rational must be balanced with moral.

Fight On!

Am I correct in translating this as "we need to redouble our efforts in the War On Drugs for The Children"?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

But, sure, I'll open the question to everybody.

Is the War On Drugs something that ought to be left to the states?

Is the War On Drugs something that involves Interstate Commerce and General Welfare to the point where, darn it, Congress has every right to not leave it to The States?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

drug trafficking is an interstate/international issue and therefore Congress take supremacy on the issue over the states.

The question becomes, is it rational and moral to continue it. That is a debate worth having. I think there are some here who would say yes and some who would say no.

I think it should continue.

Fight On!

Your original choice of language suggests that you didn't want to have a policy discussion on this; you were instead giving the impression that you wanted us to have a policy capitulation on this.

Which is your privilege, of course. And there's nothing wrong with that. But neither are we going to just let you define your terms.

Moe

PS: About the actual topic for discussion I'm probably closer to your side than the mainstream GOP's. Which is my way of cheerily waving, saying "Good luck!" and walking away.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Wow. And the Election is only 19 weeks away. Through all of this VP business, there is one weekly online poll that stands out. http://www.votenic.com hosts a 2008 VP weekly poll, and just started a political talk forum. Check it out, start your own political polls, and help get the forum up and running.

-votenic dot com

If you want to promote your own web site on RS...buy ad space

I'm not a Moderator or and administrator but I'm sick of seeing people jumping into a thread and saying nothing other than...hey look at my site!

Your post has nothing to do with the subject of the article we're discussing or the comments of the thread you posted to it was just selfless promotion.

I have this website where I'm selling Beanie Babies, which I think is very relevant to this discussion.

I think everyone should go to my website and buy the Beanie Babies to show your support of my wallet.

Ok, I do not have a website selling Beanie Babies.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

After a (quite stirring) essay discussing the importance of the freedom of choice, Erick pointed out how the "rational must be balanced with moral."

Which, it seems to me, neatly undercuts a great deal of the (quite stirring) essay.

See, watch what I do here:

When it comes to the issue of the health care system we have now vs. Single-Payer Health Care, the rational must be balanced with the moral and we have to look at how the greatest number of people will experience the greatest good.

When it comes to the issue of "school choice", we also have to look at what that would do to the funding of inner city schools (surely the most needy and voiceless of all of us!) and, as such, the rational must be balanced with the moral.

When it comes to the issue of the ability of a private citizen to own a stockpile of handguns, the rational must be balanced with the moral.

When it comes to the issue of (talking point wrt Iraq) and (talking point wrt Afghanistan) and (body count), surely you agree that the rational must be balanced with the moral.

Can you see how Progressives could write the above sentences without irony?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

let's take the rational first and then decide is this in accord with our sense of morality.

On the issue of single payer health care: it is not rational. We know it is not rational because we can look to every other country that has tried it. So we don't get to the "is it moral" question.

Note: we are not going for is it moral first and then is it rational, but the other way.

Same with the others.

A nation cannot exist without some sentiment of national morality. When we lose that sense, we lose the nation. Just look at Europe. But it is that second part, the morality, that differentiates conservatives from libertarians.

Fight On!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Lotta stuff in that phrase, there.

Does "our" sense of morality allow for States to pass medicinal marijuana laws or does "our" sense of morality know that that is just the nose of the camel before people are selling PCP in schools?

Does "our" sense of morality say that taxes should be raised in order to provide more services for the poorest among us or does "our" sense of morality say that taxes should be lowered in order to stop the burning of cultural capital that Johnson's War On Poverty started?

Does "our" sense of morality say that "the war on drugs is a lot like prohibition and is failing for many of the same reasons" or does "our" sense of morality tell us that we merely don't have enough policemen with enough armored vehicles and enough warrants to make the streets safe for The Children?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I can't speak for them, but I would suggest that their point appears to be that we take a list of what works, then run it past a filter of what our society feels is not just workable, but also morally sound.

Example.

Out on the west coast (WA state or OR, I forget now) there was a person with cancer. The state wouldn't pay for their cancer treatments, but would pay for physician assisted suicide.

That is using rationality of 'what works to lower healthcare costs in a state-paid system' but not checking it with what is morally sound.

Those of us who oppose legalization of drugs (or, at least... me) agree with the idea that it would require MUCH less money to be spent by the government on this 'war on drugs' and could even (if all drugs were legalized) reduce the power and success of the cartels.

however, for those of us who oppose legalization of drugs (or, at least... me), such an act fails the moral test.

while 'What Works' is a test for rationality and truth, it is not the only test a plan must be subjected to before it is employed, or else we end up doing much worse things than suggesting suicide for cancer patients. (another example would be how the Nazis dealt with the handicapped..... sure, it cut down healthcare costs, but no one could argue that mass slaughter was ethical or moral.)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

If you say that you want a government strong enough to make sure that issues of morality are suitably legislated against... what out what might happen if a Barack Obama finds himself in the White House.

You may be shocked at what ends up where when the rational and the moral are sorted out.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

At no point in this drug debate have I discussed morality.

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

And, as for a President Obama...

Eh, he can try. Frankly, my fear is that there is no viable conservative, who is ACTUALLY Conservative, and that this may be a pattern.

In which case, we're up a certain creek without a paddle... it just depends on if we choose the fast canoe or the slow one.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Disregard my last post, thought you were someone else for some reason. I apologize... I need sleep.

My point in morality after reason is seperate from the drug debate.

morality is defined by the masses (or, as a religious gun nut that I am, God), and even if it is a President, one man can only go AGAINST morality, they cannot own it.

Even a President Obama.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

And I am speaking of life long Republicans, believe the rational is the moral. It is not inherently rational to increase personal freedom, it is moral to do so. Certainly it would have not been rational for a Japanese Emporer to give all his power to the people right?

The reality is the GENERAL libertarian philosophy of "live and let live" is the most rational and the most moral. The reason for this is that it is immoral to harm another human being and it is immoral to take away freedom from citizens.

It seems this debate always hinges on abortion. Those who think it is black and white just don't get the issue. There IS a reason it has always been a hot button issue, there is a reason why even Republicans and some Democrats are split on this. The question is whether the government has a right to intervene and stop a mother who would be a would be killer.

At this point does the government take responsibility for the child? What if adobtion demand did not meet supply? And at what point does the word Moral get its original definition and be based on choice and the decisions of God?

Overall I support the Director's platform. I think it is too legalistic and could be stronger, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.

I do tend to wonder how a government could handle an issue as sticky and elastic as morality, when we all agree they can handle few issues well.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

I'm not an expert on illegal drugs, but I did stay at a holiday inn express once....

heh.

I believe it is both a state and federal issue.

Drugs coming in from Mexico via armored vehicle (with armed men) crossing illegally into our country.... that is a federal issue.

I understand that in the last year or two, 6,000 people have died along the border in this war that is being kept quiet.

That is an issue in which we need a strong military showing. Now, that military can be National Guard, or federal troops.

Drugs being sold on the streets, in my opinion, ought to be a state issue, with possible support from the feds, especially when establishing the drug trail from street to suppliers.

Frankly, the best way to keep kids off drugs is to educate them and be a good role model.

Though, at times, I do have this built in desire to take back our streets.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

We sell liquor to people who pass it on to kids who drive their new car into the lake or some unsuspecting driver on prom night.

You don't stop the sell and production of a harmful substance, you regulate the actions of those using it. Many people drink without ever causing anyone any problem. Plus making it legal stops the black market trade of mobsters.

If you make drugs legal and regulate the activity of those using it you eliminate the drug dealer with guns on the street. You eliminate the need to smuggle it in across the border with armed guards.

This is really so simple as to not be able to escape people's grasp.

If, indeed, we are about liberty and people suffering the consequences for their free choices, then legalize drugs and enforce legal consequences for those that make bad choices under the influence. It has worked for beer and liquor.

What doesn't make sense is the constant drip of taxpayer money to catch, rehabilitate, house, and feed these nonviolent drug offenders. We spend billions in foreign lands under the guise of fighting our drug war. We spend billions in the prison and legal system. We expand the government under the guise of protecting people from themselves. That is liberalism.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Of course, that's to say nothing of your breathtaking ignorance of the secondary crime caused by drug use, even the part that isn't caused by the acquisition of those drugs.

Other than that, I also need to point out that "libertarianism" isn't "conservatism" and "conservatism" isn't "liberalism." Try to educate yourself on the distinctions before pontificating further, especially in a manner that casts aspersions on the conservatism of other posters on this site.

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

You made a pretty sophomoric argument yourself. Or perhaps you think that people like Milton Friedman and William Buckley were also ignorant.

I don't have a problem with any one's stance on the war on Drugs either pro or con. What I do have a problem with, and what I have seen often is:

(1) casual dismissal of any decriminalization arguments
(2) comparing vices with theft, rape, and murder
(3) saying that those who favor changing the drug laws just "want to get high". Or are closet liberals. Or worse, crazy libertarians.
(4) A very big lack in research and reading of the literature on the subject pro or con, and yet a very strong opinion notwithstanding. (I can recommend several books to start with)

Come on you are better than that.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

1.) suggesting that cocaine and Meth be legal is pretty much something that I have no problem dismissing casually.

2.) The sugestion is that if we made drugs legal, crime would go down. People who steal to do drugs will steal to do drugs, no matter how inexpensive it is. So ten it becomes about having 'one less crime on the books' . . . well, if we made things legal so as to cut down on crime caused by the ilegal nature of the action, then that is also used in support to make rape legal, as it would cut down on the rapists that murder their victims so they don't talk. Yes, it is an exaggeration, but the same 'logic' is used. . .. and it shows the irrational nature of such a suggestion.

3.) I can count on one finger the 'Let's legalize drugs' people I've met who were balanced and seemed to be on the ball. I can't count with a calculator the number I've met who looked like they were either high at that moment, or had been recently, or had admitted to having done drugs. If you don't like the pattern, perhaps you should rethink the policy, as those you are surrounded with are often of that ilk.

4.) Eh, having something written in a book does not make it more valid. That is the same thinking that people use when they believe a print newspaper over the rational argument from someone, or over their own memories of events. Being written does not make something 'truthier'

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Heh,I don't know, but it sounds like it could be.

It just seemed to be a shorter way of saying "filled with truthy goodness"

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

(1) Ok, YOU casually dismiss those arguments and many other very intelligent and learned people do not. In fact, most people who have studied the issue feel that some change is needed in our approach to drugs.

(2) Do you have any evidence for your argument? No, because you haven't even perused the literature on the issue.

(3) DO you even realize how much that is like a liberal argument. "oh I don't know anyone who is an ickypoo conservative so they must all be creeps". The truth is that almost no one I have ever met who agrees that there is something wrong with the war on drugs are themselves drug addicts or "crazy" people.

(4) Once again, a liberal style of thinking. You don't care about research, studies, or reasoned arguments, No indeed those things might get in the way of how you FEEL about the issue.

Really guy, don't give a snot if you are for or against it, what I care about is, on this one issue, it is more often conservatives who make arguments based on emotion and ignorance.

My offer still stands, if you would like to read some good books on the subject I can recommend them.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

(1) Ok, YOU casually dismiss those arguments and many other very intelligent and learned people do not. In fact, most people who have studied the issue feel that some change is needed in our approach to drugs.

I'm sure many do, however that doesn't mean that 'most people' who ahve studied the issue agree with you. However, I might put forth that you may be falling into the trap that unless someone agrees with you, they just haven't 'studied the issue enough' . . . .

(2) Do you have any evidence for your argument? No, because you haven't even perused the literature on the issue.

The Nazis had literature, does that make their cause more valid? I think not. Having a brochure or a book does not make your argument more accurate or more correct. It is rather silly to suggest so.

(3) DO you even realize how much that is like a liberal argument. "oh I don't know anyone who is an ickypoo conservative so they must all be creeps". The truth is that almost no one I have ever met who agrees that there is something wrong with the war on drugs are themselves drug addicts or "crazy" people.

Again with the vague language. I believe there is something wrong with the war on drugs, but I don't advocate just giving in and making it all legal. There is a difference between thinking that things are not being run well and saying that drugs should be legal.

That's like saying that people who don't like how the war is being handled want to pull out. That is a vague generalization being twisted to give support to a kind of irrational view.

(4) Once again, a liberal style of thinking. You don't care about research, studies, or reasoned arguments, No indeed those things might get in the way of how you FEEL about the issue.

A third time you assume that I just don't 'know' enough, or else I'd be on your side. I don't care about your research, studies or 'reasoned' arguments (though I havent' seen any from you, just calls for me to 'read more'). . . Just because you can hand me a piece of paper or a link to someone's writings doesn't make them right.

Looking for information that agrees with you doesn't pass muster as a form of Reasoned and Critical Thinking.

