Cory Booker: The War on Drugs has failed

posted at 6:41 pm on July 16, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

Newark, New Jersey mayor Cory Booker is making news again — this time for commentary regarding the War on Drugs. Via Huffington Post:

Newark, N.J. Mayor Cory Booker took to Reddit Sunday to criticize the war on drugs, saying it was ineffective and “represents big overgrown government at its worst.”

“The so called War on Drugs has not succeeded in making significant reductions in drug use, drug arrests or violence,” the Democrat wrote during the Reddit “ask me anything” chat. “We are pouring huge amounts of our public resources into this current effort that are bleeding our public treasury and unnecessarily undermining human potential.”

Over at Reddit, Booker wrote the following:

Blacks make up less than 15% of our New Jersey’s population but make up more than 60% of our prison population. I can’t accept that facts like this one do anything but demonstrate the historic and current biases in our criminal justice system…People should not see these facts and this discussion as an indictment of any one race, sector, or occupation, it should be seen as a call to all of us to do the difficult things to make a change because this isn’t a “black” problem this is an American problem.

The so called War on Drugs has not succeeded in making significant reductions in drug use, drug arrests or violence. We are pouring huge amounts of our public resources into this current effort that are bleeding our public treasury and unnecessarily undermining human potential. I see the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars being poured into the criminal justice system here in New Jersey and it represents big overgrown government at its worst. We should be investing dollars in programs and strategies that work not just to lower crime but work to empower lives.

It anguishes me how we seem to be so content with national and state recidivism rates of around 60% and how a staggering number of young black men are involved in the criminal justice system.

My police in Newark are involved in an almost ridiculous game of arresting the same people over and over again and when you talk to these men they have little belief that there is help or hope for them to break out of this cycle.

And it is a dangerous world for people caught up in the drug trade for it is so associated with violence. Data from Rutgers University is chilling: Over 80% of Newark’s murder VICTIMS have been arrested before an average of 10 times.

There are few public policy areas where Democrats are right, but the legalization of marijuana is one of them. Last month I made a case for why social conservatives should consider supporting the legalization of marijuana, and Booker’s data above backs a lot of what I wrote about. The editors of National Review are also in agreement with Booker on both marijuana legalization and the failure of the War on Drugs.

Booker doesn’t just complain, however. He also offers solutions for those people currently on drugs, who have been arrested, and otherwise have been impacted by both their own poor life decisions and the War on Drugs:

  1. Reentry. We developed the state’s first office of reentry, raised philanthropy and other grant dollars to support it and have some impressive data. Our office has connected well over 1,000 men and women with work and a number of our programs are producing some great results. One I will mention here is our Fatherhood program. The recidivism rate for this program has dropped among participants from over 60% for nonparticipants to 7% for participants…Instead of condemning men for not being good fathers and preaching to them about how they should take care of their kids, this program looks to empower them in their fatherhood mission. The men are partnered with mentor dads, there are parenting classes, group activities with their kids and a partnership is created with the mother of the children. The men are helped with finding jobs and even with suits and more for interviews and work. All of this is so much cheaper than continued incarceration and it empowers participants (mostly black and latino) breaking the cycle of imprisonment…
  2. Court reform . . . I discussed this in another answer but by having youth courts, veterans courts, drug courts and more, we are finding that we can empower people to stay out of jail and turn their lives around as opposed to get chewed up in the system. Court innovation is critical and Newark is leading the way in New Jersey thanks to great partners like The Center For Court Innovation in NYC.
  3. Jobs. It is so critical that we find ways to rapidly attach people to work when they come out of prison even if they are minimum wage transition jobs. Newark has done a lot in this area. I’m particularly proud of our Clean and Green program taking men and women right from returning from prison and giving them jobs helping to clean and green our city.
  4. Treatment. This is critical. Our state is just recently stepping up to expand treatment and make it a mandatory alternative to incarceration. In Newark we have some great treatment options but they too need more funding. Treatment saves taxpayer dollars, empowers individuals, stops recidivism, heals families and helps us all.
  5. Legal Help. Our nation’s legal service and advocacy organizations are starving and so many people are getting chewed up by the criminal justice system just because they are poor and lack legal support. Newark New Jersey started our nations first ever pro bono legal service practice to support people coming home from prison. You would be amazed at the number of people who come out of prison, want to get a job and try to do the right thing but then their lives are entangled by countless legal problems and barriers that could be overcome with with some administrative legal support…
  6. There is much more I can list in terms of things happening in Newark that point to solutions…But for my final point…So much of this problem could be solved by strong education systems and other systems of support for our children before they get in trouble. So let me offer this as a final action item to heal our nation, end many insidious racial divisions and exalt our country’s highest ideals. Mentoring. It takes 4 hours a month to mentor a child, the amount of time most watch TV in a day. There are hundreds of kids in Newark on waiting lists for a mentor: a positive adult in their lives who cares. Mentoring has demonstrated a profound ability to dramatically lower incarceration for youth and even lower early unsafe sex practices. And it has shown to boost youth outcomes from self-esteem to dramatically increasing school performance. EVERYONE who is qualified should be mentoring a child who is not their own OR encouraging others to do so OR supporting mentoring organizations. If every so-called “at risk” kid in Newark had a mentor we could dramatically end future crime in our city.

Now, I’m just a lowly blogger with more opinions than he ought to voice, but even if Booker’s solutions aren’t right for every community they make a lot of sense. Rather than incentivize failure, encourage success. Preventive measures through mentoring. The value of employment, local solutions and citizen involvement. These are conservative principles to help improve society, and Booker seems to believe they are working.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

do heroin your whole life, you’ll look just as good as Mick Jagger.

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Can you guarantee that I will be as wealthy as Mick Jagger, also?

