Jessica Corry is a real conservative, unlike the many fake ones on this forum.

Some fake Catholics, Christians, Conservatives and Activists on the Hive.

Most would steal your last bowl of Oatmeal if you turned your back.

Pragmatic libertarians (minimal-statists) and "true" Conservatives agree that many, if not most, of society's problems are caused by government usurping choices that could better be made by individuals and that government is just about the worst way of doing almost anything. Where libertarianism normally parts company with "fake" conservatism is over moral issues. But a true conservative would have no problem with agreeing, that what people do with their own bodies, and especially in the privacy of their own home, should be supremely their business, and that anything else would entail ignoring the basic tenet of limited government.

Fake-Conservatism on the other hand has much in common with socialism; Both Leftists and Fake-Conservatives appear to harbor the belief that nature does not exist and that any human can be anything he wants to be, or can for the "greater good", be "re-educated" into being. Leftists therfore think little boys can be conditioned into preferring dolls over toy soldiers, and similarly Fake-conservatives believe that adults can be coerced into choosing alcohol over marijuana. A true conservative, just like a pragmatic libertarian, would immediately reject both ideas as nonsense.

Little boys should be given a choice of what to play with, and who cares what adults choose to smoke, drink or inject, as long as they don't get behind the wheel of a vehicle, or expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for any injury they may cause to themselves during their pursuit of "happiness".

The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise
by Milton Friedman

Weave a circle round him thrice
And close your eyes with holy dread.
For he on honey-dew hath fed
And drunk the milk of paradise.

Written, while high on opium, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge

That was really articulate. I'm a registered libertarian myself. Its too bad the two main parties are so douche-like, and so thoroughly dominate the political landscape though.

Some of my Classical Guitar Playing

http://www.your-lesson-store.com/audio.html

Maybe you should ask yourself some simple but necessary questions:

Do you really wish to continue to perpetuate the worst crime wave in this nation’s history?

Do you really wish to support a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike?

Do you real wish to continue to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons?

Do you really want to continue removing many important civil liberties from those citizens you claim to represent?

Do you really want to continue to put both previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets?

Do you really want to continue to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property?

Do you really want to continue to abandon American children to the morals and ethics of gangsters and terrorists?

Do you really want to continue to overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others?

Do you really want to continue your support for the black market economy that funds most of the terrorist groups in the world today. Including the Taliban and alQaida?

When you were using shed-fulls of coke; how easy was it to obtain, and were your suppliers honest tax paying business people?

What society needs is legalized regulation LSK. What society now has is a non-regulated black market to which everybody has access and where all the profits go to organized crime and terrorists.

It's easy to stay middle of the road all the time, but it's pretty meaningless when all is said and done.

I liked your explanation on Conservative vs. Liberal. Very well analyzed and explained in an understandable way.

And as far as I'm concerned anything different we can do to address this drug trade market is a plus. All we are doing right now is watching things get worse day by day. We have little to lose at this point in time.

Thank You.

   You say that you are commanded by Jesus to care for the needy, but he did not command you to force others to do the same.  He did not endorse allowing men to create laws that enforce this.

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone."-- Thomas Jefferson

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.  Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-- Ayn Rand

You make a good point; no one who is not a Catholic must operate under the same moral laws that I must live.

However, we would be foolish (as a society) to ignore that we do legislate morality to a certain extent. From laws against homicide to traffic laws, we (as a society) impose a behavior system on 'the whole'. We do this primarily so we can function easier - look at how difficult it is, for instance, to drive in Saudi Arabia (I've tried it and it is a nightmare).

I also think we are foolish to assume that government has no role in legislating how citizens should be cared for in a practical manner. Those countries that truly leave it up to the individual to 'reap what they sow' (for want of a better phrase) often find themselves stepping over bodies of the unwanted left to rot in the street. I offer India as a prime example.

So, I guess my point is this: we have seen in our Western Culture what happens when there is no governmental restraint imposed upon people's actions. Otherwise known as 'deregulation', we have to accept the fact that there are more people WITHOUT brakes on their demands than those who are able to impose brakes on their own wants and needs. Ask anyone who has struggled with credit card debt. It is a by-product of being human, I suppose.

So, I guess in many ways I am a fake conservative because I believe that unless society is willing to say very specifically to people 'You may do this but you may NOT do that' AND be willing to foot the bill for those innocents who do not have responsible adults in their lives, we could end up like we were in New York at the turn of the last century. And the history of social services started with those of Religious Institutions being willing to take the words of St James seriously, "Faith without works is DEAD".

