The problem there is the illicit drug chemist wil always find away around it, if there's enough demand for that chemical. Making meth is ridiculously easy technique-wise, and with these crackpot hacks mixing it up in a bathtub - who the hell knows what they'll experiment with trying to bring a product to maket.We could just ban several key ingredients of meth and see a pretty good reduction in output..or at the very least keep it from spreading any further. Psuedoephedrine is not even necessary in today's market, IMO. There are vasty superior products to take it's place so just get rid of it.
agreed. banning certain ingredients is like making meth use illegal, it really doesnt help.The problem there is the illicit drug chemist wil always find away around it, if there's enough demand for that chemical.
BV
Yeah, I agree. But the other problem with criminalising compounds that are relatively innocuous in their own right is that it ends up hurting people who would use those compounds for non-illegal reasons. For instance, if I want to make old-style root beer I cant, because Sassafras oil is a watched chemical. If I ordered it, the feds could come knocking on my door. I suppose that shouldnt bother me, because Im not doing anything illegal, but I dont want them to find the 1-test I have stashed in the back of the fridge.BV- I'm sure some garage chemist would alter the way meth is cooked if psuedofed were banned..BUT I think you'd still make it harder to produce meth if the easiest ingredients were made hard to get. I could easily be wrong, but it just seems like this stuff has gotten so big because it's so readily available.
I tend agree with that. A possible end to the problem is to let nature take its course. Let the junkies fall where they may, and eventually those genes that cause one to become addicted will be weeded out of the human species. Of course, if someone came into an emergency room suffering from a drug overdose, you'd have to deny them medical assistance. That would be kind of harshcall me cold hearted or whatever, but really, why do so many care to save people that do not care to save themselves? if they want to be idiots, than by all means be an idiot, but dont harm anyone else. sadly, they are doing the world a favor in a way....wiping themselves out.....
That's one of the practical problems. You have a population that uses substance X. A certain percentage have a problem, the rest don't. Outlawing the substance means law enforcement has to concentrate on the whole population instead of the percentage that's making life difficult for other people. Wasted resources in other words.Yeah, I agree. But the other problem with criminalising compounds that are relatively innocuous in their own right is that it ends up hurting people who would use those compounds for non-illegal reasons. For instance, if I want to make old-style root beer I cant, because Sassafras oil is a watched chemical. If I ordered it, the feds could come knocking on my door. I suppose that shouldnt bother me, because Im not doing anything illegal, but I dont want them to find the 1-test I have stashed in the back of the fridge.
Harsh yes, but it could be avoided. There are charity hospitals and also, if someone wants to, they could always opt for coverage of substance abuse problems. In the strictest sense it's not insurable, but it's offerred now. In fact people who don't want it are forced to pay for it. As an option available to those who think they might need it for whatever reason it would probably be workable.I tend agree with that. A possible end to the problem is to let nature take its course. Let the junkies fall where they may, and eventually those genes that cause one to become addicted will be weeded out of the human species. Of course, if someone came into an emergency room suffering from a drug overdose, you'd have to deny them medical assistance. That would be kind of harsh
Bingo. What's more, often the people who get screwed by the system end up not being able to vote through disenfranchisement laws. So it's sometimes, if not often the case that those who could and would vote on aq wedge issue like this can't vote at all anymore.The real reason drugs wont be decriminalised in the US anytime soon is because The War on Drugs is big business. Think of how many law enforcement and correctional services personnel are employed because of our burgeoning prison system. Sure, plenty of people in there are non-violent criminals caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. They went through the meat grinder that is the US Justice System and their lives are destroyed. But that doesnt matter, there is money to be made.
This is true, but for some reason even though people knew the crime during alcohol prohibition was due to the prohibition and not the booze, for some reason many people have swallowed the reverse when it comes to other drugs, most likely because of long decades of government propaganda.All the gangs, murder, crime, etc associated with drug prohibition just means politicians have a bigger platform to campaign in the name of 'saving the children' and reduce our ability to decide for ourselves a little more each year.
