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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 701-748 next last
If memory serves, this letter may have been posted at FR in the past, but it deserves a repost.
1 posted on 01/11/2003 10:15:11 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

DONATE TODAY!!!.
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD


2 posted on 01/11/2003 10:16:09 AM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I have known this for a while. If you make narcotics legal, the price will become so low and the manufacturing of these drugs will become such a part of america that "drug countries" and a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist.

What historically seems to be the easiest way to make a product go up in value? Make it illegal. And with the money there and with the presence of organization, crime goes up and the number of solutions goes down.

3 posted on 01/11/2003 10:20:36 AM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans.
4 posted on 01/11/2003 10:23:33 AM PST by Jeff Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans.

You'd almost think it was designed that way, if we didn't know better
5 posted on 01/11/2003 10:29:03 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.
__________________________________

The logical core of the article. --- Prohibitional power has never been granted to any level of government, federal/state or local.

Governments are limited to legally 'reasonable' regulatory powers by the basic principles of our constitution.
6 posted on 01/11/2003 10:32:46 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
"What historically seems to be the easiest way to make a product go up in value? Make it illegal. And with the money there and with the presence of organization, crime goes up and the number of solutions goes down." -AO-

The drug warrior socialists among us could care less. -- High crime justifies ever more effort to control society.
This is socialisms goal

7 posted on 01/11/2003 10:43:51 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The drug war, the bi-partisian threat to our liberty. Guns and Ammo had a good series of articles about how the forfeiture laws(a result of our wonderful drug war) were being used to justify the confiscation of firearms from homes.
8 posted on 01/11/2003 10:46:47 AM PST by Sparta (Statism is a mental illness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon
"It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans." -JG-


What is truly amazing is to see the self-described conservative drug warriors here at FR, --- deny that our liberty is threatened.
9 posted on 01/11/2003 10:51:25 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Local law enforcement had a fit when Oregon voters made it necessary for persons to be convicted before their property was subject to forfeiture.
10 posted on 01/11/2003 10:56:22 AM PST by gundog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Learn something every day. On the one hand, we have an amendment which specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and that amendment is under assault by the gun grabbers. I understand.

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.

So, how can the author "connect" the two? He can't.

Also, note how the author thinks he's the next Federalist with the Amicus Populi signature. What a swell-headed buffoon.

11 posted on 01/11/2003 10:57:26 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve50
Jeff Gordon:
It is amazing how much this useless war on drugs has eroded the liberties of all Americans.

You'd almost think it was designed that way, if we didn't know better
5 -steve50-

The rise of American socialism is exactly matched by prohibitionism.
12 posted on 01/11/2003 10:58:31 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Learn something every day.

So you claim, yet your posts belie you.

On the one hand, we have an amendment which specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and that amendment is under assault by the gun grabbers. I understand.

Big of you. Thanks.

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.

Try the 9th, where it says rights need not be enumerated. - Or the 14th, where it says we have a right to life, liberty and property.

So, how can the author "connect" the two? He can't.

He did just that in a lengthy letter filled with logical points. - You offer a simple denial. Emphasis 'simple'.

Also, note how the author thinks he's the next Federalist with the Amicus Populi signature. What a swell-headed buffoon.

And you offer a buffoons retort. - Thanks.

13 posted on 01/11/2003 11:19:03 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
If you make narcotics legal

And, if you made bank robberies legal, no one would be killed in the attempt of a bank robbery. The Netherlands has extremely liberal drug laws & their public parks are LOADED with addicts shooting up under the shade tree, and leaving their hypos behind. Legalization is not the way.

14 posted on 01/11/2003 11:22:39 AM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bang_list
Bang
15 posted on 01/11/2003 11:29:21 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal. The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.

His letter was filled with points. None of them had anything to do with a connection to the 2nd amendment. The author probably wrote a similar letter to newspapers and churches substituting "1st amendment" for "2nd amendment" and claiming that "they're coming after you next".

"We're not fighting for drugs, we're defending the Bill of Rights!". Yeah, right.