If you notice, I don't suggest that you just "don't know enough" about drugs, or that you profit from drugs. I did say that the 'legalize drugs' people I've met were all drug users, so I pretty much ignore their calls for legalized drugs.

Online people can say "No, I've never done drugs, and I support legalized drugs!" but given the amount of lies on the internet, I don't believe such calls. Personal Experience has told me otherwise.

The truth is, the Federal and State governments have a right to make drugs illegal. Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, which required all of the Congressional approvals and such.... not because they were making something illegal, but because they were Amending the Constitution.

You do not have a right to snort coke.

If you feel so strongly that you have a right to snort coke or do meth, there are parts of the world in which such action is legal. Nothing is stopping you.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

the literature on the subject because your arguments show me that you do not.

I have read lots about the subject both pro and con.

You again do exactly the thing I accused you of at the beginning, insinuating that if a person is against he war on drugs it is because they are a drug user.

You also make the assumption that anyone who is critical of the war on drugs wants total decriminalization of all drugs immediately. Of course there are middle positions but you cannot discuss them when one side wants only to rant in an incoherent fashion.

And this argument:The truth is, the Federal and State governments have a right to make drugs illegal. Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, which required all of the Congressional approvals and such.... not because they were making something illegal, but because they were Amending the Constitution.

Wait, what? an amendment was needed to make alcohol illegal so we don't need an amendment? What does that have to do with anything?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I make the assumption that you do not know any of the literature on the subject because your arguments show me that you do not.

No, my arguments just do not agree with you. You take that for ignorance as you believe that if someone doesn't agree with you, they're just not educated enough. It is one of the most common traps people fall into when discussing issues upon which they disagree.

You again do exactly the thing I accused you of at the beginning, insinuating that if a person is against he war on drugs it is because they are a drug user.

No, I related my personal experience with people who support legalized drugs. I am against a formalized "War on Drugs" unless it means that, as a war, we get to use violence in stopping drugs on the streets. There is no more of a "War on drugs" than there is a "War on Theft" . . . it is just arresting those who commit crimes.

You also make the assumption that anyone who is critical of the war on drugs wants total decriminalization of all drugs immediately.

No, you made that reference when you said that there were many who had a problem with the war on drugs who are not drug users. I said that there is a difference between people who feel that the war on drugs is not being handled correctly and those who want drugs legalized.

Of course there are middle positions but you cannot discuss them when one side wants only to rant in an incoherent fashion.

Yes, that is the problem I often face when discussing this with people who rant about the evils of alcohol and rave about the joys of pot all in an argument to legalize crack and meth.

Wait, what? an amendment was needed to make alcohol illegal so we don't need an amendment? What does that have to do with anything?

An amendment is not needed. They wanted to make it prohibition a part of the Constitution.... Amending the Constitution takes gobs of approvals. Listing Coke as a banned substance does not. You have... read the Constitution, right?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

it is a more serious constitutional issue than you say. Where in the Constitution is the federal government anywhere given the power to ban coke (or any other particular item) without an amendment? You can possibly make an argument for interstate commerce if drugs cross state lines, but what if they don't?

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Stop meth from coming in from Mexico with stronger border protection.

And then let all the junkies start their own meth kitchens to feed their habits. They'll blow themselves up in a couple of years and the problem will have solved itself.

to leave a lengthy comment in response to the same Libertarian tripe I have encountered 10,000 times before for either a lack of information or a failure to consider these arguments before. Also, please note that I referred to the "secondary crimes" associated with drug use - I am not equating drug use with other crimes, I am saying that drug use causes these other crimes, and it's empirically and demonstrably false to state (as S_L does) that all the crime caused by drugs is caused by drug users having to go through illegal channels to obtain drugs.

Also, there's a marked difference between Buckley and Friedman and the arguments made by modern Libertarians. Don't have time to get into the historical argument with you now. I, too, have books to recommend for you.

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

I never said that all crime related to drug use was due to getting around laws to acquire drugs. Never. I said you could eliminate the violence on the streets by gangs and cartels if you made drugs legal and that is true.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

You could also get rid of the violence by gangs and cartels by making our streets a place they don't want to be.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I read both sides of the argument.

My arguments are not dissimilar to Buckley they are about the same.
The War on Drugs is an abysmal failure.
Different things should be tried.
Marijuana should not be treated the same as other narcotics
decentralization is better than federalization of this matter.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Theft is the taking of other people's property. We make selling and using drugs illegal even when they harm no one in the process. To make it simple, theft by definition strips other citizens of rights, selling and/or taking drugs in and of itself does none of thise. In fact many people can take and sell drugs without ever harming anyone, much like beer and liquor drinkers and sellers.

Being a drunk can have secondary problems like theft or drunk driving, but that is due to individuals who are irresponsible NOT the substance.

When I said it eliminates crime, I meant, as I am sure you know, that it takes away the drug dealers and the drug violence. Legalizing drugs can't take away bad individual choices just as beer brings out some bad individual choices. We can and should regulate those. However, making drugs illegal creates more crime on the blackmarket than allowing the free market to work its magic.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

when someones heart stops because they drank a beer, or had a gimlet, then you can talk about drugs and alcohol together.

And this BS about legalizing drugs would get rid of the drug crime....crap. The pheneom about drugs is the way it makes you feel...and more than often, those using seek out a better feeling, more enhanced. " Controlling" the making or dist of drugs will not end drug crime...there will always be those out there making or developing a better high, a better drug, that is not "controlled".... hello to the crime yoou THOUGHT you got rid of..

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Meet some parents who lost children from drunk driving. Go to some hospitals and see some career drunk with no liver left. The effects are the same as any drug if not used wisely.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

I've done that...

I'e also held a friend who lost his freaking daughter (16 yoa)to a first time smoking H...

Give that a try and tell me drugs should be legalized

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

when someones heart stops because they drank a beer, or had a gimlet, then you can talk about drugs and alcohol together.

I challenge you to find any study anywhere that states that consumption of alcohol is less dangerous than, say, consumption of marijuana.

Every year you hear of some college student with a BAC level way too high dying from alcohol poisoning. There hasn't been a single instance of someone dying from an overdose of marijuana in all of the recorded history of humanity.

You should read this old CATO article from 1989 about what effect legalization would have. I'll take their 175 references over your opinion on the matter, thank you very much.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

your hat on pot...

Are you saying that's all you want to legalize?...if so, tell me how you will do that...and not other drugs.

It's all crap...I'll tell you and every other legalize drugs type the same thing...I'll stand outside your home on 2 differnet occcasions, both time with your kids around..

One day I'll drink one beer and head to the car to fire it up.
The next I'll take one hit off the crack pipe, and head to the car...

Still want to make drugs legal?

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Read the url I've been quoting repeatedly in this thread, in particular the appendix. Tobacco and alcohol have higher death rates than cocaine and heroin, when the effects of illegality on death rates of the latter are removed:

One of the many myths underlying the policy of prohibition is the belief that the prohibited drugs are much more dangerous than non-prohibited drugs. In reality, however, the main legal drugs--tobacco and alcohol--are more deadly than either heroin or cocaine would be if legally available, and infinitely more deadly than marijuana, which apparently has caused no deaths at all.

I've got scientific studies on my side that I can quote. You have handwaving and emotional appeals. I'll stick with my facts, thank you very much.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Cause if you did, your side of this would have already been effective. And let me tell you Fin, I've been hearing this crap for 30+ years, and you still haven't gotten anywhere.

Oh, wait, medical pot...huge victory. Let's see, any problems with that yet?..Anyone takeing advantage of that yet?...

Stick to the drawing board...nothing speaks louder than success, and you're side is no where near it. Hey, I'm open minded...show me that the majority of Americans think this is a valid dream to chase and I'll take it seriously.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

The content not the derission

that crime would not be reduced if we had some sort of decriminalization. Where is your evidence?

By the way, alcohol has killed many many times more people than all other drugs combined.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I made about wanting to seek an enhanced high?...reality is my evidence.

Tell you what, assure me that after the new drug store pops out their legal crack, it's existance won't tempt others to create a more powerful, or better, illegal crack.

Or is the government going to "keep up with the Jones", and make me better crack , or better hash...cause I just got back from Holland, and man, this Gov hash sucks compared to that Holland stuff.

Get reall Kyle, isn't going to happen

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

If we were to have any sort of decriminalization, (I grant you that it's a long way off, people seem to like shooting themselves in the foot) it would not matter what sort of designer drug anyone cooked up because they would all be treated the same. People who were addicts would be able to get their drugs for little or no money and have access to rehabilitation with no worries that they would go to prison.

Would there be problems with this? Sure, but compared to the problems that the war on drugs brings to everyone it would be nothing.

If it resulted in slightly more addicts this would be only a short term phenomenon and would represent people turning toward the now easier to obtain drugs who were hooked on alcohol or prescription drugs anyway.

At any rate, the laws are not now doing much of anything to stop drug use and the more we try enforcement, the more we give power to the government, the more we give money to organized crime, and the more money corrupts our government officials and law enforcement.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Look at the crime in Amsterdam.

Look at the corruption and crime in most of the countries in Central America that supply the drugs.

You don't really care about the crime, you just want to be able to smoke pot or snort coke without having uncle sam looking over your shoulder.

If you really cared about the crime, your response would be to fight crime, not make criminal acts legal.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Why is marijuana illegal in the first place? I was not illegal for the first one hundred and fifty years of our nation's existence and it didn't seem to be a problem. Again you are equating drug use which is a vice with real crimes.

By the way, the drug war makes fighting other crimes much more difficult. It brings huge amounts of money and corruption, and organized crime into the system.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Nothing you said dealt with my point.

You did, however, move to the predictable position.

Drugs should be legal because pot is not bad for you.

I'd take the "Let's legalize drugs" idea a LITTLE more seriously if you expanded your points beyond defending pot.

That really only makes me wonder if your drug of choice is pot, which is why it is such a hot issue for you that it is illegal.

No discussion of crack or meth... just that we should legalize drugs because pot is safer than alcohol.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

That's not just a rejoinder, it's also the name of Penn & Teller's show on Showtime (whose name I can't completely spell out here thanks to obscenity rules) where they take on all kinds of myths; they did a show a couple of years ago about the War on Drugs. Needless to say, they're strongly against it.

You don't really care about the crime, you just want to be able to smoke pot or snort coke without having uncle sam looking over your shoulder.

Doesn't work against them. They don't even drink alcohol, much less any drugs. Sorry, but your strawman is down on the ground, out for the count.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

And one again you don't respond to any of my points....

You can't hold an exception up as the rule. Really doesn't work that way.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I think the better take on this is provided down thread by a certain Fog (no not pot)horn (no, not a bong)Leghorn. Strictly enforce burglary and robbery if one legalizes drugs.

I have recently, for the first time in my life (14 years of which was as a criminal defense atty, some 6 years ago) tipped in favor of legalization thanks to my own observations of the failures of the war on drugs seeming to me to be worse than legalization.

I fully admit that at least in the short run there would be an increase in addicts and crime.

Buckley's death caused me to read his arguments and our own Bat Masterson here at redstate has been persuasive.

But it is a close call.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Are you saying there is NO negative health effects from alcohol?
Mickey Mantle would be surprised to hear that the liver he destroyed from alcohol was all in his imagination.

I've come to the conclusion that conservatives act just like liberals when it comes to drugs.

- They want to use government to prohibit people from doing it.
- They argue from emotions, not reason.
- They think that if the government waves its hand and decrees "no one will use drugs" *poof* suddenly the world is magically free of drugs.
- They can't seem to understand that alcohol and marijuana equally harmful, but get pissed that because of the Nanny State, they risk jail for having a beer with their son at their graduation party (oh, the irony).
- They have no problem with the government spending hundreds of millions in war against a substance no more harmful than alcohol.

I could go on all night, but it never ceases to amaze me how some conservatives act exactly like liberals on some issues.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

When I said it eliminates crime, I meant, as I am sure you know, that it takes away the drug dealers and the drug violence. Legalizing drugs can't take away bad individual choices just as beer brings out some bad individual choices. We can and should regulate those. However, making drugs illegal creates more crime on the blackmarket than allowing the free market to work its magic.

Where do you draw the line? Should I be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? Should I be allowed to own VX gas?

Those only hurt others if I use them with poor judgement.

No, the Government has the ability to make illegal things like drugs. It really does. Yes, there was a time that cocaine was legal and often used. However, it was discovered how deadly it is, and it was made illegal.

It isn't a case of a nanny-state... Every society that has let drugs run rampant without fighting them has fallen into a slimehole. There is no exception.

You want to reduce drug-related crime? Make severe punishments for the drug dealers and suppliers.

Then, apply them.

When the drug cartels try to push their drugs across the border, let their vehicles be met by attack choppers. When they don't stop, toast them.

Yes, there will always be people who do illegal drugs, and there will always be people pushing them.

