Replies

I'm a middle of the right side of the road libertarian by nature, and I tend to agree that the WOD is a misuse of time and money- except when it comes to meth and crack.

Meth (for white folks) and Crack (for the brothers) aren't like weed, or even smack. Weed makes people stupid, but other than a loss of brain cells (most burners I have known were Democrats), Dopers are largely harmless. Tweakers, conversely, are a real danger to others in society.

Meth (for white folks) and Crack (for the brothers) aren't like weed, or even smack. Weed makes people stupid, but other than a loss of brain cells (most burners I have known were Democrats), Dopers are largely harmless. Tweakers, conversely, are a real danger to others in society.

That's all true, but the real question is whether legalizing these poisons would cause more people to take them. Would you start up a habit because it was legal?

And even if there were a slightly increased usage rate by free adults, don't you think that the added societal costs of these users would be more than offset by the benefits to our liberties and pocketbooks by ending the War On (some) Drugs?

Meth was smuggled from Taiwan and South Korea into Hawaii in the 1980s

Guess they never heard of the Hells Angels. Speed has been manufactured in California since the 60's.

By rhe way speed is legal and can be found in most middle and high schools. It's called Adderal ( amphetamine and dextroamphetamine ) and it's widely used along with Ritalin (methylphenidate ) for treatment of ADHD.

Drug-prohibitionists have a track-record of hyperbolic descriptions of the effects of drugs on a person. This is a cry-wolf problem for them, now that they "really mean it". I reluctantly think we still need to wait for the drug-user to harm someone other than himself, just as we do, or should do, with other crimes. Preemptive arrest sure seems like a steep slippery slope into a police state which, by the way, is coming. Thanks largely to the do-gooders of the WoD.

As much as I appreciate your attempt to walk a middle path, as much as the horror-stories of stimulant-abuse ring true, as much as we all want to do what is best for the country, for our family, friends and neighbors - we have tilted too far in the direction of safety, at the expense of our precious liberty. It is not a proper function of government to monitor our diet. It is not a proper function of governmnet to dictate how we shall address our own health and well-being. Yet, the government is doing these things and so much more. Too much more. Liberty cannot survive under this assault.

Would it not be preferable to remove the awful restraint of government, to remove the corrupt subsidies of government, using our own substance to enrich the rich, to remove our authorization for our government to do any vile act, such as it does with billions of dollars extracted from our exertions, to spend on the foreign intrigues which now do threaten the survival of the country?

It IS preferable to cut off our support of government excess. And the first excess we must address is the oversight and meddling in the affairs of the American People. Will there be problems if the government withdraws restraints? There may well be. Will there be pain when the government withdraws subsidies from industries and individuals. Yes.

By the way, as an aside, the government MUST return to its rightful concerns such as control of our borders and collection of fees and tarrifs from foreigners wishing to trade in our markets. These things support freedom.

The War on Drugs is not and has never been intended to benefit the American People. Those who do benefit are industrial concerns and those who would control the United States without our consent.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your position and rather doubt that any movement in the direction of my thoughts will soon be forthcoming. Let's pray about it.