."

Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings.Remember,behind every study there is a motivation and funders.

Whereas instinct and intuitions are unbiased? Good grief.

Drug use itself is a non-violent crime.No infringement there.

Exactly.

The ramifications of legalized narcotics involve many possible infringements on the rights of others.

We have no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements.

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

I just don't hear alot of Repubs touting legal drugs.The ones I do are generally pro drug.Which attitude sounds more liberal or conservative? You tell me.I have always heard a ton of liberals in favor of legalization.

You didn't answer my question. (By the way, Republican does not mean the same thing as conservative.)

Should have read "not that I mind people making profits"-just not on drugs that are like selling people cyanide pills.

Alcohol can kill the user in a single evening.

Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself?

Yes (although I don't think I'm cut out for retail).

Since the goverment,me,and whoever else does not have the right or need to protect us from dangerous behaviors,why should a police officer be able to arrest me for DUII when I'm not harming anyone,have not hit anyone or any vehicles,and the only proboble cause to pull me over is a taillight out?

Because you're driving on public roads. That officer has no right to stop you driving drunk on your own property.

"ODs are largely CAUSED by the illegality of drugs and the consequent variability in purity. Legalize drugs and you end most ODs."

OD's are caused by someone taking too large a dose [...] Pure,stabilized quality would NOT mean a junkie would not want more and more.

"Wanting more and more" is not what causes most ODs. How often do prescription drug addicts have ODs?

"Why would it be any less effective against dealers of the drug alcohol?"

Oh it would be quite effective against them as well

Then why don't you support it? Alcohol has destroyed many lives.

116 posted on 11/13/2002 3:29:31 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"I still feel my points about narcotics having a propensity to hook people into addiction cycles much quicker than alcohol is an argument that has merit"

"You have yet to provide any evidence for your claim."

In one of my earlier posts I cited a reputable source that explained that crack is often so addictive that even one encounter with the substance can render some helpless against cravings for more.How often do you hear about someone developing alcohol cravings of this intensity after their first drink?

"By that logic, everything that's dangerous for children should be banned for adults---alcohol, knives, cars, .... "

Why are these things not banned then? Obviously a majority of the american people do not feel they should be illegal.A majority of the public must not feel strongly that drugs should be legalized or they would be excercising their free-speech rights and trying to get the laws changed.I am not talking about alcohol,knives and cars here,I am specifically talking about schedule 1 narcotics.


117 posted on 11/13/2002 6:20:04 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Who is a majority to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?

Sounds a lot better than a small body of select individuals like the supreme court.Once again I respect your quest for freedoms.I'm sure you have a basis for your feelings that the constitution entitles us to do drugs.I agree the constitution supposedly provides us protections against unreasonable search and seizure.Convince me-I'm listening and I'm willing to learn something if you can offer it.I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything.

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink?"

Laws exist in virtually every state and municipality that prohibit public drunkedness,DUII,and drinking in public.Sometimes a line must be drawn,would you not agree this is for good reason sometimes? I don't see a whole lot of citizen uprisings against these statutes.Why?

"Whereas instinct and intuitions are unbiased? Good grief."

Never said they were unbiased.I claim common sense.Reasonability and prudency are reflected in my instincts I would hope(although you will refute that I'm sure-feel free).

"We have no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements."

Who is we? Supreme court,vote of American people,city councils,state goverment,elected officials? Cite constitutional provisions-I am listening with an open mind-honestly.......

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

Conservatives do generally argue with sound facts but in this particular case I feel in spite of the information you cite,somehow you end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization.I am not accusing you of being a liberal,it's obvious your beliefs are rooted in achieving personal libertys.Kudos on that aspect of your arguments.

"Alcohol can kill the user in a single evening."

Good point-my obvious reply would be narcotics can kill you in a single minute.Different animal all together.

"Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself?

"Yes (although I don't think I'm cut out for retail)."

Yeah I hate retail too.Used to own my own music store and always felt cooped up.You can hire a bunch of Pakistanis cheap though.Seriously though,after the first 14 year old girl OD's on your good,pure dope,tell me what you will tell her mother when she comes in to let you know the dope you sold to John ended up in Jill's body.Even though you are just like an alcohol store and can't control where it all goes,will you feel good about selling your product?

"Because you're driving on public roads. That officer has no right to stop you driving drunk on your own property."

What difference does that make by your logic-I'm not harming anyone,isn't that a victimless crime until I do harm people or property?

"Wanting more and more" is not what causes most ODs. How often do prescription drug addicts have ODs?"

Didn't you cite facts that pointed out aspirin causes more OD's than narcotics? OD's are often caused by addicts not knowing the actual potency of their poisons.But they also happen because an addict feels like going a little bit further,doing just a little bit more will get them higher.Tolerance sets in and it's hard to know how fast.This is why I favor a system of registered addicts being able to access enough to maintain at one time,and no more-that would help prevent OD's.I know this logic does not favor complete freedom,but I feel it is more realistic.

"Then why don't you support it? Alcohol has destroyed many lives."

Chuckling-Because I am biased admittedly,I enjoy a beer now and again.My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals. I don't fear alcoholic beverage dealers to the degree I fear crack dealers.

Once again,thanks for the debate.I know this is taking your freep time up,and I've enjoyed it.
















118 posted on 11/13/2002 7:38:03 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
In one of my earlier posts I cited a reputable source that explained that crack is often so addictive that even one encounter with the substance can render some helpless against cravings for more.

Your source did NOT say "often." This illustrates where your "intuitions" about drugs come from---vague statements hazily recalled and colored by your preconceptions.

"By that logic, everything that's dangerous for children should be banned for adults---alcohol, knives, cars, .... "

Why are these things not banned then?

Because your liberal "for the children" argument is bogus.

A majority of the public must not feel strongly that drugs should be legalized

No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body.

119 posted on 11/14/2002 7:00:08 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"Who is a majority to decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?

Sounds a lot better than a small body of select individuals like the supreme court.

But much worse than letting adults decide for themselves. (Why did you drag in this red herring--when did I ever support letting the Supreme Court decide how much freedom any adult can "handle"?)

I'm sure you have a basis for your feelings that the constitution entitles us to do drugs.

The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs.

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink?"

Laws exist in virtually every state and municipality that prohibit public drunkedness,DUII,and drinking in public.

The public gets to say what happens on its property. If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink at home?

"Whereas instinct and intuitions are unbiased? Good grief."

Never said they were unbiased.

Then there is no support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings."

"We have no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements."

Who is we? Supreme court,vote of American people,city councils,state goverment,elected officials?

All of the above.

Cite constitutional provisions-

The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements. As for the rest, it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do.

"I have facts and logic, you have intuition and personal feelings. Which one of us sounds more like a liberal?"

Conservatives do generally argue with sound facts

And the sound facts do not support restricting adults' freedom to use drugs.

but in this particular case I feel in spite of the information you cite,somehow you end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization.

So what? Should I stop wearing pants because liberals wear them?

"Alcohol can kill the user in a single evening."

Good point-my obvious reply would be narcotics can kill you in a single minute.Different animal all together.

No, that does NOT make them "different altogether." Slow-acting poisons and fast-acting poisons are both poisons.

"Would you personally be willing to operate the first Heroin store yourself?

"Yes (although I don't think I'm cut out for retail)."

after the first 14 year old girl OD's on your good,pure dope,tell me what you will tell her mother when she comes in to let you know the dope you sold to John ended up in Jill's body.Even though you are just like an alcohol store and can't control where it all goes,will you feel good about selling your product?