I would love to think that the legal term of 'reasonable person' could be applied across the board to everything. My experience has been, however, that we are so mired in moral relativism (what is good for me is good for me and just because it isn't for you doesn't mean it is bad and you can't tell me what to do or you will impede my freedom) that we, as a society, have lost the ability to discern the difference between freedom and license.

That being said, I do believe the laws governing marijuana use are woefully outdated and stupid.

are not based on morality, so please try and avoid such blatant obfuscation. I must now ask you once again, to please pose yourself the following simple questions:

Do you really wish to continue to perpetuate the worst crime wave in this nation’s history?

Do you really wish to support a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike?

Do you real wish to continue to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons?

Do you really want to continue removing many important civil liberties from those citizens you claim to represent?

Do you really want to continue to put both previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets?

Do you really want to continue to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property?

Do you really want to continue to abandon American children to the morals and ethics of gangsters and terrorists?

Do you really want to continue to overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others?

Do you really want to continue your support for the black market economy that funds most of the terrorist groups in the world today. Including the Taliban and alQaida?

When you were using shed-fulls of coke; how easy was it to obtain, and were your suppliers honest tax paying business people?

LSK; you are free to belief what you wish, but the moment you are willing to use force to impose YOUR particular moral beliefs on the rest of us, is the exact same moment that the petty criminals/dealers, the Mafia, drug barons, terrorists and corrupt government officials/agencies enter the equation.

If you want true religious guidance on this, then at least listen to what these religious leaders have to say on the matter:

Were the citizens in the photo below acting immorally by campaigning for an end to the nightmare of alcohol prohibition?

There is nothing moral about drug prohibition LSK; it is the most destructive and evil social policy ever dreamed up by man:

Well generally speaking I agree with the things you write. They are always well written and meaningful. Your description of liberal, however, is way out somewhere that, as a liberal I do not recognize. This often happens when someone attempts to define another’s beliefs. I know you won’t argue with the fact that I am in fact a liberal; that being agreed upon let me tell you what I believe. I will attempt to keep it short and just hit the high spots.

First of all I am a very strong believer in the Constitution of the United States, and the experiment that this document established. That concept is that the common people could and should govern themselves, and that the government should be of elected officials and these should be the common man not aristocrats. This concept was completely unknown until we did it and it has lasted for over 200 years. That we have basic rights and those rights are spelled out in the first ten amendments to that same Constitution. I believe that those rights pertain to every person in this country, regardless of sex, race, religion, national origin or ethnic background. I include in that the right to privacy, including the 1st and 4th amendments, which are for the past eight years not been in effect.

I do not believe in forcing young boys to play with dolls instead of toy soldiers. I do believe in education, and I believe it behooves this nation to provide that education to every person that desires it, whether it is an education in the crafts or an education in the university.

I also believe that the government has a very distinct role in the lives of the populace, and that role is to do the thing that cannot be done on an individual bases. Such as national defense, and the social things we take for granted, like roads and parks and bridges and schools and fire and police protection. But those things just revert back to the Constitution. I do not believe the government can solve every problem, but it is a part of our lives and we should be involved in the things that go on there. I believe that we should ban all the lobbyists, because that takes away from the representatives doing what they were elected to do, to wit serve the People. A prime example is all the money given out by the insurance companies to defeat health care reform.

I also believe that it is time this nation quit operating on credit and running up the national debt to a point where we are beholding to foreign nations, as we have been doing for the last thirty years. I believe that our government should be accountable to the People, not the big corporations and the very wealthy. That was the intent when this nation was founded and I think it’s time we got back to it.

I do not want the government passing laws that restrict me and my freedoms. I do not want the government passing laws that take freedoms away from me or anyone else. I do not want the President to have the power to sent our young people to an undeclared war, the Constitution does not allow for that and I don’t think it should be done.

I believe in a very strict separation of church and state, that was the intent in the beginning and it should be what we have now. There seems to be a trend to quote Thomas Jefferson, maybe that’s because he was such a prolific writer, so I thought I’d throw in a quote of his myself. “I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another:”

Charlie Lockett

Malc, I forgot some very important points in my last comment, I was being rushed so I had to cut it short.

