Ashcroft gets his priorities straight.

[Theophylact]

Bongs Trump Bombs.

[M_Six]

I've run out of disparaging remarks for Ashcroft.

[daveleau]

Yes, and wineglass makers cause drunk-driving deaths.

Very poor analogy. Drugs are illegal, wine is not.

Great source, Theophylact, but even I don't agree with everything they say. I believe the drug war needs to be stepped up by police and FBI to go along with other measures that Ashcroft is using. Despite how you feel about drugs, they are illegal and the law should be enforced or removed. (I am for enforcement. I do NOT condone the legalization of drugs, period.)

[Epidemic]

ummmmm,

nah I guess my possition is known.

Legalize em and save lives, money, and freedom.

Don't take drugs.

But don't make bad choices illegal.


BTW I agree with dave on this point.

Enforce laws or remove them! We just fall on different sides of the two options.


__________________________________________________ __
Yes, and wineglass makers cause drunk-driving deaths.
__________________________________________________ __

Yes and no gun has accidentally ever killed any human being in the history of guns.

Several have been used in intentional blunt force injuries and deaths but a gun is not a great method for killing.

You need bullets you need a hand and you need a person to put all the components and actions together to achive a death utilizing this weapon system.

But imagine if someone brought a law suit against a gun manufacturer for someones death. Now that would be something really far fetched.

[cyphen]

"— Mr. Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service."

... and was high while writing this article.

Like we must affix our every attention to terrorism. Puhhleeeeeze! Mr Murdock says that we should just get used to the fact that 11 million people smoke pot. I think he should get used to the fact that it's illegal, and not whine when the law is enforced. Don't gripe about closing these shops down - if we didn't then we're in essence condoning something that's illegal. We don't see these places selling crack pipes - would you have the same defense of that, Mr Murdock?

[osprey4]

Despite the fact that Mr. Murdock is a pretty clever guy and has written a decent article, he's guilty of a very basic logical fallacy.

It's the old, "Why are the cops bothering little old me when there are real criminals out there."

As though the state does not have the right to uphold less significant laws when there are more significant laws to uphold.

[EndobioticChaos]

Dave, I know where you're coming from, and I wish I could agree. Unfortunately I'm forced to agree with Epidemic. I have yet to see even one case where banning something or making it illegal brought the desired results. Drugs have been illegal for how many decades now? Yet drug abuse is as widespread and rampant as ever. Anyone who wants them has them, it just costs them a lot more in money and risk to get them.

Very poor analogy. Drugs are illegal, wine is not.

True, but weren't alcoholic beverages across the board illegal at one time? And yet, now they aren't.

As though the state does not have the right to uphold less significant laws when there are more significant laws to uphold.

That's a good point, but I don't think that's what the article is complaining about. I think what the article is trying to get at is that while politicians are mucking about fighting the "gigantic evil druglords" to make themselves look good, there's a much greater evil looming overhead that they're ignoring.

It's rather like this: say you have a 3-year-old who's always misbehaving. It's your duty as a father to correct, and if necessary, punish him to keep him in line. But if you've got a masked stranger in your house threatening to rape your wife, which do you deal with: the stranger, or your kid?

[Epidemic]

quoting EndobioticChaos
there's a much greater evil looming overhead that they're ignoring

It's rather like this: say you have a 3-year-old who's always misbehaving. It's your duty as a father to correct, and if necessary, punish him to keep him in line. But if you've got a masked stranger in your house threatening to rape your wife, which do you deal with: the stranger, or your kid?

The analogy falls a bit short there endo, You see the social worker can address the kid. The police need to address the masked stranger generally speaking.

We have drug agents and we have international agents both from totally different backgrounds. Neither one can fill the other ones role.

Now I would vote for retraining all the agents and eliminating the need for the drug agents but at present that aint gonna happen.

People can not get out of the idealistic mindset of drugs are bad and no one should take them. Although quite true the fact is that there is no way to fight them because the harder you fight the more expensive they are, the more expensive they are the more people are willing to risk to sell them, the more expensive they are the more likely you are to steal to get them.

The only answer is that you can not legislate private decisions to destroy your life.