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:25 PM

I’m mystified by the reasoning of those who support legalizing drugs. These are almost always the same people who thinks its fine to make smoking a cigarette anywhere, anytime, illegal…
thatsafactjack on July 16, 2012 at 8:08 PM

Not on this side of the aisle, none of us here who support ending the drug war want anything to do with the war on tobacco either.

We don’t want to ban sodas or bags, or drugs. You who advocate this continued failed costly prohibition have more in common with the self-righteous liberal BANsters. We are those that say: “Don’t Tread on Me,” and get the feds out our lives and end the police state that the drug war causes. It is arguably mostly the old authoritarian guard of the GOP that still supports this incomprehensible drug war. Look at Portugal, the evidence is that this massive mobilization of police forces and $ doesn’t even reduce drug use. Insane.
The health / financial / personal failures and the social stigma associated with drug addiction is a full deterrent; nothing more is added to this personal deterrent by adding legal penalties, like 10 years in prison! Hence, the Portugal evidence.

anotherJoe on July 16, 2012 at 9:26 PM

So there wouldn’t be much of an illegal market for cigarettes, or DVD’s, electronics, prescription drugs, sneakers, etc because people wouldn’t buy from those bad men? I ask because as we stand here today there is such a market for those legal products.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM

There is, but on the margins. Even with cigarettes, the most liable to encourage black market supply (due to what I think we can agree are onerous taxes), the black market pales in comparison to the legitimate market.

Pales.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM

that is an almost total negatory JohnGalt23

Mick Jagger is Mitt Romney rich

he’s probably a felon

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM

No, actually. It’s not that the “war on drugs” has failed. It’s that the weapons you’ve been using are the wrong ones.

When the culture rejects the support structure of the conscience, what do you expect you’re gonna get?
The monsters we’ve created are our own doing. So now let us unleash them even further. This should be interesting.

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM

But by the tener of your response it’s obvious anyone discussing a point opposite yours, including a friend, is in for a knock down drag out. Not up for it.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Correcting you when you misrepresented my position is engaging in a “knock down drag out”?

Sorry bud, but as with other issues we’ve discussed, you sometimes see red when anyone you consider a friend doesn’t fall into lockstep with you.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM

And you call me sick in the head. Dude, look in the mirror.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Your choice gives the government ultimate power. Mine reduces their power. That you call yourself a conservative is appalling.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

There is, but on the margins. Even with cigarettes, the most liable to encourage black market supply (due to what I think we can agree are onerous taxes), the black market pales in comparison to the legitimate market.

Pales.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM

That’s what a lot of us are worried about. A legal market for drugs would dwarf the black market and when we make that point you fellows tell us that its silly to worry about that. It is claimed that it being illegal doesn’t deter any great number of people. Now you are saying that it being illegal does deter people.

So which is it?

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

that is an almost total negatory JohnGalt23

Mick Jagger is Mitt Romney rich

he’s probably a felon

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Nice cross-daily-meme-pollination right there…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM

dude, JohnGalt23, you got mad patience. This is like dealing with a bunch of libs

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

dude, JohnGalt23, you got mad patience. This is like dealing with a bunch of libs

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Oddly enough, you’ll find most libs these days agreeing with the anti-drug people on the right. California is dominated by libs, but everyone from Barbara Boxer to Governor Moonbeam has gone hard in favor of the WoD.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Wow, this thread is really on the edge of going right off the rails isn’t it?

This really is not the hill I think any conservative should commit themselves to dieing on. There are MUCH better places for us to kill each other than on an argument about marijuana.

That being said, here is my friendly 2 cents. (feel free to leave the pennies on the ground if they are not shiny enough for you):

I have never used drugs and do not drink alcohol. This is a personal choice for me as I view my body as a temple given to me in Trust. What I do with my body is my business and what you do with yours is your business…until you make it my business. I am of the opinion that legalizing might work to help with many issues we are facing as long as the penalties for bad behavior are severe enough (say automatic X1.5 for DUI arrests on any judgement). I do find saying alcohol is OK “because I said so” to be a bit hypocritical…if you are against both, well, good for you I guess.

If you disagree with me, that is OK, you have had different experiences in your life that has led you to your belief, as have I. But remember, cons don’t need to kill cons over this issue…unless that “con” is breaking into my house then you are getting both barrels! (yes, that was a bad joke to end the post…just for you H.A.)

airmonkey on July 16, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I am of the opinion that legalizing might work to help with many issues we are facing as long as the penalties for bad behavior are severe enough (say automatic X1.5 for DUI arrests on any judgement).

airmonkey on July 16, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I’d consider this kind of compromise. Good idea.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 9:51 PM

but arguments about marijuana are so fun :(

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:51 PM

What I do with my body is my business and what you do with yours is your business…until you make it my business. I am of the opinion that legalizing might work to help with many issues we are facing as long as the penalties for bad behavior are severe enough…

airmonkey on July 16, 2012 at 9:47 PM

If the time ever comes that such a society actually exists rather than what we actually have, then certainly lets talk! Until then the taxpayer foots the bill for rehab, welfare, petty theft, violence, dysfunctional families, medical bills, etc…

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

That’s what a lot of us are worried about. A legal market for drugs would dwarf the black market and when we make that point you fellows tell us that its silly to worry about that. It is claimed that it being illegal doesn’t deter any great number of people. Now you are saying that it being illegal does deter people.

So which is it?

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:33 PM

You descended a bit into gibberish there… I’ll try my best though.

That’s what a lot of us are worried about. A legal market for drugs would dwarf the black market and when we make that point you fellows tell us that its silly to worry about that.

For any product upon which taxes are levied, or supply controlled by any means, there is a potential for a black or grey market. You tax tobacco, there’s instantly someone who will drive cartons up the 95. You put license control on DVD’s, someone is going to try to bootleg them for profit.

