Libertarian
New member
To paraphrase the words of another on your side of the argument: Provide some hard evidence that that will be the outcome. I've cited the repeal of prohibiton as ample evidence supporting my contentions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
War on Drugs
- Thread starter George Hill
- Start date
I am most disturbed by the bland acceptance of government "education" as a solution which I have seen in this thread. How this can be an improvement in personal liberty over a criminal justice system is beyond me. Where is the protection of due process? What is the point of freedom of action when you have been taught to believe what you believe (the motivation for your actions) by the government?
If lawlessness with government control of education and society's concepts of what is "acceptable" behavior is your idea of freedom then you can count me out.
By the way, I think this is one of the few weaknesses in the armor of the protections of the Constitution. The Framers foresaw an impressive number of methods by which the government might be tempted to abuse the people, but I think that the Theraputic Government which we see emerging today was beyond their conception.
If lawlessness with government control of education and society's concepts of what is "acceptable" behavior is your idea of freedom then you can count me out.
By the way, I think this is one of the few weaknesses in the armor of the protections of the Constitution. The Framers foresaw an impressive number of methods by which the government might be tempted to abuse the people, but I think that the Theraputic Government which we see emerging today was beyond their conception.
Munro Williams
New member
Libertarian,
Arguments comparing the decriminalization of psychdelics and the repeal of prohibition are specious due to the fundamental differences between the molecules involved. Comparing nicotine and alcohol with THC and LSD is absurd. If you don't believe it, I suggest that you compare the effects of one beer and one cigarette with the effects of one joint and one hit of acid.
I know of a person who would smoke a pack and a half of cigarettes while he took eight hour long engineering exams, and pass them with flying colors. The dopers in his class had long since been weeded out due their soft-headedness and basic inability to exist without being stoned.
More importantly, compare the civilizations which are indifferent to psychedelics, like contemporary Nepal or pre-Hispanic Mexico, with other civilizations which do not value self-induced psychosis. Where would you rather live?
From all reports, contemporary Cambodia is a libertarian heaven: you can do anything you want as long as you make no moral judgments.
But all this is by the by, and irrelevant to potheads, acid heads, and other social flotsam and jetsam. The only thing they want is an inexpensive and plentiful supply of dope. All decriminalization will do is further enable their adolescent idiocy, and yet another counterfeit right will further devalue real rights, but this one will reduce an entire generation to the mental level of a pack of glassy eyed fourteen year olds who are good for nothing but sitting around stoned in shopping malls, wearing advertisements for heavy metal bands, waiting to score a bag, regarding any adult exhortations to mature behavior as oppression: Fuhrer Fodder, in other words. Hell's bells, Marilyn Manson's done figured it out. Check out a video of "Anti-Christ Superstar" and tell me me if we're not in Weimar Germany, waitin' for the Fuhrer.
These dopers who blithely go on about the Bill of Rights haven't a clue, and are willing to sell their souls for a bowl of magic mushroom soup.
Arguments comparing the decriminalization of psychdelics and the repeal of prohibition are specious due to the fundamental differences between the molecules involved. Comparing nicotine and alcohol with THC and LSD is absurd. If you don't believe it, I suggest that you compare the effects of one beer and one cigarette with the effects of one joint and one hit of acid.
I know of a person who would smoke a pack and a half of cigarettes while he took eight hour long engineering exams, and pass them with flying colors. The dopers in his class had long since been weeded out due their soft-headedness and basic inability to exist without being stoned.
More importantly, compare the civilizations which are indifferent to psychedelics, like contemporary Nepal or pre-Hispanic Mexico, with other civilizations which do not value self-induced psychosis. Where would you rather live?
From all reports, contemporary Cambodia is a libertarian heaven: you can do anything you want as long as you make no moral judgments.