However, that they will always exist is not due reason to just open the gates and let it all be legal.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Are you on drugs right now?

Comparing pot to a nuclear weapon? Just. Like. A. Liberal.
You have to go to the extreme to come anywhere close to an argument supporting you position.

Do you really mean to tell me that if someone is smoking pot in the house next you, you are under any harm, of any sort? That you are under just as much of a physical threat as would if you neighbor was making nuclear weapons?

If you misuse VX nerve gas, or a nuclear weapon, they only limit to the number of people you will harm is the the number of people in range.

If you misuse pot, or cocaine, you die (at the very extreme).

Reading you stuff, you seemed like a smart guy, but now I'm not so sure.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

Once again, to justifiy legalizing drugs, you talk about pot.

Is that your drug of choice? Are you really that upset that when you do pot, you get busted?

Do you really mean to tell me that if someone is smoking pot in the house next you, you are under any harm, of any sort? That you are under just as much of a physical threat as would if you neighbor was making nuclear weapons?

The point, bonehead, is that the argument is "who cares if it is deadly, you have a right to it without government regulation!"

The government clearly has an ability to regulate many things. Now, while I feel the FEDERAL government is taking too much power in the current form, that does not mean that we ought to have anarchy.

The comparison to VX and nukes was to show that there are, indeed, reasonable restrictions to any right.

Even the right you apparently believe exists to shoot heroin and snort cocaine. . .

If you misuse pot, or cocaine, you die (at the very extreme).

Again with the pot. Can you say one trick pony? Good, I knew you could.

Reading you stuff, you seemed like a smart guy, but now I'm not so sure.

Yeah.... I'm not the one whining because shooting heroin is illegal.

You want to see the damage drugs does, spend time at a drug rehab clinic. Watch people detox. Go to prison and jail, look at the people who's lives went down the crapper due to illegal drugs. Then tell me that it doesn't harm people.

And don't even START with the "But.. but... but... Alcohol is worse!"

No, Alcohol is not worse than heroin or cocaine. Anyone who says so either has an agenda or has never seen someone detox from heroin.

You want to be upset with me because I won't conform to your will.... tough.

Go ahead and call me a liberal if you want. I'll just note that California was one of the first states to legalize pot.... Yeah.. California is REALLY known for its Right Wing Slant.

Your "You're just a liberal!" Jedi Mind Tricks won't work on me.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Once again the liberal arguments.

Ad hominen attacks? What if I did smoke pot? Would I be harming you any? No, I wouldn't be.

I have seen the results of substance abuse and addiction. Alcoholism has destroyed the fathers side of my family. If you were ideologically constistant in the least, you would be calling for the return of prohibition.

But don't worry though, I don't upset the balance of the universe by smoking a plant that does no less damage then smoking another plant. I don't even drink. Hey, while you are at though, why don't you tell me that the only reason I support tax cuts is because I'm a greedy, selfish a-hole who just wants to hoard my wealth and hates kids.

"The point, bonehead, is that the argument is "who cares if it is deadly, you have a right to it without government regulation!""

Would I be wrong to assume that are you are opposed to smoking bans on private property (like in bars)? I don't smoke cigarettes either (which are far more addictive, and far more likely to cause an early death, but yet are legal to buy any 7-11), but I am against the smoking ban that was passed here in MN last fall.

"The comparison to VX and nukes was to show that there are, indeed, reasonable restrictions to any right."

Holy s***. Now you really have gone off the deep end. Because nuclear weapons are dangerous, you think the government has the right to restrict ANYTHING? "Of course the government tell what kind of lightbulb to buy, or what kind of car drive, or take away all your guns, because nukes can kill a lot of people."

I'm done arguing with you. It's clear that you think the role of government is stop people from doing things that you don't like, which makes you no better any liberal. Wait - it makes you a hypocrite, which is even worse.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

How typical.

More rants on how evil alcohol is and how good Pot is.

That REALLY is the only case you have..... That's it.

I'd like to tell you what you could go do with yourself, but I don't think such language would be approved on these boards.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Because I saw the one that talked about giving the government the power to prohibit smoking for your own good and prohibit drinking for your own good.

What habits of yours will be considered harmful to the point where they need to be regulated for your own good, Lance? If not tomorrow, the day after?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

well, let's see.. they regulate when I can buy alcohol (both by age and also by date.... Oklahoma is dry on sundays), they also regulate firearms.

My desire to have those regulations relaxed does not equate to "Hey, let's make heroin legal, because pot is less dangerous than booze."

or

"Hey, cocaine doesn't really kill THAT many people, let's open it up so that you can get a few ounces while you're shopping for a Father's Day card."

The "Let's Legalize it!" side only talks about pot. That's it. they wholly ignore drugs like cocaine, heroin, lsd, etc.

I found a call to reexamine our current drugs laws to be rational, but I don't support anarchy when it comes to drugs.

If you want to, that's fine. Put up a bill to do so.

Don't condemn me for liking that heroin is illegal. Don't condemn me for liking that lsd is illegal. You want to change it, put up a bill to do so.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I have never taken an illegal drug. Ever. I have never smoked pot, a cigarette or any other tobacco or chemical. Ever. I do not drink, not even at Communion.

If someone wants to put a drug in their body - that is their choice. If someone wants to smoke that is their choice.

I have NO right to prevent you from doing so because it is bad for you, that it can harm you, that it might kill you. That we have given the government the authority to deprive citizens of their liberty, their right to take drugs shows our willingness to give government the power to force morality (defined as what society determines what is good or bad) on others.

BUT,

There is, in fact, no recognized principle by which the propriety or impropriety of government interference is customarily tested. People decide according to their personal preferences. Some, whenever they see any good to be done, or evil to be remedied, would willingly instigate the government to undertake the business; while others prefer to bear almost any amount of social evil, rather than add one to the departments of human interests amenable to governmental control.

The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

It doesn't matter that pot is less harmful than alcohol is less harmful than heroin. It doesn't matter that heroin kills more frequently than alcohol, but certainly far fewer. People have the right - currently regulated with regard to alcohol, denied with regard to pot or heroin - to put into their bodies whatever they chose.

Self interest would cause most rational people to refrain from doing so, but as a group, humans often fail to protect their self interest. Be it drugs, or government authority.

Protecting people from themselves is not government's mandate. When we go there, there is no stopping that train.

..inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of [their definition of] happiness.

Not yours. Regulate the behavior and punish those that go out of bounds. Tens of thousands kill themselves and others with alcohol. If you believe in preventing drug use, start with the one that kills more than any other - oh, wait...we tried that - it failed because it was WRONG to do so.

Last I checked, none of the 50 states have even begun to make theft illegal.

Many states, however, have voted to make medical marijuana legal, just to take one example. However, federal laws on the subject make that legality mostly irrelevant, so we end up with federal agents throwing sick people in jail because the federal government does not approve of the laws of the state that they're in-- especially since the federal government has its own medical marijuana program. Not only is that hypocritical, that's a mockery of federalism, a bedrock component of conservatism.

If you want to talk about secondary crime caused by drug use, how about 90 percent of the bar fights in the history of the Republic being caused by alcohol, the legal drug? And please explain to me why it took a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal, but marijuana and all the rest can be made verboten by a federal executive branch agency, not even by Congress itself? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Perhaps you need some education yourself on this issue.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Is totally irrelevant to the issue on the merits viz. drug legalization. Also, the point about medical marijuana and legalized theft doesn't address the point I was making in any way. In fact, I can't find anything in this comment that is in any way responsive and relevant to anything I've said, including the part about alcohol (I am shocked - shocked! - to find inconsistent government policy. We should abolish government policy altogether!).

So, moving on.

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

I couldn't find a single thing in your comment that addressed its parent either, other than pulling out the old tired abused strawman inexplicably equating drug use with theft. By that same rationale, opening offshore drilling can be equated with theft as well; they're both something Congress has made illegal, after all, and that's the only connection you can make between drugs and theft (other than them both being something you dislike, and forgive me if I don't take your personal policy preferences as gospel as to what should be legal and what should be illegal).

When you can read CATO's pretty exhaustive refutation from 20 years ago of the myth that legalizing drugs will cost society more than keeping them illegal, and actually come up with rational, research-backed objections, I'll take your point of view seriously. Until then, I'm just going to presume your mind is locked up like a steel drum on this issue.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

then we are indeed going to go nowhere in this discussion.

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

I'm sure the family of the grandmother that was gunned down by Atlanta police because of their desire to make One More Drug Bust will be consoled that you think their cost is worth them paying to prevent the other costs that you so greatly fear.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Pfft. Shameful of you.

WAY the hell below the belt.

You didn't even have a point, you just wanted to try and 'stick it' to them.

You do your entire series of arguments a RADICAL disservice.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

innocent victims of the War on Drugs, or do you just not want to know? That is part of the reason I was saying that you were ignorant of the issue. There is a large volume of literature on all the abuses and costs and how we have given up many of our freedoms. And for what? to stop a few stupid people from harming themselves?

They always find a way to do it anyway.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

There are indeed innocents killed... Perhaps we should just get rid of police, then there'd be no more accidental killings.

Their point was disgusting to bring up and shows a very anti-police sentiment, and I question why you're supproting it.

And no, you said that I am ignorant of the issue because I disagree with you.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Perhaps you also feel that we should stop fighting the war on terror because we may accidently kill some innocent people.

Surely we shouldn't have fought world war 2. How many innocent people did we bomb in THAT war?

This thinking that legalizing drugs saves innocent lives is disgusting and VERY dishonest.

It is little more than another attempt to justify the desire to smoke pot. Who cares what else happens, as long as y'all get your pot, right?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

This thinking that legalizing drugs saves innocent lives is disgusting and VERY dishonest.

No, it's a plain and simple fact. Look what happened with Prohibition:

Are you going to try to tell me that it worked for alcohol but for some magic reason it won't work with drugs? C'mon, now, you've gone well past rationality and into emotional-based ranting.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Alcohol != these drugs. Move this conversation to the left side of th page and call us over, so we can continue this
without
this
effect!

Impeach the 5 usurpers

False Comparison. The point was regarding policemen accidently killing people they thought were involved with drugs.

Though, if you look at the chart, it looks like death by firearm was on the rise before prohibition, so perhaps prohibition wasn't the cause of the rise in murder rates.

In fact, it takes 4 or 5 years after the end of prohibition for murder rates to drop to the pre-prohibition rates.... if Prohibition were the cause, there shouldn't have been any rise before it, and it should have ended pretty much instantly after the end.

I think you are (and very likely not on purpose, I would think you just searched hard for a graph that matched what you wanted to say) using a graph that applies a cause that may not exist.

Remember that corellation is not causation.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

tell that to 17 year old Owen Beck, who must now suffer in agony every day because someone like you could't bear the thought of a teenager using medicinal marijuana. So self-less that sheriff was, looking out for the best interests of everyone's feelings.

"The amputation introduced Owen to a bizarre, new agony called phantom pain, and although doctors gave him powerful medication, nothing helped.

But might a new kind of pharmacy offer new hope? A medical marijuana dispensary had recently opened in the nearby city of Morro Bay. More than a decade earlier, California voters legalized medical marijuana and Morro Bay's mayor and Chamber of Commerce held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the dispensary, and its owner Charlie Lynch.

Owen's parents knew the idea of giving medical marijuana to a 17-year-old strikes many people as scandalous. Local Sheriff Pat Hedges even asserts that allowing medical marijuana is "not in the best interest of a community that prides itself on providing a healthy, family environment."

But one day, Owen's life took another abrupt turn. Federal agents and local sheriff deputies raided Charlie Lynch's dispensary, and seized nearly everything inside, including Owen's medicine. And because he had clients like Owen who were under age 21, Charlie Lynch faces heightened penalties. In California the average first-degree murder serves 20 years behind bars; Charlie Lynch could face a sentence as long as 100 years in prison."

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

You have focused your argument on Marijuana. Many of the other harder drugs should be kept off the streets as much as possible because they have no medical purpose. And unfortunately Marijuana has somehow been put in the same class as heroin and cocaine. I believe that we need to go through and reclassify the known drugs out there. I do believe as well that with that re-classification that Marijuana should be regulated and legalized and taxed just like cigarettes. Where most libertarians mess up is that they assume everyone knows what they mean when they say "end the War on Drugs". I really doubt that they want all drugs legalized. What we need is to take a serious look at the classifications and laws and adjust fire.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

If you make drugs legal and regulate the activity of those using it you eliminate the drug dealer with guns on the street. You eliminate the need to smuggle it in across the border with armed guards.

If we just made bank robbery legal, then we wouldn't have nearly as many hostages.

If we just made mugging and rape legal, then we wouldn't have as many murder victims.

That attitude is why I can't be a Libertarian. Sometimes I wonder if the Libertarians desire for legal drugs is just to drive down how much they spend on drugs in a year.

