Why liberals are not hyprocrits - by Ann Coulter

[- Groucho -]

Lost in the noise: Rush's actual statements on drugs:

October 1995:

"There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up."

October 1998:

"What is missing in the drug fight is legalization. If we want to go after drugs with the same fervor and intensity with which we go after cigarettes, let's legalize drugs. Legalize the manufacture of drugs. License the Cali cartel. Make them taxpayers and then sue them. Sue them left and right and then get control of the price and generate tax revenue from it. Raise the price sky high and fund all sorts of other wonderful social programs."

It's hard to tell what to make of the second quote. If you read the entire transcript it seems he may have been facetious at first, but at the end he says "I'm not trying to be flippant". Interesting that he changes his tune from incarceration to legalization just about the time it seemed he was starting to get hooked (5 years ago).

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

1) Wrong, it isn't immoral. There may be immoral things perpetrated by some involved, but that doesn't mean the whole is irrevocably tainted by the part.

Wrong, it is immoral because the basis - the underlying principle - of the drug war is punishing millions of people who use drugs because SOME drug users hurt others. If people who don't use drugs were punished because SOME of them hurt others, they and you would understand. You didn't even respond to my explanation as to why the drug war is immoral, that's one strike already.

2a) Wrong, the Second Amendment does not guarantee any and all individual practices of religion. Religions that use drugs as ancient tradition (e.g., peyote use in certain tribal spiritual rites) are specifically allowed in federal legislation. These are handled case by case.

I didn't say the 2nd Amendment guarantees religious freedom, we're dealing with the 1st Amendment. And that amendment guarantees religious freedom. You're right, the 1st Amendment doesn't protect any and all religious acts, only those that qualify as acts of freedom. For example, throwing virgins into volcanoes would not be protected because murdering people is not an act of freedom because freedom means the absence of coercion or constraint in choice or action. Drug use does meet the definition of freedom, therefore it is protected by the 1st Amendment. Btw, there is no federal law protecting peyote use within the states, that has been left up to the states to decide. Strike 2.

2b) Complicating drug charges with weapons charges is just another way to raise the probability of conviction due to the level of evidence and proof required in our justice system. The right to bear arms is not to be confused with the right to use arms indiscriminately. Tying drug violence to prescription painkillers is a red herring.

Huh? I didn't tie drug violence to prescription painkillers. I said if you use a painkiller prescribed to others and possess a gun, you can be nailed with a hefty prison sentence. What I did tie together is the violence created by the drug war and the momentum of the anti-gun crusaders. By supporting a policy - drug prohibition - that creates crime, the NRA et al are giving proponents of gun "control" ammunition. Strike 3.

2c) Quartering of soldiers is primarily an imposition equivalent to taxation, or to fines and deprivation of property (or its free use) levied without due process. It is basically a legalized form of pillaging. The side-effect of spying is secondary and I don't know of any specific mention in either the 3rd Amendment or the Federalist Papers and other commentaries on debate in Constitutional Congress. Not that I'm an expert, I have only read excerpts of FP. I reason that if they were to be found in those records they'd be brought out front and center. If I'm wrong, please cite the reference.

The only part of your response that matters is: "the side-effect of spying is secondary". Certainly a "side-effect" worthy of consideration by the Founders, especially those who were spied upon. The fact remains that the spying done in the name of the drug war violates the spirit of the 3rd Amendment.

Blatantly false, Berz! A whole army was camped on the edge of the cult's property for days. How can you claim this was a "no-knock raid?" Or maybe you are confusing "Waco" with some other event. Please clarify if that is the case.

Straybow, what do you think led to that army being camped on that property? The BATF launched a no-knock raid that backfired. There was a gun battle and the BATF was forced to withdraw. My God, that's common knowledge...

2e) Please cite where due process is revoked. Your rhetoric here is empty without some facts.

I cited where the 5th has been revoked - the drug war. Read what I said and think about it a minute before jerking your knee around.