But all this is by the by, and irrelevant to potheads, acid heads, and other social flotsam and jetsam. The only thing they want is an inexpensive and plentiful supply of dope. All decriminalization will do is further enable their adolescent idiocy, and yet another counterfeit right will further devalue real rights, but this one will reduce an entire generation to the mental level of a pack of glassy eyed fourteen year olds who are good for nothing but sitting around stoned in shopping malls, wearing advertisements for heavy metal bands, waiting to score a bag, regarding any adult exhortations to mature behavior as oppression: Fuhrer Fodder, in other words. Hell's bells, Marilyn Manson's done figured it out. Check out a video of "Anti-Christ Superstar" and tell me me if we're not in Weimar Germany, waitin' for the Fuhrer.
These dopers who blithely go on about the Bill of Rights haven't a clue, and are willing to sell their souls for a bowl of magic mushroom soup.
Dennis Olson
New member
This has been a truely fascinating thread. However, several misconceptions about drug use have been forwarded as "fact". Before I address them, a bit about myself. I am a computer consultant, and have a BS degree in Electonic Engineering. I belong to the IEEE, and have an income in low 6 figures. I am a "40-something", married 18 years, and have two teen boys.
When I was 20 - 22 years old, and in college, I used pot, a bit of coke, LSD, and "magic mushrooms". The pot I used nearly every day, the LSD every other week or so, the mushrooms a handful of times, and the coke about three times (it never got me "high", and I couldn't justify $100 a gram for nothing). I also had a long history of alcohol use. Because of this, I can state, with some authority, the effects of these substances.
I have been so drunk that I couldn't walk, let alone drive. As a matter of fact, I could barely stand. Pot NEVER, EVER made me feel as "wasted" as booze. Not one time. And believe me, I tried to find out. The LSD was VERY much like booze, even though STILL less debilitating (but the most I ever took at once was 1 1/2 "hits").
While I wouldn't DRIVE on LSD, I NEVER felt like I could fly, or that I was Superman, or any of that other crap that "authorities" say you feel like. I never wanted to jump off a building, or in front of a truck. In short, I was NEVER out of control. (BTW, in the early stages of an LSD high, you laugh. A LOT. Everything's funny. Really funny. Mushrooms are just natural LSD, and the effects are the same, but more intense.)
Pot just gave me a buzz. Never out of control there either. As a matter of fact, pot NEVER made me feel CLOSE to as impaired as booze. As I said before, coke did NOTHING for me. Zip.
By age 22, I got sick of the feeling that pot left me with. It felt like my head was in a pillow case all the time. So, I used the last of my drugs, and quit. Cold turkey. No cravings, no "flashbacks". Nothing. Walked away and never did it again.
My college grades during this time were solid B's. And I worked 40 hours a week besides. So please don't think that we "drug addicts" are necessarily: 1) addicted, 2) dysfunctional, 3) lazy, 4) criminal. I enjoyed my party days, but it's definitely for the young.
I heartily advocate the legalization of drugs. It's been PLAINLY evident for YEARS that Prohibition never works. Not against booze, not against guns, and not against drugs.
Get real. Lose Prohibition. Soon. Our Republic is in danger, and it's NOT from the drugs.
When I was 20 - 22 years old, and in college, I used pot, a bit of coke, LSD, and "magic mushrooms". The pot I used nearly every day, the LSD every other week or so, the mushrooms a handful of times, and the coke about three times (it never got me "high", and I couldn't justify $100 a gram for nothing). I also had a long history of alcohol use. Because of this, I can state, with some authority, the effects of these substances.
I have been so drunk that I couldn't walk, let alone drive. As a matter of fact, I could barely stand. Pot NEVER, EVER made me feel as "wasted" as booze. Not one time. And believe me, I tried to find out. The LSD was VERY much like booze, even though STILL less debilitating (but the most I ever took at once was 1 1/2 "hits").
While I wouldn't DRIVE on LSD, I NEVER felt like I could fly, or that I was Superman, or any of that other crap that "authorities" say you feel like. I never wanted to jump off a building, or in front of a truck. In short, I was NEVER out of control. (BTW, in the early stages of an LSD high, you laugh. A LOT. Everything's funny. Really funny. Mushrooms are just natural LSD, and the effects are the same, but more intense.)
Pot just gave me a buzz. Never out of control there either. As a matter of fact, pot NEVER made me feel CLOSE to as impaired as booze. As I said before, coke did NOTHING for me. Zip.