We have established that I am in fact a liberal and that I am very proud of being such. So contrary to what the right wing nuts say about liberals I am not looking for a free ride from the government, and I do not know of one liberal that is looking for anything free from the government or anyone else for that matter. Just like this health care reform, the nut cases keep saying that it is a government takeover, which it isn’t. If it goes through it will be an optional plan and if you want it you will have to pay for it, just like Medicare. I am in favor of a single payer plan, but none of these things will affect me anyway, but it’s best for the United States, it’s a step to bringing us closer to the 21st century.

I also believe that the government must step in now and get money to small businesses. These are the people that effect the employment of this nation. We need to change our trade policies and quit handcuffing the working class and the small businesses. We are so concerned with Wall Street and those people that have continued to be paid millions of dollars even through this recession, that we have ignored the people this country was founded on; the working class. The men and women out there working more hours a week than at any time in the last thirty years and receiving less spendable income, that is if they have a job to begin with.

I also believe we should have very strong wide ranging regulations on the corporations and the way they do business. I believe the Sherman anti-trust act should be enforced, and if a company is too big to fail it is probably too big. I think the People should have the say in this nation, not the corporations. When the corporations have control of the government it becomes a Fascists government, so says the man that took credit for the name.

I believe we need to change our drug laws and the way we enforce those laws. We waste more money on undeclared wars and on the drug war than anything else and we are not winning any of them. That money could go to caring for Americans and America.

We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts, and start paying down the huge national debt that they have created. We need to stop giving companies tax breaks for moving overseas and do something to bring back good paying jobs to the United States.

That’s my thinking as a liberal, and a passionate patriot.

Charlie Lockett

Nicley stated.

With the Insurance Compaies loss of some of their protections they should do a wake up call.

You may recall during the Regan Years the 18% money. Imagine the affect that 18% had on the excesses on premiums which they trade like we change socks. I made some money back then and have extensive Insurance Industry Knowledge not the agency Knowledge but sitting next to JS Kemper as a Kemper scholar and knowing the republican ideal, probably lead me to my liberal views, but all he spoke was money and the return being made, it was onscene 40 years ago and that was before the reaganomics that as you have stated have failed us misearbly.

The one dichotomy I am picking up on in these exchanges is the question of the prisoners from GITMO. I did not know we, America, had 24 plus empty high security prisons. Talk about pork.

The War on Drugs, that alone could fund the entire Health Care isssue but create massive fderal employee layoffs, a novel idea.

Keep on trucking Charlie always a great post.

A little common sense on the war on drugs would make a world of difference. In my opinion when we have spent so many years on a program that obviously does not work, you’d think we would start rethinking that program. How many thousands of people are locked up and how much has those lock ups changed the flow of drugs? How many of the big shots, the ones making millions have been locked up?

Instead of cutting money out of education why don’t we save some money by using our God given brain and looking at the “war on drugs”? I would think that it even cost more than the illegal wars we are in right now. And it spreads just about as much good will.

We could start buying the opium crop from Afghanistan, after all we use a ton of morphine and what we don’t use we could either destroy or open clinics to eliminate the drug cartel supply and therefore all the crime associated with the illegal drug empire. The trouble is all those unemployed DEA agents. I ask you or anyone else, which is worse?

I hope I have expressed the liberal point of view, at least as far as it pertains to me. The thing with liberals is that they all use a different drummer. That’s why it’s so hard to speak for someone else, and I really don’t want to do that. Every monkey gotta climb his own rope.

Charlie Lockett

However, I think we cannot ignore that every law society enacts is based on a moral principle, whether that principle be 'Thou shall not Kill' or 'Thou shall not steal'. To pretend that putting regulations in place that do not limit humankind in their inexplicable drive towards self-destruction is ignoring the reason for laws in the first place.

I am not in favor of removing all limits on human behavior. I don't care if it is about drug use or how to make money - to have a totally 'hands off' policy on human behavior does not work.

Malc, you are correct in that the present policies are not working - they are antiquated and they cause more problems and create more crime than they are worth. However, to simply think that all we have to do is tell people 'just don't get behind the wheel of a car when you're loaded' as a way to maintain public safety is naive.

So, the question becomes, how do we allow people as much personal freedom as possible while limiting MY responsibility as a tax payer to pick up the pieces of THEIR lives when their choices backfire?

If my personal freedom is just as important as their personal freedom, we should be able to come to a reasonable compromise.

