PLD

Funny, so did I...

And why not? I am free to kill myself slowly with cigarrettes, or more quickly with HIV. Why regulate the methods or the speed at which it takes place?

I think the net effect would be no different than that of the liquor store. And it's being done presently in Amsterdam with great success.

John, I hink too much law enforcement has clouded your view of reality. It cannot get much easier than it already is. Anyone who thinks drugs are hard to find is not looking. Ok, here we go again with the ridiculous (and false) rhetoric abotu what I said/believe. On this note, I'll bow out since it is impossible have a discussion about what happens in your fictious world.

I will say this loud and clear. It applies to legislators, law enforcement, and judges: Preventing men from hurting themselves or going to hell is an illegitimate use of governmental authority. Attempts to prohibit self destructive behavior are an inapproriate use of power.

Here is what you just said. There may or may not be negative consequences that nobody can predict. There may or may not be unintended consequences that nobody can predict. These consequences could be severe, therefore we should do nothing. I'm sorry, but I dont follow that logc. And please explain to me how the legazliation of drugs would have a negative impact on property values and zoning?

Yes. Now, since were are not in a courtroom attempting to make a finding of fact, but rather in a public forum having a debate, I do get to offer an opinion. And here it is: Yes. And your town, and Celeste's town, and Adrians town, and Don's town, and... Provided that the sale and use is restricted to adults over the age of 18. And provided that it is sold in commonly accepted places that deal in adult products (like liquor stores) and not absurd locations like Chuck-E-cheese.

John, Your question is fairly innocent. But you cannot frame the question as you have (no explanations, no dialog)and actually expect reasonable people to answer you in a dialog. Y/N questions are asked like that in court to set up a trap. Read up on "false dichotomy" Kind of like this one: Yes or No, John: Do you still beat up hookers after you force them to have *** in thge back of your patrol car? YES OR NO. An no, they do not garner a contempt charge if phrased like mine.

1910-1930. As various undesirable groups (mexicans, irish, chinese) began to show up on major pop centers, each brought their drugs of choice. Creating a reason to jail and deport them was a viewed as necessary and good. Drugs were on such method. Drug criminalization was generally a white mans response to put pressure unwanted immigrants. The fantasy that drugs were legalized as a matter of public health was a fictional tale spun long ago to help hide the fact that we were actively seeking methods to deprive men of their rights based on race/ethnicity. As for history, I would suggest that you take a real hard look at the truths behind prohibition and the reality of the drug war today. We fought alcohol for the same reasons (rampant social destruction), with the same results (none), and the same costs (lots of dead cops). The mafia has been replaced by organized gangs and 90 proof by crack, but the situation is no different. Oh, and I would add that your fellow LE officers out there fighting alcohol also viewed the evils of alcohol much as you do drugs now. Based on their first hand experience, they too thought they were fighting the good fight. Ok, let's not get started with the absurd and fantastic metaphors.... Can your child go to a candy store and buy Jack Daniels and a pack of Camels? We are talking about adults engaging in adult behaviors. No, you are not all ears. We are precisely "looking to change the laws in a different way to deal with drugs", and you are turning a deaf ear.

Yep. Gangsters used to smuggle and kill over alcohol sales. It was legalized and they are no longer interested because the profit motive is gone. Now they smuggle and kill over cocaine. Legalize that, and they will find a new illicit high-profit product. It is just human nature.

Not correct. With very few exceptions, All drugs were legal prior to being criminalized and many were in widespread use. prior to 1914 cocaine sodas were an energy drink (i.e. Coca Cola). Opium was sold at Sears. Marijauna was criminalized in 1937. More recently extacy was sold legally until identified and added to the federal controlled substance register. I do know quite a bit about marijuana, it effects, etc. Outside making you lazy and stupid, it has virtually no impact on humans. There is more reason to criminalize alcohol than marijauna.

Ummm... Lung cancer.

