Posted on 09/22/2003 10:07:00 AM PDT by MrLeRoy
Edited on 05/07/2004 5:21:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Not perfectly---but we aren't keeping drugs out of their hands now.
If you were my employer, you would have a right to know because it would be relevant.
You're not, you don't, and it isn't.
My interest in this board is in discussing the issues and being the wiser for it. That's all.
Totally incorrect. Your purpose is pushing an agenda. And you don't mind lying about people to do so.
I have a right to know since you falsely accused me of being a drug user. It was despicable, and cowardly.
Now you are too cowardly to answer a simple question. Anyone who has never used illegal drugs while railing against them is proud to answer. It would be the easiest thing in the world to do for someone who professes what you do. The real reason is apparent.
We need to Legalize Drugs and then turn the Tobacco Lawyers on to them.Actually, I don't think they should wait until it's legalized. There's no time to waste....they should go after the current distributors. :eg:
-Eric
Related to the historical drug use per society prior to the 60's "hippies" and their drug culture..
Took me two minutes to read it.
Didn't mean to strain your abilities.
And we both know the real reason you won't answer.
Took me two minutes to read it. I am delighted to hear that. And the relevance is...?
Didn't mean to strain your abilities. You assume to much. It appears you read too fast. Did you notice that the question was posed in general.
Once again: thank you for the background information.
Prohibition ourlawed alcohol, which has been used en masse since times immemorial.
Statement per your #55.
Perhaps I misunderstood your contention.
It's not just a matter of trust. It's how things are supposed to work. One function of law is to keep us from tearing each other limb from limb, and so at least to some degree we participate in the establishment of laws that protect us from each other much as a parent uses his/her authority to rule over the household. These laws supposedly embody the will of the people and the result is very much like parenting to the extent that it keeps a curb on ill behavior.
Good heavens. It's just a vague analogy here. There are many similarities between a society governed by laws and a household governed by parents. Lighten up.
To assume that the way things are supposed to work is the way things WILL work is trust---and a healthy mistrust of government is a cornerstone of conservatism.
One function of law is to keep us from tearing each other limb from limb
One person's drug use tears nobody else limb from limb.
When it comes down to it everything must operate with a certain amount of trust. In the case of goverment a certain amount of trust should be held in reserve, of course, but not to the point of utter disrespect. To say that the legislative will of the people should be regarded as completely untrustworthy is going too far.
But we digress. I'd like to see the "War on Drugs" removed from federal mandates and funding. I agree with the article that started this thread insofar as it recognizes both the failure of this "war" to produce good and the responsibility to treat the issue in a way that results in less harm to society in general.
Otherwise, unless you wish to remove yourself completely from under the constraints of the law, you'll have to deal with it's "parentage."
That's a lie. Re-read my post.
It was a hypothetical. You know what that is?
No it wasn't. It was a lie by you. Intentional as well.
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.