   It's odd to read so many writers, claiming to care about freedom, still insisting on what "we" should do.  They rarely say "I will do" or "you should do", but instead hide behind the wall of an anonymous mob.  One idea that these folk regularly condemn is man should take care of himself.  They instead go back to the "we" of government, though they usually overlook what this truly entails.  Options to take advantage of government programs exist, but what about options to support?  This is something these charlatan freedom fighters abhor.

  It is also sickening to constantly read terms such as "working class" used to imply that the "very wealthy" do not work, or that "big corporations" are not people.  The freedom for others to earn money does not seem to be well regarded by far too many "patriots."

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." -- Adolph Hitler

"Comrades!  We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -- Nikita Khrushchev, 20th Congress of the Communist Party

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." -- Hillary Clinton, 1993

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.  Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-- Ayn Rand

because I have made my individual choices concerning the use of alcohol and drugs but I still consider myself a small part of a greater whole. So, if I am going to discuss possible changes to the law of the land I must be willing to consider how it will affect the 'we'.

Perhaps I have missed the point of your post. If I have, I apologize. It just seems to be a 'no-brainer' to me that this type of discussion would have to be directed at how the society will address the problem, rather than the individual.

is the crux of this biscuit. Society must grow up and evolve. Individual sovereignty is the absolute bottom line of human living - a universal declaration of freedom branded deep into our DNA. No "law" can undo that sovereignty. Laws need to be minimal applications. Government serves us, not us it. What we have now is a government assuming ownership of the Constitution and declaring to us what it means. Wrong, wrong, wrong...

The Constitution, especially it's Bill of Rights, is OUR document. We wield it as a tool to control government. When our government does enact laws those laws need to be based on sound logic, fact and ethical principles. Our drug laws are the exact opposite... they are founded on pure, unaldulterated bulls**t. Provably so... as drug policy and all resultant laws have become this megolithic bureaucratic monstrosity, ethics have been dismissed and logic become non-existent. If drug laws are sound policy then so are racist legal codes that declare one is less than another because of skin color. Drug laws declare that one is less than another because of the substances they choose to ingest. Horse biscuits... if we are a society that bases itself upon principles of human equality and individual liberty then society cannot make any individual's non-criminal behavior its business. "My home is my castle" is not a romantic notion! It is a founding principle of this nation and stated plainly in the Bill of Rights. More important is that we protect, not diminish, that basic and fundamental principle.

The very simple example of how we reduced tobacco consumption through education and voluntary, self-motivated cessation by individuals making that decision on fact, science and simple healthful common sense. We did not lock up tobacco consumers even though tobacco is one of our most addictive substances on the planet. We witnessed massive drops in tobacco consumption in 10 years without a shot fired, without a drop of urine seized. That is social maturation.

The nanny-state zeal to dictate our personal choices contradicts Constitutional principle and prevents the evolution of social behavior. We either grow up, or we don't. If we don't, we wallow in our own fecundity and we will fail and fall - again - as every "great" society has so far.

Protecting individual rights is protecting the community. We protect our families and communities, we protect our nation and the most fundamental ideals of our founding.

---
welcome to the world I see...
Morning Donut
AE's 2010 Calendar

On the Marijuana issue only, decriminalize, regulate and ensure the content as any other product for consumption.

The "gateway' theory abolish as antiquated and inaccurate. That is akin to drinking wine with dinner leading to raging alchoholism.

Crack....hunt down those who want our children to injest drano, there is ome looney stuff in the mainstream that you and i will, god willing, will never have to face. Unfortunately television glorifies it and other monkey what they see.

The truth we will not truly know until we meet our maker, but some restraints have to be imposed. Marijuana laws are baseless and in your position, it is to probable to see an up tick in this specialized drug, is that due to societal acceptance and the dominance of one classs over another?

Wealth of a nation and the federalist Paers were the staples to the take back of the Government Newt gingerich advocated, it's sad that such educated men and women blindly follow. These papers are indeed the guiding lites to many its shameful are education system has made our children droids rather than thinkers. That is the class we are creating, those who can do, and those who shouldn't do but are punished.

Legalize it all, Fall once we pick you up, fall twice and off to the desert and make it on your own.

A free for all is what we have now, and it's thanks to prohibition. And it's thanks to prohibition, that you yourself were able to buy as much cocaine as you once craved and desired, and even at any time of the day or night.

