A Perfect Example Why Drug Legalization Is A Fallacy

[BluesStringer]

More of them are on the street than in jail. You're absolutely correct. We lose. We should let out the ones that got caught. I like it! Let's do the same with drunk drivers. What do you say? They need "compassion" as well as time to "heal". Besides, it has been estimated that in most cities after 12:00 AM on the weekend, over 50% of the people on the road ARE DRUNK!

Citation please. (yeah, right, like that's ever going to happen)

We are losing this "war on drunk drivers", so why are we wasting the time and money prosecuting them?

Hey genius, the federal war on alcohol was already lost and an unconditional surrender was handed to The People in 1933 by the .fedgov in the form of the 21st Amendment. Every brainless example you just spewed makes the exact point that many of us have made in your vacuous thread here; leave drug issues to the states, per the 10th Amendment, and get the federal government out of the business of waging war against its own citizens!

Thanks for finally driving the correct and constitutional point home so forcefully, even if quite by a brainless accident!

Blues

[billt]

Citation please.

It is "only" 25%. But damn it, just because only one in 4 drivers are drunk, why should we waste money on obviously unenforceable laws trying to stop them? AND infringe on their Constitutional rights at the same time. One for the road, I say! Praise the Lord, and pour me another! Just don't tread on me damn it!

"That jumps to one in 12 at night and perhaps one in four after 11 p.m. in areas with a high concentration of bars.

Read more: Dodging drunk drivers: Statistics on impaired driving are sobering

The federal war on alcohol was already lost and an unconditional surrender was handed to The People in 1933 by the .fedgov in the form of the 21st Amendment.

Exactly! So why do we still have these draconian drunk driving laws in place? If I want to get loaded and drive home, why should there be a law infringing on my Constitutional rights to stop me? If 16,000 people a year have to die from drunks on the road, that is a small price to pay for my Constitutional freedoms! I say, let em' die!

[BluesStringer]

billt, you have got to be the most obtuse person I've ever exchanged a word on the internet with. It is no violation of constitutional rights for states to institute drunk driving or drug prohibition laws, and no one, not me or anyone else who has commented on "my side" of this little circle-jerk, has suggested any such thing. Your responses are overladen with the same red herring over and over and over, and it's obviously getting us nowhere. One last time, we're talking about the federal government conducting a war against its own citizens, and some of us believe strongly that it is a constitutional overreach of the federal government to do that. State governments are both authorized and protected in instituting such laws, and that's the proper place for them to exist and be enforced. I can't for the life of me understand how that premise has been lost on you, but obviously it has, so there ya go.

Otherwise, thanks for the citation and admission that you overstated the stats. I would still question that 25% figure, if for no other reason than that I have worked the graveyard shift for the last 3+ years and drive the freeways and main arteries for a living every night that I work, and I have seen no evidence that there's anywhere near that many impaired drivers on the road in the wee hours. I also hit DUI checks on a pretty regular basis, and there is no way in Hell that every 4th vehicle is parked on the side of the road with its driver on the way to jail. I didn't read your link though. Don't really see the point. Whether it's 25% or 2.5%, it's not going to change my mind about what the Constitution continues to be meant to protect for citizens, and restrict for government.

I find it beyond odd that someone who claims so vociferously that he is a conservative, so easily mocks citations of constitutional text or points made about original intent. Carry on if you think you're making some important point, but I don't think you are, and seriously doubt that many, if any, who are still reading do either. You are, however, getting some good practice typing, and you're not bad at it (except for a little perspective when you should've had a prospective moment). (Big Shrug)

Blues

[billt]

One last time, we're talking about the federal government conducting a war against its own citizens.

Do you even have a F'ing clue as to what WAR actually IS?

[BluesStringer]

Do you even have a F'ing clue as to what WAR actually IS?

Not first-hand, but Jose Guerena did. Just his lousy tough luck though, huh? He survived two tours in Afghanistan, but didn't survive one morning's peaceful sleep after a graveyard shift without his own government sending goons to the wrong f'ing address to shoot him down like a f'ing dog.