You legalize cannabis and heroin tomorrow, but still tax it and control the supply, there are going to be people who will try to profit by undercutting the taxes, or beating the supply regulations. There is nothing you can do about that, even with tobacco or DVD’s. But, as we see with tobacco and DVD’s, the black market in these activities is small enough that it does not spawn, or meaningfully support, large criminal enterprises.

And, as amply demonstrated by Mexican drug cartels and their non-existent American DVD cartels, the violence associated with large criminal enterprises does not surround those otherwise legal products. Which is one of the very real benefits to your society.

It is claimed that it being illegal doesn’t deter any great number of people.

There’s the gibberish… the old passive voice problem.

Drugs, being illegal, deters some amount of people from using drugs. Our experience with alcohol prohibition was that when we legalized it, the amount of people who used it immediately doubled, and then leveled off. IOW, only half of the people who were even willing to contemplate using alcohol in the first place, were deterred by Prohibition. Most of the people who weren’t using it did so because they didn’t want to drink alcohol before or after Prohibition.

In the case of drugs, most people are deterred by the nature of the drugs, not the fear of getting caught. The more destructive the perception of the drug, the greater the deterrence, regardless of legality.

However, your first part of your argument has nothing to do with the second part of the argument. Make drugs legal tomorrow, most of the people who will choose to consume them, whether they did before legalization or not, will choose to buy them on the legitimate market. They will do so because they are rational actors, and will choose the market in which their benefits are maximized, and their risk minimized. That is, by definition, the legitimate market.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM

daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang JohnGalt!

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Until then the taxpayer foots the bill for rehab, welfare, petty theft, violence, dysfunctional families, medical bills, etc…

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

You’re gonna make me do it, aren’t you?

Alcohol already does that. Unless you’re in favor of outlawing it…

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM

This really is not the hill I think any conservative should commit themselves to dieing on. There are MUCH better places for us to kill each other than on an argument about marijuana [and the drug war].
airmonkey on July 16, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I agree 100%. We can agree to disagree on this issue, but agree on almost everything else, and on the imperative of getting Obama the heck out of there! There’s no reason why we should get uncivil. Lets have civil discussion, even argument, but lets try not to get personal. We don’t want to fracture the somewhat strong solidarity of our group; then the libs can sneak through and win.

anotherJoe on July 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM

So there wouldn’t be much of an illegal market for cigarettes, or DVD’s, electronics, prescription drugs, sneakers, etc because people wouldn’t buy from those bad men? I ask because as we stand here today there is such a market for those legal products.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Black markets arise because there’s unmet white-market demand. People want sneakers, but don’t want to pay Nike’s markup; people want cigarettes but don’t want to pay cigarette taxes; ergo, some enterprising thief steals a bunch of Air Jordans or boosts a truckload of Marlboros, and sells them out of his trunk.

You can grow marijuana in your own backyard, for little more than the (negligible) cost of the seeds. The likelihood of unmet white-market demand for such a product approaches zero.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM

The disrespect for the Constitution is strong with this one.

That they were convicted of espionage rather than treason does not alter or change the fact that what they did was treason

Treason is a specific criminal charge. I don’t care if the judge called them Martians… they ain’t from Mars. In this country (much to your apparent disdain), people are innocent of crimes until proven guilty of them, by due process of law. The Rosenbergs were never convicted of treason. Therefore, they are innocent of treason. QED.

The only way they are guilty of treason is if we, as you clearly advocate for, dismiss the Fifth Amendment. As anyone but a Constitutional ignoramus could see.

As to the Dutch, Will not issue any more licenses for cannabis coffee shops and are forcing the shops to close and not allowing them to reopen,

As to the Dutch, who are still selling legal cannabis in legal coffee shops, they prove that the person who claims that they

just repealed the whole thing

is a filthy liar, fit only for company with Barack Obama.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:14 PM

A Ronulan talking about the US constitution as if he had ever seen a copy of it, let along have read it. Now that is just plain funny.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/treason

Ethel and Julius Rosenberg committed treason by selling nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union; the couple was eventually prosecuted for espionage, rather than treason, and executed

NEWSREEL: Dateline: Sing Sing, June 19th, 1953. Someone had passed America’s atomic bomb secrets to Russia. This was an undisputed fact that the whole world knew. The federal government had laid the crime at the doorstep of two native New Yorkers, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. But to the end, they both protested their innocence of the theft. In April of 1951, the federal court of Judge Irving R. Kaufman found the pair guilty as charged and sentenced them to death in the electric chair to pay for their crime of treason.

Bart Stupak, Benedict Arnold, Julius & Ethel Rosenberg, and Jane Fonda

March 25, 2010 – 9:16am — Capitol Hill Update

Most all Americans, even students in America’s politically-correct schools, know the identity of America’s most infamous traitor. That, of course, is Benedict Arnold, who escaped to Great Britain, avoiding both arrest and the noose during the Revolutionary War.

Most senior citizens, and other knowledgeable Americans, are familiar with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg; the American communist traitors executed for treason at the height of the Cold War.

And many Americans, and virtually all of us Vietnam War veterans, know the treachery of actress Jane Fonda who was in our communist enemy’s capital, Hanoi, Vietnam, actually pretending to shoot down American pilots with a North Vietnamese artillery piece – a photo which gave huge aid and comfort to our communist enemies all over the world.

Again now, Zero new Licenses, shops being forced to close and not being allowed to reopen does not equal an open and thriving community, it equals a community that is being systematically killed by the government.

