Posted on 12/17/2002 9:39:06 AM PST by Joe Bonforte
What were they thinking?!
I think that's pretty much how DC feels about the rest of the country. I can see why you have so much more faith in them than in your neighbors.
No, however, the "yutes" will not have the self-control or wisdom to limit their intake of legalized or decriminalized recreational pharmaceuticals. Fer cryin out loud, look at the weekly keggers on college campi, and imagine open, widely available drugs added into that mix.
I don't know what the solution is, or even if there is one. If there were some way to guarantee that the consequences of drug use and addiction could be limited to those individual persons alone, I'd be all for legalization. However, there can be no such guarantee...
Thus, -- you now admit that our constitution protects us from federal efforts to ban substances?
How inconsistant can you get? Just a few posts ago you were defending the federal narcotics acts.
Only defending why it was done. I never said it was constitutional.
Very well, you admit to defending unconstitutional acts.
Thank you.
Uh, you haven't been to any college campi lately, have you? Virtually any drug you're looking for is easily available.
And BTW, it's telling that you make alcohol out to be LESS DANGEROUS than illegal drugs. Fact is, if you could transition a college campus off of alcohol to marijuana, or even cocaine, you'd see a lot less chaos and destruction on campus.
Your argument should be: "Kids can't handle their alcohol -- let's BRING BACK PROHIBITION!"
AFAIK, drugs are widely available now, albeit not openly. Beyond that, is that a rational basis for determining what the appropriate limits of government, particularly the federal government are?
I don't know what the solution is, or even if there is one. If there were some way to guarantee that the consequences of drug use and addiction could be limited to those individual persons alone, I'd be all for legalization. However, there can be no such guarantee...
There are never any guarantees, except that if we keep doing what we're doing we're going to keep getting more and more of what we've got now.
Alcyhol is the by far the most used and easily available. If you switched it with pot, it would be a mellow party. If you switched in X, DJ Dan would be a lot richer. If you switched in cocaine, well, I would be more concerned. PCP, same way. Heroine, everyone would be laid out, but none of them would be at college in the first place.
For some reason, beer just fits perfectly.
I will fight to by dying breath the foces which try to drag this American society down into becoming a cesspool of drug-addled shambing wrecks.
It's just head-shakingly depressing to think about how vilified alcohol WOULD BE if it were a newly discovered drug. If we were a nation of potheads, and beer were suddenly invented, we'd outlaw that sucker in a minute. But since it's 'socially acceptable', WOD-lovers rationalize all manner of chaos that it creates.
That pretty much covers all addictive drugs. Alcohol has that ability, at least for some. Extacy doesn't seem to be addictive, at least physically. How would you characterize codeine, morphine, dexedrine, benzedrine, qualude, or valium?
Alcohol has been used resposibly by the majority of society since it existed. I will probably have a beer this evening and feel a slight buzz, with no major change in my personality or feeling.
You cannot say the same for HARD drugs. Like I say, they are a different animal.
So, Geek, are you in favor of bringing back Prohibition, or not? If, indeed, you're in favor of "fighting to your dying breath" to avoid the "cesspool of drug-addled shambling wrecks," you should definitely be in favor of bringing back Prohibition. Alcohol creates far more damage and danger to our Republic than any illegal drug you can dream up in your nightmares.
So, Mr. Crusader, what's your stand on booze? Without a cogent argument in favor of Prohibition, I simply have to believe that you're just a paternalist drunk who doesn't want HIS drug stepped on. Some consistency would do wonders here.
I thoroughly disagree with you. Your argument has is based on some assumptions and conventions that make an easy 1-to-1 equivalence pratically impossible. #1, alcohol is socially acceptable, so you'd expect many 'social' users of alcohol wouldn't cause many problems, since they're not hard-core.
Users of illegal drugs are, almost by definition, hard-core. They're willing to break the law to get them, so you'd EXPECT more chaos from those willing to use them.
Then you lump a whole bunch of drugs into the "HARD" drugs category... nebulous, anecdotal opinion on your part, not fact.
Many of these 'hard' drugs are a different animal, because most people would never use them.
In the end, this argument that alcohol is used responsibly, while others would not, is built on a false foundation -- that alcohol is used responsibly. Is an alcoholic who never gets busted for DUI, never gets arrested for being drunk in public, but nevertheless ruins his family with his addiction any better than a heroin addict who does the same thing?
The fallacy that alcohol 'isn't that bad' is simply perpetuated by those who enjoy it. Objectively, alcohol is a very dangerous drug, legal or illegal.
Coupled with its social acceptability, it's the drug you should worry about. Heroin will never be socially acceptable. Cocaine was, in the 70s, in certain circles, but is not any longer. Pot can be acceptable, but in most places not.
If you're really worried about the damage of drugs, focus on their social acceptability, not their legality. If alcohol were the social pariah that PCP is, noboby would drink it, legal or not.
As for Jesus, so what? He's probably the one guy on Earth who really could 'hold his liquor'. Bully for him. I'd bet that if the society were 'smoking the herb' in his day, he'd have tried that, too.
Thus, -- you now admit that our constitution protects us from federal efforts to ban substances?
How inconsistant can you get? Just a few posts ago you were defending the federal narcotics acts.
Only defending why it was done. I never said it was constitutional.
Very well, you admit to defending unconstitutional acts.
Thank you.
Shut up.... I never said I supported it.
171 posted on 12/17/2002 2:02 PM PST by Texaggie79
I should 'shut up' about your admitted defense of unconstitutional acts?
-- I'd say your irrational denial of not 'supporting' acts you defend is worth speaking about on a site dedicated to defending the constitution.
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.