2f) If you want speedy trials do not presume that the drug war is the only clog in the system. Maybe the lawyers who file endless appeals on behalf of DNA-confirmed, unequivocally guilty murderers, rapists, etc are the ones who should be on the receiving end of your ire.

The drug war has clogged the courts and jails, citing other clogs in the system doesn't refute what I said. The list I've offered are reasons to oppose the drug war, not for tort or appeals reform.

As for punishing those opting for jury trials and discouraging jury nullification, the practice antedates the drug war. Do not conflate widespread police and prosecution tactics with the drug war per se.

The move against jury nullification began in the first half of the 20th century, the first drug war was in the 1920's. The move against jury nullification has become SOP with the new drug war.

2g) No, conservatives argue that rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be warped into anything the reader wishes, even if that reader be a Justice of the Supreme Court. The argument is that rights not enumerated are subject to legislation defining and modifying those rights. The typical example is abortion on demand, which had been regulated by states severally, but were then co-opted by the SCOTUS as a mythical "right to privacy" extrapolated from the Constitution.

Where in the 9th Amendment does it say unenumerated rights are different from enumerated rights and therefore subject to dissolution by the legislature? Oh, you think the right to privacy is "mythical"? Then you wouldn't argue in favor of a constitutional right for you and your wife to conceive a child if we had a Chinese policy of forced abortion for people who conceive without permission?

2h) Federal laws in the drug war focus almost solely on the distribution end, which is by nature interstate.

No, it isn't "by it's nature" interstate. The reason the feds tried to ban pot in 1937 with a prohibitive tax was because pot grew wild in many parts of the country and the Congress, faced with a SCOTUS unwilling to ignore the Constitution, didn't try to use the interstate commerce clause because they knew the SCOTUS would shoot them down. Furthermore, the interstate commerce clause was designed to prevent the states from engaging in trade wars, i.e., it was designed to create a free trade zone. And "regulate" doesn't mean ban, it means regulate. And in those days it meant to facilitate trade by restraining the states from interfering with trade. The 2nd Amendment says "a well-regulated militia", would you argue that actually means a banned militia?

I suppose that if a defendant can establish that his particular case does not involve drugs grown, processed, or distributed from or through more than one state only that one state would have jurisdiction. For example, drugs in small enough quantity for self-consumption are routinely not treated as a Federal offense; the assumption of distribution does not apply in that case.

The burden of proof is not on the accused. And what is or is not routine is irrelevant, only that the feds are ignoring the Constitution.

3) No, the other choice is to allow the drug cartels to set up petty fiefdoms that rule by might and intimidation as we see in numerous countries around the world. It is the height of naivete to say, "Why can't we all just… get along?" or "if we all just laid down our guns there wouldn't be any more war." Sorry, Virginia, there really are bad guys out there.

Sorry Straybow, you need to respond to what I say and not wander off into unrelated matters. The reason those cartels exist is because of the drug war. We don't see cartels producing coffee because that's a legal drug.

4) Agreed, asset forfeiture is widely abused. Do something specific about that instead of whining that the whole drug war is unfair. The case like Donald Scott is one where a claim against the government for redress can be petitioned through a Rep or Senator, either on the state or federal level.

That's nice, in case you haven't been paying attention, the government ignored what happened to Donald Scott. At least you can admit your drug war is ******* people over. Now, is his blood on your hands?

Elected officials responsible can be dealt with by various means—petition for recall comes to mind. You must know that actions against the government are going to be slow and difficult, but that is a necessary evil. For all I know the case you cited may have another side that you don't know about (or worse, that you ignore—not that I'm accusing you, but slanted cases start somewhere).

Why not? You've been accusing me of all sorts of evils. You can type his name into google to find all about what happened.

5) Tentatively agree. In a case where Mom is shacked up with some no-good drug pusher I hope a child reports this and can survive the ordeal that follows. Maybe what we need is more caring people to get involved in foster care so that it isn't such a nightmare. Are you volunteering?