In November 2008, Pieter van Geel, the leader of the CDA (Christian Democrats) in the Dutch parliament, called for a ban on the cafes where marijuana is sold. He said the practice of allowing so-called coffee shops to operate had failed. The CDA had the support of its smaller coalition partner, the CU (ChristenUnie), but the third party in government, PvdA (Labour), opposed. The coalition agreement worked out by the three coalition parties in 2007 stated that there would be no change in the policy of tolerance. Prominent CDA member Gerd Leers spoke out against him: cannabis users who now cause no trouble would be viewed as criminals if an outright ban was to be implemented. Van Geel later said that he respected the coalition agreement and would not press for a ban during the current government’s tenure .[32]

By 2009, 27 coffee shops selling cannabis in Rotterdam, all within 200 metres from schools, must close down. This is nearly half of the coffee shops that currently operate within its municipality. This is due to the new policy of city mayor Ivo Opstelten and the town council.[33] The higher levels of the active ingredient in cannabis in Netherlands create a growing opposition to the traditional Dutch view of cannabis as a relatively innocent soft drug.[34] Supporters of coffee shops state that such claims are often exaggerated and ignore the fact that higher content means a user needs to use less of the plant to get the desired effects, making it in effect safer.[35] Dutch research has however shown that an increase of THC content also increase the occurrence of impaired psychomotor skills, particularly among younger or inexperienced cannabis smokers, who do not adapt their smoking-style to the higher THC content.[36] Closing of coffeeshops is not unique for Rotterdam. Many other towns have done the same in the last 10 years.

In 2008, the municipality of Utrecht imposed a Zero Tolerance Policy to all events like the big dance party Trance Energy held in Jaarbeurs. However, such zero-tolerance policy at dance parties are now becoming common in the Netherlands and are even stricter in cities like Arnhem.

The two towns Roosendaal and Bergen op Zoom announced in October 2008 that they would start closing all coffee shops, each week visited by up to 25000 French and Belgian drug tourists, with closures beginning in February 2009.[37][38]

In May 2011 the Dutch government announced that tourist are to be banned from Dutch coffee shops, starting in the southern provinces and at the end of 2011 in the rest of the country.

“In order to tackle the nuisance and criminality associated with coffee shops and drug trafficking, the open-door policy of coffee shops will end,” (the Dutch health and justice ministers in a letter to the Dutch parliament)[3]

A government committee delivered in June 2011 a report about Cannabis to the Dutch government. It includes a proposal that cannabis with more than 15 percent THC should be labeled as hard drugs.[39] Higher concentrations of THC and drug tourism have challenged the current policy and led to a re-examination of the current approach; for e.g. ban of all sales of cannabis to tourists in coffee shops from end of 2011 was proposed but currently only the border city of Maastricht has adopted the measure in order to test out its feasibility.[40] According to the initial measure, starting in 2012, each coffee shop was to operate like a private club with some 1,000 to 1,500 members. In order to qualify for a membership card, applicants would have to be adult Dutch citizens, membership was only to be allowed in one club. [5]

In Amsterdam 26 coffeeshops in the De Wallen area will have to close their doors between 1 September 2012 and 31 August 2015.[41]

A Dutch judge has ruled that tourists can legally be banned from entering cannabis cafes, as part of new restrictions which come into force in 2012.[42]

Like all Ronulan your intellectual honesty is like Ron Pauls chances of getting elected POTUS, in other words, it neither does nor ever has existed.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM

dude, JohnGalt23, you got mad patience. This is like dealing with a bunch of libs

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I have patience for those willing to put forth reasonable arguments. Some prohibitionists have reasonable, although I would argue invalid, arguments.

I have no patience for people who are trying to scare this nation into abrogating parts of the US Constitution, like no-knock warrants, elimination of principles of federalism, or, the damned dumbest, most irresponsible, and totalitarian claim I have ever heard, summary executions for drug offenses. That these people call themselves conservatives and get away with it boggles the mind.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Cop pulls some one over for careless driving and asks “Have you been smoking pot”
If the answer in no careless driving ticket.
If the answer is yes Arested for DUI.

How did they establish marijuana consumption give every on a blood test? No so they took a survey and asked have you committed a crime that could have your ass locked up in jail, and later asked know that marijuana consumption will no longer get your ass thrown in jail have you used it? or words to that effect.

Slowburn on July 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM

If the time ever comes that such a society actually exists rather than what we actually have, then certainly lets talk! Until then the taxpayer foots the bill for rehab, welfare, petty theft, violence, dysfunctional families, medical bills, etc…

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I would argue that dysfunctional people are dysfunctional before the drug use, drugs just enhance the effect. But the exact same thing can be said about alcohol. I might argue that alcohol is a BIGGER bane to society at this moment then marijuana is (but that would be my observations not statistics saying that).

airmonkey on July 16, 2012 at 10:03 PM

You descended a bit into gibberish there…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I have tried to have a reasoned conversation here, but I should have known that even the possibility of having their stash taken away would result in shrieking from the potheads.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Srs questions:

1. If drugs are legalized, do they come under the FDA? What will be the mechanism for quality control, so that the poison people buy is the right poison? Will designer drugs that have not gotten the stamp of approval be considered illegal? Is it proposed that “recreational” drugs be unregulated while medicinal drug production remains so?
2. What sort of liability will the producers of those drugs have?
3. Since the productivity and income level of users is unlikely to improve, and since the number of users will, at least initially, almost certainly go up, how can anyone propose that violent crime will be reduced by this move?

Like I said earlier, I’m almost libertarian enough to let people destroy their own lives this way except that a) they won’t destroy just their own lives and b) we’ll all be expected to pay to clean up the mess. The hell with that. I’m all for the end of no-knock entries and getting back to some more reasonable enforcement tactics even if it lets some bad guys get away.

and JohnGalt23, you really are the turd in the HA punch bowl. Just so you know. You managed to get under SWalker’s skin tonight, and I expect you’re somehow pleased by that, but no one else is reading this thread and thinking that you’re witty and clever.

