Drug Legalization

"How do you take away a drug dealer's market by making his product legal? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it won't be sold or should be sold."

Because 90% the stuff that people go to jail for
can be home grown and the rest can be made by Merck for less than the cost of cold pills.

Even high quality grass should be no more expensive than asparagras, $1/pound on sale.

 

From the Right,
What do you think??? The United States of America, the first US Constitution Party President

 

Mike said"

I don't know what your source of information regarding this claim is, but you should check your facts. The Mayflower Compact certainly doesn't bear you out.

(Emphasis added)

It seems to me that these folks were not seeking to obtain absolute freedom. Also you might want to refer to The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774 . Here again, it is clearly shown that the fathers of the country agree that a system of laws, rules, and restrictions are necessary. By your argument any act, however reprehensible, would be okay, because you and you alone have the right to choose to do that act and thus determine your destiny.

Slavery, pedophilia, rape, whatever would be individual choices. While I maintain they are coices today, those who would commit such acts, and I include the use and selling of illegal drugs, must pay the penalties imposed by law.

I would recommend that you re-read what our Lord and His apostles had to say about the laws of the land and the government thereof. Just one example comes from 1 Peter:

 

Nobody thinks that. The question is whether the government should be able to prevent an adult from doing something that has the capability to harm that person and whether the government should punish people who enable that adult to take that action. It's my position that you can do whatever stupid thing you like as long as it doesn't hurt me. The government should not prevent people from smoking, drinking alcohol, overeating, sleeping around, skydiving, driving without seatbelts, driving without motorcycle helmets, white-water rafting, or turkey hunting. I don't think that it should prevent people from smoking marijuana either.

I do have concerns about legalizing other drugs. Chiefly the question is whether the harm caused to others by drug users will be diminished or increased with legalization. Will the number of chronic users increase, remain the same, or diminish? Will more easily available information about the identity of users aid in protecting their children from neglect or abuse?

 

I don't know what your source of information regarding this claim is, but you should check your facts. The Mayflower Compact certainly doesn't bear you out.

(Emphasis added)

It seems to me that these folks were not seeking to obtain absolute freedom. Also you might want to refer to The Articles of Association; October 20, 1774 . Here again, it is clearly shown that the fathers of the country agree that a system of laws, rules, and restrictions are necessary. By your argument any act, however reprehensible, would be okay, because you and you alone have the right to choose to do that act and thus determine your destiny.

Slavery, pedophilia, rape, whatever would be individual choices. While I maintain they are coices today, those who would commit such acts, and I include the use and selling of illegal drugs, must pay the penalties imposed by law.

I would recommend that you re-read what our Lord and His apostles had to say about the laws of the land and the government thereof. Just one example comes from 1 Peter:

</font>[/QUOTE]Very funny.

We're not talking about a state of anarchy with no laws. In fact, drug legalization would actually come with more regulation, not less.

 

I see no humor in your desire to allow legalization of all drugs.

More regulation? I thought you wanted freedom not regulation. You can't have it both ways. You are the one who wants the freedom to make your own choice. I maintain we have that now. You can use drugs anytime you wish--just find your friendly neighborhood dealer, buy some and snort away. That is your choice.
You currently have the freedom you say you desire. Exercise it.

 

Just as I see no humor in making criminals of people who choose to use a recreational drug in the privacy of their own home.

Sure you can. As I keep trying to explain, we are not proposing anarchy.

And I've already explained that this is not a true choice because we are coerced by threat of prison not to do it.

 

Just as I see no humor in making criminals of people who choose to use a recreational drug in the privacy of their own home.

Sure you can. As I keep trying to explain, we are not proposing anarchy.

And I've already explained that this is not a true choice because we are coerced by threat of prison not to do it.

 

Mike, You must be really proud of your support for use of things that would damage what is referred to in the Bible as the Temple of God, since you posted your last non-sensical reply twice.

See ya

 

That's a silly response. Saying something shouldn't be illegal is not tantamount to saying it's a good thing.

 

Just as I see no humor in making criminals of people who choose to use a recreational drug in the privacy of their own home. </font>[/QUOTE] Mike, Would you agree that along with this "right" to use drugs in the privacy of one's home... a property owner (ie. employer) has a right to protect their property from damage and loss due to people who voluntarily accept the privilege of employment?

One of the main reasons I take a libertarian stance on drug laws is that if the "marketplace" of society were allowed to reject and ostracize those who use drugs... that would be a better deterent than anything the gov't can do.

Sure you can. As I keep trying to explain, we are not proposing anarchy. </font>[/QUOTE] Me neither. I am proposing that people of good conscience acting within their rights under liberty would police out drug users more effectively than gov't. For instance, a Little League organization should be perfectly within its right to write into its by-laws random drug testing of anyone participating OR perhaps even attending league games or functions.

Offering someone a choice of staying clean or staying away is NOT unjust discrimination nor is it a violation of their rights.

 

Where did Mike suggest that Christians should use drugs?

The bodies of unbelievers are certainly not the temple of God... nor does government have any implicit duty to keep those "temples" pure in case God decides to occupy them.

 

Actually, not only are you being dishonest, but I've said a couple of times that I do not endorse drug use.

Rather than simply calling names, why not tell us what about my last post was non-sensical?

 

I do. I know that may sound hypocritical to some, but a business owner, being a private entity, has the Constitutional right to make that determination. He and the employee are essentially making an agreement regarding what is appropriate employee behavior, which is much different than the government criminalizing the consensual acts of adults.

 

That's a very common misconception: that those of us who favor the decriminalization of recreational drugs somehow favor their use.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, one of the benefits of legalization of drugs is that use would decrease.

 

It's a frightening alternative, but the "War on Drugs" has been an abject failure.

I tend to agree with Mike.

 

Amazing! One finds support for legalization of drugs, which will undoubtedly lead to an increased use, in the strangest of places. What is more amazing is the lengths one goes to in an effort to obfuscate his beliefs.

Provide proof that use of drugs would decrease with their legalization. Or is this just your opinion?

 

By the way Mike, I do not appreciate being called a liar, nor will I engage in any more discussion in a forum that allows such insults to go without challenge. I have never stated that you support or encourage drug use. I do state that your position of legalization will lead to an increase of their use.

Your euphamistic use of "recreational" in regards to this denies reality. I have seen in my own family what has started out as "recreational" use of drugs but lead to hard addiction, and multiple prison terms. So, Scott J, Mike and Galation promote the use of legalization if you wish, I will campaign just as hard against it.

 

nm

 

Then stop spreading the lie that I support drug use.

From your own words:

Here, we clearly see that you did accuse me of supporting drug use.

Now, what was it you were saying about not wanting to be called a liar?

What's "euphamistic" about it? You are aware that they are called "recreational drugs" to distinguish them from medicinal drugs, aren't you?

As have I. I've been very open about my brother, Jim, and the way that his addiction has destroyed him and, very nearly my family. Doesn't mean that his drug use was any less recreational.