You know full well that laws against murder and theft are not based on anybody's particular morals but on the basic right of all individuals to life and property. And even if our laws, were solely based on the 10 commandments, then kindly show us which commandment proscribes the use of any plants or their extracts.

Drug prohibition LSK, as Alan rightfully points out, is grounded in an evil premise, that people do not own their own bodies, that they have no right to control what they do with their own lives and their own property, that it is appropriate to lock them in cages if they produce, distribute or consume particular plants or chemicals in defiance of the state. This is clearly a monstrosity, and a monstrosity that you appear to support. Persons such as yourself who support this, knowing the evil it entails, have no business lecturing the rest of us on morality.

The ideology of drug/alcohol prohibition is the ideology of totalitarianism, of communism, of fascism and of slavery. In practice, it has made an utter mockery of the rule of law and the often-spouted idea that America is the freest country on earth. The United States now has the highest per capita prison population in the world, thanks largely to prohibition. The federal government imposes its drug policies on other countries by methods ranging from mere diplomatic bullying to spraying foreign crops with lethal poison, from bribing foreign heads of state to bankrolling and whitewashing acts of mass murder conducted by despots in the name of fighting drugs.

Drug Prohibition is constructed on a mountain of lies. Politicians have lied over and over about the dangers of specific drugs, the percentages of drug offenders in prison, the success of various anti-drug programs, and the motives they have for waging this war on their own civil population. But even if it weren’t for these acts of brazen dishonesty, prohibition would still be evil.

If you were a person who based their beliefs on moral precepts LSK, then you would be far more concerned with the evils that prohibition has engendered. We are talking about the longest war in American history, one that has hundreds of thousands of innocent people locked in cages, many of whom are raped and beaten by convicted brutes as the prison guards laugh, all at an exorbitant cost in tax dollars and liberty. We are talking about a program that has decimated every article in the Bill of Rights. We are talking about a modern-day witch-trial and inquisition, all wrapped up into one, and multiplied in its evil effects and destructiveness many times over. We are talking about the precedent for so many other evil policies, such as the criminal enterprise known as civil asset forfeiture to the egregious civil liberties violations conducted today under the guise of combating terrorism.

Myself, and several others, have repeated to you ad nauseam the ill effects of prohibition: Black market violence, institutionalized corruption more people die of drug impurities, and so on. These facts alone are compelling enough to end the whole crusade. But the most fundamental reason to end it is it’s evil, very evil. It treats sick people like criminals. It wrecks millions of lives. It puts young people in jail, sometimes for a lifetime, only for engaging in activities that many US presidents engaged in when they themselves were young. It criminalizes speech between doctors and patients. It starts wars in other countries. It’s one of the greatest social evils that the people of this planet have ever had to endure. So please LSK, forget the befuddled moralizing, too many people have suffered already.

Here are those religious leaders again; those, who not unlike my humble self, also beg to disagree with your misguided moral defense of Prohibition:

PS; I'm not angry; I simply have a duty towards you as a friend to tell you the truth.

no offense intended; the example I used -boys and their toys- was that which was once believed by many leftist sociologists. I know; I used to live with one. - bless her tobacco addicted departed soul.

Put enough people in Jail, then people will learn to behave:

I absolutely agree that, in an idealized state, each person should be reasonable in their use of anything, whether it be drugs, alcohol, food or the banking system. I also agree that, to a certain extent, we must be willing as a society to allow people to make decisions about their own lives without excessive government intervention. I also agree that the laws currently in place have not helped the situation regarding drugs.

Here is where I have a problem: we have had more than enough examples of what happens when we completely deregulate ANYTHING. Whether driven by ignorance, by greed or by stupidity, we end up with a certain amount of people who cannot seem to get through life without help of some sort. I am not comfortable with the philosophy that states, "if you make a choice you should shoulder the consequences' not because I do not think it is just; rather, I have yet to see where a society that adopts that kind of philosophy does not end up harmed by it as a whole.

Therefore, while I agree with the premise that we need to address the present 'problem' with clear eyes and a desire to protect and serve I disagree with the idea that abolishing any regulation on the use and distribution of drugs, alcohol, tobacco or any other substance that alters a person's ability to make rational decisions is sound public policy.

To accuse someone like me of being 'befuddled' trashes OUR personal experience. It has been my life's work to pick up the pieces of tragedy left behind by those we trusted to make reasonable choices for themselves, their children, their families, their communities, etc. If we do not first acknowledge the existence of those whose choices will harm us and, secondly, have something in place to deal with their inability to be responsible we are fooling ourselves AND we are setting ourselves up for problems down the road.

