The House Bill 3962

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by saltyone, Oct 29, 2009.

  1. saltyone

    saltyone So Mote It Be

    Dec 21, 2004
    Likes Received:
  2. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Oct 21, 2002
    Likes Received:
  3. tinsley

    tinsley Veteran Member

    Sep 20, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Rangel, Charles

    Congressman Rangel has populist support and power, and those are the things that count most in demagogic politics
    . Why should he know that in a market economy there is no "who" to set prices? But if Rangel does not understand this, or does not want to understand it, can we expect people who vote for him to understand it? Moreover, Rangel has access to the media, where he can explain to people that when the state does not prohibit a substance, then its use is, ipso facto, "sanctioned by the government" and this sends "the message that drugs are O.K." Rangel thus maintains that we should not criticize or debate drug prohibition, because doing so is fundamentally subversive. "If we really want to do something about drug abuse," he concludes, "let's end this nonsensical talk about legalization right now.” Not for naught did Mark Twain opine that "there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." Despite such warnings, William F. Buckley, Jr., invited Congressman Rangel to participate in a television debate on "whether the United States would be better off decriminalizing drugs.” With great gusto, Rangel disposed of the question and his opponents by pointing out to the nationwide audience that the United States could not legalize drugs even if it wanted to, because "we are bound to honor our drug treaties." Buckley -- who acted (or pretended to act) as if his opponent were a debater, not a demagogue -- conceded that he was unfamiliar with any such treaty and queried, "Er, Congressman Rangel, what treaties are
    you referring to?" Unflappably, Rangel replied that "there were quite a few of them," offering "the Psychotropic Drug Treaty of 1987" as an example. That treaty, he patiently explained, "denies its signatories the right to market drugs except for the public health." After the debate was over, Buckley tells us, Rangel was munching a sandwich when a "guest accosted him. 'What about this Psychotropic Drug Treaty of 1987? I never heard of it.' Charles Rangel leaned his head back and laughed uproariously. 'He demanded a treaty, didn't he?’”

    [Szasz, T.S., Our Right to Drugs]
  4. stegaman

    stegaman Founding Member

    May 21, 2008
    Likes Received:
    its only 1990 pages, you don't have time to go through it all yourself?
  5. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Oct 11, 2003
    Likes Received:
    Well neither do those that sign it, its too bad they get paid for what they do.
    If they held private sector jobs they would have been fired and receiving welfare years ago.

Share This Page