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

Skip to comments.

Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

Posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine

Ms. Nancy Snell Swickard - Publisher Shotgun News P. O. Box 669, Hastings, NE 68902

Dear Ms. Swickard,

I was very distressed to see the remark of one of your subscribers which you quoted on page 8 of your October 1 (1996) issue. The support of the "Drug War" by anyone who values the 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, is the most dangerous error of thinking in the politics of the "gun control" debate. This error is extremely widespread, although there have been some recent signs that some Americans are seeing through the propaganda of the Drug Warriors which affects all levels of our society.

Sadly, major players in the defense of the 2nd Amendment (like the NRA) show no signs of awareness of the part played by the Drug War in our present hysteria over violence. This is a serious error, because the violence produced by the Drug War is one of the main reasons that a majority of American citizens support gun control. Without the majority of a citizenry frightened by endemic violence, Mr. Clinton and his allies in the Congress would not enjoy the power they now possess to attack the Bill of Rights.

To understand the effect of the Drug War, we must understand it for what it is: the second Prohibition in America in this Century. I do not need to remind anyone who knows our recent history what a disaster the first Prohibition was. It is a classic example of the attempt to control a vice--drunkenness--by police power. It made all use of alcohol a case of abuse. It produced such an intense wave of violence that it gave a name--The Roaring Twenties--to an entire decade. It lead to the establishment of powerful criminal empires, to widespread corruption in police and government, and to a surge of violence and gunfire all over the land. And it produced a powerful attack on the Bill of Rights, including the most successful campaign of gun control laws in America up to that time.

Before the first Prohibition criminalized the trade in alcohol, liquor dealers were ordinary businessmen; after 1920 they were all violent criminals fighting for their territories. We had gang wars, and drive-by shootings, and the use of machine guns by criminals.

We now have the same effects of the first Prohibition in the present Drug War, and Americans appear to be sleepwalking through it with no apparent understanding of what is happening. It is testimony to the truth of Santayana's famous remark that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. We must understand that this has all happened before, and for the same reasons.

It is essential that defenders of the 2nd Amendment understand that the whole Bill of Rights is under attack by the Drug War, and that assaults on the 2nd Amendment are a natural part of that trend. What is the main premise of a gun-control law? It is that guns are implements which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. What is the main premise of Drug Prohibition? It is that drugs are substances which are too dangerous to entrust to the citizenry. Both lines of reasoning say that because a few people abuse something, all Americans must be treated like children or irresponsibles. All use is abuse.

This is an extremely dangerous idea for a government, and it leads inevitably to tyranny. It is a natural consequence that such thinking will lead to attacks on the Bill of Rights, because that is the chief defense in the Constitution against abuses of government power.

Since the beginning of the Drug War, no article of the Bill of Rights has been spared from attack. There has been an enormous increase in police power in America, with a steady erosion of protections against unreasonable search and seizure, violations of privacy, confiscation of property, and freedom of speech. We have encouraged children to inform on their parents and we tolerate urine tests as a condition of employment for anyone. All who question the wisdom of Drug Prohibition are immediately attacked and silenced. These are all violations of the Bill of Rights. Are we surprised when the 2nd Amendment is attacked along with the others?

We understand that opponents of the 2nd Amendment exaggerate the dangers of firearms and extrapolate the actions of deranged persons and criminals to all gun owners. That is their method of propaganda. Do we also know that Drug Warriors exaggerate the hazards of drug use--"all use is abuse'--in the same way formerly done with alcohol, and extrapolate the condition of addicts to all users of drugs? That is their method of propaganda. Most Americans are convinced by both arguments, and both arguments depend on the public's ignorance. That is why discussion and dissent is inhibited.

Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same.

Why not prohibit a dangerous evil? If every drinker is a potential alcoholic, every drug-user a future addict, and every gun-owner a potential killer, why not ban them all? There is no defense against this logic except to challenge the lies that sit at the root of the arguments. Those are the lies promoted by the prevailing propaganda in support of all Prohibition. We cannot oppose one and support the other. To do so undermines our efforts because all these movements walk on the same legs.

If we do not explain to people that the fusillade of gunfire in America, the return to drive-by shooting, and our bulging prisons, come from the criminalizing of commerce in illegal drugs, we cannot expect them to listen to a plea that we must tolerate some risk in defense of liberty.

Why should we tolerate, for the sake of liberty, the risk of a maniac shooting a dozen people, when we cannot tolerate the risk that a drug-user will become an addict?