Are you? I'm not the one breaking up these families with my drug war - that's your responsibility so take credit where credit is due.

6) I don't know statistics about direct causation of fatalities in the US. Are all drunk driving related deaths completely separate from illegal drug use? I don't know.

There may be separate stats, but all we ever hear about are alcohol and drug related traffic fatalities. I suspect the reason we don't hear separate stats is because alcohol causes by far the most.

Blood alcohol is often measured by "breathalizer" and no evidence of other drugs is sought.

Not true, cars and people are often searched with drug tests done at the hospital when there is an injury or suspicion of drug involvement.

Alcohol and tobacco use are both far more widespread than narcotics use and probably more widespread than pot use. Neither pot nor tobacco can cause accute fatality, while both alcohol and narcotics can. The categories are even on that score. As a percentage of users I'd bet more die of narcotic OD that alcohol poisoning.

That's quite an assumption, the categories are even? And claiming that narcotics are worse because you'd bet there are more OD's ignores that narcotics are illegal and alcohol is legal. Alcohol poisoning rose dramatically under prohibition because of polluted alcohol. Many people were blinded by wood alcohol, so you cannot look at a result of the drug war and reach a conclusion about drugs. Drug prohibition reduces quality control, the result being more OD's.

7) No comparison between drugs and guns. Ownership of guns is specifically protected. Use of pot and narcotics is not. Empty rhetoric.

Empty response. You didn't even address the fact that laws lacking overwhelming support breeds dis-respect for government.

8, 9) Post hoc ergo propter hoc: you are assuming that because the rises occured after certain laws were passed there is a causative relationship. Nobody can quantify what murder rates would have been without aggressive law enforcement tactics against narcotics distribution (or alcohol in the 20s). I can, however, cite the examples seen in other countries where smuggling cartels of many sorts are the de facto law.

Yeah, if we pass a law and crime escalates because of the black market created by the law, we shouldn't think the law had anything to do with it. Is that right? You know, Stray, even die-hard drug war pushers like Orrin Hatch know that even the hikes in tobacco taxes have resulted in more crime.

Violence is not inherent, it is a choice made by those involved. In some cases the violence began as purely political revolution, which then turned to drug trade as an easy means of support. While the US may not have been as susceptible to the extremes seen elsewhere, yet the threat does exist.

But when a policy literally transforms a cheap and highly desired product into among the most valuable products, crime will result. And there will be plenty of bystanders who get killed because of the additional crime.

In some cases the post hoc premise is flatly wrong. Gang recruitment of minors has always been around. I know a couple guys who were youths involved in gangs in the '50s. In this example the propter hoc does not apply either; minors are recruited for certain tasks in activities unrelated to drugs. All illicit activities can benefit from inconspicuous lookouts and delivery agents, and youths or even children are sometimes used.

Straybow, you cannot compare the 50's (oh yeah, drugs were illegal then too) with the massive gang recruitment that began in the 80's. That's when juvenile crime, especially violent crime, began to skyrocket and all the "post hocs, ad hocs" in the world can't dismiss that.

10) "Just imagine tha crime wave we'd see if basic food staples were banned with a corresponding inflation of cost" Non sequitur, Berz.

Can you respond in english? I don't care to look up all your latin phrases. You're missing the point, crime would escalate if the cost of food staples increased the way the cost of drugs have increased because of prohibition. Do you deny this?

Weren't you just arguing that addiction was a problem with self control?

Yes.

You can't have it both ways. You die without food. You only feel like death withdrawing from an addiction.

I'm not having it both ways. Did I say addiction was not a matter of self control? The fact remains, many people who are addicted will seek out ways of obtaining what they want and that includes stealing. Hell, Rush went to the black market...

Not only can you not compare drug price effects to staple prices, but you cannot blame the violence on the prices either. If you can't get enough money, then keep working at whatever you're doing until you can afford your "entertainment."

