Comments on: A Lame Defense Of The Drug War http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/ Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time. Fri, 17 May 2013 18:49:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Mark http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-10463 Mark Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:07:52 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-10463 Actually, Prohibition DID NOT turn most Americans into lawbreakers as consumption was never illegal, just manufacture (except for personal use), sale and distribution. I’m against all drug prohibitions, but this alcohol prohibition myth never seems to die.

]]> By: David Z http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-10382 David Z Tue, 30 Jan 2007 20:32:25 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-10382 I particularly like Hawkins’ apocalyptic claims about drug-induced violence overtaking society.

Fact: addicts perpetrate crimes (for money, primarily) because the black-market prices of illegal drugs is extremely high. Far fewer crimes are committed in the name of “getting enough money to score my next pint of Jack Daniels, or pack of Marlboros.”

Why? Despite sin-taxes, these products are still eminently affordable to just about anyone.

]]> By: Adam Selene http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-9319 Adam Selene Sun, 28 Jan 2007 19:55:21 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-9319 From Hawkins concluding paragraph:

…. do we really want the federal government to take over the role of a pusher and get our kids hooked on drugs to make a profit? No, we don’t.

Aside from the blatantly incorrect portions of his post, the logical fallacies and the clear desire to decide what is best for others, this is the sentence that I find most incredible from a so-called conservative. Clearly Mr. Hawkins has much more in common with Richard Nixon and the Bush family than he does with Goldwater or Reagan.

Amazingly, he cannot seem to see the inanity of this sentence. He is, in essence, saying that the government, by legalizing and regulating alcohol and nicotine, is a “pusher” for those products. Is there any concept of individual liberty and personal responsibility in Mr. Hawkins view of the universe? I suspect only for choosing a religion.

]]> By: Eric Sundwall http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-9312 Eric Sundwall Sun, 28 Jan 2007 18:00:34 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-9312 Glad somebody took the initiative on Mr. Hawkins lame piece. If you can’t understand the difference between victims and victim less crimes . . . um well you know. Insert your best ad hominem attack.

]]> By: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Fisking A Drug Warrior http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-9303 Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Fisking A Drug Warrior Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:27:00 +0000 http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/01/28/a-lame-defense-of-the-drug-war/#comment-9303 [...] tear it apart at The Liberty Papers.    [...]

]]>