By age 22, I got sick of the feeling that pot left me with. It felt like my head was in a pillow case all the time. So, I used the last of my drugs, and quit. Cold turkey. No cravings, no "flashbacks". Nothing. Walked away and never did it again.
My college grades during this time were solid B's. And I worked 40 hours a week besides. So please don't think that we "drug addicts" are necessarily: 1) addicted, 2) dysfunctional, 3) lazy, 4) criminal. I enjoyed my party days, but it's definitely for the young.
I heartily advocate the legalization of drugs. It's been PLAINLY evident for YEARS that Prohibition never works. Not against booze, not against guns, and not against drugs.
Get real. Lose Prohibition. Soon. Our Republic is in danger, and it's NOT from the drugs.
Munro Williams
New member
When I was working adolescent psych we had a 17 year old who'd eaten so much acid for so long that he became schizophrenic,a permanent psychedelic state, if you will, and remained so for several months. After a long course of anti-psychotics he cleared up some. One day his dad came to see him and took him for a ride and they smoked a joint together. This was all that was needed to send the poor child into a severe psychedelic experience. He never came down after that.
Does anyone honestly think that the inevitable increase in drug use resulting from decriminalization will have a beneficial effect on the country?
Does anyone honestly think that the inevitable increase in drug use resulting from decriminalization will have a beneficial effect on the country?
Legalize, tax, educate and enact severe penalties for sales to children. Enact and enforce strong laws related to driving under the influence, or public use where your activity gets into the face of others.
I don't use drugs. I rarely drink alcohol and never get drunk. I don't smoke. My house stays pretty much free of these things, but I don't want to tell my neighbor what he, or she can't do in their house. I don't want to be run over by a car driven by someone under the influence, but I also don't want my house broken into by someone in search of marketable product to support an expensive habit. If you want to dissolve your brain then fine, but I want you to pay more for your health insurance. If I want to jump out of planes, then I'll pay more for my life insurance. If you want to jump out of planes while you're four sheets to the wind, then your landing makes this HOLE conversation moot. Mis-spelling intentional. IMHO
I don't use drugs. I rarely drink alcohol and never get drunk. I don't smoke. My house stays pretty much free of these things, but I don't want to tell my neighbor what he, or she can't do in their house. I don't want to be run over by a car driven by someone under the influence, but I also don't want my house broken into by someone in search of marketable product to support an expensive habit. If you want to dissolve your brain then fine, but I want you to pay more for your health insurance. If I want to jump out of planes, then I'll pay more for my life insurance. If you want to jump out of planes while you're four sheets to the wind, then your landing makes this HOLE conversation moot. Mis-spelling intentional. IMHO
Dennis Olson
New member
Does anyone honestly think that the inevitable increase in ALCOHOL use resulting from decriminalization will have a beneficial effect on the country?
I can almost HEAR the Temperence League circa 1920. Don't you think it's time to move past the "gov't knows best" bit? Really? BTW, NO ONE in my circle of friends went nutso. And I had a BUNCH of friends.
There will ALWAYS be people who can't handle a substance. There are millions who've "lost it all" to alcohol. This includes their own lives. Neither you, I, nor the "ever-benevolent U.S. gov't" has the right to tell us what we do with our own bodies.
I just think you're a pro-big-gov't zealot. Your argument has no merit, a fact proven over 80 years. Whether YOU personaly believe that or not is immaterial. The facts remain.
I can almost HEAR the Temperence League circa 1920. Don't you think it's time to move past the "gov't knows best" bit? Really? BTW, NO ONE in my circle of friends went nutso. And I had a BUNCH of friends.
There will ALWAYS be people who can't handle a substance. There are millions who've "lost it all" to alcohol. This includes their own lives. Neither you, I, nor the "ever-benevolent U.S. gov't" has the right to tell us what we do with our own bodies.
I just think you're a pro-big-gov't zealot. Your argument has no merit, a fact proven over 80 years. Whether YOU personaly believe that or not is immaterial. The facts remain.