Well gee, tell that to all the people who steal from others. In case you haven't noticed, many people do steal and some of them steal to pay for drugs. Intentionally inflating the cost of drugs will only increase the stealing. It's called common sense...

Oh, unless drug use is indeed addicting (at least for a fraction of the population) and precludes the ability to hold out for an indeterminate time. Or unless drug effects preclude the ability to hold down a job. In either case you've just lost about ¾ of the argument. Even still, just about anybody, male or female, can whore for drug money. Commiting violent crime is a choice.

Then you're stuck explaining why crime rates are so much higher now than in the 1950's. And you're stuck explaining why crime jumped during the 1920's as well. Because according to your "logic", there shouldn't have been any jump because drug wars have nothing to do with crime rates. And not even politicians who support the drug war would make that ridiculous argument.

11) "Expansion of government" Which has expanded government more: entitlements, or drug enforcement? Go away, thou irrelevant argument.

Which came first? Drug enforcement! Now, what exactly is your point? That government has not expanded to fight drugs or that other policies expand government more? Who cares? I'm opposed to both, maybe you're only opposed to the expansion resulting from entitlements, but that only means you lack the moral authority to oppose expanding government elsewhere since you like expanding government to meet your needs.

"spying" and reporting income, technically, even bartering is income that is taxable. Only that which you produce for consumption in your own household is not taxable, as long as you don't claim resources used as business expenses. Beat this drum in some other argument.

That's another "response" that doesn't address what I said.

Like the the FBI wasn't corrupted by anything else. No agency can long withstand corrupting influence of power. Pretend the drug war is to blame if you like, just don't trot this out as an argument here.

No pretending is needed, even J Edgar Hoover refused repeated requests to get the FBI involved in the drug war because of it's corrupting influence. But your position - hey, corruption happens - is hardly a reason to support policies that create more corruption.

13) To the extent that opiate distribution is separate from other narcotics you have a point: the terrorism that comes from cocaine trade is focused in Columbia and spills over to neighbors. Since it doesn't affect us directly (unless you know people in those countries, as I do) we should mention that terrorism is a by product.

The US drug war has turned Colombia into the most violent country in Latin America. What does that tell you?

Inasmuch as money can be traced to individuals and countries we are using what resources we have to reduce the flow of oil revenues or other legitimate moneys into terrorism. Are you in favor of using drug policing tactics on a military scale against suppliers of terrorist funds? Sorry, can't be done. You have to either commit to war, or rely on diplomacy. There is essentially nothing in between. Yet another non sequitur.

Another non-sequitor? Yeah, let's have a policy to inflate the cost of drugs and push our little war onto other countries and ignore the results because thats a "non-sequitor".

14) As mentioned before, in S America the drug trade is controlled in part by those who opted for leftist military revolution in the first place, and only took to drug trade because it was easier and more profitable than kidnapping, or smuggling of low-value or low-volume goods. We are, in effect, helping a legitimate military response to infiltration and insurrection, and the conflict might well be worse without our aid.

Ever hear of cause and effect? Oh, and spare us the speculations about the conflict being worse. That ignores the reality that pushing the drug trade into the hands of the rebels has only strengthened them.

* Straybow thinks God, this drivel just goes on and on… Berz has obviously done this before. My ability to hash this out is diminishing, but I'll try.

Hmm...you have some ability?

15) Nonsense. Methanol poisoning was more common in the prohibition era, not ethanol poisoning. Overdoses are not caused by contamination. Only inattention on the part of the distributer or user, or possibly deliberate action by one of those parties, will result in OD. Do you have hard stats on drug poisoning due to contamination due to lack of regulatory attention that a legal drug would incur? Doubt it.

Where did I even mention methanol or ethanol much less compare the two? God you just make stuff up and act like you've stumbled upon a fount of knowledge. OD's are caused by imputies because, e.g., a heroin addict doesn't know the purity of the heroin they are using. If they get a batch at 50% and the next at ~99%, the difference in purity can cause an OD. Why do you think prescription drugs are subject to quality control? To reduce the chance of overdoses. Sheesh!