I was going to bring that point up to...glad you did. If someone could alleviate pain/handle stress by growing a couple marijuana plants in his garden, where would Merck and Pfizer be without all those sales for criminally over-priced prescription pain killers and anti-depressants?It's not just the institutional aspect either, many corporations don't want to lose control of the drug market. Competition in a managed market is preferrable to businesses than open competition. Suppose for example a high dose of a vitamin is more effective as an antidepressant than the many RX antidepressants out right now. Suppose certain actives in marijuana are better at killing pain and/or nausea than currently available RXs, etc. It's easier for a business to get what it wants through a turn of the political arm than to compete for it on the market.
Totally agree. A lot of people at work were/are stoners to one degree or another. The topic of marijuana comes up and they all extol the virtues of this substance and clamor for its decriminalization. But one word of steroids and they'll spout, word for word, the babble they heard on the latest news 'report'. Amazing.Look at Bill Maher, he's a typical stoner. Anytime the topic of weed comes up he rants about how relatively harmless it is, and when compared to most drugs it is. But, when the topic of steroids comes up he spits out all the usual BS about liver damage and heart attacks and shrunken nuts and 'roid rage, etc. It's another aspect of the whole thing, the people that research their pet substance for some reason rarely apply that experience to other drugs. In other words they cry for the truth of their substance to be known, but spout the government line on every other substance, never once even thinking that if the government was full of **** about their substance, perhaps the evidence about the harmfulness of the other illicit substances isn't exactly that solid either.
This pussyfooting will never stop. The government doesnt want to win the 'War on Drugs'. They want to keep the machine turning, generate cash and profit for everyone who has their hands in it...foot soldiers are just numbers to them.I was a fighter of the "war on drugs", that has to be the biggest oxymoron in the world!! Until they let the men that are there to do a job, take out the drug makers, the war is lost, plain and simple. It's run just like the war in Vietnam, you can take this one out, but not that one. I almost lost my comission twice because I took out the wrong (right) target. When we go to war, we have to go to win. This pussy footing around has to stop before we'll make headway.
That's also not going to happen, not so long as prohibition is going on. Teaching the truth about most drugs in school would lead to the inevitable questions: why are these substances illegal?; why are we imprisoning people for decades for using/selling this stuff?; why are we spending billions upon billions of dollars on prohibition? Because, in the end, most drugs aren't that bad and often a lot less harmful than what you might typically find in someone's medicine cabinet.I'd at least like to see a radical change in the way young people are educated about anabolics...I think that's one reason why kids abuse the hell out of them in the first place. The whole 'Drugs r bad...m'kay?' approach quickly dissolves from a young guy's mind when he adds 70lbs to his bench press and gains a stack of muscle. If in health class, the teacher explained the essentials of diet and training, how steroids work in the body and the reasons why a young person shouldnt use them...I think we'd have much less of a problem.
would you mind elaborating this point? this point was explained to me a long time ago and it made sense to me back then, but i can not remember clearly now why the drug industry is so profitable to the us. gov't.? we spend so much trying to fight the drug wars, but if its profitable shouldnt the gov't gain more than we spend fighting it?The war on drugs happens for these reasons:
1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous.
The war on drugs happens for these reasons:
1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous.
2) Its great political material. A conservative could point the drug use as a sign that there's too many druggies, criminals, and gays and there's not enough Jesus. The liberal side can attack it for its socioeconomics.
It also plays well into the suburbanite whites (the people who are most likely to vote) who are afraid of the crack problem, even though they never come into contact with these areas. Its easy to scare Soccer Moms to think that if they don't vote for "X" candidate, drugs will instantaneously flow into their quiet town.
3) Propoganda. The government, back when drugs were getting to be prohibited, readily admitted to using propoganda to curb drug use. Nowadays, people probably think its fact. Well, except for the government, who knows exactly what they're doing.
All they have to do is parade some crying child around and boom, you get people against or for whatever cause there is. Its pretty fucked up but thats how it is.
Thousands if not millions of people are dependent on it. At base the war on drugs has led to massive government employment of social workers, prison guards, etc. Anyone receiving a check from the government that works on this issue, directly or indirectly, profits from it personally. Police and teachers as well. It's one of the easiest ways to keep the public frightened, emerse them in a crime wave by making things that weren't and shouldn't be criminal into crimes. A huge percentage of our state and federal law enforcement budgets would not be justifiable if the war on drugs ended, and all those people would need to find jobs in the private sector or find some new hobgoblin to go after on the public dime.would you mind elaborating this point? this point was explained to me a long time ago and it made sense to me back then, but i can not remember clearly now why the drug industry is so profitable to the us. gov't.? we spend so much trying to fight the drug wars, but if its profitable shouldnt the gov't gain more than we spend fighting it?