I have no problem with an adult man and an adult woman deciding to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their own home. I have a real problem when, by chosing to smoke marijuana (or drink alcohol, or eat nothing but high-fructose filled fast food) I, as a tax payer, am charged with the responsibility of feeding and clothing them or their children. MORALLY? Of course I will try my best to do so; that is the foundation of my faith. However, if we do not want to address the consequences from a moral standard, then let's do so from a practical standpoint.

How much government intervention should there be and how are we going to pay for it?

And, I might add, that diminishing the possible consequences of legalization by pointing out the problems CAUSED by excessive restriction is like saying, "You cannot put in fire alarms in that new building because there have been these building over here that have burned to the ground".

In other words, to approach this as an 'either/or' rather than a 'both/and' is foolish.

Please note that I am in agreement with both Malc and AE that the present laws and attitudes are not working and are foolish.

Malc and ae make more sense with their amusing posts, thaats a compliment gents, than I could ever. Its not the legalization its the staggereing cost that seems targeted by the Governemnt to a permanent underclass, black males.

I am no bleading heart liberal but see this as many other laws 'to protect" abused by those who swear to follow the law and take liberties with their own self importance.

Uchecked government is out of control governmnet and fringes on anarchy. This all began after a failed presidency of Jimmy carter followed by charismatic panty waiste. Just say no? Why not look at these people who take the simplistic route to all of scietal ills, some of our own making.

We send users to jail and they get their masters in criminology and they return bitter and despondent. Why do we all of a suddden have all these "empty" maximum security prisons popping up all over?

Why do we build one university for twelve prisons? When do we live the demands of the bible in our case, its a matter of faith that we treat people with dignity, I think that is 90% the problems are. Reagans  "It's morning in America" and then invades Central America. Have you or anyother person come up against a mini ganster MS-13 or whatever that crap is? those are the innocent bystanders of our intervention, to hell with treaty obligations, show me one the Republicans have abided by and I'll buy you a nice dinner.

That morality we speak...is universal not specific to one segment or another within the diversity we hav come to assimilate in the United States.

and you are also using a strawman-argument to ignore my position on this; to claim that I, or anybody here for that matter, would wish to deregulate the sale of any substance, including alcohol, is rather disingenuous. As I've clearly written above; "a free for all is what we have now, and it's thanks to prohibition."

Further; if it concerns you about how dangerous a substance may be to the user, then why aren't you campaigning for the prohibition of this nation's two biggest killers -alcohol & tobacco? In fact, the more dangerous a substance is, then all the more reason for regulating it properly -prohibition is not regulation!

PS; I'm glad, and duly acknowledge the fact, that you are somehow in agreement with me on this -it's just so hard to tell sometimes where you stand on such matters.

Thanks sweet sister for your patience, insight and courage!

thanks buddy!

I don't think you do support total deregulation.

What I think is important to realize is that we DO have regulations on tobacco and alcohol. Whether they are the right ones or not is open to debate; and I believe we do need to regulate the sale and use of any drug or substance that's use may directly impact the function of society.

I think it is wrong to assume that those regulations are not moral in nature; therefore I don't know if I would be considered a 'fake' conservative or not.

However, I do understand that there are people who do not like the use of the word 'moral'. A theologian friend of mine suggested we come up with a new term: He suggested we call those laws 'Bob'. I am pretty sure he was kidding.

I do not believe complete prohibition is the answer - that has failed miserably. However, I do not believe human beings are capable of living in a totally deregulated state regarding ANYTHING.

With that in mind, I have had to make choices as to what I think society should regulate and what it should not. Those choices are based on what I hope is a reasonable approach to life.

I myself struggle with obesity. However, I have never been arrested for driving under the influence of a candy bar. I have also not expected the government to pay for the results of my struggle with obesity - it is my responsibility to deal with my problem. I've done pretty darn well, too. However, I would not expect the government to pay for any kind of weight loss program for me.

When applied to the use of drugs and alcohol, I am perfectly willing to let people make their own choices and deal with their own consequences from those choices. However, my experience in both social services, health services and law enforcement (as a government gal) is that there are consequences that affect others that we have to deal with in order to prevent our nation from turning into a Calcutta.

We cannot expect religious institutions, private foundations and individuals to do everything.