That cavalier attitude of yours about the collateral damage this war costs law-abiding Americans is exactly why I used the word "sadistic" to describe you, and I reiterate it now, you sadistic phuk.

[billt]

Not first-hand, but Jose Guerena did. Just his lousy tough luck though, huh? He survived two tours in Afghanistan, but didn't survive one morning's peaceful sleep after a graveyard shift without his own government sending goons to the wrong f'ing address to shoot him down like a f'ing dog.

That cavalier attitude of yours about the collateral damage this war costs law-abiding Americans is exactly why I used the word "sadistic" to describe you, and I reiterate it now, you sadistic phuk.

I didn't think so. You are nothing more than a passive, pathetic, whining little pu$$y who spouts off like a typical Internet idiot who thinks he knows something. You talk about "war" and "collateral damage". You gutless little piss ant, you don't have the first clue as to what you're even talking about. "Salvation Army"...."drug addicts". Jesus F'ing Christ!! F' you and the French Poodle that led you in here on her leash!

[BluesStringer]

Why it's so hard to win the war against US oxycodone epidemic - CSMonitor.com

That's the very first line from the very first post of this very brainless thread. YOU brought up the "war" pal, not me.

Here is an example of how this distorted concept that drug legalization will save money wasted on the "war on drugs" is a complete lie.

There is the second line of the first post in this stupid thread. Just following the rules and staying on-topic cupcake.

As with all war, there is collateral damage. Jose Guerena is only one glaring example out of hundreds that could be cited as evidence of the utter failure of the "war" that you opened this thread talking about.

Remember this drug is legal. There is no "war in the streets" over it. There is no gunfire being exchanged over the control of it's sale. It's produced by pharmaceutical companies, legally transported, and sold over the counter legally, by prescription in any licensed pharmacy in the United States. Get a prescription, and they'll sell you all you want.

An absolute lie. Get a prescription for Oxycontin or Oxycodone, and even with cancer or the most extremely painful back surgery patients, you can't get more than a two week prescription, and you have to go back to a certified pain clinic to get another two week prescription. Clearly, it is YOU who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

I take it from the tone of the above blather that you are a combat vet, is that right? Because I'm not, I'm not qualified to comment on the war on drugs that you opened this thread talking about, right? So tell us, what about having been in combat (if, indeed, you ever were) qualifies YOU to comment on drug addiction, or the process for prescribing Schedule II or Schedule III drugs (which you clearly know absolutely nothing about), or the advantages to society in imprisonment vs. treatment, or the prudence of keeping the abuse of drugs a criminal offense? Obviously, being a combat vet (if you are) doesn't qualify you any more than being a Salvation Army vet qualifies me to comment on these issues.

And that's another thing.....The Salvation Army is deserving of your disdain? Anyone associated with that charitable organization is a pu$$y?

You gotta be high.

Blues

[billt]

The Salvation Army is deserving of your disdain? Anyone associated with that charitable organization is a pu$$y?

No, not in the least. Just your gutless, pathetic, whining little ass.

[BluesStringer]

No, not in the least. Just your gutless, pathetic, whining little ass.

LOL!














LOL!

[gunnerbob]

I didn't think so. You are nothing more than a passive, pathetic, whining little pu$$y who spouts off like a typical Internet idiot who thinks he knows something. You talk about "war" and "collateral damage". You gutless little piss ant, you don't have the first clue as to what you're even talking about. "Salvation Army"...."drug addicts". Jesus F'ing Christ!! F' you and the French Poodle that led you in here on her leash!

This comment was a response to you asking him if he knew what WAR IS.

Hey Bill, I do. I'm an OEF veteran.

And I agree with BluesStringer more than I do with you.

You are a very angry person aren't you Bill? You use some inappropriate language for an internet forum.

Anyway, this thread was very entertaining.