In fact, very few gun-owners are mass murderers and a minority of drug-users are addicts, but people are easily persuaded otherwise and easily driven to hysteria by exaggerating dangers. What addict would be a violent criminal if he could buy his drug from a pharmacy for its real price instead of being driven to the inflated price of a drug smuggler? How many cigarette smokers would become burglars or prostitutes if their habits cost them $200 per day? How many criminal drug empires could exist if addicts could buy a drug for its real cost? And, without Prohibition, what smuggler's territory would be worth a gang war? And why isn't this obvious to all of us?

It is because both guns and drugs have become fetishes to some people in America. They blame guns and drugs for all the intractable ills of society, and they never rest until they persuade the rest of us to share their deranged view of the evil power in an inanimate object.

They succeed, mainly, by lies and deception. They succeed by inducing the immediate experience of anxiety and horror by the mere mention of the words: Guns! Drugs! Notice your reactions. Once that response is in place, it is enough to make us accept any remedy they propose. An anxious person is an easy mark. They even persuade us to diminish the most precious possession of Americans, the one marveled at by every visitor and cherished by every immigrant, and the name of which is stamped on every coin we mint--Liberty. They say that liberty is just too dangerous or too expensive. They say we will have to do with less of it for our own good. That is the price they charge for their promise of our security.

Sincerely,

Amicus Populi


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: banglist; copernicus3; corruption; drugskill; drugskilledbelushi; freetime; gramsci; huh; mdm; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-748 next last
To: Cultural Jihad
In a NUTshell.
51 posted on 01/11/2003 3:35:40 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
drugs would be illegal should read legal
52 posted on 01/11/2003 3:35:40 PM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Actually, I don't think drugs should be legalized but should be distributed at cost by the various local Boards of Health to those certified as drug addicted. My sole interest is in eliminating the profit in addictive drugs. I couldn't care less about the drug addicts as I'm convinced they're beyond help.

The only people who seem to oppose my solution, interestingly, seem to be Christians who think it isn't Christian to not try to help the drug addicts. They never seem to care about those who, by continuing the current policy, are going to be induced into the drug culture and wind up in prison, prostitution and drug induced misery.

53 posted on 01/11/2003 3:43:35 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: citizenK; Cultural Jihad
citizenK: I would like to affirm tpaine's assessment that the drug wars are socialist in nature and are an abomination to our Constitutional form of government. #41 -CK-

Extremely well written & reasoned post, K. -- Thanks - As you can see below, FR's irrational gun-grabbing 'cultist' has arrived. Gotta love him for his comic relief.

That famous colonial melodious sensation, "Banned in Boston," played live before the ganja-smoke-filled Continental Congress -Intaglio etching courtesy of Ideologue's Historical Revisionism, Inc. 43 -CJ-

54 posted on 01/11/2003 3:46:00 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
What else do you know about the Netherlands? Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are pretty socialistic up there where you can get paid plenty for doing nothing.

As far as bank robberies, making them legal would violate even the most basic of human rights, so your reductio ad absurdium need not apply here.
55 posted on 01/11/2003 3:46:53 PM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
So now we are subsidizing drug users? Well then, I'm addicted and I want my cocaine!

Seriously, we already have plenty of drug users in our country. Legalizing drugs is not going to change that by a large factor. Even with millions of drug users in the U.S, we still have the healthiest economy in the world.

Let's not forget the unspoken amounts of money that the drug trade supplies to drug dependent countries and keeps democracy from taking power there.
56 posted on 01/11/2003 3:50:49 PM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
N.W.O. Bavarian Illuminati Maltese Build-a-burger stormtroopers out to hinder and thwart the inalienable rights of ideologues to engage in fantasy victimization politics, eh? ;)
49 -Cultural Jihad-


In a NUTshell.
51 -roscoe-

Roscoe, totally agree, -- I find it refreshing that you've finally put CJ in his place. -- Thanks.
57 posted on 01/11/2003 3:53:56 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"According to the author, this is equivalent to Drug Warriors (notice the caps) assaulting..... what amendment is that again? You know, the one that says something about the right to keep and ingest drugs? Hmmmmm, can't find it anywhere."

The Bill of Rights doesn't CONFER rights. There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution, therefore the fedgov has no authority to do so, no matter WHAT gets passed by the Congress. The STATES are another matter---if they want to ban'em, they have the legal right to do so. It's called the "reserved powers" part of the Bill of Rights. That's why they had to pass the "Prohibition amendment" to have the fedgov regulate liquor in the first place.