16 posted on 01/11/2003 11:42:51 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
No, legalization isn't, IMHO, the way. Giving each drug addict a card from the Board of Health allowing him to get his fix from the Board of Health for on premises consumption at cost is. The incentive to push drugs would immedialtely disappear and we'd be on the way, over time, to almost entirely eliminating drug addiction in America. To those who say this makes it easier for someone to remain an addict instead of shaking the habit all I can say is that's too bad. I'm only concerned about those who haven't thrown their lives away and in preventing the victimization of others by drug addicts who have chosen to destroy themselves. Nobody can save someone from himself - the sooner that's understood the better.
17 posted on 01/11/2003 11:48:09 AM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
allowing him to get his fix from the Board of Health for on premises consumption at cost is

So, this BOH will have crack & meth, and not just heroin? Or, do we just give them the most popular drug at the time? Crack is the most prevalent drug on the street now....so if this BOH doesn't "stock" that drug, THOSE dealers are still spreading their filth, aren't they? So, let's just legalize EVERYTHING, that way NOTHING will ever harm society again.

A Libertarian society is not acceptable IMHO. Why should we reward addiction??

18 posted on 01/11/2003 12:01:37 PM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
I have known this for a while. If you make narcotics legal, the price will become so low and the manufacturing of these drugs will become such a part of america that "drug countries" and a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist.
What historically seems to be the easiest way to make a product go up in value? Make it illegal. And with the money there and with the presence of organization, crime goes up and the number of solutions goes down. #3 -AO-

And, if you made bank robberies legal, no one would be killed in the attempt of a bank robbery. The Netherlands has extremely liberal drug laws & their public parks are LOADED with addicts shooting up under the shade tree, and leaving their hypos behind.

Read much? AO addresses that point, "a lot of the filth our nation sees will no longer exist." Refute his point, instead of making silly comparisons beween robbery & drug 'crime'.

Legalization is not the way.

'Drugs' were 'legal' for most of US history. - They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you refuse to acknowledge. Are you a socialist, or a conservative?
-- You cannot be a 'conservative' prohibitionist.

19 posted on 01/11/2003 12:02:57 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
'Drugs' were 'legal' for most of US history

So? Lots of "things" were legal at one point in our countries history...doesn't mean because they ONCE WERE, that we were better off then.

They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you refuse to acknowledge

Just WHERE in my previous post do I acknowlege, or NOT acknowledge this "point", oh legal scholar???

20 posted on 01/11/2003 12:08:47 PM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"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." -From the letter-

The 9th and 14th say nothing about drugs being legal. The 2nd says everything about guns being legal. I repeat, no connection.

The point is, - such rights do not have to be enumerated. Lord, but you are dense.

His letter was filled with points. None of them had anything to do with a connection to the 2nd amendment.

Read the quote above, and be ashamed of your blind denial of reality.

The author probably wrote a similar letter to newspapers and churches substituting "1st amendment" for "2nd amendment" and claiming that "they're coming after you next". "We're not fighting for drugs, we're defending the Bill of Rights!". Yeah, right.

Scoff if you must. - But you have lost all your credibility here, imo.

21 posted on 01/11/2003 12:23:00 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
'Drugs' were 'legal' for most of US history. - They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you refuse to acknowledge. Are you a socialist, or a conservative? -- You cannot be a 'conservative' prohibitionist. 19 -tpaine-

So? Lots of "things" were legal at one point in our countries history...doesn't mean because they ONCE WERE, that we were better off then.

You are arguing that the WOD's has made us 'better off'? How?

----------------------------

They have been prohibited by unconstituional methods, which point you [apparently] refuse to acknowledge. [corrrected]

Just WHERE in my previous post do I acknowlege, or NOT acknowledge this "point", oh legal scholar???

You got me, oh pedantic one!!! Big deal.

22 posted on 01/11/2003 12:39:08 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Puppage; tpaine
So? Lots of "things" were legal at one point in our countries history...doesn't mean because they ONCE WERE, that we were better off then.

And that argument works just as well when used against the right to poosess guns

23 posted on 01/11/2003 12:41:43 PM PST by Oztrich Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
A Libertarian society is not acceptable IMHO.

Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?

Why should we reward addiction??

The treatment of addicts is not a reward.
- And we see the alternative, in the war on drugs, guns, and liberty: -- all three of which you 'apparently' support.

24 posted on 01/11/2003 12:50:25 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Good point, --- one that is unrefutable by FR's many drug warriors.
- Which may explain their absence on this thread. Only the more dense of their coven are here.
25 posted on 01/11/2003 1:00:09 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Perhaps if I clarify my position you'll be able to follow my argument.

Drug addicts, IMHO - based partly on my observation of a few, have destroyed their lives and, unless they want to kick the habit, their isn't anything I can do to really help them. The damage their addiction causes society is staggering and, IMHO, unaffordable.