TexasDan on July 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

If the time ever comes that such a society actually exists rather than what we actually have, then certainly lets talk! Until then the taxpayer foots the bill for rehab, welfare, petty theft, violence, dysfunctional families, medical bills, etc…

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 9:53 PM

I take it you’re an Obamacare supporter, then? Because this “EXTERNALITIES! COST-SHIFTING! FREE RIDERS!” business is the same nonsense argument used to justify the mandate.

If you don’t want to pay for rehab, welfare, petty theft, violence, dysfunctional families, medical bills, etc., then don’t. Repeal EMTALA, cut back on law enforcement spending, dismantle the welfare state. I’ll gladly help out in those efforts.

But having opted NOT to repeal EMTALA, cut back on law enforcement spending, and dismantle the welfare state, don’t turn around and whine about how expensive it is.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Someone mentioned it earlier… If you don’t do, haven’t done, and won’t do them there drugs… STFU! Anyone want to go skiing up the slopes of your nose? Go down to your local bar. Anyone want to wrap a green giant in a white sleeping bag? Go down to your local 7-11. Anyone want to ride the white pony? Go down to your local MLK BLVD and slap your wrists for a while. The WoD is fluking horsesh*t! Take the power from the source, regulate/tax or whatever your state sees fit, and go on with your lives. Kids will be kids, adults will migrate on through their desperate ways, and the elderly should have the HINDSIGHT to make choices and live any godd*mned way they want. Prohibition makes for fine recipes in the future…

ahlaphus on July 16, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Alcohol already does that. Unless you’re in favor of outlawing it…

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 9:59 PM

And how is that an argument to add drugs to that list?

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM

And you call me sick in the head. Dude, look in the mirror.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Your choice gives the government ultimate power. Mine reduces their power. That you call yourself a conservative is appalling.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Not as appalling as you calling yourself a conservative. George Washington called himself a conservative, he took his troops into Pennsylvania and started shooting American Citizens until the Whiskey Rebellion was over. If the tactic was good enough for George Washington, well then it’s good enough for me.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM

and JohnGalt23, you really are the turd in the HA punch bowl. Just so you know. You managed to get under SWalker’s skin tonight, and I expect you’re somehow pleased by that, but no one else is reading this thread and thinking that you’re witty and clever.

TexasDan on July 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Yep. He does this in many threads related to Israel, but with even more propensity for dickishness.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:08 PM

And how is that an argument to add drugs to that list?

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM

Why should one be legal and not the other? Why should that be a choice for the federal government to make, rather than for the states?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Once again, from your own massive C&P job…

the couple was eventually prosecuted for espionage, rather than treason, and executed

They were executed as spies, not as traitors. Which, once again, makes you a bald faced liar.

Just as the fact that Holland still operates coffee shops that legally sell cannabis to people proves that your claim that they have

just repealed the whole thing

makes you a bald faced liar.

And you yourself keep providing the evidence of your own mendacity.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

You can grow marijuana in your own backyard, for little more than the (negligible) cost of the seeds. The likelihood of unmet white-market demand for such a product approaches zero.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 10:00 PM

You can’t grow synthetic drugs in your backyard and Heroin and crack either in the amounts an addict needs. Unless you are going to legalize all drugs you haven’t changed a thing.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

George Washington called himself a conservative, he took his troops into Pennsylvania and started shooting American Citizens until the Whiskey Rebellion was over. If the tactic was good enough for George Washington, well then it’s good enough for me.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:07 PM

I’ll bet you cheered and roasted marshmallows at Waco.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Why should one be legal and not the other? Why should that be a choice for the federal government to make, rather than for the states?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Go ask George Washington, reference the Whiskey Rebellion while doing so.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I have tried to have a reasoned conversation here, but I should have known that even the possibility of having their stash taken away would result in shrieking from the potheads.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

You dropped a passive voice bomb in the middle of a non-continuous argument. Sorry, but that qualifies as marginal gibberish.

Which, I’ll note, allowed you to completely dodge any attempt to reply to my argument.

Noted.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Go ask George Washington, reference the Whiskey Rebellion while doing so.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I wouldn’t be surprised for a second if you thought the Whiskey Rebellion led to Prohibition.

Since it has to do with taxes, it’s irrelevant. Much like civil liberties appear to be utterly and totally irrelevant to you. You and Obama should share a Constitution in the john.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Just as the fact that Holland still operates coffee shops that legally sell cannabis to people proves that your claim that they have

just repealed the whole thing

makes you a bald faced liar.

And you yourself keep providing the evidence of your own mendacity.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

In November 2008, Pieter van Geel, the leader of the CDA (Christian Democrats) in the Dutch parliament, called for a ban on the cafes where marijuana is sold. He said the practice of allowing so-called coffee shops to operate had failed.

Apparently among the other things you are completely incapable of understanding, you know, like Ron Paul never ever ever having a chance of winning, the concept of prevarication is beyond your grasp too.

Clearly being proven wrong doesn’t even slow you down, kind of like your dear Marxist Leader Barack Obama.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:17 PM

and JohnGalt23, you really are the turd in the HA punch bowl. Just so you know. You managed to get under SWalker’s skin tonight, and I expect you’re somehow pleased by that, but no one else is reading this thread and thinking that you’re witty and clever.

TexasDan on July 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM

Is that violins I hear playing in the background, announcing the arrival of HotAir’s self-appointed literary critic?

Cry me a river, Tex…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Correcting you when you misrepresented my position is engaging in a “knock down drag out”?

You aren’t correcting me if I wasn’t of the impression you opinion had changed from what you’d previously remarked to me.

Sorry bud, but as with other issues we’ve discussed, you sometimes see red when anyone you consider a friend doesn’t fall into lockstep with you.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Right MadCon. You can’t control your tone with even the mildest of opposition.

You get emotional about a lot of subjects. Pots a big one. Maybe you confuse my temperment and pragmatism with anger because you’re the one getting fired up?