58 posted on 01/11/2003 4:01:16 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
I've tried, obviously without success, to make the point that I don't favor legalization. What I'm advocating takes the profit out of illegal drugs, ensures they aren't available to any but those already addicted (unless you believe drug dealers will continue to deal even without any prospect of profit and still running the risk of draconian punishment) and will greatly reduce addiction in the US over time.

I'm happy to have someone suggest a better idea but I'm still waiting to hear it.

59 posted on 01/11/2003 4:17:21 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution, therefore the fedgov has no authority to do so, no matter WHAT gets passed by the Congress. The STATES are another matter---if they want to ban'em, they have the legal right to do so.

Not so, under the Supremacy clause, or under 'due process' of the 14th. - States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns. -- Study the threads posted article.
Also, on the 14th, -- Justice Harlan recognized:

     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, .
. . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777

_________________________________

Thus, the states can make legally 'reasonable' regulations under their reserved powers.

Outright premptive bans on various items of property cannot be rationalized as due process.

60 posted on 01/11/2003 4:31:17 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution

George Washington and the Founding Fathers disagreed with your ill-informed viewpoint. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion?

61 posted on 01/11/2003 4:36:43 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The whiskey rebellion was mainly about taxes. - Read a book.
62 posted on 01/11/2003 4:43:10 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Only an idiot would think that you can tax an item without regulations.
63 posted on 01/11/2003 4:57:13 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Wonder Warthog:
"There is no right to regulate or ban either drugs or alcohol in the Constitution."


George Washington and the Founding Fathers disagreed with your ill-informed viewpoint. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion?
61 -roscoe-

Only an idiot would characterize WW's viewpoint as "ill-informed".
64 posted on 01/11/2003 5:04:22 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

65 posted on 01/11/2003 5:07:36 PM PST by thisiskubrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick

66 posted on 01/11/2003 5:11:13 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"George Washington and the Founding Fathers disagreed with your ill-informed viewpoint. Ever hear of the Whiskey Rebellion?"

Yup, I sure have. The Whiskey Rebellion wasn't about banning or regulating liquor--it was about laying and collecting a tax on it. Same logic as was used to TAX (not ban) fully automatic firearms when that law was passed back in the 1930's. And, just to reinforce the ACCURACY of the connection between the Drug War and the pending Gun confiscation, the fedgov has no Constitutional power to ban "assault weapons" either.

The Constitutionally illegal "War on Drugs" and the equally unConstitutional but just beginning "War on Guns" both point out that the anti-Federalists were right--the chains binding the federal government were NOT strong enough.

67 posted on 01/11/2003 5:20:35 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Not so, under the Supremacy clause, or under 'due process' of the 14th. - States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns. -- Study the threads posted article."

Well, I had in mind the pre-Civil War Constitution, but wrt the 14th Amendment, I agree with your (and Justice Harlan's) position

68 posted on 01/11/2003 5:25:03 PM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick
thisiskubrick signed up 2002-09-01.

GOD BLESS AMERICA! SUPPPORT MY EFFORTS TO HAVE EVERY SCHOOL CHILD IN AMERICA RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TWICE PER DAY AND TO WEAR AN AMERICAN FLAG PIN ON ALTERNATING SUNDAYS TO SUPPORT FREEDOM. Send money to: Stan Kubrick The Pledge Foundation 937 West Main Street Riverton, Wyoming 82501


'Stan', -- I really wish you would avoid posting inane graphics.
It's a form of spamming a thread, imo. Please, if you object to something here, have the guts to say so. -- Unless you enjoy being in the same league as roscoe, cultural jihad, & cohort.
69 posted on 01/11/2003 5:27:15 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
The Whiskey Rebellion wasn't about banning or regulating liquor

Stills had to be licensed, barrels had to stamped, logbooks had to be kept on site. Only an idiot would think that you can tax an item without regulations.

70 posted on 01/11/2003 5:28:17 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Thanks. -- And regards.
71 posted on 01/11/2003 5:29:26 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Ironic that US Grant was the president during the Whiskey rebellion ...
72 posted on 01/11/2003 5:33:01 PM PST by clamper1797
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Semantics
73 posted on 01/11/2003 5:33:36 PM PST by tpaine (Petty minds play semantic games)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797

LOL! Whiskey Rebellion: 1794.
Ulysses S. Grant: Born in 1822.
Bonus question: "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"

74 posted on 01/11/2003 6:39:28 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797
Ironic that US Grant was the president during the Whiskey rebellion ... = Ironic that US Grant was NOT the president during the Whiskey rebellion ....