Munro Williams said:
I spent most of the 1970s thinking we were in Weimar Germany. Then Reagan was elected. You know, I have a real hard time visualizing a member of the "Hitler Jungend" sitting glassy-eyed in a shopping mall, wondering where his next reefer is coming from. Yes, the short-lived Weimar Republic got pretty degenerate, especially in Berlin and Hamburg, but the Nazis gained their strength from the public reaction AGAINST all that. And where is the biggest American reaction against hedonistic culture coming from, politically?
I can understand that Law Dog will never come around, because it's clear his religion dictates that any desire for chemical experience must be immediately and ruthlessly stamped out, no matter what the cost. But I thought Munro was a follower of Ayn Rand. No Randian would regard the right to own one's own body and life as a "counterfeit right."
So you're saying that in addition to the small minority of people who are currently screwing their lives up with drugs under modern Prohibition, there are millions upon millions more who are just one act of Congress away from doing the same thing themselves?
And you want to defend the right of all these near-degenerates to own GUNS? I would never trust my neighbors, associates and countrymen with firepower if I thought they were so weak-minded. Next thing I know, DiFi will be on TV intoning "Kill the Beez, kill the Beez," and my life wouldn't be worth a wooden nickel.
I think this thread has highlighted a distinction between two different types of gun-rights advocates: Those who love liberty, including the right to own guns; vs those who simply love guns and the right to own them, and to hell with everyone else's freedom, at least until they all straighten up and get haircuts and start going to Church every Sunday.
But all this is by the by, and irrelevant to potheads, acid heads, and other social flotsam and jetsam. The only thing they want is an inexpensive and plentiful supply of dope. All decriminalization will do is further enable their adolescent idiocy, and yet another counterfeit right will further devalue real rights, but this one will reduce an entire generation to the mental level of a pack of glassy eyed fourteen year olds who are good for nothing but sitting around stoned in shopping malls, wearing advertisements for heavy metal bands, waiting to score a bag, regarding any adult exhortations to mature behavior as oppression: Fuhrer Fodder, in other words. Hell's bells, Marilyn Manson's done figured it out. Check out a video of "Anti-Christ Superstar" and tell me me if we're not in Weimar Germany, waitin' for the Fuhrer.
I spent most of the 1970s thinking we were in Weimar Germany. Then Reagan was elected. You know, I have a real hard time visualizing a member of the "Hitler Jungend" sitting glassy-eyed in a shopping mall, wondering where his next reefer is coming from. Yes, the short-lived Weimar Republic got pretty degenerate, especially in Berlin and Hamburg, but the Nazis gained their strength from the public reaction AGAINST all that. And where is the biggest American reaction against hedonistic culture coming from, politically?
I can understand that Law Dog will never come around, because it's clear his religion dictates that any desire for chemical experience must be immediately and ruthlessly stamped out, no matter what the cost. But I thought Munro was a follower of Ayn Rand. No Randian would regard the right to own one's own body and life as a "counterfeit right."
So you're saying that in addition to the small minority of people who are currently screwing their lives up with drugs under modern Prohibition, there are millions upon millions more who are just one act of Congress away from doing the same thing themselves?
And you want to defend the right of all these near-degenerates to own GUNS? I would never trust my neighbors, associates and countrymen with firepower if I thought they were so weak-minded. Next thing I know, DiFi will be on TV intoning "Kill the Beez, kill the Beez," and my life wouldn't be worth a wooden nickel.
I think this thread has highlighted a distinction between two different types of gun-rights advocates: Those who love liberty, including the right to own guns; vs those who simply love guns and the right to own them, and to hell with everyone else's freedom, at least until they all straighten up and get haircuts and start going to Church every Sunday.
Munro Williams
New member
Beez:
Your history's pretty week about Weimar and the ideological roots of the Nazi party. Check out Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels, and when you're finished with that, read Walter Langer's The Mind of Adolf Hitler, a secret psychological analysis written in 1943 at the behest of the War Department. If that still hasn't convinced you, you'd do well to read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind.
Dennis:
Any comparison of alcohol and nicotine with psychedelic drugs is patently absurd.
To Both:
Aside from the above comments, it has become difficult to remain civil, and in the interests of civility I shall now leave you to this thread.