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM

your …

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Why should one be legal and not the other? Why should that be a choice for the federal government to make, rather than for the states?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Its a problem that affects everyone and doesn’t stop at state lines or international borders. If one state became a home for the drug cartels then that would spill over into other states.

Alcohol is a problem but it being a problem doesn’t mandate that we add other problems to the pile.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Apparently someone confuses

In November 2008, Pieter van Geel, the leader of the CDA (Christian Democrats) in the Dutch parliament, called for a ban on the cafes where marijuana is sold. He said the practice of allowing so-called coffee shops to operate had failed.

with

just repealed the whole thing

I’m not sure whether to chalk that one up to mendacity or ignorance…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Right MadCon. You can’t control your tone with even the mildest of opposition.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM

I’ve controlled myself entirely with you, but you either haven’t noticed or don’t care. Let’s be honest: it’s the second. You’re attacking me like others who hate me do; by attacking me based on totally unrelated conversations and being to chickens**t to address the conversation as it is being carried out. I addressed you respectfully, as a friend. Clearly, at best, you’re only a fair-weather friend.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Read “The Lotus Eaters” by Tom Kratman.

His main character had a will and a way to deal with the addicts and the dealers.

MunDane68 on July 16, 2012 at 10:25 PM

I agree with MadCon

you’re being sorta a beotch hawk

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM

… and unnecessarily undermining human potential.”

No, Cory. It’s not the “war on drugs” that has done that. IT’S THE DRUGS!

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Its a problem that affects everyone and doesn’t stop at state lines or international borders. If one state became a home for the drug cartels then that would spill over into other states.

Alcohol is a problem but it being a problem doesn’t mandate that we add other problems to the pile.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM

It demonstrates hypocrisy. If illegality solves the problem, then alcohol, along with drugs, should be illegal. If illegality doesn’t solve the problem, then alcohol, along with other drugs, should be illegal. Your logic lines up very nicely with the government trying to ban certain soda sizes, light bulbs, automobiles, etc…

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Go ask George Washington, reference the Whiskey Rebellion while doing so.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I wouldn’t be surprised for a second if you thought the Whiskey Rebellion led to Prohibition.

Since it has to do with taxes, it’s irrelevant. Much like civil liberties appear to be utterly and totally irrelevant to you. You and Obama should share a Constitution in the john.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:17 PM

No MadisonPothead, I am under no such delusions. George Washington’s use of deadly force to quell the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent. A precedent that has been consistently applied throughout all of America’s history.

That precedent is the use of deadly force administered right then and there by representatives of the United States Government in stopping actions deemed to be illegal by the United States Congress.

To this day the use of deadly force is authorized by members of the United States Military in connection to any individual illegally entering in to a high security area.

It is likewise authorized for all Law Enforcement Officer’s when encountering resistance to lawful apprehension.

So to pretend that what I am suggesting is unconstitutional is to insist that you haven’t actually read the United States Constitution or have any awareness of American History.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

I agree with MadCon

you’re being sorta a beotch hawk

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Don’t dare call him “homo”, in even the lightest of circumstances. Yet another thing to which he’ll grossly overreact.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM

MadisonPothead

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Whatever you say, SObama.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

You got anything else to say, by the way, it better be about Ruby Ridge and Waco.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM

You can’t grow synthetic drugs in your backyard and Heroin and crack either in the amounts an addict needs. Unless you are going to legalize all drugs you haven’t changed a thing.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM

Most “synthetic drugs” can be manufactured out of people’s kitchens. Heroin? Can be synthesized from poppies. Cocaine and crack? From the coca plant. Recipes are available on the internet; startup costs for a drug lab are pretty tiny.

This is why the War On Some Drugs is such an abysmal policy failure. None of this stuff is naturally expensive; on the contrary, it’s naturally dirt-cheap, but prohibition makes and keeps the price artificially high.

Centerfire on July 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM

MadisonPothead

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Whatever you say, SObama.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM

I’ll take this as an admission that you know your head is up your a$$.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:33 PM

It demonstrates hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy has gotten a bad name IMO. Parents engage in it all the time and rightfully so.

If illegality solves the problem, then alcohol, along with drugs, should be illegal. If illegality doesn’t solve the problem, then alcohol, along with other drugs, should be illegal.

Illegality solves some problems and it creates others. It isn’t a binary outcome. We have to make a judgment call about what costs we are willing to pay to legalize something and measure that with the costs of keeping it illegal. The idea that there are no costs to either choice is absurd.

Your logic lines up very nicely with the government trying to ban certain soda sizes, light bulbs, automobiles, etc…

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM

And it lines up with the ban on biological weapons in private hands. The potential cost of that is too great to not ban it. Not everything is an attack on liberty if you aren’t allowed to do it.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Say what you will about the so-called “war on drugs” but at least it has this going for it – it still reinforces the idea that drugs are destructive to the human potential and drug use is morally wrong.

Remove that and you think there’s going to be an IMPROVEMENT?

These are the kinds of things a culture in its death throes wrestles with.

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:35 PM

I’ll take this as an admission that you know your head is up your a$$.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:33 PM

It’s a reminder that you and the Marxist Obama are on the same page. He’s ignoring states’ rights and raiding dispensaries left and right, the same way he has with SB1070. Apparently you agree with both, stormtrooper.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:35 PM

SWalker thinks he partied like a rock star. He didn’t. I can tell.

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Blacks make up less than 15% of our New Jersey’s population but make up more than 60% of our prison population. I can’t accept that facts like this one do anything but demonstrate the historic and current biases in our criminal justice system…

More racialist ideology masquerading as logic. Maybe it demonstrates that blacks use more illegal drugs?

Hmmmm?