How would I feel about selling John a bottle of booze that killed Jill? How would I feel about selling John a kitchen knife that killed Jill? What does any of that have to do with whether the product should be legal?

"Because you're driving on public roads. That officer has no right to stop you driving drunk on your own property."

What difference does that make

The public gets to say what happens on its property, just like I get to say what happens on my property.

"Wanting more and more" is not what causes most ODs. How often do prescription drug addicts have ODs?"

Didn't you cite facts that pointed out aspirin causes more OD's than narcotics?

No---and I doubt that's true on a per-user basis.

Tolerance sets in and it's hard to know how fast.

That's utter nonsense---tolerance does not grow appreciably during the course of a single drug-use episode, but builds over multiple episodes.

"Then why don't you support it? Alcohol has destroyed many lives."

Chuckling-Because I am biased admittedly,I enjoy a beer now and again.

I'd applaud your honesty---but I'm too disgusted by your chuckling over your supporting the caging of non-rights-violating adults on the basis of your biases.

My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals.

You have yet to produce evidence that supports that claim.

120 posted on 11/14/2002 7:19:57 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"vague statements hazily recalled and colored by your preconceptions."

Vague statements,hazily recalled,and colored preconceptions caused by watching so many people around me die or go down the tubes from the effects of drug use.The kind of thing you could obviously care less about.

"Because your liberal "for the children" argument is bogus."

OK-you are right.It is alright to ignore any ramifications of narcotics legalization,lets let free MDMA be given away on every streetcorner,it's only possible it might fall into the hands of children,but it's safe anyway..........

"No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body."

I notice you include the word ethical in there. Explain that if you could.



121 posted on 11/14/2002 6:05:27 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Supreme Court?"

Who ends up making a goodly number of the decisions affecting our lives? I never said you supported the power of the supreme court to decide what you can put in your body.Who ends up interpreting the constitution? Not you or me.I'm saying I'd rather let a majority decide these decisions,including drug reform,than the supreme court jesters.

"The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs."

How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink at home?"

No-and I feel this should apply to drugs as well. I'm not going to try and mandate how much dope you can shoot in your own home.But I feel the distribution of narcotics should be as limited as possible due to many different concerns.

"Then there is no support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings."

I'm not going to dispute that oftentimes scientific findings are quite meaningful.Some of my own research is quite valid,meaningful and cutting edge data.I'm not proporting to be an expert on every kind of research,but I know enough to tell you much research done in this world is funded by someone,and often has specific intentions,which may add an element of bias.Make one set of findings,get more money,make another,lose funding.Besides,how can you dispute that I have psychic powers?

"The Constitution grants the federal government no authority to restrict the freedoms of adults because of POSSIBLE infringements. As for the rest, it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do."

Cite specifics if you could please.Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings,or Scalia?

"And the sound facts do not support restricting adults' freedom to use drugs."

I agree-but I would not support anyone being permitted to distribute narcotics,feds,private industry,or moon monkeys.Your black and white way of addressing this problem has led to myopia in that you ignore the big ugly picture drug use paints.If it was as simple as citizens simply possessing drugs in their own home,produced by themselves,it would be alot easier.That's the beauty of medical pot-anyone can grow it,and this is one of the reasons the drug company's and the feds hate the idea.They can't control it.If it was as simple as you sitting in your lazyboy snorting a line of coke and not affecting anyone,I'd say have a good time.You have the right to do anything you want with your own body-that's obvious.

"So what? Should I stop wearing pants because liberals wear them?"

The pants are fine.Lose the tye-died shirt though.(See-I'm starting to get this down-you might make a freeper out of me yet)

"Slow-acting poisons and fast-acting poisons are both poisons."

Yeah,but there's a big difference between black powder and nitro glycerine.Why should the federal goverment be able to restrict someone's rights to possess dynamite? Could it be potential harm? By your logic,fundamental ethics would permit virtually anything.

" How would I feel about selling John a kitchen knife that killed Jill? What does any of that have to do with whether the product should be legal?"

Because I'm interested in hearing your instincts and gut feelings about what you would be doing.Instead of seeing the issue in black and white terms,this will enable us to see if your moral fundamentals will allow you to sell the stuff.And you totally ducked the question........... That was question #1-number 2 is: If your permit gets denied for the narcotics store(since you have too many firearms around your house)are you happy that Abdul has opened up Abdul's House of Heroin next door to your house?

"The public gets to say what happens on its property, just like I get to say what happens on my property."

But why does it matter what arbitirary line is crossed if I'm not harming persons or property?

"Didn't you cite facts that pointed out aspirin causes more OD's than narcotics?"

"No---and I doubt that's true on a per-user basis."

I can't cite figures on how many people ODed on prescription drugs-don't quite a few bite the dust after combining prescription drugs and alcohol?

"That's utter nonsense---tolerance does not grow appreciably during the course of a single drug-use episode, but builds over multiple episodes."

Not in a single episode-what I meant is over time it is difficult to judge how tolerant to a substance a person has become.

"My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals."

"You have yet to produce evidence that supports that claim."

Guess I've got some homework to do to further my arguments ........I'm confident I can produce some data that suggests my assertions are true.



















122 posted on 11/14/2002 7:43:58 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"vague statements hazily recalled and colored by your preconceptions."

Vague statements,hazily recalled,and colored preconceptions caused by watching so many people around me die or go down the tubes from the effects of drug use.

Seeing that so upset you that you now misquote yourself? I'm sorry to hear that.

I've seen people around me go down the tubes from the effects of alcohol use; is that a good reason to ban alcohol?

The kind of thing you could obviously care less about.

More liberal rhetoric: 'you don't care.' I say it's wrong to restrict the freedom of ALL adults because SOME adults use that freedom to harm themselves.

"Because your liberal "for the children" argument is bogus."

OK-you are right.

Manfully conceded.

"No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body."

I notice you include the word ethical in there. Explain that if you could.

I suppose it's redundant; I put it in to emphasize that I was speaking of authority and not power (which majorities usually have).

123 posted on 11/15/2002 10:51:51 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
I never said you supported the power of the supreme court to decide what you can put in your body. [...] I'm saying I'd rather let a majority decide these decisions,including drug reform,than the supreme court jesters.

Tell you what---if the Supreme Court declares that drug use is mandatory, I'll be on your side against them. Barring that, it's the majority that is exercising tyranny over drug freedoms, not the Supreme Court.

"The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs."

How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?

Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs.

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide you can't "handle" the freedom to choose how much to drink at home?"

No-and I feel this should apply to drugs as well. I'm not going to try and mandate how much dope you can shoot in your own home. But I feel the distribution of narcotics should be as limited as possible

If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?

"Then there is no support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings."

much research done in this world is funded by someone,and often has specific intentions,which may add an element of bias.

At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported.

"it's fundamental ethics---you don't punish someone for what they MIGHT do."

Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings

If you like; if you don't like, then natural law. Do you deny that it's wrong to punish someone for what they MIGHT do?

If it was as simple as citizens simply possessing drugs in their own home,produced by themselves,it would be alot easier.

So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?

"So what? Should I stop wearing pants because liberals wear them?"

The pants are fine.Lose the tye-died shirt though.(See-I'm starting to get this down-you might make a freeper out of me yet)

You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?

Why should the federal goverment be able to restrict someone's rights to possess dynamite?

It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated).

" How would I feel about selling John a kitchen knife that killed Jill? What does any of that have to do with whether the product should be legal?"

Because I'm interested in hearing your instincts and gut feelings about what you would be doing. [...] this will enable us to see if your moral fundamentals will allow you to sell the stuff.