It was meant as a joke

75 posted on 01/11/2003 6:44:31 PM PST by clamper1797
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797

President Grant(?) reviewing the troops during the Whiskey Rebellion

76 posted on 01/11/2003 6:46:39 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797

OIC

77 posted on 01/11/2003 6:47:55 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Then you should realise that supporting the drug war works against your self interest.

Who said I support the drug war? Where are you reading THAT from? You're all over the road.

78 posted on 01/11/2003 6:51:17 PM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Then you should realise that supporting the drug war works against your self interest.

Who said I support the drug war? Where are you reading THAT from? You're all over the road.

Legalization is not the way.
14 posted on 01/11/2003 11:22 AM PST by Puppage

Sorry, the FACT that I do not agree with the legalization of drugs does NOT make me a socialist.
36 posted on 01/11/2003 2:46 PM PST by Puppage

________________________________

Case closed. --- Make up another story.

79 posted on 01/11/2003 7:06:34 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
CJ, this is a major triumph for you & roscoe!!

You have proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that G. Washington was President before that whiskey soaked U.S. Grant even thought about stealing the strawberries.
80 posted on 01/11/2003 7:14:22 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
'Stan', -- I really wish you would avoid posting inane graphics. It's a form of spamming a thread, imo. Please, if you object to something here, have the guts to say so.

I don't have anything in particular to object to. However you are objecting to my post; so here is my rebuttal:

- The post was on topic.

- It falls into the category known as "humor".

- "Spam" is posting ads, porn, off-topic information, multiple postings, etc. A single post that annoys you isn't spam.

- If you object to images being posted - you might be interested to know that there's a similar tenet in Islam (prohibitions against art depicting the human form). So do you want to be in the same camp as (fill in the blank)?

Best,
Kubrick
81 posted on 01/11/2003 11:48:17 PM PST by thisiskubrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Thanks for the post...
82 posted on 01/11/2003 11:56:09 PM PST by antaresequity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"Stills had to be licensed, barrels had to stamped, logbooks had to be kept on site. Only an idiot would think that you can tax an item without regulations."

There is a great difference between the bureaucratic "regulations" needed collect a tax (and which only apply to the manufacturers of same) , and regulations mandating the mode of use or non-use of an item by the public at large. It you don't understand that simple fact, then YOU are the idiot.

83 posted on 01/12/2003 4:17:48 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
Ask any of the dopers on this board if they would go to the local Board of Health to have themselves certified as drug addicted in order to obtain drugs at cost (and at taxpayer expense, mind you).

You haven't really thought this through, have you?

84 posted on 01/12/2003 8:15:47 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns."

Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms? I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found.

California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th. California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to.

85 posted on 01/12/2003 8:52:14 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
As long as you bring up the question of thinking things through, let me point out that drugs supplied by the Boards of Health at cost don't, by definition, incur any cost to the Boards of Health. Along the same lines, it's difficult to know how many dopers would avail themselves of the opportunity to get their drugs for very little if they're willing to have their local Board of Health certify their addiction. My guess, however, is that most of them would.

Thinking things through is a great policy. You should give it a try.

86 posted on 01/12/2003 9:13:15 AM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal.

So. You figure that the 9th amendment, to be meaningful, should be worded something like this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage

to dispose of garbage
to chose the stype of dress
to drink coffee
to drink distilled spirits
to drink beer
to buy a car
to celebrate birthdays
to throw a party
to eliminate waste products
to wash clothes
to cook meals
to eat out
to cut lawns
to fly flags
to burp
to fart
to blow the nose
to wash the car
to operate a computer
to chose an operating system fot eh computer
to choose software
to write letters
to inherit property
to plant crops
to darn socks
to travel
to walk the dog
to sing
to snore
to rise early
to rise late
to spend money
to eat turkey
to eat chicken
to take medicine
(et endless cetera)

retained by the people.

Is that it?

87 posted on 01/12/2003 9:30:14 AM PST by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
Where would the Boards of Health obtain cocaine at cost? Heroin? PCP? Ecstasy?
88 posted on 01/12/2003 9:37:30 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Of course not. If one wants to make a case for legalizing drugs based on the 9th or 14th amendment, be my guest.