Your history's pretty week about Weimar and the ideological roots of the Nazi party. Check out Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels, and when you're finished with that, read Walter Langer's The Mind of Adolf Hitler, a secret psychological analysis written in 1943 at the behest of the War Department. If that still hasn't convinced you, you'd do well to read Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind.
Dennis:
Any comparison of alcohol and nicotine with psychedelic drugs is patently absurd.
To Both:
Aside from the above comments, it has become difficult to remain civil, and in the interests of civility I shall now leave you to this thread.
*sigh*
Ah, the wonders of the ubiquitous dope thread. Where a statement:
becomes:
I knew going into this that I shouldn't have even bothered. I officially give up.
The thread is beginning to degenerate. Keep it civil, if you please.
LawDog
Ah, the wonders of the ubiquitous dope thread. Where a statement:
Welfare/tax reform first, then, and only then, legalization of dope.
becomes:
I can understand that Law Dog will never come around, because it's clear his religion dictates that any desire for chemical experience must be immediately and ruthlessly stamped out, no matter what the cost.
I knew going into this that I shouldn't have even bothered. I officially give up.
The thread is beginning to degenerate. Keep it civil, if you please.
LawDog
According to the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation which lists its sources on: http://www.lindesmith.org/shadowconventions/factsheet.html
and: http://www.lindesmith.org/shadowconventions/econ.html
Corrupt Law Enforcement.
A 1998 report by the General Accounting Office notes:
…several studies and investigations of drug-related police corruption found on-duty police officers engaged in serious criminal activities such as (1)conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures; (2) stealing money and/or drugs from drug dealers; (3) selling stolen drugs; (4) protecting drug operations; (5) providing false testimony; and (6) submitting false crime reports.
The same study found that on average, half of all police officers convicted as a result of FBI-led corruption cases between 1993 and 1997 were convicted for drug-related offenses
Who really profits from drug prohibition?
According to the United Nations, drug trafficking is a $400 billion per year industry, equaling 8% of the world's trade. By empowering organized criminals with enormous profits, prohibition stimulates violence, corrupts governments at all levels, and erodes community order.
Nearly 500,000 Americans are Behind Bars for Drug Law Violations, a Ten-Fold Increase in Two Decases. The Overall Inmate Population has Quadrupled to Nearly 2 Million.
Manufacturers, the prison industry, and other special interest groups.
Anti-drug aid to other nations often comes in the form of military assistance. This year's National
Drug Control Budget, for example, includes $452 million to provide Blackhawk helicopters to the Colombian Military to fight coca cultivation.14 Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., the exclusive manufacturer of the helicopters, lobbied heavily in favor of an escalation of aid to Colombia.
With the overall prison population at roughly 2 million, nearly 500,000 of whom are drug law violators, federal and state governments have been forced to build an ever increasing number of prisons to house what drug czar Barry McCaffrey has called "America's internal gulag."
Drug testing is a lucrative industry with a strong interest in perpetuating drug war hysteria. It is estimated that the United States spends $1 billion annually to drug test about 20 million of our workers,18 in spite of research demonstrating the high cost and low effectiveness of this assault on American privacy.
and: http://www.lindesmith.org/shadowconventions/econ.html
Corrupt Law Enforcement.
A 1998 report by the General Accounting Office notes:
…several studies and investigations of drug-related police corruption found on-duty police officers engaged in serious criminal activities such as (1)conducting unconstitutional searches and seizures; (2) stealing money and/or drugs from drug dealers; (3) selling stolen drugs; (4) protecting drug operations; (5) providing false testimony; and (6) submitting false crime reports.
The same study found that on average, half of all police officers convicted as a result of FBI-led corruption cases between 1993 and 1997 were convicted for drug-related offenses
Who really profits from drug prohibition?
According to the United Nations, drug trafficking is a $400 billion per year industry, equaling 8% of the world's trade. By empowering organized criminals with enormous profits, prohibition stimulates violence, corrupts governments at all levels, and erodes community order.
Nearly 500,000 Americans are Behind Bars for Drug Law Violations, a Ten-Fold Increase in Two Decases. The Overall Inmate Population has Quadrupled to Nearly 2 Million.