To belabor the obvious and repeat myself let me point out that I don't favor legalization. I do favor taking any profit out of dealing in drugs.

The question of what drugs the Boards of Health need to maintain should be left up to them. My answer would be to provide - only to those who have a documented addiction - anything addicts are taking.

To further clarify my position you need to recognize that I don't care about the drug addicts. If they OD I only hope they'll do it somewhere other than the middle of the road so they don't create a traffic problem. The people I'm concerned about are those not addicted to drugs - the girl who doesn't get hooked and become a prostitute, the old lady who can walk down the street without fearing someone will kill her for her wedding ring's street value and all the rest of us.

26 posted on 01/11/2003 1:15:19 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"such rights do not have to be enumerated"

Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?

And if you can find such a reason, how can the author possibly compare drug use with that reason? No connection.

27 posted on 01/11/2003 1:32:57 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
Well said.
The drug warriors don't really care about curing the problem or ending the 'war' however.

The war is their agenda.

They hope to create a new socialist society based upon the ruins of our constitution.
28 posted on 01/11/2003 1:34:42 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"such rights do not have to be enumerated"

Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?

Because the framers had just fought a war against a government that tried to limit arms, not one that prohibited food, drink or drugs.
-- Lordy, if Georgie would have banned booze, the Brits would have joined us!

And if you can find such a reason, how can the author possibly compare drug use with that reason? No connection.

Its apparent that you haven't even attempted to understand the authors comparisons. -- Get real or get lost.

29 posted on 01/11/2003 1:46:41 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Unhappily, I'm afraid I have to agree.
30 posted on 01/11/2003 1:52:40 PM PST by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The drug warriors believe they are conservative. Actually there is a distinct difference betweeen a conservative and a facist.
31 posted on 01/11/2003 2:00:10 PM PST by SSN558
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Good post. After reading this, I cannot understand how someone can claim to be pro-second Amendment and pro-drug war at the same time.
32 posted on 01/11/2003 2:01:40 PM PST by ActionNewsBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
They hope to create a new socialist society based upon the ruins of our constitution.
-28-

Unhappily, I'm afraid I have to agree. -ct-

Thanks, - I'm far from being 'happy' about our situation, meself.
What truely pains me is that so many erstwhile conservartives on FR cannot even see the point our author above is making. They are so blinded by their fervor to 'control' drugs, that they forget ALL our constitutional liberties are involved, inseperateably.
33 posted on 01/11/2003 2:34:37 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SSN558; Cultural Jihad; Roscoe; Kevin Curry
The drug warriors believe they are conservative. Actually there is a distinct difference betweeen a conservative and a facist.
31 -SSN558-

Hmmmm, lets ask some of FR's foremost warriors if they care to comment.
34 posted on 01/11/2003 2:39:28 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: steve50
You'd almost think it was designed that way, if we didn't know better

Im not sure I know better.

35 posted on 01/11/2003 2:44:42 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The treatment of addicts is not a reward.

So, the legalization of drugs is "treatment"? LOL.

Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?

Sorry, the FACT that I do not agree with the legalization of drugs does NOT make me a socialist.So you know...I am a rightwing conservative, MANY gun owner, christian. Perhaps, you'd be better served by surfing over to the Ultra Liberal website that bears your moniker?

36 posted on 01/11/2003 2:46:18 PM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Well then, Mr. non-dense one, why are gun rights enumerated in the second amendment and drug rights are not?"

Because rights did not have to be enumerated to be recognized. The ten that are in the bill of rights were a ploy to promote ratification.

37 posted on 01/11/2003 2:53:58 PM PST by groanup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill; Dale; Texasforever; Reagan Man; Texaggie79
Good post. After reading this, I cannot understand how someone can claim to be pro-second Amendment and pro-drug war at the same time.
Yep. Tis a strange dichotomy. Perhaps the boys above can help us understand.
38 posted on 01/11/2003 2:54:01 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: weikel
steve50:
"You'd almost think it was designed that way, if we didn't know better."

Im not sure I know better.
35 -weikel-

Rest assured, we know you don't.
39 posted on 01/11/2003 2:59:21 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Um im anti wod why do you always attack people who agree with you. If I didn't know better I'd think you were a troll trying to get other people to hate libertarians.
40 posted on 01/11/2003 3:02:19 PM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
This is a good editorial piece that nicely connects the erosion of American liberties and dissolution of the Bill of Rights to the on-going drug wars. Those on this thread that cannot, or refuse to, see the connection between the drug wars and the general loss of freedoms in this country (including, but not limited to the assualt on 2nd Ammendment rights) are completely sold on the propaganda techniques of both the drug warriors and the gun grabbers, and which, incidently, makes up a large part of the argument forwarded by the author of the posted letter.