Have you read Michael Levine's books? He wrote about the phony war on drugs more than 10yrs ago. As a former DEA agent he talks about why the war on drugs isn't working at the street level and why high level targets being left of the hook because the CIA had other plans.Thousands if not millions of people are dependent on it. At base the war on drugs has led to massive government employment of social workers, prison guards, etc.
........
That's direct profits. An example of indirect profits is politicians using this to scare the public and get reelected. Also using it as leverage in international relations, things like that.
I may have, it's been a while since I was an 'activist' on the subject, back in my early college days during the mid 90s. Don't recall reading about CIA involvement beyond any possible involvement in places where we're hitting crops and the like. I don't know that the war is phony beyond the fact that it can't work and was started with less than noble motivations. I'm not much for conspiracy theories as I generally think people are too dumb to keep anything a secret or make any high level conspiracy work for any length of time.Have you read Michael Levine's books? He wrote about the phony war on drugs more than 10yrs ago. As a former DEA agent he talks about why the war on drugs isn't working at the street level and why high level targets being left of the hook because the CIA had other plans.
They could still make generous salaries... putting the real criminals in jail, such as child touchers.1) Its profitable. BV touched on it and its true. From an international standpoint, the US will support anti-drug cartels but also get favors from these groups. Not to forget the salaries of the DEA, which I'm sure is fairly generous. .
This is the abuse of christianity, and people who use the word of god in this manner are phony. Reminds me of the Catcher in the Rye.2) Its great political material. A conservative could point the drug use as a sign that there's too many druggies, criminals, and gays and there's not enough Jesus. The liberal side can attack it for its socioeconomics. .
She wants to help the country and her community? GET A JOB. I cant stand soccer moms, especally those who cut you in line because "Oh, im in a hurry."... Long storyIt also plays well into the suburbanite whites (the people who are most likely to vote) who are afraid of the crack problem, even though they never come into contact with these areas. Its easy to scare Soccer Moms to think that if they don't vote for "X" candidate, drugs will instantaneously flow into their quiet town. .
The government, know what its doing? You cant be serious.3) Propoganda. The government, back when drugs were getting to be prohibited, readily admitted to using propoganda to curb drug use. Nowadays, people probably think its fact. Well, except for the government, who knows exactly what they're doing. .
Sadly, truer words have never been spoken. However, we can turn the tables on this. Picture a commercial of a young boy at a funeral, and his dad died buying drugs from a gang that, if they were legal, he could get a Wal-Mart Pharmacy.All they have to do is parade some crying child around and boom, you get people against or for whatever cause there is. Its pretty fucked up but thats how it is.
Medical Marijuana made it to the SC. I believe the justices were unanimously opposed with some saying severe penalties should be imposed on even a sick person using for pain/naussea relief.I would like to see someone with a SHITLOAD of money challenge any drug being illigal in the suppreme court.
This is classic drug war rhetoric and it's nonsense. NO ONE is suggesting people "should be able to do what they want." What we are saying is that IF their actions are not inherently harmful to anyone else or anyone else's property, THEN they should be allowed to do whatever they want. That is a big distinction.Seems everyone thinks people should be able to do what they want.
If you're equating child molestation with nonviolent drug use you're living in a fantasy land with reality being a long, long journey away, but one I'd recommend taking. If not, this is a bad analogy. Child molestation is inherently harmful to the child. Drug use by adults is not inherently harmful to anyone else, often not even the user in the long term.That would be great if everyone took responsiblity for their actions and could pay their own way. Unfortuantely that is not the case. How many times have you seen a child molester standing in front of the judge, crying like a baby saying he doesn't know why he did those terrible things to that young child, "I was so high your honor, I don't remember nothing"........
The obvious answer being to imprison them and take man hours away from tracking down murderers, rapists, molesters and robbers. If someone causes a problem or commits a crime after taking a drug that can be introduced at a trial as a mitigating or aggrevating factor depending on the circumstances and be used to determine the appropriate sentence. The fact remains that there are a hell of a lot of people, the majority of people, who can and do use most drugs responsibly and who commit no crimes other than selling, buying and using, and there is nothing inherently criminal in any classical sense of the word with the sale, aquisition or use of a drug.I've seen people who smoked pot stumbling, eyes half shut, acting like complete idiots.