Sorry, allowing people to shoot heroin and snort coke for the sake of not having to right armed Mexican drug runners coming across the border is akin to deciding to stop fighting the war in Iraq so as to give the terrorists one less thing to gripe about.

Yes, I believe in freedom and personal responsibility, however I don't think that a person ought to be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

There are reasonable limits that even our government is allowed to establish. Otherwise, you're talking about Anarchy by other terms.

Yes, it would be easier and cheaper to just give up and make drugs legal. Heck, imagine how inexpensive our Justice System would be if we just made EVERYTHING legal!

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

If it is then so is drinking beer. Taking or selling drugs in and of itself does not take any right from another person. Rape, murder, and theft all by definition strip others of their rights.

When I say that legalizing drugs eliminates crime I am saying it eliminates the criminal element using armed force to sell it on the streets. We saw this with prohibiition. Who benefited when we made liquor illegal? Criminals. It gave us the mafia in America. Who would be hurt most by making drugs legal? The criminal element because they couldn't compete with corporate America in selling their product.

You would still have stupid people that would take drugs to an excess and do stupid things. We have that with drunks now. We deal with it.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

Is there any serious debate about whether or not organized drug traffickers would fold up their pot business if pot was legal, regulated, taxed, and available at the local liquor store? They can't compete in the capitalist system.

I think, as usual, the real debate is where to draw the line. Anti-drug advocates immediately envision a country where heroin is sold next to the candy at the 7-11, available to all. In actuality, there will always be a line, and on one side all the drugs that the government allows you to use if you wish (booze, nicotine, caffeine, etc.), and on the other, all the drugs you are not allowed to use.

Where should that line be drawn?

I believe that marijuana's current classification as a Schedule I drug is ludicrous. Have any of these people actually even smoked pot? I think the standard should be this:

Is the drug in question reasonably likely to cause either a) death or b) immediate addiction?

Apply that to yourself - would you die or get irretrievably addicted if you smoked a joint? How about a line of coke? Mushrooms? A tab of Ecstacy?

I think the only way one of those would cause my death is if it was spiked with something lethal, which regulation would avoid, as the drugs would have to be manufactured according to certain standards. As for addiction, I know myself, I'm too much of a conservative to fall into that trap - I'm just upset that the government is making a personal choice for me.

In order for the "Let's legalize drugs to cut down on crime" argument to work, ALL drugs have to be legal.

If we legalize SOME drugs, then the cartels just shift their inventory to focus on what is still illegal.

At that point, we have just wasted all of the time and effort on reducing the power and success of the cartels.

I suggest another approach: Make our streets someplace that the cartels and drug dealers are afraid to go.

There was a reason why the Mafia was able to keep drugs out of Vegas for many, MANY years.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

And that is why we are having so many problems. Cracking down on law enforcement is not going to work, even if we turn our self into a police state. The old USSR had a horrible time with both drugs and alcoholism.

Your argument that all drugs have to be legalized or it's no good is also false. All things have substitutes. Many people who might want to use marijuana right now do not do so because it is illegal, but booze is not, so they get drunk. Which is worse for your health and more addictive.

If people got hooked on a stronger drug, or a prescription drug and they could get something like methadone in a clinic, then they might prefer that to having to get their drug illegally.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

You assume that I want the police to handle it.

I don't advocate vigilantism, but I do advocate getting together in a group, covering someone in tar and feathers, and riding them out of town on a rail.

We lose the drug war and the gang war because we back down when they come and take over our streets.

We have a right to not be a victim.

Your argument that all drugs have to be legalized or it's no good is also false. All things have substitutes. Many people who might want to use marijuana right now do not do so because it is illegal, but booze is not, so they get drunk. Which is worse for your health and more addictive.

Your point has nothing to do with what I said. I'd respond to it further, but it is too irrational as an argument to what I originally said.

If people got hooked on a stronger drug, or a prescription drug and they could get something like methadone in a clinic, then they might prefer that to having to get their drug illegally.

And so we get back to the same circular argument... if there was a legal drug, then they wouldn't go for the illegal drugs, so let's make drugs legal so that they aren't seeking illegal drugs.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I have no problem with people in the community pulling together and booting the drug dealers and suppliers out of their community.

But too many are too afraid (and too unarmed) to take the response.

So, instead, they rely upon the police who do not have the funding, authority or numbers to deal with the problem effectively.

I'm not saying we go "Death Wish" Charles Bronson (sp?) on these people.... just short of that.

perhaps.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

see also batman

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

As long as it is the Michael Keaton or Christian Bale batman and not the Adam West batman.

heh.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Heh, perfect! Roaming bands of citizens, confronting drug dealers and attempting to run them out of town. I can't see ANY problem with that approach.

I'm offended by the attitude that YOU feel it's YOUR right to tell me that I can't smoke a plant in my own house, on my own time, harming no one except (arguably) myself. Why is it ok for big government to make asinine decisions about what I can put in my own body, but not ok to tell me that I can't own this assualt rifle? Small government is always better, when no one's rights are being harmed.

So someone may make the choice to allow themselves to become addicted to meth, or sit on the couch and smoke pot, and not lead a productive life. So what? It's their choice, and their loss.

the sale and distribution of illegal drugs, which is associated to your decision to use, does have impact on others.....many others.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

But only because you made it illegal.

Circular arguments are for liberal.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Doesn't matter how, or who made it legal or not...it is illegal, period....and if you, or anyone else thinks it should be differnet, it is your job to provide enough info, intel,votes, whatever, to make your case. Obviously. this is where your crowd comes up just a tad short....

I laud the efforts, heck I used to read High Times. But, you just don't seem to have provided the nation with enough reasons to chaneg the existing laws.

How about we put our efforts together are re define the WoD?

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Heh, perfect! Roaming bands of citizens, confronting drug dealers and attempting to run them out of town. I can't see ANY problem with that approach.

So you're saying that people shouldn't have a right to defend their own streets from drug dealers, pushers, gangs and cartels?

For someone who spends the rest of your post ranting about the government, you sure don't seem to want the people to pick up the slack.

I'm offended by the attitude that YOU feel it's YOUR right to tell me that I can't smoke a plant in my own house, on my own time, harming no one except (arguably) myself.

Good thing we don't have a right to NOT be offended, I might be in trouble. As it is, it is not illegal to offend someine. It is illegal to do crack. You want to be a druggie, fine. Go for it. As long as you're willing to live with the physiological and criminal consequences, do as you wish.

However, if you're getting tired of people thinking less of you because your'e a druggie, stop doing drugs... don't demand that we conform to YOUR beliefs on the legality of drugs.

Why is it ok for big government to make asinine decisions about what I can put in my own body, but not ok to tell me that I can't own this assualt rifle?

Well, there's this thing called the Second Amendment. I've read the Constitution. I have a copy at my desk. Paging through it, I don't see a right to do coke..... so I don't quite see how your comparison stands. (Yes yes, any rights not specifically listed are not deemed to be in a state of nonexistance, however the freedom to shoot heroin is not specifically protected by the constitution. If you would like it to be so, suggested a constitutional amendment to take LSD and petittion the government to hear your pleas.)

So someone may make the choice to allow themselves to become addicted to meth, or sit on the couch and smoke pot, and not lead a productive life. So what? It's their choice, and their loss.

Someone still can. People choose, every day, to break a plethora of laws. Why should, if 'they are going to choose it anyway', we just make things legal? That doesn't make sense. People break the speed laws every day, does that mean we ought to raise speed limits to 100 miles an hour?

It would be silly and reckless to suggest so.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

No, because everyone driving around at 100mph would be inherently dangerous to the public safety. You're missing my point. Let me try again.

The government has decided that marijuana, and all other (non-prescribed) drugs except a few notables are SO BAD FOR YOU and society in general, that they will not allow you to use them, or you will go to jail. We agree that since we live in a society of laws, you should not break the law unless you can live with the consequences.

But who made that decision? Why is that decision being made for us, especially when it concerns such benign drugs?

I think we just need to have an honest discussion about where the line should be drawn, is all.

Near as I can tell, nothing stops you from putting up a bill to legalize pot.

What, excactly, do you not like about that process?

Is it because such an idea will get shot down?

Welcome to reality.

If you want to have an 'honest' discussion about this, why not address the plethora of drugs other than pot?

Time and time again, here is what happens.

"DRugs should be legal, man..."

Why?

"Man, alcohol is legal, and that's more dangerous than pot!"

Ok, what about coke and heroin and meth?

"Whatever! Pot is perfectly safe and you just want it illegal so that you can keep big government."

Ok, but what about coke and heroin and meth?

"What about all these innocent people that die in your war on drugs, man?"

Ok, but what about coke and heroin and meth?

. . . . and on and on and on.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Lance, you can't have it both ways....You can chastise his argument all you want but don't expect to be taken seriously when you ignore well crafted arguments down thread just so you can brow beat someone else and compare their lack of enthusiasm for the War on Drugs to a lack of enthusiasm wrt the War on Terror...that was a cheap shot and you are above that.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

his slam on the police force, by bringing up the family that was killed in a raid, that ended up being not involved in drugs....

such things are often brought up both by people who hate cops and by people who want legal drugs.

It does not serve a purpose in the debate any more than calling someone racist for opposing illegal immigration.

It was little more than an attempt to paint those who oppose legal drugs as people who like to see the slaughter of innocents.

Sentiment like that OUGHT to be ignored.

As for the ACTUAL case of innocents killed in this fight against drugs... yes, it does happen, but bringing it up to silence debate on legality of drugs is very disgusting.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Lance, I agree...but you did the same thing to him. You questioned him on a completely different subject in order to stifle his argument. Look I like you Lance and you and I agree on many things, but you have a tendency of trying to stifle debate that you disagree with. I suggest once again that you go down thread and read my two comments and this time instead of replying with some joke or funny comment bring some substance. I am willing to have an adult debate about the points both you and Kyle are making I just won't do it in a tiny thread anymore. Hope to see you down thread brotha.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

There's no excuse for taking cheap shots at the cops for their mistake.

If that is the debate that I 'stifle' than I'm fine with that.

I try to keep things honest and on the table, but if someone falls into a critical thinking trap or hits below the belt or dips into bigotry, etc... I'm going to call them on it.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

there are plenty of communities where you would not be shamed

as it stands now, you go to jail

So now, you want to impose your preference on eveyone?

ah

I'm offended (everytime I say that word my wrist goes limp...)

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Comparing pot to nukes.

You must be on drugs yourself. Why don't just think about that for a second, and compare the greatest potential threat of a joint with that of an atom bomb.

Yes, I believe in freedom and personal responsibility, however I don't think that a person ought to be allowed to own a nuclear weapon.

There are reasonable limits that even our government is allowed to establish.

And the transformation to raving liberal with no sense of perspective whatsoever is complete.

How many times have you heard this come out of a liberals mouth?
"Yes, I believe in freedom, however I don't think that a person ought to be allowed to own a nuclear weapon, which is why I support more gun control.

If you make drugs legal and regulate the activity of those using it you eliminate the drug dealer with guns on the street. You eliminate the need to smuggle it in across the border with armed guards.

That attitude is why I can't be a Libertarian.

Really? Because I bet you have made, or agreed with, the following argument in the past"

If you make guns illegal then you will create a market for gun-runners. Or, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?

I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.

So do you support state run drug stores like liqueur stores where they sell Crack Cocain across the counter?

Hey, we can levy a tax on Crystal Meth to pay for Better Roads and for "More Cops on the Street"!

Give me a break. I'm a Federalist and believe the more you can do on a state and local level are good things...but you can have too much of a good thing!

So if Maine wanted to sell it in head shops, they could?

If New Hampshire said they would only allow powder cocaine, they could?

And if Oregon said "we only want marijuana", they could?

And the druggies could move to the states they wanted to move to and the good wholesome people could move to states like Indiana which would allow only 3.2 beer to be sold?

And the states could all look at each other and say "huh, I guess that allowing this particular thing wouldn't be so bad" and change laws accordingly or say "holy cow, I can't believe how bad this stuff is!" and change laws accordingly?

Or is that too pie in the sky and we should allow the Federal Government to be in charge of everything because of General Welfare/Interstate Commerce reasons (see Wickard.v.Filburn)?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

Well, the issue you run into is that people will still buy illegal drugs. . . . so the argument that legalizing drugs will cut down on secondary crime fails.

When it comes to pot.... Eh, I would vote against a measure to make it legal, but my life wouldn't end if the measure passed.

There are many illegal things I don't do and many legal things I don't do.

However, if I could trust the "Pro Drug Legalization" crowd at all, I'd make a compromise that pot becomes legal and they forever join with us to keep coke and heroin off the streets by force if needbe.

However.... I cannot.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It said that if you had a note from your doctor, smoking pot would be legal, so long as you did it behind closed doors on your own property.