Your question is founded on a false premise---my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings.

If your permit gets denied for the narcotics store(since you have too many firearms around your house)are you happy that Abdul has opened up Abdul's House of Heroin next door to your house?

No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants.

"The public gets to say what happens on its property, just like I get to say what happens on my property."

But why does it matter what arbitirary line is crossed if I'm not harming persons or property?

The public can be as arbitrary as it wants in restricting the use of the public's property, just as I may be as arbitrary as I want in restricting the use of my property.

I can't cite figures on how many people ODed on prescription drugs-don't quite a few bite the dust after combining prescription drugs and alcohol?

Could be---but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether stabilizing drug purity decreases ODs.

"That's utter nonsense---tolerance does not grow appreciably during the course of a single drug-use episode, but builds over multiple episodes."

Not in a single episode-what I meant is over time it is difficult to judge how tolerant to a substance a person has become.

Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose.

"My real response would be that I think alcohol and narcotics are completely different animals."

"You have yet to produce evidence that supports that claim."

Guess I've got some homework to do to further my arguments ........I'm confident I can produce some data that suggests my assertions are true.

Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom.

124 posted on 11/15/2002 11:21:43 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"I've seen people around me go down the tubes from the effects of alcohol use; is that a good reason to ban alcohol?"

Different substances-As I've asserted before,It's obvious alot more people use alcohol responsibly than Heroin and Crack.

"More liberal rhetoric: 'you don't care.' I say it's wrong to restrict the freedom of ALL adults because SOME adults use that freedom to harm themselves."

But are some restrictions worth it when talking about the lives of teen-agers and children?

"No majority has the ethical authority to tell any adult what he can put in his own body."

Yeah but who defines ethical authority?





125 posted on 11/16/2002 5:40:17 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"it's the majority that is exercising tyranny over drug freedoms, not the Supreme Court."

OK-How is the majority imposing "tyranny" over you? Buy not raising hell over the current state of affairs concerning drug laws and possible reforms? It's the feds who are messing with the people down in Mendocino Co. who have passed laws permitting citizens to grow weed on their property.And this I would classify as victimless crime.

"How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?"(my comment)

"Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs."

You're telling me that not one case would have been able to set precedent in the whole country? Please cite what part of the constitution protects the right to use drugs?

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?"

You can do whatever you want in your own home.We agree there I believe.The federal goverment limits who sells alcohol because it provides some level of control.Maybe this approach would work with narcotics as well-I doubt it though,as they are different animals,which you refuse to admit.And it's obvious we are not going to agree on that point.

"At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported."

My claim that research often proves what gets it funded needs no support.I will admit this is not always the case.

"Fundamental ethics-does god interpret those rulings

"If you like; if you don't like, then natural law. Do you deny that it's wrong to punish someone for what they MIGHT do?"

I'll consult my natural law attorney on this one.No,I would say it is not right to punish someone for something they might do.But do you deny it is reasonable to take reasonable means to prevent someone from doing harm to another? Example:DUII arrests?

"So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?"

I am not in favor of banning commercially produced alcohol.But it would take away alot of the profit motivation and TV commercials that keep people interested in it and buying.

"You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?"

Half a compliment-But I am no drug warrior,I just consider myself a conservative who is prudent about legalized drugs.I think your question provides it's own answer.Actually,I consider your opinions valid,and you have provided some decent logical reasons for them.As you can see,I am prudent about legalized narcotics though.

"It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated)."

OK-How about US citizens who are muslims fundamentalists? I have not heard any links between dynamite possession and violence-why should the states regulate possession of it either? All I can say is if you don't belive there is any link between Meth use and violence,you ain't been around areas where it's use is common.I don't care what the DOJ maintains-Not all people who use it are dangerous,but many are.Why facilitate it's use?

"my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings."

Anything can be justified if we have the will to justify it.

"No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants."

So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there.

"Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose."

Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001. I'm sure all these folks were in full realization of how much tolerance they had developed.

"Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom."

Speaking of homework,you should read report # NOJ188745 on the DOJ website you cited earlier.Seems as though they think MDMA is some pretty nasty medicine.Check out all the dangers and side effects they mention.I'll read more of their information when I have time-Thanks for your time-RS




















126 posted on 11/16/2002 6:49:02 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
It's obvious alot more people use alcohol responsibly than Heroin and Crack.

So how do you determine the cutoff point at which substance X's ratio of irresponsible use to all use makes it properly bannable? And where is the ethical justification for drawing such a line at all---who has the authority to protect adults from their own bad choices?

are some restrictions worth it when talking about the lives of teen-agers and children?

Providing drugs to minors should be illegal. But as I have shown, it is illegitimate to ban things for adults because they're dangerous for children: alcohol, kitchen knives, etc. are all dangerous for children.

who defines ethical authority?

Natural law. As a reasoning free-willed being, an adult human is capable of formulating and pursuing his own ends, so nobody else has the right to dictate his ends to him.

127 posted on 11/18/2002 10:57:32 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"it's the majority that is exercising tyranny over drug freedoms, not the Supreme Court."

OK-How is the majority imposing "tyranny" over you? [...] It's the feds who are messing with the people down in Mendocino Co. who have passed laws permitting citizens to grow weed on their property.

You have been arguing in support of anti-drug laws because they reflect the will of the majority. For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical.

"How come no precedent cases are enabling drug suspects to use get off with this defense then?"(my comment)

"Because the liberal-dominated judiciary loves 90% of Congress' unconstitutional acts and is unwilling to expose their unconstitutionality by doing what's right in regard to drugs."

You're telling me that not one case would have been able to set precedent in the whole country?

Nothing like that. I'm saying that the liberal-dominated judiciary can't find the federal War On Some Drugs unconstitutional without acknowledging the relevance of the Tenth Amendment or the proper limits of the Interstate Commerce Clause---which would reveal the unconstitutionality of most liberal federal programs.

Please cite what part of the constitution protects the right to use drugs?

The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs.

"If a simple majority thinks you drink too much at home, should we decide to make the distribution of alcohol as limited as possible?"

You can do whatever you want in your own home.We agree there I believe.The federal goverment limits who sells alcohol because it provides some level of control.

The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way.

Maybe this approach would work with narcotics as well-I doubt it though,as they are different animals,which you refuse to admit.

You refuse to prove it.

"At least as much instinct and intuition has an element of bias. Your claim remains unsupported."

My claim that research often proves what gets it funded needs no support.

Beside the point---it doesn't support for your claim that "Sometimes instinct and intuitions turn out to be more meaningful than scientific findings," since instinct and intuition are at least as biased.

I would say it is not right to punish someone for something they might do.But do you deny it is reasonable to take reasonable means to prevent someone from doing harm to another? Example:DUII arrests?

DUI laws are based on the public's ownership of the roads; it's legal to drive dunk on one's own property.

"So banning the distribution of alcohol would be OK as long as people were permitted to brew or ferment their own?"

I am not in favor of banning commercially produced alcohol.

Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs.

"You already have the Drug Warrior Freepers' skill at dodging questions. The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"?"

I think your question provides it's own answer.

False. Quit dodging the question.

"It shouldn't (because the Constitution grants it no such authority) but states should---because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring. Drugs, in sharp contrast, cannot be in any way involved in harm unless a person uses them---and even then, the only cause-and-effect link between any drug and violence is for the drug alcohol (as the US Department of Justice has stated)."

OK-How about US citizens who are muslims fundamentalists?

What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?

I have not heard any links between dynamite possession and violence-why should the states regulate possession of it either?

I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring."

I don't care what the DOJ maintains

The enemies of freedom seldom care about facts.