16) Berz says, "I don't think the drug war has done any good, therefore it hasn't done any good." Sell that line if you can, but I'm not buying.

Feel free to list the successes of the drug war.

[Berzerker]

Part 2

17) Gateway behavior is well established in psychology.

Really? It's nonsense and was used by proponents of the drug war when they were dreaming up excuses to take away our freedom. Electro-shock "treatment" was well -established too.

For example, being abused as a child sometimes results in the victim becoming an abuser later in life. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, even verbal abuse. We are delicate creatures in that respect. The combination of desensitizing and sociopathic pleasure are hard for some people to resist.

That isn't analogous.

Violence in particular has this "gateway" effect, with one type of violent behavior sometimes leading to escalation. Non-violent rape (using alcohol or drugs to incapacitate the victim) does sometimes lead to forcible rape. Childhhood abuse of animals, especially mutilation, is often a "gateway" behavior for violent crime against humans.

Try to stay on the subject, "gateway" drugs is a premise based on the notion that a human brain experiencing, e.g., alcohol will desire tobacco. It's bogus science and even the medical study done under Clinton showed that pot is only a "gateway" drug by virtue of it's illegality. Tell me Stray, given that 10's of millions of people have used pot, why haven't the same 10's of millions used heroin?

Do children of smokers have a higher likelihood of smoking? What about other drugs? You cite examples about drugs being legal in certain countries not leading to an increase in use. Apparently legalization doesn't lead to a decrease either.

Do they? Does it matter? "Gateway" drugs is not about subjecting a child to tobacco smoke and seeing them use tobacco, it's about them using other drugs as a result of using tobacco. And if you accept that legalisation neither decreases or increases consumption, what's the point of prohibition? We get all the negatives and no successes. That's insanity... Btw, addiction rates in this country were much lower before prohibition.

18) Continuing that argument, has decriminalization of pot led to a decrease in narcotics use?

Decriminalisation is not legalisation.

Obviously the gateway effect can't be explained by illicit status in that case, or by lack of supply of pot, so both arguments fail.

Illicit status in that case is meaningless. Pot hasn't been made legal.

What's more, the introduction of crack is the result of experimentation, an accidental discovery that cannot be tied to a specific cause. It cannot be analyzed probabilistically. Another non sequitur.

Not true, crack cocaine was the result of the drug war on pot. That's when traffickers who were involved with pot were given the incentive to traffic in more concentrated, more easliy hidden drugs like cocaine and heroin which led to crack.

19) Freedom—the absence of coersion or restraint on your location. Last I saw, you were free to move to one of those countries where the drug of you choice is decriminalized. If it were really so important you'd move. You're welcome to whine about having to move, but otherwise don't whine about not having a choice.

The word "location" does not appear in the definition of freedom. I don't use drugs so I don't have this incentive. But the next time you complain about a government policy infringing upon your freedom, supporters of that policy can simply tell you to get the hell out of dodge if you don't like. That's the kind of response a hypocrite deserves.

20) Death and taxes. Get used to them. Find somewhere with less if either gets to you.

Would you tell people being extorted by the Mafia they can simply move if they don't like it? Your responses are devoid of any sense of morality, no wonder you think the drug war is fine and dandy.

Communism" get real. Barbarians rule by force of arms, civilized man rules by force of law. Choose one or the other.

Communistic. The belief that the state "owns" us and can order us around is communistic, a belief you share when you're among those giving the orders.

22) $7+ trillion IIRC (a figure closely matching the federal debt) in the "war against povery" and we haven't "won" that one either.

If you were consistent, would you support that failure too?

We have multi-generation drug "junkies," we have multi-generation welfare "junkies;" sometimes both at once. Sad, sad, sad.