Yeah. It didn't change anything. The DEA still has marijuana listed as a schedule 1 drug.

For giggles, check to see some of the stuff on Schedules II and III.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I believe that part of the problem in the State/Federal balance of power in the 'drug war' is that the states really aren't stepping up to fight drugs.

In the vacumn left, the federal government has no problem taking the power.

Frankly, if this is going to be called a war, we ought to fight it.

The way the left handles the 'drug war' shows why they should never be put in charge of a REAL war.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

"I believe that part of the problem in the State/Federal balance of power in the 'drug war' is that the states really aren't stepping up to fight drugs."

Should the states be allowed to not step up to fight drugs?

"In the vacumn left, the federal government has no problem taking the power."

Has there ever been a single case where the federal government has had a problem taking power from the states?

"Frankly, if this is going to be called a war, we ought to fight it."

Who's calling it a war? What does "fighting it" entail? What are the circumstances under which we can declare victory and go home?

"The way the left handles the 'drug war' shows why they should never be put in charge of a REAL war."

You have officially freaked me out.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Welcome to the nightmare presented by the "legalize" crowd.

My bet is the majority of American get wigged out and freaked out every time the talk of legalization gets brought up.

Could be why after all these years the movement is still a , ...movement.

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

The evidence I have is the number of states that have passed a medical marijuana law of some sort.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

what is your position on legal crack, legal hash, ....

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

And instead of thinking "man, the fathers never could have foreseen extraordinary circumstances such as the ones we find ourselves in today!", I think "man, the mess of pottage we're getting from the feds isn't anywhere near as cool as our birthright was."

I think that about stuff like the 2nd Amendment too. And the 1st. And the 8th. Don't get me started about the 9th...

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Those who oppose the legalization of drugs talk about coke, heroin, lsd, X, etc. etc. etc.

those who are in favor rave about pot and rant about alcohol.

I believe part of the issue is that, in the desire to legalize drugs, many on your side ignore these other drugs for the sake of getting legal pot.

Yes, I think if you asked most Americans if LSD, Heroin, Meth and Coke should be legal and readily available to the general public, the VAST majority would say "Eh, no thanks..."

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

And I point out that Colorado passed a law saying X and the Feds said "nah, we don't care".

I suppose I could talk about Raich v. Ashcroft and Wickard v. Filburn but people would start talking about "morality" or "rationality" to me (or balancing them). But... we've been there.

Interstate commerce.
General welfare.
The Children.

It's a pity that the Republicans have adopted these catchphrases.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Should the states be allowed to not fight federal regulations regarding illegal immigration?

I'd say that if the state is not doing its part in fighting an illegal action that is also being pursued by the federal government, you're going to find the federal government taking authority that ought to rest with the state.

Last time I checked, illegal drugs were.... illegal. If a state is not willing to enforce drug laws while the government is also enforcing its drug laws, I am not suprised to see the federal government overstepping its boundaries in this 'war on drugs'..... I did not say I agree with it. Just that I understand why it is happening.

SHOULD a state be allowed to make legal what the federal government has ruled illegal?

Hmm.... that is an interesting question, but I don't think that there is too much room to entertain the idea that the states can legalize what the federal government has made illegal.

While states can restrict things that the federal government is silent on, or things that are specifically under state control, I don't think a state has the authority (especially nowdays) to run counter to the regulations of the Federal Government.

Sure, they can try, but I don't think it'll last long.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Let's say a state passed a law saying medical marijuana, for example, was no longer illegal.

Is this a case of "the state is not doing its part in fighting an illegal action that is also being pursued by the federal government"?

I've gotta say, this way of thinking about stuff is foreign to me.

"I don't think a state has the authority (especially nowdays) to run counter to the regulations of the Federal Government."

This is something worth reversing if true.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Sorry, forgot to address the rest of your comment.

Has there ever been a single case where the federal government has had a problem taking power from the states?

Hardest time they ever had involved the Civil War. But, once the South was shut down, there was little resistance to an ever-growing federal government.

Who's calling it a war? What does "fighting it" entail? What are the circumstances under which we can declare victory and go home?

It is called a "War on Drugs" That is what I refer to. It is, of course, silly to call it a war as we are not treating it as a war. It is just a PR line by the forces that want to fight drugs. I find it a sad line, which is why I normally put it in quotes. We don't prosecute it as a War, so why even rhetorically call it one? I've never understood why teh government has done that. Same with the "War on Poverty"

You have officially freaked me out.

? Because of an anti-liberal suggestion about the left's handling of the 'war' on drugs as example of why they should never be in charge of a real war?

Simple... just as they treat the terrorists and our soldiers, the left has always held the criminals up at the expense of the victim.

When it comes to drugs, the victim is not just the idiot who takes the drugs, but also the people harmed in the process of making, transporting, storing, selling or use of the drugs.

Those people are not saved by making drugs legal. They are saved by forcing out (by force if the government, state or federal, had the balls to take this problem seriously) the pushers, suppliers and the international cartels.

You don't fight crime by coddling criminals and treating them as victims of society. You fight crime by punishment for negative behavior.

This hippie mentality of 'down with authority' and 'peace, love and rock and roll' really has turned our society into a bunch of wusses.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Was Elliot Ness a wuss who just didn't try hard enough to enforce the law on a bunch of people who didn't understand what was good for them?

I honestly don't understand this point of view.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Do you oppose regulation of anything?

I'm done talking about this drug issue. Going to write it up to "A bunch of y'all don't agree with me and that's life."

But seriously... I've seen you on a number of threads talk about such things....

Is there a point in which the government is allowed to fight crime?

If not, who is supposed to?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

For very small values of anything, yes. I do oppose regulation of anything.

Once we get into larger values of anything... well, maybe regulation might be appropriate. We'd have to see the example.

Are you familiar with Wickard v. Filburn?

Because when you ask "Is there a point in which the government is allowed to fight crime?", there is part of me that wants you to define "crime".

If you mean "stuff that the government has said is illegal", then... I'm not sure that I can either support or oppose the fighting of the government against stuff that the government has said is illegal.

There are a lot of things, throughout history, that have not been legal. Some of them are worth overthrowing the government for (the 1700's are chock full of examples).

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Oh pooh, I didn't miss any point.

You're just upset because I called you on your critical thinking pitfalls and didn't fall into your traps or agree with you.

whine whine whimper whine.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

but I am amazed at the similarity to this conversation and the one we had on abortion issues in Social Conservatives...

there are differences between the two issues, but...

because both are made from crap for the purpose of stretching the dealer's dime (and this is why they're so much worse for users). It's a media lie that crack is "cheap" because the average rock has less than 30% real cocaine in it; the rest is baking soda and whatever else they cook it with. Meth is made from things you can get at the drugstore and it really earns the name "redneck cocaine." Who would want either if the Coca-Cola company were free to sell the cocaine they flush from coca leaves?

I do believe in the many practical uses of the natural hemp plant, up to and including biomass ethanol. We might only be paying 75 cents a gallon for our fuel if hemp were legal to grow.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

few here have the credentials to argue otherwise. they defeat us in a debate, but they can not defeat conservative intellectuals who have spent their lives on the subject.

Personally I would make Marijuana a special test case. I do not think this country is ready for hard drugs because we have lost so much in the way of education, assimilation, and civic mindedness. We know tobacco kills more than Marijuana, and we know that alcohol kills way more innocents than the previous drugs combined. But Alcohol prohibition has been tried and failed, tobacco prohibition would be un-Ameirican.

We as a society like to blame bogey men such as marijuana for out own sins. Anyone can look at statistics and see we have more alcoholics than France per capita, even though they let very young people drink wine at certain occasions. It is part of their culture. We know that drug abuse is worse here with prohibition than in countries such as the Nethelands where pot is de facto legal if not de jure.

A typical American problem is failing to see the forest for the trees. We like to demonize inanimate objects, ie. pot, guns, video games, when we know the threat is much deeper and much darker. WE are the "Greatest Countr on Earth t.m." but have more in jail than well known tyrannies.

One day we might wake up and see the real problems. We might stop attackign inanimate objects and look in the mirror. I don't expect that to occur soon, but one day it will happen, and it could be too late.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

drug trafficking to the states. The fed govt should not be involved with prosecuting drug users.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

We don't need state laws and federal laws covering the same territory. Under the 10th Amendment such shouldn't even be constitutional anyways. Let the states decide; that's why we have states. Lots of people decry prostitution but it hasn't caused Nevada to sink into a bottomless pit yet.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

but definitely I am against dual jurisdiction. It just gives feds an issue to run on and I have, as a lawyer, seen first hand the destruction of families by the mandatory minimums. I have no illusions that legalization would wreak havoc at first due to increased drug abusers, but the best example of how to handle this is in early America when communities handled it, rather than even state govts.

more later

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

but back then there was a sense of right and wrong. There were a majority of people who cared deeply about their familiy name and never wanted to shame it. If one thing is our greatest weakness today, it is a lack of family pride and a lack of fear of shame.

btw, I know marijuana can only do so much, alcohol can take you out in short order. If people say one drug is "worse" than the other, they are just not affected by these drugs.

And in the end, the libertarian idea would charge anyone impaired that hurt another. Get rid of the thousands of fedeal victimless crimes, and come back to a reality, and reality we all can understand and support.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

The government and law are not a substitute for morality.

but I can't even agree at this point that all laws are an expression of morality. A majority of laws are power grabs by the federal government, a desire to take in more tax revenue, or a knee jerk reaction to headlines. I tend to believe the Ten Commandments got the biggies quite right. Sure there are needed law updates, but most fedeal laws on the books are contradictions and a simple attempt to mark their territory.

For example, there are a myriad of gun laws on the books that do nothing more than make good citizens criminals. Most of these laws can not be enforced, but they hold stiff penalties. They are about transportation and other issues that lack any moral center. Tell me why an 18 inch shotgun barrel is moral and a 17 inch shotgun barrel is immoral. Tell me why a rifle can have a shorter barrell, and that makes is moral.

I am no anarchist, but I can not deny what I see as true. The Feds have added thousands upon thousands of laws, based on abuse of the commerce clause for no moral reason at all.

We need a candidate that will dismantle this Leviathan. It won't be McCain, and it certainly was not Bush. What we need are better Congressmen, men who are held in check by their populace.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Somebody's, remember even or rather especially statist libs consider themselves moral beings.

It goes back to the point that I make over and over again. Conservatism is a symbiotic meme complex. Anyone that thinks that one part can get very far without bringing the rest is wrong.

The theologically oriented SoCons scratch their heads wondering why when they embrace compassionate conservatism they seem to lose ground on everything else they hold dear. Well if people don't embrace the morality of personal responsibility and reality of hard consequences they aren't likely accept moral implications to choices.

It just all goes together.

what drugs are sold on the state level that haven't been transported interstate...Some Mary J...but he vast majority is transported interstate

can )if said things are traded between states or, as interpreted by SCOTUS, things "affect" said trade).

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

interstate trafficing would be greatly reduced. Anyway, the commerce clause has been so abused by the feds, it has become an excuse to negate a huge portion of the constitution. If any SC had the stones,the would limit this de facto usurpation of states rights.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

Reasonable minds can differ on drug policy. Certainly, a central tenet of conservatism is that while the government's powers must be of limited scope, they must also be vigorously exercised within that legitimate scope, from law enforcement to national security.

Controlling crime is essential to respect for human life. Where there is disagreement is over the extent to which laws against illegal drugs are, or are not, necessary for public safety. Personally, I think they are, but I also think more of those decisions can and should be left to states and localities.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

and I respect your opinion. But since 90 percent of drug charges are trafficking, and not the simple use causing a crime, I can't agree. We waste billions on a drug war with almost no goal in mind. I agree certain hard drugs are so dangerous that they can be crime predictors, but certainly that is not the case for marijuana.

The government does have a role in Drugs, Alcohol, and Firearms. But do we conservatives think they have it just right or do we think they have usurped state and local powers,and diminished the inidvidual.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

You didn't talk about balancing with the moral in the blog. I don't know why you chose to omit the moral aspect, but my guess is that you did so because it doesn't sell half as well as the call for liberty.

I agree with you when you are talking about liberty and I vote Republican because they support freedom. I do think you don't go far enough. You interject this loaded term "moral" in the comments and basically try to take it all back.

Government cannot be the arbiter of what is or is not moral. Government legislating morality is a recipe for disaster and you can rest assured that they will destroy morality and the law in the process.

While I love your platform piece, you just called a mulligan with this comment. So...what do you really mean?

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

I have said this many times in the past, and some here don't like it. Government can not enforce morality, it can only punish what it perceives to be immorality. Morality is a religous term, without religion, it has no meaning. Morality is defined by doing what is right when you have an option to do wrong. Morality at the point of a gun is coercion, and ceases to be morality at all. Morality is something one takes up with God, not the director of the ATF.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

HTML Help for Red Staters

Are you agreeing with me or making another random sniping comment in reponse to something I've said?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

HTML Help for Red Staters

ROFL...are we going to have a grouip encounter session?