They do not fall victim to the drugs, they fall victim to themselves and social circumstance. I've been on more than one ride along in some seriously bad neighborhoods, been in crack houses, heroin dens and seen the addicts, etc. Blaming the drug, an inanimate object, for these people's personal choice to use is as ridiculous as blaming a knife for a stabbing. And as was mentioned in previous postings there's no sense in conflating the misery and poverty in those areas with drug use. The misery and poverty were there before, drugs just offerred an easy escape which some people were stupid enough to choose, and their choose to use a drug, not the drug itself, has aggravated the problem. Responsibility lies with people, not with inanimate things.If you had to ride a beat in a large city with defined areas of crack use, you'd see the heartache and misery. People lose everything they have when they fall victim to the drug.
I believe the gist of the posts here was that drug use should be legal, not robbery and burglary. What's more, these are problems of prohibition, not drug use. If these people did not have to pay black market prices for these substances and did not have to associate themselves with criminals to obtain them the crime rate would go down, not up, as it has done with the repeal of every single past prohibition.Their homes, jobs, families...To say that we should let them do what they want is assinine. When they have exhausted all their money and possesions, they start to steal yours to get that buzz.
Ah, the "don't open the flood gates" argument. Haven't heard that in a while. There is no flood gate to open, we are not throwing anything else into the mix because the substances are already in the mix. I can have any drug I want within a half hour right now, as easy as a ride to the store, as could anyone else with the slightest shred of comon sense. Who uses is more related to social pressures and circumstances, and is not largley affected by legality. That's why use of drugs such as marijuana and cocaine, etc., move cyclically regardless of the increase/decrease of legal penalties. Making these drugs legal will at most lead to an increase of one time users of softer drugs like marijuana. No one is going to just decide to become a junkie just because heroin is legalizaed, the idea itself is absurd. Grant that an increase in use of other drugs would occur, the drop in price and removal of the criminal element would still have a net beneficial effect overall when compared to continued prohibition.You say alcohol is just as bad, and you are probably right. Does that mean we should throw 25 more substances into the mix?
The laws have been made progressively tougher over the last seventy years with no effect whatsoever on use or sale. This would seem to be a failed approach. I know plenty of people who do coke, none of them have robbed anyone. Growing up I knew many heroin users/addicts, and I myself have used, and while a couple are dead from ODing, their own stupid fault, none were otherwise criminal in their behavior.All the others, coke, meth, crack, etc....the laws should be made much tougher for the makers and sellers and users.
Good link and doesn't surprise me one bit. The KKK influence was really, really strong during this time. Its not a shock that around this time, people wanted to eliminate anything that might cause white women to be with black men.For those who like history, there is a very interesting article here:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
-Tinytoad
CDB touched on most of it but also, the US has a lot of interests in South America, like mining, logging, chemical extraction (from the rainforest) Its in the US's interest to keep these anti-drug governments running.would you mind elaborating this point? this point was explained to me a long time ago and it made sense to me back then, but i can not remember clearly now why the drug industry is so profitable to the us. gov't.? we spend so much trying to fight the drug wars, but if its profitable shouldnt the gov't gain more than we spend fighting it?
Not to the extent that the drug war has. The Drug Wars are international also where molesters are pretty much national.They could still make generous salaries... putting the real criminals in jail, such as child touchers.
Preach!This is the abuse of christianity, and people who use the word of god in this manner are phony. Reminds me of the Catcher in the Rye.
For public policy, you're right. Otherwise, they know whats going on.The government, know what its doing? You cant be serious.
Thats because of the social situations, self-fulfilling prophecies, and the perception of peril by the cities who have been damaged by crack. Nobody wants to pony up the money to better these communities so they're just going to get hammered by these drugs until something is done.If you had to ride a beat in a large city with defined areas of crack use, you'd see the heartache and misery. People lose everything they have when they fall victim to the drug.
Perhaps I worded myself poorly then. go ahead and lock up the 98% of the raving lunatics, there is no reason and no cause to pass a law that will also land the 2% in prison, which is what making nonviolent acts such as buying, selling, possessing and using a substance illegal. Once more, it's the typical nonsense argument that in order to deal with the portion of the drug using/abusing population that commits crimes we have to lock up all users. It's literal nonsense.Talk about being removed from reality, you are the prime example.
You don't care if 98% of the drug users turn into raving lunatics as long as the 2% gets left alone.
You do not know what I've seen or how much time I've spent in the presence of addicts, be it on ride alongs or wiping their asses as a volunteer in halfway houses and recovery centers, or seeing their remains scraped off the street. I won't question your experience, I will vehemently question your logic and premises. The point being that there are people, not just myself, who have been exposed to these people and dealt with these issues day in and day out who disagree with you, so the "get out there and look" or more appropriately the "my experience is better than yours" argument is irrelevant.That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. So you've been on a few ride alongs, have you. Get out there and do it day in day out. You haven't seen ****.
On a because you say so? Brilliant argument. Drugs should be legal, once more, because there is nothing inherently criminal in the buying, selling, possessing and use of certain substances, just as there's nothing inherently criminal in owning a knife or a gun, or doing, owning, selling, buying or using any number of other things in this world which are in and of themselves harmless but have the potential, if misused, to cause or contribute to harm.I don't really care that you think it is your right to do drugs as long as no one gets hurt. It isn't. I enjoy hearing all the bullshit reasons why drugs should be legal. All the way to the jail.
Granted.I'm not here to wipe their asses. They wouldn't need their asses wiped if they conducted themselves like mature adults.
Be my guest. What about the ones who aren't under the influence but mere transporting? They will be just as arrested if caught. What about the ones that the police use IR vision to bust for having grow rooms/labs, when no reasonable suspicion existed nor was any warrant obtained to use this technology to look into their houses or at their energy usage patterns? They are equally busted.And where do all these wonderful drug users that you are talking about do their drugs? At home? If they did, how would they get busted? No, they go out and drive vehicles on the streets that my children are on. And when I catch them, I'm not wiping their ass, I'm taking it to jail.
I assume they're also selling liquor on the street? Oh wait, that's right! Liquor is LEGAL and therefore sold in stores with a reasonable age restriction on sales and licensing required for sellers. Gee, that might mean... wait a minute, this is an incredibly complex problem, but I think it just might mean the reason the pushers have crack, heroin, weed and cocaine and not Jim Beam is because Jim Beam is legal. This just might lead to another eureaka! moment... Yeah, I think, I think it is! That might mean if the drugs were legal they'd be sold in stores like all other legal drugs. So, while my logic may be a wee bit rusty, that might mean the problem with this particular issue you raise is due to PROHIBITION and not the drugs themselves. I also don't see Pfizer and Merk sales-reps gunning each other down in the streets, which just might mean the violence surrounding the drug trade is also due to PROHIBITION and not the drugs themselves.And where do they sell their drugs? On the streets that children and mothers and wives have to travel to go to the grocery stores and schools.
see above. When Merk and Pfizer employees start killing each other you'll have a point, as they both sell drugs that are equally in demand and often just as if not more addicting and habit forming than our current group of illegal drugs. But, miraculously, they aren't killing each other in the streets. It doesn't take a genius to find out why.And they rob each other for being on someone elses "turf", and innocent people get hurt so they can ply their trade. Everytime I take a drug pusher off the street, it makes a difference. And when I take a user off the street, thats one less customer for the pusher.
Two points I would want to make here: while in principle I do agree with your Darwin point, if some prick is shooting his life's earnings into his veins every night and his kids are getting neglected because of it, I wouldn't be against forcing his ass into some kind of program. Even if it be maintenance for the rest of his life. I am an idealist, but idealism does have to give way for practicality and compassion sometimes despite a little wasted money in the process.I think it was already said but i haven't really read much, i just want to get in this convo... drugs should all be legal. It would bring back darwin's theory and allow those people that do not hold life to be special to die and thusly save us more money in the long run.
Again I agree to a point. The government is happily fucking the economy up to the point that the American Dream is becoming ever more unattainable. We're doing okay now, but our government, surprisingly enough, is not doing as much monetary pumping as other governments. That's one of the main reasons why the dollar hasn't gone down despite expectations that it would. But eventually the new head of the Fed will get a hold of the pump and start it again and we'll go bust as always. Everyone seems to be getting pissed because salaries haven't gone up, not realizing that a higher salary paid in devalued dollars doesn't mean anything. The American Dream is soon going to be attainable only to those who can buy it from the government.America is the land of hope and opportunaty.. it isn't the land that just goes ahead and hands you a perfect life. You go out, you get those fast food jobs, hell, you get two or three, as my grandfather did selling jock straps when he escaped germany EVEN though he was IN the SS. Then he fought for the USA. He did this in hopes that my father and his 6 brothers would have a little bit better life than he did. And they did, but not with out working 3 jobs, as a bartender, taxi driver and yes.. a short order cook.. he had nothing, living in the projects of Elizabeth NJ... now.. with hard work he is a CFO to a very well known company.
I remember my college days. I was helping a prof grade papers and one of the ones I got, the gem of a horrid bunch, which in the end he told me to give a B to, had no puncutation. Let me write that again: no punctuation. Now I know for a fact that in Spanish, the writer's native tongue, they have punctuation. An upside down question mark I could excuse. But no puncuation? He got a B because of the wise advice of my professor who told me, "You don't need to be literate in English to file a lawsuit in this country. Trust me."I disagree College today is a joke. I teach at a college and i am shocked to see what schools let in today. My college Jr's cannot even write a paper correctly and most of them came from private high schools! The ability to obtain loans and grants for college today is second to no other time. The poor can get in with loans.. the middle class will not.
Cheers!50 million can go to so much in theory.. but the reality is that no matter how much money we have, no matter which party is in power.. no matter how much debt we as a nation create.. it doesn't matter in the least. The true reality is this.. the war on drugs is one of the dumbest ideas EVER undertaken by humans; however, it creates jobs.. and we all like jobs, we can print all the money we want to pay those jobs.. we are not backed by anything more than the good faith and trust of the American people.. our trends control our economy.
I was looped on pinot noir. It won't happen again.hey i think this is the first time that you and maynard sorta agree on something! lol
Alcohol dealers aren't shooting each other in the streets and killing kids in the process while recruiting others at a young age and turning them into career criminals. They were doing that during alcohol prohibition however, which might make a more thoughtful person make a few logical connections and come to a certain conclusion about the harmfulness of prohibition.CDB, Do you think for a moment that we don't spend as much time on alcohol related incidents as drugs? Just because it is legal to purchase alcohol for consumption by adults doesn't stop the illegal activities that occur from alcohol use. Look at how easy it is for minors to get alcohol.
You're assuming I haven't. Once more it's the "my experience trumps yours, so there!" argument.If you could only see some of the accident scenes related to alcohol abuse.
Are you making an effort to completely miss the point? I have no problem with you locking up someone who is driving while drunk. The point is, if you want to use alcohol as an analogy, you're also locking up designated drivers, people who buy alcohol and go home and drink, and people who generally use alcohol but do not use in a way that endangers others. Is it at all possible for you to see the difference and distinction? Prohibition targets ALL users regardless if they are engaging in ANY OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY and regardless of whether or not they are BEHAVING RECKLESSLY, such as driving under the influence.So when the DUI task force goes out on Saturday night and pulls over some sales manager or CEO or whatever, and he fails the sobriety test, he goes to jail. Even if he was just "a little drunk". He probably could have made it home without incident, but he got caught. Too bad. Don't drink and drive. Period.
Mindless following of the rules without questioning their ethicality, morality and legality makes for a good state drone, not an American. Here we are supposed to question, supposed to oppose the state, and supposed to be free. Laws are not the end all be all of society. Laws are subject to ethical and moral review, morals and ethics are not subject to legal restrictions.And if you are not happy with the current laws on drugs, change them. You're the younger generation, so have at it. You change the laws, I'll enforce the new ones. I've had close family get in trouble due to drug use. I love them very much and it hurt me to see them ruin their lives. But they chose the road. It all boils down to following the rules.
I don't understand your subserviance to "the rules" as you put it, especially since it seems to exist in a total vacuum with no consideration whatsoever as to individual rights, right and wrong, ethics and morality. It is wrong to lock people up for drug use in and of itself. The only rules that I consider justly binding on me are ones that concern me hurting other or acting so reckless as to serious increase the risk of others being hurt. Anything else is a restriction on my freedom based on someone else's aesthetic judgement of what good living is.I'd probably like to smoke a joint too, even though I haven't done it in 30 years.......
Nazi Germany had some rules you might want to peruse and then use in a reconsideration of this statement. So did other nations with a mind towards ethnic cleansing/preference through law. Guess all those uppity blacks during the US Civil Rights Movement should have known better and stayed in their proper places and followed the rules. Guess Rosa Parks should have moved her black ass at the command of a white man. After all, it was in the rules. I guess when the fire hoses were turned on them they should have just taken it. After all, plenty of judges and juries would have considered that within the rules.You have the right to question any rule you don't agree with. You do not have the right disobey it. I will never decide that it is ok to break the rules. Rules are what keeps society from disaster. If everyone was left to make their own rules, there would be nothing but chaos and disorder.
No where, and more specifically no where in this thread, which proves you can't read or are oblivious to what I and others have said. Once more, for those who are apparently visually impaired: NO ONE IS SAYING YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. Could you please now explain how saying "people should be allowed to do as they wish SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE and SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT BEHAVING RECKLESSLY SO AS TO MAKE HURTING SOMEONE ELSE LIKELY," translates into "people should be allowed to do whatever they want" in your mind? Because there are two qualifying clauses in the statement, I've bolded them to make them easier to see for you, that put definite restrictions and logically lead to certain rules, and I know you like rules, that most certainly and obviously mean people can't do whatever they want. No one here has come close to saying that.You are not free to do whatever you want to do. Where is that written?
In my 29 years I have seen and done more than most people do in their entire lives, and I'm thankful for that. That said there are people in their sixties who share my views, and my age has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning. For others reading this, this argument is kind of a softball ad hominem combined with an argument from surious authority. Watch for it in debates, it's a sign your opponent is running out of steam and getting close to either admitting they are wrong or storming off in a huff because they'd rather not lose.You are 29 years old and you have all the answers. You've seen it all, done it all,
See first response, then if possible go back in time and tell that to the slaves in our history. After all, if they tried to escape they'd be breaking the rules. Do you not acknowledge any distinction between what's legal/illegal and what's right/wrong? If you don't it doesn't surprise me you have/had a state job, assuming you are/were a cop.Once again I'll say it, if you don't like the laws change them.
I'm an orange, as if it mattered. Your veteran status commands respect, it doesn't make you correct by default. Yes, if I convince enough people I can get those laws changed and drugs would be legal, and in your mind that would be right. I could also, if I convince enough people, enact laws that require the government sponsored imprisonment/murder of all blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, latinos and whoever the hell else I please, and that would be equally right in your eyes. After all, as long we're all obeying the rules.If you can convince enough people to see your point of view, you will succeed. As far as me not being an American because I follow the rules, well, I'm a veteran. USMC 74-76. You?
Save that Nazi crap for someone else. Laws have evolved over time, and yes, there were/are some bad ones that have been on the books. But they have been changed. Like I told you, if you don't agree with them, change them through the proper channel.Nazi Germany had some rules you might want to peruse and then use in a reconsideration of this statement. So did other nations with a mind towards ethnic cleansing/preference through law. Guess all those uppity blacks during the US Civil Rights Movement should have known better and stayed in their proper places and followed the rules. Guess Rosa Parks should have moved her black ass at the command of a white man. After all, it was in the rules. I guess when the fire hoses were turned on them they should have just taken it. After all, plenty of judges and juries would have considered that within the rules..
So now I would happily abuse, torture, and kill people, and I'm prejudice because I don't think people should be allowed to use drugs....sorry sport. I wouldn't do any of those things, but I'd throw your butt in jail for drugs, that you can count on.It seems from your posts and your blind adherence to the rules that you're one of those people who would happily abuse, torture, imprison and even kill your fellow citizens on order for any reason whatsoever. Do it because they're Jewish or Christian, do it to advance a eugenics program, do it because they're enemies of the state, do it because they're criminals, do it because their skin is liter or darker than yours. And you would never question those rules, would you?.
You adhere to the higher authority of right and wrong, or "what you perceive to be right or wrong". You want to make the rules, become a politician. You're right. I take orders. From people I respect and trust.If however you would question it, that is a tacit admission that above Law and Order are Right and Wrong, and if you would under any circumstances disobey the rules (laws) because they were wrong, that is a tavit admission that Law and Order are not always in sync with Right and Wrong, and the Right and Wrong are the higher authority. I adhere the higher authority of right and Wrong. You most likely just take orders.
.
I would never admit to being wrong when I'm right. Drugs are poisoning our country and destroying our children. I will continue to fight the war. And if a few non violent criminals, and make no mistake about it, they are criminals, get arrested, well, they shouldn't be involved in illegal activities.In my 29 years I have seen and done more than most people do in their entire lives, and I'm thankful for that. That said there are people in their sixties who share my views, and my age has absolutely no bearing on my reasoning. For others reading this, this argument is kind of a softball ad hominem combined with an argument from surious authority. Watch for it in debates, it's a sign your opponent is running out of steam and getting close to either admitting they are wrong or storming off in a huff because they'd rather not lose..
Where do you dream up your replies? They are so colorful, but have very little substance. Go ahead and enact the above laws....you'd have a better chance making drugs legal.....See first response, then if possible go back in time and tell that to the slaves in our history. After all, if they tried to escape they'd be breaking the rules. Do you not acknowledge any distinction between what's legal/illegal and what's right/wrong? If you don't it doesn't surprise me you have/had a state job, assuming you are/were a cop.
I'm an orange, as if it mattered. Your veteran status commands respect, it doesn't make you correct by default. Yes, if I convince enough people I can get those laws changed and drugs would be legal, and in your mind that would be right. I could also, if I convince enough people, enact laws that require the government sponsored imprisonment/murder of all blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, latinos and whoever the hell else I please, and that would be equally right in your eyes. After all, as long we're all obeying the rules.
And I guess if I decided to imprison all veterans for the hell of it in that way, I could justly turn around to you and say what you said above. Don't like the rules, change them! Of course since in addition to imprisoning you the laws I pass would also impoverish you and other veterans, take away your right to vote through disenfranchisement laws, and make it hard as hell for you to get a job and live (drug/veteran testing anyone?) and generally otherwise **** up your life and families, at that point changing the law, even though it would be blatantly unjust and wrong, wouldn't be all that frigging easy now would it?..
Save your pity for someone else. I follow lawful orders. Shall I BOLD the word "lawful" for you? I have not come across an immoral law on the books lately. Could you be more specific. And here you go again with "people like me" crap. Would those be the law abiding citizens, military, law enforcement, religious, family oriented, ....exactly what people like me?And if you don't see the analogy, I pity you. If you don't think the government is capable of something equally as arbitrary and spurious (400 million blacks brought here in chains, millions of jews and the handicapped killed in Nazi Germany, etc.), I can only shake my head in bewilderment at your complete and total disconnection with history and reality. And if you honestly do just follow the rules as you say, executing any order of the state without a care whether it's right or wrong, moral or immoral, just or unjust, then I can only be scared of you and everyone like you, because historically when the government has decided to spurious and arbitrarily cruel and viscious things, it's been people like you who have been only too happy to help facilitate its actions.
I believe CDB uses these insane examples, because earlier you said you will NEVER decide it's ok to break the rules. He is proposing, what if those crazy laws were the rules.. would you still follow them? By following your stated principals, you would, with no question, because there is no breaking the rules, no matter who decides them, as long as it is backed by the government. I believe that is the point of CDB's argument. You can admit in those absolutely rediculous situations proposed that you would break the rules! CDB seems to have a valid arguement here, which you write off as rediculous.Where do you dream up your replies? They are so colorful, but have very little substance. Go ahead and enact the above laws....you'd have a better chance making drugs legal.....
Because I find that funny. I know plenty of religious, family oriented, and great parents who dabble in a vice of their choice. I know some military who do some rec drugs when home. So don't you feel for them if they are caught in a situation that ruins their career or family life, just because they aren't perfect? Say you have to take away a great father, and the source of income from a family because he does some drugs, by himself, at night, not bothering a soul. Wouldn't you feel the least bit of regret in that situation? If not, I would feel bad for you. It would make me think of you more as a robot, then a human being."Would those be the law abiding citizens, military, law enforcement, religious, family oriented, ....exactly what people like me?"
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative Slin use. | Anabolics | 123 | ||
Is this a conservative/safe/natural cycle? | Anabolics | 15 | ||
Total beginner wants a conservative start | Supplements | 6 | ||
Conservatives score wins in EU parliament voting | Politics | 5 | ||
Conservative columnist calls for Palin to step down. | Politics | 0 |