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:39 PM

That precedent is the use of deadly force administered right then and there by representatives of the United States Government in stopping actions deemed to be illegal by the United States Congress.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

And there, so clearly demonstrated, is fascism cloaked as Constitutional ignorance… the willingness to deliberately conflate “criminal” with “insurrection”.

Ignorant, mendacious, and totalitarian is no way to go through life, son…

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Parents engage in it all the time and rightfully so.

So the government should be parent in this, but not in anything else? Interesting.

Illegality solves some problems and it creates others. It isn’t a binary outcome. We have to make a judgment call about what costs we are willing to pay to legalize something and measure that with the costs of keeping it illegal. The idea that there are no costs to either choice is absurd.

I’m not making the case that there are no costs to either choice. However, please explain how the costs to keeping various drugs illegal(billions of dollars) increase with regard to alcohol. Is it because it’s so widely used? Wouldn’t that change with illegality? If not, does that mean if a similar number of people started using weed, it should be made legal like alcohol, since it would meet whatever arbitrary critera?

And it lines up with the ban on biological weapons in private hands. The potential cost of that is too great to not ban it. Not everything is an attack on liberty if you aren’t allowed to do it.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:35 PM

That’s not even a remotely reasonable comparison, and you know it. You can’t drop a pound of Jamaican finger hash over Washington DC and cause anything greater than an increase in sales of Funyuns.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:41 PM

So Booker, who is for all practical purposes an Obama clone who at best has a little more sense in hiding what he truly believes, spouts a few platitudes that appeal to the civil Libertardians and he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread? His “hug- a- thug” alternatives to the drug war would cost as much or more to fund.

Dukeboy01 on July 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

The one time a Liberal wants smaller government or for that fact anytime is when it affects their constituency. What a tool.

DDay on July 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:28 PM

You got anything else to say, by the way, it better be about Ruby Ridge and Waco.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:31 PM

You know, if you quit smoking pot for a couple years, your mind would eventually clear up and you just might find your way to being rational.

For instance, had you been capable of paying attention to my responses to you earlier in the thread, you might actually have noticed something I posted regarding the 2nd amendment and the governments unconstitutional restrictions on it.

A rational capacity for logical inference which apparent pot smoking has deprived you of, combined with that previous statement should have told you all you need to know regarding my opinion of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

However since you clearly seem to have a degraded logical and cognitive functional ability I won’t bother holding my breath while you figure it out, since you will no doubt come to a grossly inaccurate conclusion at best.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

the willingness to deliberately conflate “criminal” with “insurrection”.

JohnGalt23 on July 16, 2012 at 10:39 PM

If its an insurrection it is by definition illegal.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

You know, if you quit smoking pot for a couple years…

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

You know, if you quit drinking so much…

Yeah. Really all the response you’re worth.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:44 PM

degraded logical and cognitive function! what, are you trying to out-big word him?

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM

The one time a Liberal wants smaller government or for that fact anytime is when it affects their constituency. What a tool.

DDay on July 16, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Or when it further erodes the moral safeguards the culture took centuries to erect.

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM

SWalker thinks he partied like a rock star. He didn’t. I can tell.

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:37 PM

ROTFLMAO… Tell that to the Record Label that used to hold my contract, I’m sure they’ll get a kick out of it.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

moral safeguards my wildly sexy @zz

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Don’t dare call him “homo”, in even the lightest of circumstances. Yet another thing to which he’ll grossly overreact.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:29 PM

MadCon. I can’t remember the number of times I’d taken your side in an argument even when we were disagreeing because someone was being a douche to you.

The point is that I made a respectful comment to you and you characterized it as though I were trying to misrepresent what you were trying to say. It wasn’t the case. Pointing out when you overreact to comments only seems to make you take an even more vitriolic tone.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

For instance, had you been capable of paying attention to my responses to you earlier in the thread, you might actually have noticed something I posted regarding the 2nd amendment and the governments unconstitutional restrictions on it.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

On second thought, this needs to be addressed. You are subhuman if you truly believe that the bigger concern about Waco was gun laws, rather than the fact that the government shot and burned to death 81 men, women, and children.

Apparently, if they had been in possession of marijuana, rather than firearms, you’d have thought the barbecue was peachy.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

I’ve done more drugs than you. I can tell. I’ve done everything and yo mama

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Let me guess. You’re under 35, right?

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM

Or when it further erodes the moral safeguards the culture took centuries to erect.

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:45 PM

What a sad affair and true.

DDay on July 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM

You’re attacking me like others who hate me do; by attacking me based on totally unrelated conversations and being to chickens**t to address the conversation as it is being carried out. I addressed you respectfully, as a friend. Clearly, at best, you’re only a fair-weather friend.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Attacking you?

Take care, Dude.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 10:52 PM

The point is that I made a respectful comment to you and you characterized it as though I were trying to misrepresent what you were trying to say.

hawkdriver on July 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

You were. You addressed me assuming an opinion. You were wrong. The respectful way would have been to say “Assuming you don’t support full drug legalization…” I corrected you in the same blunt manner you mischaracterized my position.

And above all this, the fact that you would get so bent out of shape as to start talking about whatever “friendship” you think exists between us — somehow only referenced when you’re pissed at me for whatever reason — shows that there is none. So drop the schtick.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM

If its an insurrection it is by definition illegal.
sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:43 PM

So you’re saying our founding fathers were a bunch of criminals?

iwasbornwithit on July 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM

I’m not making the case that there are no costs to either choice. However, please explain how the costs to keeping various drugs illegal(billions of dollars) increase with regard to alcohol. Is it because it’s so widely used? Wouldn’t that change with illegality?

It did change with prohibition. There were fewer deaths and less misery from alcohol related issues. Society as a whole decided that the increased cost that alcohol incurred was worth paying and legalized it again.

If not, does that mean if a similar number of people started using weed, it should be made legal like alcohol, since it would meet whatever arbitrary critera?