Republican legislators always begin with some conservative ideals, But there is almost a direct relationship between accepting statist policies and how long they stay within the beltway.

We need an amendment for congressional term limits badly.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

one point I give to Fred Thompson is that he believed in term limits and even suggested it to Congress (for which he was basically laughed away)

He had a chance to run again, but stood on his convictions and chose not to.

That's character.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I see no sound reason for term limits. Americans should have the right to vote for whomever they please. And there are many in Congress that become experts on war, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation.

To throw these bumbs out periodically simply to have new blood does not pass the liberty test with me. If we believe term limits are vital, then we are saying we do not trust the American people. If we have a good reason not to trust them, then the solution lies with education, not arbitrary limits.

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

should not limit my liberties.

I agree on term limits, they limit my right to choose.

What issues would those be?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I'm in the same age group you are (18), and I'm debating as to whether I should vote for McCain or stay home. While I would like to see Obama defeated, I'm not sure I can vote for someone who wants to impose a cap-and-trade system, as well wanting to rein in CEO pay, which is something that should be left to the investors. I'm going to offer you a piece of advice, Za08, by saying that the only candidate you will ever agree with 100% of the time is yourself.
-----------------------------------
In an insane society, reality is outside of the mainstream.

this is why he does so well at town hall meetings. Obama does well reading a script written by a campaign aid. The ting you will find with conservatism is we believe our issues are best for everyone. We are not tryig to hurt the poor, the uneducated, or the minorites, that is left wing spin. We don't pander because is serves no purpose, we believe conservatism is inherently right. You can look to many black conservatives if you want, the great Thomas Sowell, Armstrong Williams, larry elder etc. But I particularly reccomend Thomas Sowell, he is a genius for our time.
http://www.tsowell.com/

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

this is why he does so well at town hall meetings. Obama does well reading a script written by a campaign aid. The ting you will find with conservatism is we believe our issues are best for everyone. We are not tryig to hurt the poor, the uneducated, or the minorites, that is left wing spin. We don't pander because is serves no purpose, we believe conservatism is inherently right. You can look to many black conservatives if you want, the great Thomas Sowell, Armstrong Williams, larry elder etc. But I particularly reccomend Thomas Sowell, he is a genius for our time.
http://www.tsowell.com/

___________________________________________________________

Molon Labe!

It will hopefully prevent you from making silly statements like "Bush really hasn't shown to much concern for anyone but himself."

This is a hint from a site moderator.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

one of my favorite people in the world!

MelZ

Education is very important. We just pulled out our kids from public schools due to the material they want to teach and the inability to keep control of thier class so other can learn. McCain says he is for school choice. I agree with him on that. in our school district 6,000 dollars a semester is spent on kids. In washington 14,000 is spent. However a private school here only charges 5,000 a year and scores 25 % better than public on all scores. All that extra money saved could go to help pay for college, and to build more universities to bring down the class sizes. Putting extra money into a broken system like Obama wants is useless.
McCain speaks for all americans regardless of color. The republican party has down more for change in america and is the party of Lincoln. he wants to be able to give you the tools to succeed on your own instead of the government intruding in your life to do it for you.

Obama can 'talk' and 'vow' all he wants. In fact he does alot of that. For example, he 'talks' about healing racial divides, while consorting with the worst kinds of race-hustling crooks and liars. He 'vows' to nominate judges like Rith Ginsburg, to surrender a war that we are winning to the terrorists, and to raise taxes.

Clinton was a strong advocate for the black community in what way? Raising absolute morons to cabinet positions that they were not qualified for, making a mockery of blacks everywhere? He was big on promise, small on production.

Bush on the other hand has had very smart, qualified blacks in his inner circle, and other than that I don't know what you want, unless it is special treatment because of your race.

Conservatism teaches a color-blind society where hard work, not racial identity, is what matters.

And what you said about Bush showing no concern for anybody but himself,

THAT IS A DAMNED LIE

.

You lie when you say that. You consider the possibility of voting for the most arrogantsmug, and unqualified man we've seen in years, and you call Bush a self-involved man.

Dude, go vote for anybody you want. We're lobbying for votes of thinking Americans. You don't qualify.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

1. We're trying to be nicer to new visitors here.

2. Please remember to close tags on type like that.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I'm working on #1. Historically I've been very nice to the newbies whose intentions are possibly unclear, but not so nice to pudding-brains suffering from BDS.

But I punched a hippie here at the office and I feel better.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

How long to wash the stink off your hand?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

It took a fairly industrial-grade degreaser to take care of that.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

You have to look past what a politician says to what his programs would do.

Education is one. Obama has talked about helping college students with the cost. I haven't heard to much of that from McCain.

Obama calls for 'free' education, by taxing everyone to pay for college. While this sounds great for the college student, once they are no longer a college student, they are the ones paying incredibly high taxes, for the rest of your life, for others.

Find a college you can afford, or take out student loans, and pay for the that way. You'll pay less and for fewer years.

Obama came to my school (east carolina) and addressed the racism issues that we experience. He also vowed to help not just our school/community but other schools who have to go through that. Even the white students who have to deal with racism at schools that are mainly black.

Obama has often suggested that he is 'above racism' . . . but he and his campaign regularly engage in such racist attacks as race baiting ("Those who are voting for Hillary are just racist and wouldn't support a black president!") and his personal support group is filled with racists and anti-american bigots.

I trust Obama on racism as much as I trust Ted Kennedy on driving.

Clinton was a strong advocate for the black community. Being the minority, when he was in office, every race had a voice.

That hasn't gone away. Despite the hype and negative press, we haven't 'lost' any ability to speak out, no matter our race. You have been told that only the Democrats support you and that those republicans can't be trusted.... but this is the same Democrat Party that holds Robert Byrd dear, and he is a KKK member. At least the Republican party tossed David Duke out when his racist views came to light.

What I have heard from the Obama camp is that McCain doesn't care to much for the black/latino vote. I don't want to base my decision on that. So I just wonder if McCain does value the minority's vote at all.

That is the race baiting that Obama's camp has come to own. It is designed to make minorities view McCain as an evil white guy, unlike the divine Obama. It is nothing more than anti-white racism coming from Obama's camp and ignores reality.

There is no reason why a minority shouldn't be a Conservative. We treat all people alike: As human.

It is he left that wants to discriminate based on race (and whether it lifts up or holds down a race, to discriminate based on race is racist.) and in so doing ought to earn the wrath of all non-racist people.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

First, on education, the GOP's main focus is on elementary and secondary education, where kids are currently denied choices and Obama stands for more money for the status quo. I can't speak offhand to McCain's policies on college tuition. But remember, every dollar given to college students by the federal government has to be taken out of someone's hide in taxes.

Does McCain value minority voters? Well, certainly he has taken extraordinary political risks to court Latino voters. As a matter of political reality, McCain's not going to spend a lot of time chasing African-American votes he has no chance to win. But the presidency is not, in the main, about making symbolic gestures on race. And if you look up and down the agenda above, you'll see a lot of areas where the GOP policies would benefit African-Americans.

PS - You appear to be new here. When responding to someone else's comment, use "Reply to This".

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

met a lot of good people white and black and brown. One thing I've NEVER seen a lot of is racism. Where is it? I'm sick and tired of people thinking this country is full of racist hicks. I'm a hick, but I'm not a racist, and neither are any of the folks I know. This boogyman is getting very, very weak. I don't see you as an African American or myself as a German American. I consider us both Americans. I hope this neurosis of discrimination ends someday soon. It's holding a lot of good people back from realizing their God given potential. Don't go through life angry, you will be the one you hurt the most.
Tim Schieferecke

I've worked in parts of minneapolis MN where racism is VERY strong.

I was regularly looked at with sneers and treated very poorly by people coming into the store I worked and buying things.

I was often told that I was racist because I wouldn't violate company policy to give people free stuff.

I regularly had people tell me that because of the color of my skin, I wasn't allowed to have an opinion on something.

my problem? My horrible condition? I was a white guy working on Nicollet Avenue in a rough part of Minneapolis.

But, you are correct. Since I've moved to Oklahoma (closer to the south than MN is) I haven't seen this racism. I've seen resistance to thugs and gangs, but nothing based on race, just attitude and action.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

The only thing I see from you list is what you think is good about Obama and Clinton, and what you think is bad about Bush and McCain...

Haven't you already decided to vote for Obama?

Did Obama also say he would give you $20 for gas? Just asking, because you seem to trust him unquestionably. The nature of politics is such that one must build a reputation and record to earn your trust as a voter. Unfortunately, that is why Obama is so popular on the college circuit. There is very little deep questioning, vetting of his record, exploration of policies or examination of his actual cababilities.

Now on the facts you will find that under President Bush;
- Annual U.S. Department of Education spending on elementary and secondary education has increased from $27.3 billion in 2001 to $38 billion in 2006, up by nearly 40 percent
- Spending on the Title I program to assist disadvantaged children grew by 45 percent between 2001 and 2006
- In 2007, the department will spend 59 percent more on special education programs than it did in 2001
- Department of Education spending on federal Pell Grants grew from $8.7 billion in 2001 to $13 billion in 2006, nearly 50 percent growth
- Federal funding for higher education in 2004-2005 totaled $90 billion, a real increase of 103 percent over ten years
- An increasing number of students receive federal subsidies for higher education. For example, 5.3 million students received federal Pell Grants in 2005, an increase of 44 percent over ten years. In all, in 2006 more than 10 million Americans will receive various federal subsidies for higher education

(Thanks to Dan Lip and Heritage for putting this all in one place)

Now as a conservative, I would debate the merits of increased spending vs. rewards or more importantly the governments role in education. Nonetheless, these are facts you should be aquainted with when considering liberal politicians promises.

"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report

Or paper, or whatever-it-was. Next time, email us privately; we're always more than happy to put on a good show.

Ciao.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Where was he when Katrina victims needed help? Somewhere saying "Your doing a heck of a job"...

The Democrat City and State failed them, and you point fingers at President Bush?

They were warned DAYS in advance that the hurricane was heading their way and asked to leave. Then told to leave.

They didn't leave. Why? Because they were waiting for busses that didn't come. (First, that they refused to leave until the government transported them showed their RADICALLY advanced dependence upon the government which, as my tag states, is slavery) The Mayor, Ray Nagin (who in his racism-free view wanted New Orleans to be a "Chocolate City"), left the fleets of busses alone.

He dropped the ball, and the governor dropped the ball. They both, QUICKLY, turned and blamed the President. They were only 'Katrina Victims' because they chose to stay after they were told to leave.

Katrina hit MUCH more than New Orleans, and yet NO is all we hear about. The rest of the people in the REGION just picked up the pieces and rebuilt.

Where is he now that Iowa is under water? I think McCain and Obama have addressed it more than he has.

McCain and Obama have talked about Iowa. President Bush has been sending aid there. Which helps the people more? I would suggest: aid.

Where has he been with all the killing and rape of woman and childern in Africa? Oh we dont hear about that because other countries besides the one we are fighting in aren't important.

We don't have any control over Africa. Your best bet is to petition the UN. Of course, the UN has been involved for decades trying to clean up Africa. Perhaps we should get rid of the UN?

When our soldiers can get the equipment they need or atleast not have to fear that they may be electrocuted in the shower. Then you can say he is doing something useful.

you know what would go a long way to helping equip our soldiers? The Democrat Congress putting up a funding bill so that the president can sign it.

Time and time again, it is liberal organizations (New orleans government, UN, Democrat congress) that fail to do what you need. Stop blaming President Bush and start blaming those who really HAVE failed you.

This will hopefully prevent you from making silly comments; go to google and type in The Worst President!

You're a college student, so I HOPE you know, but I'll tell you just in case..... Just because it is on the internet, it doesn't make it true.

Anyway, I was asking why McCain was better than Obama, so can someone please give me advice on who is the best choice for the white house

The best choice? Duncan Hunter. Of those running now? Between Obama and McCain? McCain.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Hunts dinos and caddy awesome

Duncan Hunter was my first pick.

Fred Thompson was my second.

Then Mitt Romney, then Huckabee, then McCain, then Rudy.

Then a goat.

Then Ron Paul.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

McCain is the better President because
a) He won't jack up the capital gains tax, which has failed our economy EVERY SINGLE time it has been done.
b) He won't jack up the FICA tax on most Americans
c) He won't jack up the income tax...forcing working Americans to let go of almost FIFTY did you hear that FIFTY percent of their incomes. Did you hear that? Do you think that's fair? If you work and make what Obama has deemed "too much" then you only get half, that way not only those who legitimately cannot work, but those who just don't feel like it can get housing, health care and meals.
c) McCain has a plan for the war on terror, Obama's "plan" is to maybe pull out the troops and then maybe just take advice from people on the ground (WHAT?)
d) McCain has a plan for energy....it is lacking but it is a plan all the same. Obama's "plan" is "You cannot drill your way out of this mess" and "I only wish the increase in price had happened at a slower rate"...what? That is not a plan you say, oh yeah exactly-that's what I am saying.