So, my question remains: does my support of the restructuring of how people use drugs of any kind and my insistence that society be willing to impose some sort of restriction on people's behaviorl in regards to that use make me a fake conservative?

If it does, then the 'movement' for freedom has lost a whole bunch of people simply because we have been dismissed as 'fake'.

Your last two paragraphs, directly here above, indicate a form of "false dichotomy" or "false dilemma" and as it's not really my job to plumb the depths of your mind and help you straighten out your thinking, I'll decide to leave it at that for now.

Thank you for your participation on my humble thread and God Bless!

I take your side against LSK and thats a rarity.

I think regulation is akin to scialism deregulation gives choice. Where did the phrase "pursuit of happiness' get lost in our thinking.

Our biggest problem is that we personalize way too much. I don't give a rats behind what people do as long as they do not encroachon my privacy, religion or picadillos.

If that makes me less an american well than i guess maybe i am. I am so disillusioned with law enforcement and the way we govern ourselves, it appears all too personal to meand that's not what i signed on for.

Give me liberty or gve me death..then and now apply

strange as it may appear, LSK does actually agree with us on practically every aspect of this, but for reasons of her own, she always adds some form of unnecessary and confusing caveat, usually in the form of a "false dichotomy" Heaven knows why -but who are we to question heaven?

This year, the federal government will spend over $14 billion "fighting against drugs" and despite spending over $440 per second, almost any drug can be found at any time in almost any street in every city and town in the country. No wonder the economy is busted and has turned into something that resembles a pyramid scam!

continuing the so-called war on drugs is job creation, mostly with excellent retirement and health insurance benefits.

I am for individual freedoms as others are talking of it. However the reason I would legislate in order to regulate all drugs, has more to do with the protection of society than individual freedom.

I believe we can drastically reduce all types of crime if we legalized and regulated all drugs. Just look at how alcohol once legalized and regulated,  changed the crime scene in America. It's a great example that should not go ignored.

I don't see the worry over deregulation as a false dichotomey, so we will just have to agree to disagree at this point.

What I am not making clear is the my concern over the idea of total deregulation being something viable or practical. We do regulate the use of tobacco and alcohol. The same kind of strict standards - perhaps stricter - needs to be applied to the use of drugs.

I have problems with restricting food use because, as I have said, I have never personally been arrested for over use of food. However, human nature being what it is, I have no doubt someone somewhere has been arrested for breaking an existing law because of an overwhelming need to eat.

Since the basic premise is the need to reevaluate the existing laws governing human behavior, we can agree on that and I will just have to be considered a fake conservative - I do not trust human beings to be 'reasonable' without parameters in place.

Thank you for letting me participate in the discussion, no matter how befuddled you believe I am.

and it is for this reason, that I continue to claim that you are exhibiting befuddled logic; you appear to not comprehend, that what anti-prohibitionists such as myself are campaigning for -legalized regulation- would do more than enough to address all your concerns regarding protection, both for the individual and for society.

At the moment, we have prohibition, which does the complete opposite of what it claims and also the complete opposite of what you yourself claim you desire. Apart from the creation of a 24 hour black market supply of dangerous and contaminated drugs from which organized crime and terrorism benefit, the current policy also makes government corruption endemic at all levels.

Thank you "for hanging on in" here LSK!

but what you don't seem to understand is that people like me can reach the same conclusion you have reached by applying morality...and it is the charge that those who do apply good, solid, normal, reasonable MORAL standards to this situation are 'fake'.

that's just not true.

I have been more than clear about this all along; that I myself apply good, solid, normal, reasonable MORAL standards to this situation, and that I myself reach the same conclusion as these clergy do; that prohibition is evil and that those who support it have no right to refer to themselves as a good or moral person:

So may I repeat my claim, that you are miss-representing my position on this! --I use the term "fake-conservatives/christians/moralists" etc to refer to those who claim that supporting prohibition is somehow the conservative, christian, or moral thing to do. If that is not clear to you, then let it be clear to you now!

A person who supports prohibition LSK is supporting and propagating all the nefarious effects it engenders, both on the individual and on the whole of society. If you don't support it, then what problem do you have with those of us who are doing our utmost best to insure that it is replaced with a system of proper regulation ASAP?

If you wish to claim the moral high ground LSK, then at least decide, from now on, to quit miss-representing our position and honestly and actively help us rid this planet of one of the most evil policies in its entire history.