That is precisely what is going to happen and the other harder drugs will rapidly follow. The cost will be enormous and the criminal gangs will take advantage of it as will local governments desperate for additional revenue and a form of ‘bread and circuses’ for the mob. Needy dependent addicts are a Democrats dream voter. They will just have to find a way to get them to the polls.

That’s not even a remotely reasonable comparison, and you know it. You can’t drop a pound of Jamaican finger hash over Washington DC and cause anything greater than an increase in sales of Funyuns.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Exactly. In other words the potential cost exceeds any potential benefit. That is all we are talking about. I see little benefit to legalizing drugs and a significant cost to doing so.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM

yup, are you ageist? cause I don’t tolerate homey

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:55 PM

So you’re saying our founding fathers were a bunch of criminals?

iwasbornwithit on July 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM

Yes of course they were.

They were morally in the right and criminals. They broke the law which makes them criminals.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

I just gotta say that this is the most entertaining comment thread that I have read in some time. Drama!

iwasbornwithit on July 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 10:55 PM

So that means you were born after 1977. So, you’ve come of age in a different period of time than, say, if you’d been born in 1945.

Do you think that fact alone will have an affect on what you consider morally right or wrong as compared to your alternate self born in ’45?

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM

It did change with prohibition. There were fewer deaths and less misery from alcohol related issues. Society as a whole decided that the increased cost that alcohol incurred was worth paying and legalized it again.

…but society as a whole can’t come to that conclusion on other narcotics? Or are you strictly speaking from a moral standpoint, rather than a constitutional one?

That is precisely what is going to happen and the other harder drugs will rapidly follow. The cost will be enormous and the criminal gangs will take advantage of it as will local governments desperate for additional revenue and a form of ‘bread and circuses’ for the mob. Needy dependent addicts are a Democrats dream voter. They will just have to find a way to get them to the polls.

For a logical standpoint from your end, one would need to be in favor of outlawing alcohol again, in order to reverse the trend. Are you?

Exactly. In other words the potential cost exceeds any potential benefit. That is all we are talking about. I see little benefit to legalizing drugs and a significant cost to doing so.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM

What benefits have there been to legalizing alcohol? That it is no longer a fertile criminal enterprise? That law enforcement no longer had to spend money on fighting it?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM

you just blew my mind. It’s like an episode of Fringe in here

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

I am glad that you recognize that. Resisting or “violating” unconstitutional laws also does not make one a criminal as an unconstitutional law is void on its face and those who enact or enforce those laws are the real criminals/redcoats.

iwasbornwithit on July 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Let me guess. You’re under 35, right?

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM

I am. Please don’t attribute that behavior to age. I avoid it like the plague.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

you just blew my mind. It’s like an episode of Fringe in here

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Dunno “Fringe”.

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

They were morally in the right and criminals. They broke the law which makes them criminals.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Law before morality? No wonder our country is sinking as if it were in quicksand.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 11:05 PM

I am. Please don’t attribute that behavior to age. I avoid it like the plague.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 11:04 PM

No, MadCon, I wasn’t paying attention to your conversation with Hawkdriver enough to know what you guys are arguing about so I don’t know which one of you I agree with. My question was addressed to Slade73 because he responded to one of my posts.

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 11:06 PM

I am glad that you recognize that. Resisting or “violating” unconstitutional laws also does not make one a criminal as an unconstitutional law is void on its face and those who enact or enforce those laws are the real criminals/redcoats.

iwasbornwithit on July 16, 2012 at 11:03 PM

A officer who doesn’t obey orders in the US military because he believes that Obama is not the constitutional commander in chief will still go to prison. You can argue that he’s not really a criminal but he’s still sitting in a cell at Leavenworth.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

you gotta check it out Cleombrotus! It’s on Fox, lots of alternate realities and such, with Pacey from Dawson’s Creek.

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

Ah. Sorry, Slade, but I don’t get my reality from popular entertainment. Especially not these days.

Cleombrotus on July 16, 2012 at 11:08 PM

I have never seen a well-reasoned argument that squares the circle of why alcohol is legal but but isn’t.

iwasbornwithit on July 16, 2012 at 11:09 PM

They were morally in the right and criminals. They broke the law which makes them criminals.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Law before morality?

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 11:05 PM

No, morality before law. You should do what is moral and often that has little to do with what is legal. If they legalize sex with children which they will probably get around to doing, the legality of such an act does not make it moral.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

On second thought, this needs to be addressed. You are subhuman if you truly believe that the bigger concern about Waco was gun laws, rather than the fact that the government shot and burned to death 81 men, women, and children.

Apparently, if they had been in possession of marijuana, rather than firearms, you’d have thought the barbecue was peachy.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Like I said, since you clearly seem to have a degraded logical and cognitive functional ability I won’t bother holding my breath while you figure it out, since you will no doubt come to a grossly inaccurate conclusion at best.

But please, by all means do not allow your complete an utter failure to color your thinking. I genuinely would hate for you to suffer an epiphany and discover how foolish your assumptions have been.

SWalker on July 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

bummer Cleombrotus! On a good note I just got a schadenfreude boner

Slade73 on July 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM

No, morality before law. You should do what is moral and often that has little to do with what is legal. If they legalize sex with children which they will probably get around to doing, the legality of such an act does not make it moral.

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 11:11 PM

So now smoking a joint is equal to kiddy rape? Please tell me you’re not attempting to strike moral equivalence. That’s just lousy.

MadisonConservative on July 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM

sharrukin on July 16, 2012 at 11:07 PM

That begs the question: Do you believe that the officer is a criminal for refusing to carry out an unconstitutional order? Let me follow that up by asking if you believe that our rights are given to us by God or by men?

iwasbornwithit on July 16, 2012 at 11:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5