You don't like Bush-good for you. Get over it and don't use Bush to validate your unfounded support for Obama.
MelZ

and frankly, part of the idea here is to be provocative - they call themselves pro-choice, but how many choices do they really support?

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

We can take 'freedom of choice', and 'choice' and use them for our own terms. We owe the left no deference to their misleading terms.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

I think it is a grand term for what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. As in....

We took affirmative action against Al Queda and global terrorism by going in there and whupping their butts, and replacing totalitarian dictatorships with functioning democracies.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

See the old saying about arguing with someone who buys barrel by the ink. Those terms are ingrained into society, and even if we had the help of the media (which we don't and won't, ever), it'd still take a decade or more.

But by all means, let me know how your windmill-tilting is going.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

The war is engaged with the first shot. NOTHING changes if we just hang around here and grab our ankles for the Treason Media.

They have ink by the barrel. We have concealed carry. In the long run I like our chances.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

baby. Heck, Obama is even for the choice not to render care to a baby who survives a botched abortion. That's about the only choice I can think of that they stand for other than gay marriage and the choice to destroy your own God given potential.
Tim Schieferecke

My favorite pro-abortion rally moment was Whoopie Goldberg at a pro-abortion rally, on a rant about people wanting to make abortion illegal.

She quoted the Bible.

"What God has made, let no man tear asunder!"

At a pro-abortion rally.

Justifying tearing a baby into pieces in the womb and sucking them out.

What Good has made, let no man tear asunder.

The irony was apparently lost on her.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Taken to the logical conclusion, freedom of choice would imply gay marriage choices, the right to die, end of the drug war, and abortion rights.

All things that I do support because I really do believe in our right to free choice.

But to my knowledge the entire post was taken back in the comments.

It seems hard to champion liberty while saying the government has rights to tell people what substances they can injest, what they can do with their body, whom they can marry, and when they can die.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.

lawyers that usurp the right of the people to govern themselves, ie big "L" LIBERTY.

The reason for the federal structure was to maximize happiness pursuits by letting the like-minded govern themselves in their communities according to their values. If you didn't share the same, you could move to another community.

A big fed govt is not much better than 5 lawyers.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I like the tag line "Freedom of Choice," and I certainly like the principles outlined here. My personal opinion is that the best and most accurate way of framing the entire agenda is around "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." You make reference to those first principles, but I am suggesting that everything be framed around those; make those the top of the pyramid so to speak.

Life covers national security and the pro-life stance. As an aside, I have always thought that if we could cage the pro-life argument as pushing to give the unborn *more* rights and protection than they get now (which is to say almost none). Who would disagree with that?

Liberty covers Choice, most of what this post covers.

Pursuit of Happiness, to me, has the most relevance to property rights and low taxes. Another aside, I hate the phrases tax-break and tax-cut... They seem to imply to me that taxes are "normal." I don't know how to frame that topic but the conservative point should be that government does not have a divine right to your money.

Booo....

Cindy McCain had a drug problem and is clean now. You're hitting below the belt.

Conversation with you is over. You do not wish it, you just want to recycle anti-McCain and anti-Bush rhetoric.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

You are pretty new here, and I don't think the Hinz Rule is officially canonized, but here it is:

"Don't feed the trolls."

In practice, it means when clowns like this one show up and pretend to seek honest discourse but in fact are just leaking with BDS, with eco-terrorist, Marxist, or effete Hollywood elitism - we just quit talking to them ("feeding" them).

So you got the idea down already. But now you can just short-hand it by declaring "Hinz Rule".

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Heh. I didn't know it had a name.

Good deal.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I already doubt your sincerity and your goal in posting here, especially since you do not interact, just throw up more anti-bush and anti-mccain talking points, then backtrack when called on them.

Based on your inability to hit the Reply To This link and your regular and rampant typos and grammar errors, I am tempted to doubt that you are an english/communications student as well.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I only interact with intelligent comments, mostly all I see is stupid slams and other similar remarks.

I am pro - McCain but I am sick of Bush as is about 70%+ of the rest of the country.

Typo's don't reflect grammar just your ability to type correctly.

I do not believe my comment was a response of yours, I think they deleted a comment from that ZA person....

Either that or I clicked "Reply To This" on the wrong post.

I'm not sure which, but I did not intend that for you. I apologize for any problems it caused.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

all the content from a troll named Za08 was deleted in-place, so several points of today's thread look odd. Such as absentee's Reply To This thing just below here.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

I had a really good long post about political choices that got cut out.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Tim Schieferecke

like maybe in the Constitution:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Prevention is much more important.

But I also think we shouldn't have to have prescriptions to buy most medications.

That would create more competition in the market because consumers could see the prices on the drugstore shelves.

Why are we protecting idiots from themselves with prescriptions? If someone who doesn't need it decides they want Lipitor without a prescription, let him buy it.

I do think some drugs like morpheine would have to remain as prescriptions. But if it isn't addictive or mind altering, why do we need to have a prescription? The Dr. should just be able to hand the patient written instructions about the medication they need (including brand and generic names) as well as dosages.

people to practice law from reading law as in the old days rather than having the oligarchical license system monopolies.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

The 'big pool' is all of the insurance company's customers, not just how many people work for you specifically.

Get a license to sell/provide health insurance and create a health insurance company that specializes in charging low prices for small business owners.

Remember that when I pay X out of my paycheck for health insurance, I don't see Y that my employer pays.

That is a bit of why it seems more expensive for the individual... they don't have an employer paying half (or more)

One can also, if an individual, tailor the insurance to what they need. I see health insurance plans for as little as 50 to 60 bucks a month. They don't cover much... mostly just for emergencies, or just for general routine healthcare like yearly checkups....

But if you are a healthy person with no medical problems, why should you be paying a couple hundred bucks a month to cover illnesses that you won't get?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

For a small business owner (or an individual) in Michigan, BCBS will charge you over $6000/yr for coverage. It is at least $12,000/yr for a family. And in Michigan, BCBS has an agreement with the state that they will insure any applicant. Other insurance companies could refuse to insure you as an individual or small business owner.

I have found some discounts through trade and professional organizations who use their memberships as a pool. But it is still expensive and just allowing out of state insurance companies in will not help. It is the pool that matters.

And insurance companies don't sell you insurance based on their "pool" of customers. They sell it to you based on the pool you are in -- if it is just an individual or just a family or just a small business -- then it is a shallow pool and you will pay an inordinate amount.

Oh, I know how they sell insurance. My point about the pool was more to make clear their dishonesty in charging you more for your small business.

However, the option is still open and clear:

Make your own insurance company that focuses on small businesses.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I'm going to look into it.

It is the same advice I gave a former coworker who felt that the government ought to force insurance companies to cover same sex couples the same as married folks, by law.

She wanted to be a professional protester. Yup, she wanted to get paid to rail against what she called 'social injustices'

Unfortunately, on the left such people exist.

One day I shut her up on one of her "Gay people are discriminated against by insurance companies and I demand the government force them to do things my way" rants by telling her that we lived in a free country and, rather than waste money whining, she ought to make her own insurance company that specifically catered to homosexual couples.

I believe she didn't do that. Too tempting to just whine and seethe (Hey, something else the left has in common with Islamic terror: Whine and Seethe when they don't get their way, just like a 4 year old)

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I don't know... I kind of like it.

It kind of 'sticks it in the eye' of the liberals who talk about how THEY are a party of choice because they support killing unborn babies.

In truth, Freedom is only granted by Conservativism.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Unfortunately, if the Democrats have their way, that's exactly what it'll keep meaning. I'm prepared to fight for the word.

At the basest level, choice sells better than freedom.

Fight On!

Why cripple an otherwise powerful argument by getting hung up on terminology?

To me, freedom and liberty are more attractive than 'choice', anyways. If you're free, you're free; but you can have a choice without having a good choice available.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Election year. Candidates handing out 'free' money to get votes.

Both Sides of the Aisle.

Disgusting.

Who are the 9 that voted against it? They ought to be applauded.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

not sure what the bill is about?

While I can appreciate the views of you, Kyle, Bird....and others, can we agree that there are FAR more important issues that we should be trying to tackle...?

" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised

Yes, like giving me free money to pay for my college loans and to finish college!

Wait... crap, I'm a Conservative.... I'll have to WORK for a living...

*sighs and kicks a rock*

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

But I am not one to discourage debate...and I thought this was a good debate and if people would frame it correctly and limit what they are actually asking for we could make some real progress on this issue which would give reason to more libertarians to come back home to the GOP.

Here is what I think should be done.

1. A realistic review of our current drug classifications

2. A medical review of Marijuana for medical and personal use

3. Limiting the DEA to issues that involve interstate/international drug trafficking

4. Legalize, Regulate, and Tax the products deemed "safe" by the drug classifications and medical reviews.

5. Use the revenue gained from the federal and state sales taxes to fund state education programs and rehabilitation programs for the drugs deemed not safe for personal or medical use.

Now I don't know for sure if these goals can be achieved because the poster boys for this movement always seem to be potheads. The same would be true if alcohol was still prohibited and only the drunks were making the argument to end prohibition.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

I, frankly, agree with you.

I have no problem with drugs being illegal.... As I said somewhere upthread... I'd vote against making pot legal, but if it became legal I wouldn't be destroyed by it.

While I believe the government has the ability to make such drugs illegal, they also have the ability to remove those restrictions.

As for the taxation for funding to rehab programs.... eh, I don't know. I prefer such things to be in the realm of the private sector. Look how effectively the government has cut down on teen pregnacies by taking over Sex Ed.

If the argument is that making it legal will cut into the cartel's pockets, adding taxes only gives incentive for the cartels to continue black market shipments.

Of course, I'm also against the alcohol and cig taxes.

If a behavior is dangerous and harmful. . .. taxing it is morally bankrupt. Either keep it legal or make it illegal.

Profiting from harmful behavior is just not a wise habit to develop.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

First I think you need to get over the taxation issues...

1. This is a consumption tax and not a production tax so it fits the mold of conservative taxation.

2. The tax would go to the state and the state could then put the money into private sector hands or gov't hands depending on what that state decides...this fits the mold of states rights.

But that really isn't the main part of my argument. The Gov't either needs to review it's scientific findings and medical uses for all drugs or it needs to step out of the business of declaring drugs harmful.

As many have noted up thread the harmfulness of Marijuana does not fit with it's current classification as a Class I drug. There is no evidence of physical addiction and in fact there is evidence that shows it can help some people medically.

My father suffers from PTSD and unfortunately he has to take some drugs for it. The drugs that he is taking are more harmful than marijuana and less effective for treating his PTSD but since the gov't has deemed marijuana as a Class I the same as heroin and cocaine there can be no santioned medical testing on any broad scale.

This is a serious issue for people with chronic back pack, muscle and joint stiffness and many other ailments. Even Rush Limbaugh could have avoided all together his drug addiction to oxycontin if instead non-addictive natural drugs like Marijuana were prescribed or available like Advil.

I understand the traps and pitfalls that come along with both the prohibition and legalization of drugs, but those should not stop us from making the effort to craft a policy that is balanced in rational/moral terms.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

1. This is a consumption tax and not a production tax so it fits the mold of conservative taxation.

If you're talking about the same sales tax that otherwise applies, then yes, we're fine.

If you're talking about an additional tax because it is a now-legal drug... then we're just talking about Sin Tax.

2. The tax would go to the state and the state could then put the money into private sector hands or gov't hands depending on what that state decides...this fits the mold of states rights.

Eh, I'm not wholly sold on it... when it comes to charity, I prefer to leave the government out of it. They tend to have alot of restrictions that comes with their money, and those restrictions tend to gum everything up.

I'm not OPPOSED to it, just not wholly sold on it.

As for the rest, as I've said a few times... legalized pot doesn't bother me. I wouldn't vote to make it legal, but I wouldn't be burdened if it were made legal.

I do agree though, the FDA needs a Major overhaul, and the Pharmacy Companies and the AMA need to be kept FAR away from such an overhaul.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

but what we do not see on this subject is much rational debate.

The tone is always dismissive or accusatory right from the word go.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

but wholly agree here.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

was there actually a part if this treatise that you disagreed with? Or are you just stating something to the effect of:

Good start - now don't go so far as to introduce the concepts of morality or universal truths or right-and-wrong.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

No, I thought the treasise was quite nice.