Even moreso than your responses.

In summation, the general bent of all your arguments is circulus in probando: after are assuming all visible effects are directly or indirectly caused by drug enforcement you use that assumption to "prove" that the drug war is eeevil. You have not proven that point, and in some cases you are entirely wrong.

Given your repeated inability to respond to what I've said, much less offer refutations, your opinion that I'm wrong is: a non-sequitor.

You should just put your stuff up on a website. Easier for you to reference…and easier for us to point and laugh.

The laughter you hear is your own. Care to take a poll of others in this thread?

Btw, did Jesus tell you to imprison millions of people for using pot? Just curious...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
it's not like they incapacitate you.

Obviously you've never taken oxycontin.

[- Groucho -]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Obviously you've never taken oxycontin.

From the amount he types, I would think amphetamines were more his style.

[Berzerker]

From the amount he types, I would think amphetamines were more his style.

In my younger days. But I'm just matching Strayboy...

Chegitz, no, have you? I have to believe if Rush can do his radio show without being detected, he could play golf as well.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Chegitz, no, have you? I have to believe if Rush can do his radio show without being detected, he could play golf as well.

No, but I had milder drugs of a similar nature, perciset and darvon. Let me just say, while I could fake being straight pretty good, I could barely walk. Oxy is considerably more powerful. I did want to try oxy, but I didn't want to ask because I didn't want the person to think I was just hanging out with her for her drugs.

[Berzerker]

Grouch, just for the record, Rush has made numerous comments about drug users. Most being inflammatory insults, like his oft used phrase - maggot infested, dope smoking FM types. He has even accused people who oppose the drug war of being "selfish" proving that it isn't only the liberals who accuse people of being selfish for opposing big government interventions in our lives.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
Yeah, that's why Slander is so much better for a title. Calling them treasonous is just mockery, whereas slanderous is much closer to the mark.

The "slander" from the left is nothing compared to what Ann Coulter does. Just read what was sai about Clinton. Ann can;t name names, cause then she could be sued for libel, and she woul invariably lose.

"Opportunist and idiot" eh? Kinda like Al Franken, who can't sell a book unless it has Limbaugh or O'Reilly in the title.

O'Reilly is not on the title: oh, and popularity hardly means quality: unless you are a big fan of teen pop, reality TV, and sex, sex, sex. As for Al being an idiot: read his book, certainly he is opinionated, but unlike Coulter, he explain his data collection or his method of endnotes.

Admiration? Naw, more like curiosity. It's a schtick, and it makes me wonder what's going on behind the public facade. She apparently has lots of friends who aren't exactly intellectual dwarves, so there is something to her besides the battle-axe persona.

Maybe those smart people like a lightweight like her next to them, just like attractive people like ugly people to stand next to them to seem better in the picture.

[Berzerker]

O'Reilly is not on the title

His face is on the cover in one of the background TV screens, true? I forget now. And the title makes use of Fox' "fair and balanced". I'm sure Franken wasn't using those images to sell books but to make it obvious who the targets of the book were. Or maybe he or his publisher was smart enough to know O'Reilly would throw a fit and produce free publicity for the book.

oh, and popularity hardly means quality: unless you are a big fan of teen pop, reality TV, and sex, sex, sex.

Well that's a good point. Popularity is a good thing when I agree with what is popular, but not when I disagree.

[st_swithin]

Sorta like high school.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Ann Coulter is a hypocrite when he pretends to be a woman.

Attack the argument (or in this case the lack thereof), not the gender please.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


She might as well - I mean, she's got chastity down - who'd go to bed with that?

My god so many of the people who hate her are nonetheless fascinated by her sexually. What's up with that? Masochistic fantasies?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Coulter is a troll and attention whore. She must be upset that sales of "Treason" are falling off already - how else will she maintain her country club lifestyle unless she gets more PR?

Bingo.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I doubt its real easy to golf while on hillby-heroin.

No, but it sure is funnier.