But that's not what the author of the article was doing, was it? He was attempting to compare drug freedom with gun freedom, a right specifically protected by the 2nd amendment.

Drugs were not given such an amendment. And, if the 9th and 14th amendments say so much about protecting the freedoms you so copiously listed, why list guns separately? Surely if one is free to burp, fart, and buy a car, why not guns?

Comparing the freedom to do drugs with the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, elevates drug use to a level it does not deserve.

89 posted on 01/12/2003 9:52:11 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
There is a great difference between the bureaucratic "regulations" needed collect a tax

And now you're reduced to Clintonizing your original assertion by amending it with a lame "distinction" and then begging the question of its alleged legal "difference."

Pathetic.

90 posted on 01/12/2003 10:01:57 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You need to read for content, not for targets, the WOD assaults all the rights. This erosion of our rights is happening because of the it. Stop this WOD, which will end the violence, thereby lessening pressure to ban weapons. The fear of an armed populace by liberals, is matched by the fear of addicts and the possibility that ones children will become one, by conservatives. Of course, it is easier for a child to procure drugs, than it is for the average adult. This is seen as proof, that as it becomes easier for an adult to legally buy or use drugs, kids will be more greatly affected. The way I see it, there is a small percent that cannot handle alchohol, drugs, gambling etc. That percentage is a steady and unchangeable figure, whether drugs are legal, (look at addiction numbers before prohibition, for both alchohol and drugs, and after). Legalizing, or criminalization, changes the figure very little. Of course more people may use, but rates of abuse will change very little.
91 posted on 01/12/2003 10:04:28 AM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Comparing the freedom to do drugs with the Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, elevates drug use to a level it does not deserve.

And it discredits the right to keep and bear arms. Not that they care.

92 posted on 01/12/2003 10:04:54 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Have you been to the Netherlands, seen these parks littered with addicts and hypos? Have you been to similar parks here in the US? They both exist, as do parks full of homosexuals in various stages of sexually activity. If we have parks full of these sorts of people now, why bemoan the drugs? Tell the police to clean them up. Roust the vagrants, arrest them, make them so uncomfortable as to not do the activity. I personally believe, that this hypothetical park(s) in the Netherlands, is an overstated bit of propaganda. Brought out to continue the scare tactics of the Drug Warriors. Public intoxication is not tolerated in any society, that would not change if drugs were decriminalized.
93 posted on 01/12/2003 10:11:04 AM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
Public intoxication is not tolerated in any society, that would not change if drugs were decriminalized.

My point exactly.

94 posted on 01/12/2003 10:17:10 AM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
http://www.photowords.com/Needle%20Park,%20opening,%20black.htm
95 posted on 01/12/2003 10:17:29 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick
On topic? In what way?
96 posted on 01/12/2003 10:20:10 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
The girl that becomes a prostitute to support a drug habit, either needs to make large cash to afford the drugs, or is one of those that could care less about her life and body anyway. In the first case, she would not need to become a streetwalker, in the second she would have anyway. Nothing is prevented, but with the WOD, one is more likely to regress down the food chain. An old lady is more likely to be accosted now, than in the past. Much of that change is due to the rise of gangs(who fuel an unproductive lifestyle by making large quantities of cash, at little effort) the WOD is directly responsible for. Take the 15-45 yo male out of the drug business, and watch crime rates plummet, out of wedlock births among the poorest drop too. In other words, a more civil society. Then of course, all the money spent chasing users and dealers, could be used to catch thieves, rapists and murderers. Maybe even allow police to begin walking beats again, which was abandoned because of fear of assasinations.
97 posted on 01/12/2003 10:21:18 AM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
In a way that is rather obvious.
98 posted on 01/12/2003 10:35:25 AM PST by thisiskubrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
wrote: "States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns."

Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms? I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found.

Immaterial. - We have an inalienable right to bear arms, protected by the US Constitution.

California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th.

-?- Can you explain the meaning of this line of gibberish?

California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

So? - The RKBA was so self-evident back then that some states didn't bother to enumerate it, imo.

California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to.

Good grief, listen to yourself supporting the 'right' of states to ban anything. Why do you claim to be a conservative? Go to DU to spread your agit-prop.

99 posted on 01/12/2003 10:49:38 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: thisiskubrick
Nope. -- Its getting obvious that you can't explain your own weird behavior in posting that pic on several different threads.
100 posted on 01/12/2003 10:54:55 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-748 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