Make that Ryan AND Philip. No, it's not craziness, it's just acceptance of reality. People buy/sell drugs. People buy/sell ***. And despite the billions spent to stop it, both are actually quite easy to get. In fact, I will bet you $100 that I can get off the plane *any* US city of your choice and purchase BOTH within 1/2 hour. So, how's that war on drugs working out for you? You cannot stop either. Billions are being wasted in the effort, and countless law enforcement officers are killed trying. The fact that we keep trying to pound the square peg in the round hole is the crazyness.

The war on drugs is not even as efficient as prohibition was (remeber that farce?). Legalize drugs and "redeploy" our law enforcement elsewhere. Philip P.S. No, I do not use or condone the use of drugs other than alcohol (my drug of choice). Nor do I visit hookers. That does not change my opinion that others should be free to engage in behavior I personally consider stupid.

I do. Only taxpayers and property owners. Welfare bums and the homeless have no say.

I'll be damned. Jeff and I agree! Yes, it is a horrible waste. As will the multi million dollar inauguration party.

Bingo! John wins a cee-gar.

Barry, I had a 4.0 for two years before I got a 5.5. No looking back for me. If I could make one recommendation to a newbie it would be to get a 5.5 (or better) machine. If you plan on doing this more than one job a week, it will pay for itself pretty fast.

Who does have the "info, intel and inner workings we need to make an informed plan" Perhaps the Secretary of State? The Secretary of Defense? The President? I could be wrong but it seems to me like the people who have access to the "info, intel and inner workings we need to make an informed plan" have already made one. Also, if it is true that "We just dont have the info, intel and inner workings we need to make an informed plan." then is it not reasonable to also say that "We just dont have the info, intel and inner workings we need to make an informed decision about someone else's plan."

Yes, it is. It is not one that you like, but it is a plan. I do not have, nor have I ever had, any intentions of disecting your plan. I was just letting you prove my point; that the anti-Bush crowd loves to criticize the Bush's handling of Iraq, yet has NOTHING to offer as an alternative. Again, were back to that ludicrous, circular, debate: J - Bush's plan sucks. P - What do you suggest? J - I have no idea. P - Perhaps it is the best given the circumstances. J - No, it is terrible plan. P - Well then you must have thoughts of your own. J - Yes, Bush's plan sucks. P - Should we stay? J - Hell no! That is stupid. P - Then we should get out. J - I'm not staying that. P - Well, what are you saying? J - Bush's plan sucks. How could I have knocked your comments, you haven't made any other than Bush sucks...

Gee, I hate to see you go so soon. It's only 5 pages into the debate. I was hoping that in another two or three pages you might actually offer a plan other than "your plan sucks".

Yes. They were likely a significant part of the democratic victory in 06. Read on: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6735

Yep. Them A-rabs are uncivilized. Come to think of it, so are them injuns. And nig-ruhs too. Should've killed 'em all when we had the chance. P.S. I'd luv to stay and chat, but I've gotta go get my robe from the dry cleaners.

Actually, that loser has alot of influence. Take this election for example. The Libertarians constitute 3-5% of the vote. If the Reps get to far right, and they lose the Libertarian vote and the vote goes to the Dems. Contrary to what the media wants you to thinks, the Libertarians are not a wacko fring group. They are are socially liberal (i.e. Dems) and fiscally conservative (i.e. Reps).

1. Because I'm not running around decrying how f'ed up the current plan is. 2. Because I asked you, and I will not let you deflect the topic back to my opinion. Your "plan" was complete satire at best, laughable at worst. Even a 4th grader would not qualify your response as a "plan". Hence, do not forth claiming that you have offered you plan. You have offerred mucho criticism about the reps plan, and El Grande Zero suggestions of your own. Jeff, despite our political differences and heated exchanges I do respect your opinion. Your are in intelligent guy, But this is a ridiculous exchange; J - Your plan sucks. P - What do you suggest? J - I have no idea, but your plan still sucks.... P - Well, make a suggestion. J - I am not qualified, but your guy is an idiot. P - What would you do? J - I don't know, but not what we are doing.