My problem remains with the introduction of morality and universal truths and right-and-wrong. It's not that I disagree that any of these exist... It's that I disagree with setting up a framework to enforce the fringy, fuzzy parts on the edges (e.g. The War On Drugs, e.g. CFLs, e.g. Global Warming, e.g. Intelligent Design, e.g. Single Payer Health Care For The Children, and I could e.g. all day).

I have heard teaching Intelligent Design compared to "child abuse". I have heard denial of Global Warming compared to denial of the Holocaust. I'm sure all of us have stories about how disagreement is interpreted by some of the wackier, more authoritarian Progressive types as reason to be outraged. Outraged! SPUTTER!!!

I'm not hot about the idea of institutionalizing enforcement of the fringy, fuzzy parts on the edges of morality and universal truths and right-and-wrong.

I suspect and fear that you all will find out why in the coming years and coming administrations.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

and absolutely none of that would be a problem for sane people to have to deal with if the government didn't have so much power to begin with.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

because your tone had a very "yeah but..." aspect to it, even though I didn't find anything, per se, that you disagreed with.

And yes I've heard you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on (ad finitum) about your objection to anything that has the remotest fume of a universal truth to it.

So that's why I asked.

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Was it where I said "yeah but?"

"your objection to anything that has the remotest fume of a universal truth to it."

I believe in a great many universal truths.

My problem is not with the laws enforcing the universal truths.

It's when they enforce matters of taste (or matters of morality that are fuzzy/fringy... See, for example, the 18th Amendment.)

I warn you, again, watch how much power you give the government to enforce Universal Truths.

You might be amazed at what's a Universal Truth when you wake up tomorrow.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Conservatives don't base rights on gender or race....we espouse equality not mandated equality..slight difference.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

That's the big problem. Some believe that we ought to be a 'big tent' party, and they'll kick anyone out who says otherwise.

Others think that being Republican is more important than being Conservative, and have no problem moving the party to the left just so long as the R's win.

In both cases, it is often the Conservative that is left in the dust, ignored except to be told when and how to vote.

And, too often, we function as lapdogs and do so.... believing that 'next time' it'll be different.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Some say we need to have good candidates run. The problem is the "new republican party"( so to say ) is made of younger voters who have been educated with a watered down version about government and politics. Everything is taught in the middle. We need to educated the younger kids in school and college the true fundamentals of our political party so that way they will vote for the best candidate, who coincidentally will not be afraid to run

Look, all of your arguments are old and stale to those who have debated this before and have looked into the subject in depth.

As are yours.

Now that we have that over with, let's move on.

Your statement that bringing up the innocent victims of the war on drugs is the same as a slam on the police is simply emotionalism and not worthy of the debate at all.

It is perfectly valid to bring it up because such victims do exist, and in fact they are not rare.

No, anti-police sentiment is not valid. Do innocents sometimes die? Yes. Is it horrible? Yes. Is is just cause to make drugs legal? No. No more than saying that the deaths of innocents in war is just cause to not fight in war.

But I am not going to spar with you anymore, you are too emotional and too convinced of both he absolute and moral rightness of your position when you in fact, have no rational reason to be so.

Please show me where I discussed morality in regards to illegal drugs? For someone who doesn't know me, sure you think you know alot about me.

Or, is this an attempt to protray yourself as a 'winner' . . .

You have provided no valid reason as to why drugs should be legal, but instead have just constantly told me how ignorant I am because if I were just 'more read' I would agree with you.

That's not an argument.

I will simply leave you with this, If you ever decide to really look into it here is a bibliography of good, well researched books. Not all of them come to the same conclusions but they can at least make you think, and understand the various arguments involved.

And, of that list, which ones suggest that your line of thinking is wrong and that mine is right? I ask because, of course, you wouldn't give a list of 'well researched' books that only discuss your point of view.... not if you were trying to show how you've looked at both sides.

Frankly, I distrust those who want legalized drugs. My experience with such people has been that they have all done drugs and their motives for wanting legal drugs is based on a selfish desire to do pot without getting caught.

I'd ask if you've ever done drugs that are illegal, but I'd have no way of verifying your answer.

Until your side distances itself from the potheads and stops defending the legalization of coke and heroin, you're going to have little compromise from me.

I've known too many people who turned to drugs and had their lives go down the craper. I've known too many who ended up ODing on whatever crap they were given once they were high.

No, Pot doesn't kill. But I've seen people on pot do some very stupid things they wouldn't do straight. Those stupid things DO kill.

You talk about the innocents killed accidently by police?

Yes, I am emotional about illegal drugs. No, I have never tried any illegal drugs. Due to the death and destruction they cause, I can't support their legalization.

You want to make pot something that can be only granted by prescription? Ok. At least be willing to prosecute those who get their pot and sell it on the street.

You want pot to be sold open to any who want it (with out without heavy taxes) on the open market? Where do you draw the line? What keeps the other drugs illegal once Pot is legal? Why do you get to draw that line wherever you draw it?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I have tried illegal drugs Lance and I even said so on my Secret Security Clearance Questionnaire. My point in saying this is that not every person who has or would like to smoke Marijuana is a pothead, just like not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. In fact alcohol and marijuana are probably the best drugs to compare considering that one of the main ingredients in beer is Hops which is in the same family as Marijuana. From what I have been told (I haven't looked it up myself yet)the only difference between Hops and Marijuana is the THC. Hops are artificially blended with other grains and then processed in order to give and equatable high to the user. Only problem is in the fermentation process you end up with many more side effect then the all natural Marijuana would give you in the first place. So what should we do re-institute prohibition cause is alcohol is legal whose to say everything won't be...o use your own argument against you.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

Just because I admitted to smoking pot in days past does not give anyone the right to characterize me as the RedState resident pothead....;^)

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

I am done with trying to reason with Lance on this. He admits that his arguments are all about emotion. I never understood this way of thinking. You want less drug use and less destruction of life so you continue to support a policy which has been an utter and abysmal failure for over fifty years, and call for more of the same! It boggles the mind.

It is also, as I have noted, the one issue in which conservative people argue like liberals. They will not read any of the research as is evident by their sophomoric and extremist rants, but feel that they are absolutely correct with no real basis for that feeling.

To them, if you honestly believe that the best way to save lives is some form of decriminalization then you are not just wrong, it is a moral failure on your part. That is a very liberal style of thinking.

I have seen it over and over again.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

He admits that his arguments are all about emotion.

I said no such thing. I did say I get emotion about this, but at no time did I say that my 'arguments are all about emotion'.

Any more lies to toss this way?

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

So what should we do re-institute prohibition cause is alcohol is legal whose to say everything won't be...o use your own argument against you.

Yeah, see... using alcohol and pot as an argument for why crack and heroin should be legal.... just doesn't fly with me.

Your plan to reexamine the drug listings is fine with me, as it implies that many of these illegal drugs will remain so.

However, there is no way that I will ever, under any condition, support the legalization of drugs like cocaine or heroin.

This is based on my own research, my own experiences and discussions with current and former drug-users.

Sorry. It is how it is.

If a drug has helpful purposes, I have no problem with refining the helpful aspects and giving such a thing to patients on a regulated bases (as is done with morphine, etc)

But just open up crack to the general public?

Nope.

Kyle8 and Finrod can make fun of me all they want, I don't care. I do no see any cause or justification to allow people to just go down to Walgreens and get themselves some good crack, or pick up some heroin while at the grocery store to get some milk and bread.

The government (State and Federal, between the two) DOES have the right to regulate SOME things. As there is no specific Constitutional Right to a crack rock, apart from whatever case can be made by the "Any rights not specifically listed" clause, I see no problem with the government regulating it or deeming it illegal.

Now, if one doesn't like that, they are perfectly free to introduce legislation to try and legalize such drugs. They will find no supprot from me to legalize LSD or Meth or Cocaine.

The best I can muster up is not caring if Pot becomes legal, with a hard (and I mean HARD) line drawn so as to not become another case of incrimentalism.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

I know crack and heroin are over the line and I have never tried to say otherwise...but mushrooms marijuana peyote these things are all questionable as to their various potentials for addiction and harm that wouold enfringe on someone elses rights. So that is the purpose of the reclassification and medical review. Anyone advocating for the blanket legalization of all drugs is being just as silly as someone arguing for the continuation of a flawed if not failed policy..i.e. the war on drugs.

And it is how it is only as long as we don't change it.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

So I assume you are OK with the regulation of trans-fat in cities such as New York? That you would not have a problem with a nationwide ban? According to you, we have no constitutional right to these tasty, yet unhealthy fats, so it's perfectly alright to make them illegal. It just doesn't make sense how someone could take a stance against the regulation of something much more dangerous than marijuana, then state they believe marijuana should remain illegal.

And I don't think the individuals arguing with you are condoning legalizing hard drugs like heroin. I think they are simply stating that there are a lot of drugs out there that aren't dangerous, yet still illegal. That it's time we sat down and really thought out why these drugs are illegal, and whether they really would cause any harm to the public.

As for my opinion on the matter. I don't smoke pot. I did some in college but never really saw the supposed attraction to it (beer was my vice). Nonetheless, I never saw pot destroy the community, destroy lives, or somehow lead to the moral corruption of society. I saw a lot of violence and destruction with people abusing alcohol, but never marijuana. To be honest, it came across as a drug people used to relax.

So I'd be for the legalization of it. Our doctors are already pumping us full of drugs. Just tell your internist you've been deadling with some stress. He'll throw you on some anti-anxiety drugs faster than you can finish the sentence.

On top of it, it's a new industry. It creates companies, jobs, and money. It kills the street selling and leads to less drug dealers and less problems that come with drug dealers. Our jails shrink, court dockets lighten, and police officers can focus more on serious crimes in the community. Our government spends less money while bringing in more revenue through taxes. It seems like a win-win to me (and I'm not some hippy-pothead either!).

So I assume you are OK with the regulation of trans-fat in cities such as New York? That you would not have a problem with a nationwide ban? According to you, we have no constitutional right to these tasty, yet unhealthy fats, so it's perfectly alright to make them illegal.

Yes... that's right.... there's no difference between fatty foods and heroin....

*rolls eyes*

It just doesn't make sense how someone could take a stance against the regulation of something much more dangerous than marijuana, then state they believe marijuana should remain illegal.

I had some hope for something new. But no... still talking about pot. And, apparently, only pot.

And I don't think the individuals arguing with you are condoning legalizing hard drugs like heroin. I think they are simply stating that there are a lot of drugs out there that aren't dangerous, yet still illegal. That it's time we sat down and really thought out why these drugs are illegal, and whether they really would cause any harm to the public.

Uh, yeah.... their argument is that we need to legalized drugs to cut out the cartels. If you only legalize ONE drug (pot) that does nothing to the cartels. This means that either their argument is a sham and they're just tired of getting busted when they buy pot, or they're talking about legalizing all illegal drugs.

They are only TALKING about pot. But that is because it is hard to suggest that heroin is safer than booze.

As for my opinion on the matter. I don't smoke pot. I did some in college but never really saw the supposed attraction to it (beer was my vice). Nonetheless, I never saw pot destroy the community, destroy lives, or somehow lead to the moral corruption of society.

Oh well, if YOU didn't see it happen, it must not have.

I'm done with this discussion and this thread.

----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

I
hate
skinny
threads!

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

them to see Rhode Island Red or the cheap buffalo wing factory.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

And now we have a problem with it.

This is why reliance upon common-sense social conventions and turning them into laws will not work in the long run.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

bird realizes that the gamecock rule is another word for common courtesy, that there should be exceptions to the reply to this rule so long as one directs people to the new location, and makes good case for letting the punishment for violation of social convention be that one is ignored rather than receive peckings!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice

A negative right is the right to be left alone despite doing X. So, for example, if you have the right to criticize a government without the government showing up at your house and beating you up, you have free speech.

If you have the right to hand out pamphlets explaining how the Rothchilds run everything without the government coming and beating you up, you have freedom of the press.

If you have the right to live in a house with a roommate without the government coming to your house and beating you up, you have freedom of assembly. And so on.

Positive Rights, however, are rights *TO* something that someone else ostenably owns. Like, say, a right to food. Hey, I grew this wheat. What gives you the right to it? I got this degree in medicine, what gives you the right to an hour of my time for free? I spent 200 million dollars developing this pill to allow increased bloodflow... what gives you the right to a free bottle?

So on and so forth.

Hammer out exactly what you mean by "gay rights" and see if the whole "negative rights" vs. "positive rights" issue answers it. (Libertarianish and Conservativish folk tend to view so-called "Positive Rights" not as "Rights" but as "Privilege Extended")

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

I've not heard it put quite like that, positive and negative rights. You know I plan to steal that concept and shamelessly market it as my own, don't you?

Impeach the 5 usurpers

Just watch out.

It may lead to the question "what gives me the right to prevent you from doing X?" at some point.

After that, you may look at a lot of stuff in a new light.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire