Replies

I think it's quite telling that the only anti-legalization/decrim posters who showed up on this thread were the intelligent ones who give thoughtful response when challenged (TexAggie, Chemist Geek, etc.), as opposed to the usual gang (Dane, Kevin Curry, Roscoe), the only exception being Cultural Jihad who couldn't resist throwing in a quick jab, but then retreated when posed with a direct question.

I think the virulent anti-libertarians are slowly starting to realize that they aren't welcome on these threads, even by those that share their fundamental views. Lord knows if I were an advocate of the War on Drugs who actually had rational methods of debate at my disposal, I wouldn't want someone on "my side" screaming "George Soros is a liberdopian druggie pothead loser just like you druggie doper liberdopians - LOL!!!".

To be fair, I also find that if you treat the more thoughtful WODdies around here with a modicum of respect, they're more likely to do the same. I've had ratioanl debates lately with the likes of TexAggie and robertpaulsen, because I don't throw around "Jack-booted thug" and "RINO" at every turn when they say something I disagree with. Of course, they still say a LOT that I disagree with, but it's nice to actually get a little direct point/counterpoint going on that doesn't involve ad hominem on both sides.

With all due respect, TxAggie does says he opposes the Federal WOD. However, the silence of the usual statist suspects is deafening.

Now I would just like to ask all those who are so anti-legalization - what exactly they would do to stop this? What we are doing is not working - this is a given and if anyone is trying to argue that it will just be admitting they don't know what is going on. While I am a big states right person (WHICH DOESN'T MEAN SEGREGATIONIST), I don't think states can enforce an anti-drug policy any better than the Fed government can.

And, yes, I do think it is a power grab on the part of the federal government. Do I think there are some in Washington that are deluded into believing what they advocate is working? Sure. But it is costing the federal government (taxpayers) millions or someone said trillions to fight this. That is a lot of taxpayer dollars for those folks in Washington to direct to the proper place, taking a little postage costs out on the way. Now anyone who can't believe that just hasn't been watching our government lately.

You just cannot make laws to save people from themselves. So why not make laws to punish them if, in pursuit of their follies, they harm other people. Otherwise, let them do what they do, and pay the consequences. It appears they are going to get the drugs anyway, but if it did not cost so much, maybe so many innocent people would not get mugged, burglarized, or killed in the process.

Do I think anything will change? No, it is too profitable for everyone from the growers, smugglers, dealers, to the local law enforcement officials (remember they get to keep a lot of the money and property that is seized), on to the politicians that get to distribute taxpayer dollars and get drug contributions - whether they are aware of it or not. The forgotten person is the law abiding, tax paying, victim of violence caused by this problem.

Would this nation decend into a nation of drug users? Who knows, but what we are doing is not working at all. What you might be doing is freeing up those law enforcement people to actually tackle other problems in this country. You just might be freeing a lot of innocent people from the grip of this violence. You might be freeing taxpayers up from paying the huge costs of this failed policy.

I don't think we will see cocaine on the Wal Mart shelves and for those who think it would be abominable for some company such as R J REynolds to make a profit, is it more acceptable for murdering drug dealers to make their profits?