"my moral fundamentals are not based on my instincts and gut feelings."

Anything can be justified if we have the will to justify it.

YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't.

"No, nor Sean's Tavern; I support zoning laws (at least for the time being) as a good approximation of what free people would voluntarily achieve through easements and covenants."

So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there.

<yawn> Will you be sharing your insight, or just gloating over it?

"Rubbish---one simply notices how high one gets with each use. As tolerance slowly builds, one slowly increases one's dose."

Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001.

<snicker> ALL emergency room episodes are air-related---let's ban air.

"Excellent! If every opponent of drug freedom would do their homework, there would soon be no opponents of drug freedom."

Speaking of homework,you should read report # NOJ188745 on the DOJ website you cited earlier.Seems as though they think MDMA is some pretty nasty medicine.

So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.

128 posted on 11/18/2002 12:55:57 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical." I agree you should be able to do whatever you want,in your own home,as long as your not harming others.That is a non-argument. "I'm saying that the liberal-dominated judiciary can't find the federal War On Some Drugs unconstitutional without acknowledging the relevance of the Tenth Amendment" Yes I agree here too. As an example of this I would say the situation in Mendicino Co. is a good example.As well as California's medical pot law,and how the feds have raided medical pot facilitys,ignoring Calif. laws,enacted by a vote of the people. "The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs." Could you explain this a little more in detail? "The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way." I favor state regulation over federal control,didn't Arizona vote on drug legalization not long ago? I realize you feel a majority should not excercise control over individuals,but a vote of the people seemed like a good reasonable idea to me. Different animals? I refuse to prove it? How many people OD on alcohol,and how many OD on narcotics? Alcohol poisoning is not a really common form of death. "DUI laws are based on the public's ownership of the roads; it's legal to drive dunk on one's own property." I'm not saying that people should not be able to do what they want on their own property.No argument there-Fine-if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great. A penalty of life in prison for furnishing minors with narcotics would be an acceptable addition to ofset the possible dangers. "Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs." Maybe legally there isn't sound basis.Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms. "The question is, in what way does it diminish my standing as a conservative to "end up touting the same line as many dyed in the wool liberals on drug legalization"? I understand the basis you base your argument on.I can see it is true that the federal goverment has no right to wage the WOD.But the actual ramifications of legalized drugs in my opinion must be examined from a position of the actual effect this would have.I think your arguments are actually much more meaningful than the typical liberal's which would also include passionate bleeding heart stuff about prisoners suffering due to the WOD. I commend your quest for freedoms,and I can clearly see you are not a liberal.I just don't favor easy access to narcotics for the general public,and you know this already.We need to find a way to end the WOD,but not open up the floodgates at the same time. "What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?" No-Muslim fundamentalists possessing dynamite illegally,yes. Seems there are alot of freepers out there who would favor a general round-up of Muslims,but I think internment would be a bad idea. "I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring." I'll accept that,and admit defeat on that one,but by that logic shouldn't gas ovens be prohibited too? "I don't care what the DOJ maintains" "The enemies of freedom seldom care about facts" Well from reading that website it seems facts point out the number of drug related hospital "incidents" is enormous. "YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't." Your perception that I am opposed to "drug freedoms" is false.I am opposed to the ramifications of providing the general public with easy access to narcotics that is true.I feel you are unrealistic,that's true too. "So you are admitting you would not want to live next to Abdul's? This tells me something right there." " Will you be sharing your insight, or just gloating over it?" Just seeing here that if even you don't want Abdul's heroin emporium next door,most people won't want it within 3500 miles of them. "Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001." I see you can blow off the facts and figures as easily as you can cite them. "So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.(refering to MDMA page) No,it talks more about destroyed minds.If the only side effect of MDMA was people hugging each other and holding pacifiers in their mouths,it wouldn't be much to worry about.I can't see how you can offer this stuff even one bit of support.
129 posted on 11/19/2002 7:44:44 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
Last post did not seem to post correctly,although it did preview OK.???


"So how do you determine the cutoff point at which substance X's ratio of irresponsible use to all use makes it properly bannable? And where is the ethical justification for drawing such a line at all---who has the authority to protect adults from their own bad choices?"

Good question.I would say the cutoff point could possibly be determined by the weight of the particular substance's lethal dose.Any thing that can cause death at under a certain level,such as one gram,would be cutoff.My ethics would steer me towards preventing harms.I have no authority,but I do have a desire to use common sense and reasonable prudence around deadly poisons.

"Providing drugs to minors should be illegal"

As I said before,a life sentence for providing them to minors under say 16 would be an excellent provision to include with any possible drug legalization plan.There must be deterrents.


"Natural law".Once again,who defines this?

"As a reasoning free-willed being, an adult human is capable of formulating and pursuing his own ends, so nobody else has the right to dictate his ends to him."

Only problem with this is many adults do not reason well.Their reasoning processes end up leading them to infringe upon the rights of others.I can't get behind legalizing narcotics.Cannibus is one thing,as is it relatively safe.It's obvious that many millions of people use it quite safely.Narcotics do not have that same track record though.

130 posted on 11/19/2002 8:40:46 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
I would say the cutoff point could possibly be determined by the weight of the particular substance's lethal dose.Any thing that can cause death at under a certain level,such as one gram,would be cutoff.

By that rule we could not sell many household cleaners, bug sprays, weed killers, etc. And any drug could be made to pass this test by being sufficiently diluted.

My ethics would steer me towards preventing harms.I have no authority,but I do have a desire to use common sense and reasonable prudence around deadly poisons.

How can you enforce YOUR "common sense and reasonable prudence" on others with no authority?

"Natural law".Once again,who defines this?

Already defined; see immediately below.

"As a reasoning free-willed being, an adult human is capable of formulating and pursuing his own ends, so nobody else has the right to dictate his ends to him."

Only problem with this is many adults do not reason well.Their reasoning processes end up leading them to infringe upon the rights of others.

Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others.

131 posted on 11/20/2002 3:20:41 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great.

Finally, you've come around to the freedom-loving way of thinking. We're always ready to welcome a convert.

132 posted on 11/20/2002 3:30:16 PM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Finally, you've come around to the freedom-loving way of thinking. We're always ready to welcome a convert."

If people want to go home and shoot up junk,great,but I still have not seen any proposals for distributing the stuff that would be acceptable to me.And I doubt I will.
133 posted on 11/20/2002 5:46:33 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"By that rule we could not sell many household cleaners, bug sprays, weed killers, etc. And any drug could be made to pass this test by being sufficiently diluted."

You're degenerating here.The poisons you mentioned are not intended for people to shoot them up in their arms.And as I've said before,people want the strongest stuff they can get their hands on.Dilute it and they will just refine it again.

"How can you enforce YOUR "common sense and reasonable prudence" on others with no authority? "

I'm not.I'm just expessing my opinions and trying to involve common sense in them.Give it a try sometime.Things are not always black and white.The WOD is an attempt at protecting the citizens from harm at it's foundation,it has obviously had some negative implications,but it developed as a response to serious problems.We need to get rid of the WOD,and not institute total chaos at the same time.

"Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others."

Your appocalyptic vision here scares me.Sure in theory this is true,but in reality,many people's quality of life would degrade as a result of knowing or being related to or involved with the aftermath.I just can't buy into your dream here,sorry.


134 posted on 11/20/2002 6:03:04 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
I still have not seen any proposals for distributing the stuff that would be acceptable to me.

You, in your previous post: "if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great."

I haven't seen this many flips since the last time I went to the circus.

135 posted on 11/21/2002 6:03:19 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
The poisons you mentioned are not intended for people to shoot them up in their arms.