Perhaps not everyone has seen this recent ad - but it shows two teenage type boys in the family den getting stoned (smoking a bong) and handling a firearm. One of the boys comments that the gun is not loaded, then blam - the gun goes off and the editing implies that the one stoner shot the other dead. This ad represents a blatant example of the propaganda as discussed by the author where the government connects the issue of drugs and guns in a single advertisement, and plays on both the drug and gun fears to which your average American is now conditioned.

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. Many people who support the drug wars think they are supporting conservative values, when in fact they are supporting the degradation of our Constitution and an elusive if not totally ficticious concept of a compelling societal interest that equates to socialist collectivism. Thinking people need to come to understand why this view is erroneous, and need to realize that recognition of the socialism that enters our backdoor via the drug wars does not mean that one need support the abuse of drugs in our society. is that drug abuse by some in our society (let's face it, there are about 2% of the population or so who would inhale gas fumes from your car if that's all that was available) is far more tolerable than government abuse of the Constitution. The question remains whether or not you want to live in a free society, or a society that only claims to be free.
41 posted on 01/11/2003 3:07:02 PM PST by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

'Facists' reading the news...

42 posted on 01/11/2003 3:07:53 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 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.


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 posted on 01/11/2003 3:17:28 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Puppage; caltrop
The treatment of addicts is not a reward.

So, the legalization of drugs is "treatment"? LOL.

Laugh away, pup. -- That was Caltrops concept, at #18.

------------------------

Why should your socialistic opinion about libertarians be viewed as honest?

Sorry, the FACT that I do not agree with the legalization of drugs does NOT make me a socialist.

Sorry, but I differ, and the facts in the article support my view. Why don't you try refuting them to make your case?

So you know...I am a rightwing conservative, MANY gun owner, christian.

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

Perhaps, you'd be better served by surfing over to the Ultra Liberal website that bears your moniker?

Thanks, but having been here for five years, FR 'serves' me fine, -- and the closet socialists here are about all I can stomach.

44 posted on 01/11/2003 3:18:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: weikel
Calm yourself weikel, -- I just likes to jank your fuse.
45 posted on 01/11/2003 3:21:08 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

46 posted on 01/11/2003 3:22:32 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
How are you conservative in any CJ? I can't recall a single socialist program on FR that you didn't like.
47 posted on 01/11/2003 3:25:09 PM PST by weikel (Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Good lord CultistJ !! -- That guy on the rights hairstyle makes him a dead ringer for Tricky Dicky !!

- You may have went too far this time CJ, -- I hear many of FR's bushbots are thinking of elevating Nixon to RINO Sainthood. As we speak they are out searching for miracles among the faithful.
48 posted on 01/11/2003 3:31:52 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | 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 posted on 01/11/2003 3:33:06 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
As long as drugs remain illegal the black market for drugs (read: the economy that will continue to exist and continues to cost the US billions in trying to stop it) will continue to expand. Do you forget the submarines that the government of our country and South American countries have found and destroyed, along with smuggling aircraft and vehicles that continue to arrive at our shores? The potential market for drugs is so high that it can fund almost any technology short of space travel.

If the government was really serious about the drug trade, we would have a military border along 100% of our shoreline and land borders. That would cost many more billions of dollars along with the prospect of not being able to go to a beach without seeing a soldier. Let's not forget the numerous civil rights involved.

If we were serious about legalizing drugs, the black market would collapse along with the vast majority of organized and violent crimes. The only real drawbacks is well, drugs would be illegal. However, so is alcohol, a substance that can kill in high enough amounts and also create enough "accidents" with vehicles that it is a problem. But we learned our lesson with that drug from prohibition.
Right now, we are neither serious about either one of these realities. We are at the halfway point, which means we spend billions on the drug war, which is just enough to keep mass drug use underground, yet not enough to ever stop it. Billions of our dollars are wasted each year on this, just think of what good could come out of the same money if put back into the hands of the people that make our country as great as it is.

The people that are addicted to drugs and trash their lives will continue to do so, only after legalization it won't be so lucrative.
50 posted on 01/11/2003 3:33:13 PM PST by anobjectivist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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