Manufacturers, the prison industry, and other special interest groups.
Anti-drug aid to other nations often comes in the form of military assistance. This year's National
Drug Control Budget, for example, includes $452 million to provide Blackhawk helicopters to the Colombian Military to fight coca cultivation.14 Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., the exclusive manufacturer of the helicopters, lobbied heavily in favor of an escalation of aid to Colombia.
With the overall prison population at roughly 2 million, nearly 500,000 of whom are drug law violators, federal and state governments have been forced to build an ever increasing number of prisons to house what drug czar Barry McCaffrey has called "America's internal gulag."
Drug testing is a lucrative industry with a strong interest in perpetuating drug war hysteria. It is estimated that the United States spends $1 billion annually to drug test about 20 million of our workers,18 in spite of research demonstrating the high cost and low effectiveness of this assault on American privacy.
Dead, I believe you can find those statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice - Statistics on Crime and Drugs. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/drugs.htm
A GREAT site I found is: http://www.ndsn.org/
"NDSN does not take any official positions on policy matters, and does not lobby or testify before Congress. NDSN welcomes all concerned about the problems of drugs: critics of the war on drugs as well as public officials, law enforcement officials, researchers, scholars, drug treatment
professionals, judges, prosecutors, etc.
We are concerned about all aspects of the drug problem -- illegal and legal drugs of all kinds; international, U.S., state and local developments; law enforcement; drug treatment; developments in the courts; conditions in the prisons; HIV and AIDS; medical marijuana; acupuncture -- the entire spectrum of issues related to drug policy."
They have links govt and private organizations which give statistics to the kinds of questions asked in this thread. That is where I found the link to the crime statistics to answer your question.
There is also a chart which shows the # of homocides per year cited by the US Census Data and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. It can be noted that the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm
A GREAT site I found is: http://www.ndsn.org/
"NDSN does not take any official positions on policy matters, and does not lobby or testify before Congress. NDSN welcomes all concerned about the problems of drugs: critics of the war on drugs as well as public officials, law enforcement officials, researchers, scholars, drug treatment
professionals, judges, prosecutors, etc.
We are concerned about all aspects of the drug problem -- illegal and legal drugs of all kinds; international, U.S., state and local developments; law enforcement; drug treatment; developments in the courts; conditions in the prisons; HIV and AIDS; medical marijuana; acupuncture -- the entire spectrum of issues related to drug policy."
They have links govt and private organizations which give statistics to the kinds of questions asked in this thread. That is where I found the link to the crime statistics to answer your question.
There is also a chart which shows the # of homocides per year cited by the US Census Data and FBI Uniform Crime Reports. It can be noted that the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.htm
Philosophical Question
(I had posted this question on a similar thread but it seems to have fallen down the list and not getting any attention, so I will post it here. Adsmittedly it is somewhat more philosophical than practical, but I am interested in feedback.)
Where does any government(Federal/State/local)derive the power to criminalize drug use? Doesn't that authority have to come from the people? For the people to grant that authority to the government, don't we first need to possess that authority ourselves? Can someone then walk me through from where I derive the power to tell them what they can and can not ingest? (ignoring a parent-child relationship)
(I had posted this question on a similar thread but it seems to have fallen down the list and not getting any attention, so I will post it here. Adsmittedly it is somewhat more philosophical than practical, but I am interested in feedback.)
Where does any government(Federal/State/local)derive the power to criminalize drug use? Doesn't that authority have to come from the people? For the people to grant that authority to the government, don't we first need to possess that authority ourselves? Can someone then walk me through from where I derive the power to tell them what they can and can not ingest? (ignoring a parent-child relationship)
My goverment has tramuatized me to the point that no matter how fruity it would become if drugs were legalized ( assuming it would ) it has to be better then these draconian laws which themselves are beyond insanity. I would rather face it off with 4 crazed crack feinds ( however they are kind of skinny and a difficult target ) then face it off w/ a fully armed swat team at the wrong door or be pulled over and searched and have my car confiscated for possession of french fry AGAIN, ( got it back though ).