Irrelevant---people have sought highs from many substances not intended for that purpose.

And as I've said before,people want the strongest stuff they can get their hands on.Dilute it and they will just refine it again.

Utter ignorant rubbish---ALL heroin is sold in diluted ("cut") form and there is NO evidence that ANY user has tried to re-concentrate it. You still haven't done your homework, but are relying on "instinct," "intutition," and "caring"---just like a liberal.

I'm just expessing my opinions and trying to involve common sense in them.

When your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are either claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom or you are simply babbling. Which is it?

in reality,many people's quality of life would degrade as a result of knowing or being related to or involved with the aftermath.

This is true right now of alcohol and tobacco---and yet despite your professed principles you support their legality.

136 posted on 11/21/2002 6:10:18 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

Comment #137 Removed by Moderator

To: Rocksalt
"For the majority to restrict acts that harm nobody else is tyrannical."

I agree you should be able to do whatever you want,in your own home,as long as your not harming others.That is a non-argument.

Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others.

"I'm saying that the liberal-dominated judiciary can't find the federal War On Some Drugs unconstitutional without acknowledging the relevance of the Tenth Amendment"

Yes I agree here too. As an example of this I would say the situation in Mendicino Co. is a good example.As well as California's medical pot law,and how the feds have raided medical pot facilitys,ignoring Calif. laws,enacted by a vote of the people.

So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws.

"The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs."

Could you explain this a little more in detail?

Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none.

"The feds have no such authority. States should regulate drugs and alcohol in that way."

I realize you feel a majority should not excercise control over individuals,but a vote of the people seemed like a good reasonable idea to me.

Acts of tyranny always seem "reasonable" to the ones imposing them. Tyranny of the majority is tyranny.

Different animals? I refuse to prove it? How many people OD on alcohol,and how many OD on narcotics?

As I've shown, ODs are largely caused by anti-drug laws.

Alcohol poisoning is not a really common form of death.

You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen).

"Then there is no sound basis to favor banning commercially produced drugs."

Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.

Still waiting for evidence ....

I can see it is true that the federal goverment has no right to wage the WOD.But the actual ramifications of legalized drugs in my opinion must be examined from a position of the actual effect this would have.

So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?

We need to find a way to end the WOD,but not open up the floodgates at the same time.

What we need to do is obey the Constitution. And I see no reason to believe that there are any "floodgates"---nobody I know is itching to start using heroin.

"What about them---are you suggesting we imprison Muslim fundamentalists because they MIGHT commit violence?"

No-Muslim fundamentalists possessing dynamite illegally,yes.

American Muslim fundamentalists who have not been convicted of any crime should have the same rights as any other American; I do not support a general right of any American to possess dynamite, for reasons I have explained (see below).

"I just answered that: "because dynamite can harm others with out any human intervention, e.g., from a spark due to faulty wiring."

I'll accept that,and admit defeat on that one,but by that logic shouldn't gas ovens be prohibited too?

My understanding is that in most cases a gas explosion can severely damage the house in which it occurs but does not do wider damage.

Well from reading that website it seems facts point out the number of drug related hospital "incidents" is enormous.

See a few lines below for my dissection of that nonsense.

"YOU may be able to justify anything---and your opposition to drug freedom suggests that's the case---but I can't."

Your perception that I am opposed to "drug freedoms" is false.I am opposed to the ramifications of providing the general public with easy access to narcotics

What do you imagine "drug freedom" means, then?

even you don't want Abdul's heroin emporium next door,most people won't want it within 3500 miles of them.

What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business.

Same DOJ website as you cited-reported "the number of drug related emergency room episodes increased from 323,100 in 1978,to an all time high of 638,484 in 2001.

I see you can blow off the facts and figures as easily as you can cite them.

No "blowing off"---I've done my homework, so I know that in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."

"So is alcohol. I notice that page says nothing about violence.(refering to MDMA page)

No,it talks more about destroyed minds.

Alcohol does that too.

I can't see how you can offer this stuff even one bit of support.

I don't "support" Ecstasy---I'd advise anyone who asked to stay away from the stuff. What I support is the freedom of adults to choose their own risks.

138 posted on 11/21/2002 6:54:17 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: marujo
An uninteresting article. But where is the propaganda?

Yours is a common misconception: whether something constitutes propaganda cannot be deduced from the content of the material. Reflect on it.

And, at the same time, don't impute the motives to people: another well-known trap.

139 posted on 11/21/2002 9:00:09 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"You, in your previous post: "if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great."

"I haven't seen this many flips since the last time I went to the circus."

People using drugs in their own home is one thing,I'm saying that I have not seen an acceptable method of distribution proposed.No flip there.You seem to have this clouded vision that makes you believe people are going to act responsibly once they have access to the legal drugs.I just don't think this will be the case.


140 posted on 11/21/2002 5:40:09 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Irrelevant---people have sought highs from many substances not intended for that purpose."

The fact that legal narcotics would be intended for human consumption makes my point relevant.Airplane glue is not sold for human consumption.It serves a function other than intoxication and therefore people who abuse it to get high are clearly responsible if they misuse it.If narcotics were sanctioned people should expect these substances to be safe.They are not,so how could they be knowingly sold for human consumption?

"ALL heroin is sold in diluted ("cut") form and there is NO evidence that ANY user has tried to re-concentrate it."

Good point there,but that does not hold true for cocaine.The common refinement of coke into crack lends some creedence to my point.

"When your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are either claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom or you are simply babbling. Which is it?"

You are confusing rational thinking with end consequences in mind with babble.

"This is true right now of alcohol and tobacco---and yet despite your professed principles you support their legality."

You can't accept that I feel these two legal drugs have different characteristics than narcotics.






141 posted on 11/21/2002 6:01:46 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others."

This could be true in a perfect world.As it is,meth cooks plying their trade near other homes creates severe environmental hazards for others.Again,what you are saying is true,in a perfect world.I just think the facilitation of narcotics procurement to the general public is a bad idea.For citizens to have the right to do whatever they want is a good intention,but in this case the realitys would be grim.

"So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws."

The history of the WOD since it's inception has been an attempt to protect citizens from harm. Granted it has many bad aspects.Until a majority of citizens feel the same way you do about the issue,or the supreme court rules against the WOD,how is this situation going to change? States currently are fighting the feds over the medical pot issue.Maybe if the supreme court somehow upholds the rights of the states to govern themselves this could have implications for all illicit drugs. Is this true of false?

"Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none."

It would seem to me until the supreme court unsurps the power of the feds to enforce drug laws that are unconstitutional,how is the situation going to change?

" Tyranny of the majority is tyranny."

Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional.Natural law is hard to define as I see it.

"You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen)."

You can honestly assert that the number of alcohol poinsoning deaths is comparable to the number of narcotics OD's. Any way about it,by weight narcotics are much more lethal than alcohol. You and I both know that to OD on booze,you've gotta drink a hell of a lot and this is much different than a substance where a few extra cc's could stop breathing.My original point is valid.

"Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.

"Still waiting for evidence .... "

Addiction cycles,widespread use leading to OD's,curious non-users experimenting,violent behavior,all factors which you refute.You tell me how the use of MDMA and crack would be of benefit to someone,sure it would be great to have the right to do what we please,but aside from that,what purpose would it serve? I know meth use results in violent behavior,you assert it does not.You feel drugs should be legal,I claim it would be a can of worms.I wish to avoid drug chaos,you feel chaos would not result.Would it be worth chaos to claim another right?

"So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?"

What about state laws? If the federal goverment suddenly bowed out of the WOD would you be happy adhereing to state drug laws?

"nobody I know is itching to start using heroin."

You have to understand the way people end up trying and using heroin.Many people are curious about it.The usage of it by teens went way up in the last ten years because the idea that it was fairly safe was put in their heads by others who were using .Over the past several years there has been a problem with youngsters ODing on a combination of junk and alcohol.Dropping like flys as they did'nt realise the combination of the two is sneaky and lethal.There are many curious individuals who would try anything they can get their hands on.What happens when everything is readily available.You don't have to agree with me,just acknowledge they could be some potential problems.

"My understanding is that in most cases a gas explosion can severely damage the house in which it occurs but does not do wider damage."

OK-how does that support your point? What if the neighbors happen to be visiting? How can a law prevent people from possessing dynamite assuming they are going to let it get old and explosive,or that they will allow it to come in contact with static electricity and explode? Does this not presume harm may result and attempt to protect them?

"What do you imagine "drug freedom" means, then?"

Drug freedom in a sense that people should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies and minds is a concept I support. The part of your vision I can't get behind is the actual result of allowing them to do this.And as you well know,I feel there would be some real complications with getting the drugs into their hands and some questions about what other hands the drugs would end up in.

"What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business."

That figure was obviously thrown in to get the point across.Who are you to make a judgement on how close is too close though?

"No "blowing off"---I've done my homework, so I know that in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."

Air is a big stretch-You did'nt actually refute the fact that these people had been using drugs prior to the visit.That's a huge number of incidents,I'd call that a clear blow-off.Why don't you just admit drugs are dangerous,and you're willing to assume the risks,at any cost?

"I don't "support" Ecstasy---I'd advise anyone who asked to stay away from the stuff. What I support is the freedom of adults to choose their own risks."

And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths,drugs getting into the hands of teens and children,potential violent behaviors,increased divorce rate and family problems,kids getting the idea that since drugs are legal,they must be safe,etc.
And I realise all that I say is conjecture and speculation,but as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked.



















142 posted on 11/21/2002 7:33:52 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"You, in your previous post: "if people want to go to the state narcotics store,score some junk,and take it home and shoot up responsibly,great."

"I haven't seen this many flips since the last time I went to the circus."

People using drugs in their own home is one thing,I'm saying that I have not seen an acceptable method of distribution proposed.No flip there.

You're flipping away from the text I've now bolded. You voiced acceptance for heroin sales in state narcotics store---that's a method of distribution.

143 posted on 11/22/2002 6:59:27 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
If narcotics were sanctioned people should expect these substances to be safe.They are not

Neither are alcohol and tobacco.

"ALL heroin is sold in diluted ("cut") form and there is NO evidence that ANY user has tried to re-concentrate it."

Good point there,but that does not hold true for cocaine.The common refinement of coke into crack lends some creedence to my point.

It lends credence to your point only if people are buying powder cocaine and making their own crack; how "common" is that?

"When your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are either claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom or you are simply babbling. Which is it?"

You are confusing rational thinking with end consequences in mind with babble.

<sigh> Do you understand that when your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom?

"This is true right now of alcohol and tobacco---and yet despite your professed principles you support their legality."

You can't accept that I feel these two legal drugs have different characteristics than narcotics.

What you FEEL is irrelevant to proper public policy; the politics of feeling is quintessential liberalism.

144 posted on 11/22/2002 7:05:40 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"Neither making, distributing, selling, buying, nor using drugs infringes upon the rights of others."

meth cooks plying their trade near other homes creates severe environmental hazards for others.

OK, I may have overstated my case; some forms of drug manufacture may in some circumstances violate the rights of others, and those should be banned---meth-making (if there was a market for it in a world of legal drugs) should take place in zoned areas and with proper safety measures.

With that asterisk in place, my statement remains sound.

For citizens to have the right to do whatever they want is a good intention,but in this case the realitys would be grim.

The realities of alcohol and tobacco use are often grim.

"So now you understand why the courts illegitimately uphold federal anti-drug laws."

Until a majority of citizens feel the same way you do about the issue,or the supreme court rules against the WOD,how is this situation going to change?

It won't---that's why I'm on a public forum arguing for freedom.

Maybe if the supreme court somehow upholds the rights of the states to govern themselves this could have implications for all illicit drugs. Is this true of false?

True, I suppose---but I'm not holding my breath.

"Read the Constitution in search of such grants of authority---you'll find none."

It would seem to me until the supreme court unsurps the power of the feds to enforce drug laws that are unconstitutional,how is the situation going to change?

It won't. What's your point---that we should give up on our Constitution?

" Tyranny of the majority is tyranny."

Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional.

Not only then, but in all cases.

Natural law is hard to define as I see it.

I already defined it for you.

"You need to educate yourself---it happens all the time (particularly when college frats are initiating freshmen)."

You can honestly assert that the number of alcohol poinsoning deaths is comparable to the number of narcotics OD's.

I have no idea; do you have any data on this point?

to OD on booze,you've gotta drink a hell of a lot and this is much different than a substance where a few extra cc's could stop breathing.

If properly "cut," heroin can be used without fear of OD.

"Common sense tells me leaglized narcotics would be a can of worms.

"Still waiting for evidence .... "

Addiction cycles,widespread use leading to OD's,curious non-users experimenting,

All true of alcohol.

violent behavior,

"Marijuana and opiates temporarily inhibit violent behavior [...] There is no evidence to support the claim that snorting or injecting cocaine stimulates violent behavior. [...] Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner." (U.S. Department of Justice's National Criminal Justice Reference Service, publication NCJ 145534)

You tell me how the use of MDMA and crack would be of benefit to someone

It's not my place---or yours or government's---to tell an adult they may only do things that benefit them. How is eating Cheetos while watching action movies "beneficial"?

I know meth use results in violent behavior,you assert it does not.

Meth may be an exception---I think it was not well known when the DoJ report was written. Are you sure it causes more violence than alcohol?

Would it be worth chaos to claim another right?

If the feds stopped their unconstitutional activities, it is certainly not true that all 50 states would rush to legalize all drugs; certain states would move faster than others, letting the rest see the effects---that's the "laboratory of democracy" that is one of the benefits of states' rights.

"So they have no right to restrict the intrastate making, distributing, selling, buying, or using of drugs---but they should do it anyway?"

What about state laws? If the federal goverment suddenly bowed out of the WOD would you be happy adhereing to state drug laws?

No, I think legalization is the only pro-freedom answer and would continue arguing that to my fellow Illinoisans---but an end to the feds' unconstitutional activities would be a significant step in the right direction.

"nobody I know is itching to start using heroin."

You have to understand the way people end up trying and using heroin.Many people are curious about it.The usage of it by teens

I'm discussing the rights---and behaviors---of ADULTS.

went way up in the last ten years

Provide evidence for your claim.

because the idea that it was fairly safe was put in their heads by others who were using .

More so than in the years before that? Provide evidence for your claim.

Over the past several years there has been a problem with youngsters ODing on a combination of junk and alcohol.Dropping like flys as they did'nt realise the combination of the two is sneaky and lethal.

This is another argument FOR legalization; LEGAL drugs that interact badly with alcohol are clearly labeled.

"My understanding is that in most cases a gas explosion can severely damage the house in which it occurs but does not do wider damage."

OK-how does that support your point? What if the neighbors happen to be visiting?

The law does not and should not restrict our freedoms on our own property for the sake of hypothetical visitors. It's a civil matter if A visits B's property and is harmed.

How can a law prevent people from possessing dynamite assuming they are going to let it get old and explosive,or that they will allow it to come in contact with static electricity and explode?

The law does not ban dynamite but restricts its possession to safe circumstances.

"What happens 3500 miles away from you is by no conceivable leap of imagination any of your business."

That figure was obviously thrown in to get the point across.

It failed---what was your point?

Who are you to make a judgement on how close is too close though?

Since Joe's making (with the above caveats), distributing, selling, buying, or using drugs violates nobody's rights, Joe's skin defines the distance beyond which it's nobody's business.

"No "blowing off"---I've done my homework, so I know that in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."

Air is a big stretch-

Support your claim.

You did'nt actually refute the fact that these people had been using drugs prior to the visit.

You haven't refuted the fact that these people had been breathing air prior to the visit.

Why don't you just admit drugs are dangerous

Why don't you just admit air is dangerous?

"I don't "support" Ecstasy---I'd advise anyone who asked to stay away from the stuff. What I support is the freedom of adults to choose their own risks."

And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths,

Yup---not government's business.

drugs getting into the hands of teens and children,

We risk that with alcohol now.

potential violent behaviors,

We risk that with alcohol now---MORE so than with many illegal drugs.

increased divorce rate and family problems,

Yup---not government's business.

kids getting the idea that since drugs are legal,they must be safe,

We risk that with alcohol and tobacco now.

as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked.

I don't understand what you're asking here.

145 posted on 11/22/2002 7:45:55 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"proper safety measures"

Nothing about meth is safe-And virtually nothing about narcotics use is either.In theory the usage of narcotics does not infringe upon the rights of others.But in practice it does have a profound effect on familys and others on the perimeter.Saying it does not effect the rights of others discounts your "natural laws" which would say we have the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happyness,and others would be deprived of this.

"The realities of alcohol and tobacco use are often grim."

True-Tobbacco and alcohol are legal now though,and I'm not advocating prohibiting these substances again.I am entitled to my opinion that they are different animals,and this is my basis for separating the two issues.

"It won't---that's why I'm on a public forum arguing for freedom."

You have some good arguments.Keep using your first amendment rights.You have refreshed me on some of the arguments surrounding this issue.
Keep an eye on that medical pot issue-that would seem to be a bellweather for all drugs,and the rights of individual states to govern themselves.I'm not holding my breath either.

"What's your point---that we should give up on our Constitution?"

No,I was just pointing out the realitys of what you're up against.I think if the medical pot laws in California,Oregon and other states are upheld,you might be in alot better shape on this.If legalized drugs would have passed in Arizona,the supreme court would have likely been addressing the issue already.

"Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional."(me)

"Not only then, but in all cases."

Where does a vote of the people fit into this I'm curious?

"I already defined it for you."(natural law)

I know that-but you are just one person and there could be many different interpretations of this concept.Envioro-greens could have a hayday with natural law it would seem.

"I have no idea; do you have any data on this point?(alcohol poisonings)

No-I had trouble turning up any statistics on this.Therefore I won't push this point,but my hunch is that there are far fewer alcohol poisoning deaths than narcotics OD's.

"If properly "cut," heroin can be used without fear of OD."

If used in the proper quantitys,this is true.Tolerance is a hard thing to gauge though.And addicts have a tendency to red-line it,trying to achieve strong effect and get really high.This is what makes it dangerous.Most addicts are poly-drug users too,and I have no statistics on this,but that is an important point.There are alot of "garbage heads" out there who will put anything in their bodies and actively seek to.

"Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."

There are a great number of "anecdotal reports" exsisting,thats all I can say about this.PCP may not "stimulate" violent behavior,but as anyone who has been around users of this substance knows,when it takes 6 cops to control a PCP freak,there's some kind of connection involved.I would never in a million years advocate that substance being legal for public use.

"It's not my place---or yours or government's---to tell an adult they may only do things that benefit them"

No,but it should be you duty to reason the benefits against the dangers and effects of all this.Common sense,as well as legal sense.

"Meth may be an exception---I think it was not well known when the DoJ report was written. Are you sure it causes more violence than alcohol?"

This would indicate that report gets the gong.Meth,PCP,Crack,all cause violent tendencys,take it from me-my time on the streets of big citys has made me well aware of that.

"If the feds stopped their unconstitutional activities, it is certainly not true that all 50 states would rush to legalize all drugs;"

I am assuming this is true-Would a vote of the people on the issue be appropriate? I would say yes.And it may be the case that no state would legalize narcotics.As you ahve pointed out,there are many reasons to legalize,and as I have pointed out,there are some good reasons not to as well.

"No, I think legalization is the only pro-freedom answer"

Some thruth to this-but I think it's all about freedom-vs.-safety.

"I'm discussing the rights---and behaviors---of ADULTS."(heroin use by teens)

I would have to access microfilm records to get it,but there were several newspaper articles locally here that talked about the rise in teen deaths due to heroin use.I know you are talking about adult use.Are you saying that legal heroin would not make it into the hands of teens?You give "adults" too much credit,assuming they would act responsibly.

"This is another argument FOR legalization; LEGAL drugs that interact badly with alcohol are clearly labeled."

Then why do people keep combining prescription drugs and alcohol.Could it be there are alot of stupid people who don't respect drugs out there?

"The law does not ban dynamite but restricts its possession to safe circumstances."

So this is an assumption that they could possibly handle it improperly.I'm just trying to draw a correlation between this and reasonable measures to protect people from the harm of narcotics.Seems about the same approach to me.

"It failed---what was your point?"

My point obviously was that a majority of people would likely not want Abdul's operation to even exsist anywhere.

"You haven't refuted the fact that these people had been breathing air prior to the visit."

Why should I have to-obviously they were.But the statistics I cited were not about air related visits.You know this.And this particular statistic made alot more sense to me than the findings that claimed no correlation between drugs and violence I might add.

"And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths",

"Yup---not government's business."

OK-I'm glad to hear that.Are you saying it is not the goverment's business to protect children from any potential harms that might result from this? Many people would say they should have an interest in doing so.

"drugs getting into the hands of teens and children"(mine),

"We risk that with alcohol now."

Different animal argument again.You know my attitude on this.

"increased divorce rate and family problems,

Yup---not government's business."

This is a callous attitude.This is the reason I'm asking you is this a freedom we would really desire?

"as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked."(mine)

"I don't understand what you're asking here."

Let me rephrase-I would not favor the experiment and it's likely results,but I am curious what the results would be if society felt the risks were worth the freedoms.
146 posted on 11/22/2002 6:31:56 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"It lends credence to your point only if people are buying powder cocaine and making their own crack; how "common" is that?"

Where do you think it all comes from ace? Any kid on the streets of Oakland knows how to walk to the store and purchase some baking soda,and how easy it is to cook the stuff.COMMON.

"sigh> Do you understand that when your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom?"

Freedom to use drugs and freedom for others from the impacts of the drug users should go together.Under your vision they will not,no matter how much you would like to think there are many potential responsible users out there.

"What you FEEL is irrelevant to proper public policy; the politics of feeling is quintessential liberalism."

Conservative thought also includes reason.You deny the potential impacts of what you advocate.



147 posted on 11/22/2002 6:42:26 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"It lends credence to your point only if people are buying powder cocaine and making their own crack; how "common" is that?"

Where do you think it all comes from ace?

Dealers.

Any kid on the streets of Oakland knows how to walk to the store and purchase some baking soda,and how easy it is to cook the stuff.

Provide evidence for your claim.

"Do you understand that when your "common sense opinions" are in support of restricting freedoms, you are claiming that someone has the authority to restrict freedom?"

freedom for others from the impacts of the drug users

There is no such "freedom"---not for alcohol, not for tobacco, and not for any other drug. Inventing "freedoms" that restrict genuine rights is quintessential liberalism.

"What you FEEL is irrelevant to proper public policy; the politics of feeling is quintessential liberalism."

Conservative thought also includes reason.You deny the potential impacts of what you advocate.

I provide facts and logic for my denials, not just feelings.

148 posted on 12/02/2002 8:37:45 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Rocksalt
"proper safety measures"

Nothing about meth is safe-And virtually nothing about narcotics use is either.

Quit changing the subject---you were discussing manufacturing hazards.

In theory the usage of narcotics does not infringe upon the rights of others.But in practice it does have a profound effect on familys and others on the perimeter.

Those "effects" are not violations of rights; hence, they are none of the government's business.

Saying it does not effect the rights of others discounts your "natural laws" which would say we have the right to life,liberty,and the pursuit of happyness,and others would be deprived of this.

Nonsense; Joe's drug use deprives nobody else of their natural rights.

"The realities of alcohol and tobacco use are often grim."

True-Tobbacco and alcohol are legal now though,and I'm not advocating prohibiting these substances again.I am entitled to my opinion that they are different animals

An opinion for which you have offered no evidence.

"Agreed,if the decision is unconstitutional."(me)

"Not only then, but in all cases."

Where does a vote of the people fit into this I'm curious?

The people have no right to vote away the freedoms of individuals.

"I already defined it for you."(natural law)

I know that-but you are just one person and there could be many different interpretations of this concept.Envioro-greens could have a hayday with natural law it would seem.

The opinion of a majority is no less subjective than the opinion of a minority.

"If properly "cut," heroin can be used without fear of OD."

If used in the proper quantitys,this is true.Tolerance is a hard thing to gauge though.

It doesn't change much from one use to the next, so that couldn't cause ODs.

And addicts have a tendency to red-line it,trying to achieve strong effect and get really high.

This is relevant to ODs only if a lethal amount is only slightly greater than a "really high" amount. Do you have any evidence that this is the case?

This is what makes it dangerous.Most addicts are poly-drug users too,and I have no statistics on this,but that is an important point.

Why is that important? Alcohol is dangerous in combination with many other legal drugs; does that mean that alcohol, or those other legal drugs, should be banned?

"Anecdotal reports notwithstanding, no research evidence supports the notion that becoming high on hallucinogens, amphetamines, or PCP stimulates violent behavior in any systematic manner."

There are a great number of "anecdotal reports" exsisting,thats all I can say about this.

Anecdotal reports do not take into account the user's pre-existing mental condition---or his alcohol use.

"It's not my place---or yours or government's---to tell an adult they may only do things that benefit them"

No

I'm glad you agree.

"Meth may be an exception---I think it was not well known when the DoJ report was written. Are you sure it causes more violence than alcohol?"

This would indicate that report gets the gong.

False. The drugs mentioned by the report were well known.

Meth,PCP,Crack,all cause violent tendencys,take it from me-my time on the streets of big citys has made me well aware of that.

You are considerably less of an authority than the US Department of Justice; any rational person will take their research-based word over yours.

"If the feds stopped their unconstitutional activities, it is certainly not true that all 50 states would rush to legalize all drugs;"

I am assuming this is true

Then why were you talking about "chaos"?

"No, I think legalization is the only pro-freedom answer"

Some thruth to this-but I think it's all about freedom-vs.-safety.

Joe's drug use, like his alcohol use, does not in and of itself threaten anyone else's safety.

Are you saying that legal heroin would not make it into the hands of teens?

It would most probably become less available to teens than it is now, since sellers would have a new economic incentive to not sell to teens---namely, the risk of losing their legal adult market.

"This is another argument FOR legalization; LEGAL drugs that interact badly with alcohol are clearly labeled."

Then why do people keep combining prescription drugs and alcohol.Could it be there are alot of stupid people who don't respect drugs out there?

Yes, there are---but labeling protects the many people that aren't that stupid, whereas banning drugs has not protected anyone.

"The law does not ban dynamite but restricts its possession to safe circumstances."

So this is an assumption that they could possibly handle it improperly.I'm just trying to draw a correlation between this and reasonable measures to protect people from the harm of narcotics.Seems about the same approach to me.

An outright ban on drugs is VERY FAR FROM "about the same approach."

"It failed---what was your point?"

My point obviously was that a majority of people would likely not want Abdul's operation to even exsist anywhere.

So what?

"You haven't refuted the fact that these people had been breathing air prior to the visit."

Why should I have to-obviously they were.But the statistics I cited were not about air related visits.You know this.

I've already explained this (and you deleted the explanation): 'in that study "drug related" means merely that the patient stated he'd used a drug some time prior to his accident. By this same "logic" we could prove that ALL emergency room episodes are "air related."'

And this particular statistic made alot more sense to me than the findings that claimed no correlation between drugs and violence I might add.

You mean it better fit your preconceptions.

"And add: and I am willing to accept any consequences of these freedoms,such as possible increased drug deaths",

"Yup---not government's business."

OK-I'm glad to hear that.Are you saying it is not the goverment's business to protect children from any potential harms that might result from this? Many people would say they should have an interest in doing so.

Children should be protected---as a ban on drugs for adults has failed to do.

"drugs getting into the hands of teens and children"(mine),

"We risk that with alcohol now."

Different animal argument again.

No evidence from you again.

"increased divorce rate and family problems,

Yup---not government's business."

This is a callous attitude.

That is quintessential liberal rhetoric.

This is the reason I'm asking you is this a freedom we would really desire?

Those who don't desire that freedom may simply refrain from exercising it.

"as long as you're willing to deal with the potential problems,I'd like to see if it actually worked."(mine)

"I don't understand what you're asking here."

Let me rephrase-I would not favor the experiment and it's likely results,but I am curious what the results would be if society felt the risks were worth the freedoms.

Society has no business restricting the risks that individuals impose on themselves. As to the results of legalizing drugs for adults, they would include a decrease or end to the following: innocents killed in drug-turf wars; user deaths due to contaminants and unexpectedly high purities; inflated prices that motivate crimes by users (whereas winos can get their next fix by collecting cans or panhandling); enriched criminals; and corruption of the justice system by criminals' riches.

149 posted on 12/02/2002 9:18:35 AM PST by MrLeRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: MrLeRoy
"Society has no business restricting the risks that individuals impose on themselves. As to the results of legalizing drugs for adults, they would include a decrease or end to the following: innocents killed in drug-turf wars; user deaths due to contaminants and unexpectedly high purities; inflated prices that motivate crimes by users (whereas winos can get their next fix by collecting cans or panhandling); enriched criminals; and corruption of the justice system by criminals' riches."

All I want to say is you are likely right with much of your logic,there would be many benefits to legalized narcotics,but these projected benefits should be carefully weighed against potential problems.The situation as it exists is not good,drugs are reaching the hands of minors frequently.If a way was found to administer a system of legalized drugs that involved some real motivations for people to not use,that might work.I feel it would offer curious people an even easier means to aquire these poisons.This is the main drawback as I see it.We all wish the drug menace would just vanish suddenly,but we know it never will.Should we condone drug use in any way? Should we call it legal and give people the right to possess and use and say "well it's legal"? You have heard my logic,or illogic as you feel,You know I feel I'm not quite ready for a society where people can merely walk into a corner store and purchase Heroin,Crack,PCP,Speed,etc. I realize you have many good points along the way,and I'll just leave it at that.





150 posted on 12/04/2002 7:47:16 PM PST by Rocksalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-155 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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