Replies

"Where a substance comes into being a threat towards others, such as hard drugs, that out trumps you claiming it for religious purposes."

What threat might that be? A drug user is a threat to himself. If he's sharing needles and passing a disease to his comrads, then they are only threats to each other. I say allow them to extinguish themselves peacefully from our midst.

But no, the do gooders seek to save them from themselves and thus we have this so called "drug war." And with this do gooder "drug war" we all suffer losses of basic human and constitutional rights. In the end, we all are losers.

Consider the war on terrorism. We all lose when we sacrifice freedom for security as we spiral downward toward an all out police state. When freedom is sacrificed, the terrorists win...and from where I sit, the terrorists are winning.

And from the looks of things, terrorists have many supporters who don't even realize they are supporters. Their supporters are folks who would sacrifice their freedom for security.

All that said, drug warriors are terrorists when they burst into a home in the middle of the night killing the inhabitants whether it the right or wrong address. Drug warriors are terrorists when they explode and bulldoze a church filled with women children and infants in Waco Texas all the while claiming the inhabitants had a meth lab when no such evidence of a lab was ever produced nor will it ever be since it never existed and was only used as an excuse for a bogus warrant.

Do you support this war? If you do, then in my view you are a terrorist. No less a terrorist than those who bombed us on 911.

If [Texaggie supports the wars on meth labs], then in my view [he is] a terrorist.

Yeah but according to Texaggie, Thomas Jefferson supported anti-witch statutes. So local Wars on Meth labs are just fine with him.

Even if this absurd allegation about Jefferson was true, you have to wonder about people who justify their support for modern mobocracy on the belief that such crimes were popular in the past.

In Tex's case, I think he is probably a mere dupe--a believer in a false religion that teaches that robbery and murder are ok when committed in the name of the higher goal of saving the "immoral" from themselves or from hell fire.

Roscoe on the other hand is most probably a knave--a user of dupes like Tex and a believer in the potency of thugs, the power of the majority, and might makes right. He has no fear that he will ever be held accountable for his crimes, since his Satanic "religion" is based on the principle "Do what thou whilst as long as you can get away with it."

I think there's a lot more hope for the dupes like Tex than the knaves. Unlike the knaves, the dupes don't scoff at the idea that each day of their lives brings them one day closer to justice.

But no, the do gooders seek to save them from themselves and thus we have this so called "drug war."

If all the hard drug users only destroyed their own lives, I would say, more power to them. I ONLY see the need for intervention because hard drug users are a THREAT to others. They cannot act responsibly, they have no control over their addiction to a substance that drastically alters their mind. I don't support a FEDERAL WOD because the FED has no constitutional power to do so. Drug laws should be kept to the state level and smaller.