|
|
|
October 10, 2007
Will You Arrest Me?
My answer to the man's question: "I will not arrest you. We should have learned our lesson from alcohol prohibition. I do not believe in price supports for criminals and terrorists. Just as alcohol prohibition didn't solve the alcohol problem, drug prohibition is not solving the drug problem and has in fact, like alcohol prohibition, compounded it by adding a crime problem." HT Eric of Classical Values posted by Simon on 10.10.07 at 08:43 AM
Comments
syn, If the price of punishing drug addiction is support for crime and terrorism you are all for it. Swell just swell. I believe you are living proof that Americans have grown stupider since 1933. M. Simon · October 10, 2007 11:03 AM syn, You speak too highly of the drug addicts. Their addiction is no excuse for their criminality. It should garner them not even a pittance of pity. The people who allow them that excuse are every bit as responsible for the problem, as the addicts themselves. MikeT · October 10, 2007 01:24 PM Mike T., You haven't a clue. In any case do you think it is worth supporting terrorists and criminals just so you can punish addicts? M. Simon · October 10, 2007 01:59 PM Back to the post. No politician will touch this issue outside prohibition. I recall Clinton making some decriminalization comments *after* he was out of office. Brett · October 10, 2007 07:29 PM > Mitt Romney got asked by a medical marijuana A better answer: "No, I'm not a cop." Art · October 11, 2007 04:18 PM It's an economic question. If there is no cost to demanding illegal drugs then why would an addict or casual user stop demanding the illegal drugs. By the way, M. Simon, I think you have it the other way around. It is the Drug Addicts who are supporting terrorist and criminals, not the federal government or the DEA. Romney was very courteous to somebody who was obviously antagonistic. I doubt Hillary or Giuliani would respond with such class. Joseph D. Walch · October 14, 2007 04:56 PM Joseph, Did they teach alcohol prohibition when you went to school? If so you must have slept through the lessons. Obviously for reasons only dimly understood by most people (self medication) the demand for drugs is inelastic. What happens when you put a prohibition on a product with inelastic demand? Criminals take over the distribution. You blame people who want their medicine. I blame prohibition. What are the odds? M. Simon · October 14, 2007 05:02 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2007
September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSALLAMERICANGOP See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Yearning for the good old days
(and building a better yesterday) • More Chaos • Paul vs Clinton • When victims collide.... • "Columbine!" "Gun"! "Noose!" Some hysteria required. • What Is The Value Of Gore's Nobel? • The State Of Climate Science - Check It Out • Quote of the Day • Moral bankruptcy for sale here! • Avoiding the appearance of a biased tone
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Yeah man...drug addicts haven't anything to do with crime-ridden, poop-filled streets of liberally compassionate San Francisco.
It's Bush's fault!
(sarc off)