Libertarian
New member
ChrisR246, they get their power because they took it. They have the federal police, DOJ and the courts on their side. They also have the major religious groups willing to help pass and sustain laws that affect secular matters. Also, they will kill you if you resist them too much. It is kind of hard to argue with that kind of force.
And "they" wonder why we think the 2nd A is so important.
And "they" wonder why we think the 2nd A is so important.
Upon reflection I see that I went a bit over the top when I threw in the gratuitous comment about Law Dog's "religion." I apologize for my incivility and promise to not let my passion overtake me like that again.
I just find it frustrating that so many pro-gun people can't seem to understand that most of the arguments in favor of drug prohibition also favor gun prohibition (or control), and that when theory hits the real world, the policies of drug prohibition must necessarily undermine our other Constitutional rights, and ever more so as time advances.
I can understand why FDR made pot illegal. I can understand why Nixon launched and then Reagan re-launched the "War on Drugs." I understand why pot arrests accellerated during the Clinton years. This sort of thing reinforces their political power (and that of the lesser satraps below them), reinforcing the "sheeple" idea that most people are feeble and foolish and need a wise and fatherly President to protect them from the boogeyman.
I just can't understand why people who usually speak favorably of freedom and personal responsibility, and seem to really mean it, are on the same side of this issue as FDR, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton.
Munro, I read _Ominous Parallels_ 21 or 22 years ago. It confirmed in my mind that I was living in the next Weimar Germany. And I was far from the only one at the time who thought this way. When Reagan came along, I figured him for our Baron Von Hindenberg -- but then the pattern broke down when our Von Hindenberg showed staying power, and caused some small but significant shifts in the political axes.
So much for historical parallelism.
[Edited by The Beez on 12-06-2000 at 08:26 PM]
I just find it frustrating that so many pro-gun people can't seem to understand that most of the arguments in favor of drug prohibition also favor gun prohibition (or control), and that when theory hits the real world, the policies of drug prohibition must necessarily undermine our other Constitutional rights, and ever more so as time advances.
I can understand why FDR made pot illegal. I can understand why Nixon launched and then Reagan re-launched the "War on Drugs." I understand why pot arrests accellerated during the Clinton years. This sort of thing reinforces their political power (and that of the lesser satraps below them), reinforcing the "sheeple" idea that most people are feeble and foolish and need a wise and fatherly President to protect them from the boogeyman.
I just can't understand why people who usually speak favorably of freedom and personal responsibility, and seem to really mean it, are on the same side of this issue as FDR, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton.
Munro, I read _Ominous Parallels_ 21 or 22 years ago. It confirmed in my mind that I was living in the next Weimar Germany. And I was far from the only one at the time who thought this way. When Reagan came along, I figured him for our Baron Von Hindenberg -- but then the pattern broke down when our Von Hindenberg showed staying power, and caused some small but significant shifts in the political axes.
So much for historical parallelism.
[Edited by The Beez on 12-06-2000 at 08:26 PM]
Studies on legalization
here are several of them.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-180.html 1992 #180
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa128.html 1990 #128
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html 1989 #120
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa063.html 1985 #63
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html 1991 #157
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html 1988 #109 guns are good!
They provide good info on the WOD.
I posted this on the thread in General and got no comment.
I was hoping to get feedback from the LEO people on this data.
Thanks
Noel
here are several of them.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-180.html 1992 #180
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa128.html 1990 #128
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa121.html 1989 #120
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa063.html 1985 #63
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html 1991 #157
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa109.html 1988 #109 guns are good!
They provide good info on the WOD.
I posted this on the thread in General and got no comment.
I was hoping to get feedback from the LEO people on this data.
Thanks
Noel
I was hoping to get feedback from the LEO people on this
data. NOEL, you WON'T get any feedback from the LEO people because they have no constitutional or logical arguments to your hard facts. These same people who argue for drug prohibition use the same exact arguments/rationale as pro-gun control advocates.
data. NOEL, you WON'T get any feedback from the LEO people because they have no constitutional or logical arguments to your hard facts. These same people who argue for drug prohibition use the same exact arguments/rationale as pro-gun control advocates.