The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by 15 p

  1. Banned
    FitnFirm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3,635
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    41
    Lv. Percent
    99.72%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by 15 p


    WASHINGTON - The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by 15 percent by 2009, relying on cooperation with Mexico and steps at home that include expanded random drug testing in schools.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    Administration officials said Thursday they have reduced the number of U.S. labs that make meth but have not been able to stem the flow of the cheap and highly addictive drug from Mexico, estimated to be the source of 80 percent of the U.S. supply.

    Most of the details of the administration's synthetic drug control strategy have been previously announced, including new specialized enforcement teams on both sides of the border.

    Fewer than 600,000 Americans use meth, just two-tenths of 1 percent of the nation's population, according to administration estimates. But more than the half the nation's counties count meth as their top problem, said John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

    He said the administration supports increased drug testing in schools as a sort of early warning program.

    "It is a way to cut down student failure, truancy, gang membership," Walters said. The decision to test students will remain with individual districts, he said.

    Many states and the federal Combat Meth Act, signed into law in March, have made meth ingredients like pseudoephedrine harder to obtain. Federal drug agents and local police shut down 11,189 meth labs in the first 10 months of 2005, 26 percent fewer closures than over the same period a year earlier.

    ___







    LOL, Just 15% ??????? LMAO

  2. Board Supporter
    joecski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Age
    46
    Posts
    776
    Rep Power
    510
    Level
    22
    Lv. Percent
    8.5%

    It seemed odd to me that the Bush admin was making a big deal out of a small problem, meth use is actually pretty insignificant compared to marijuana, cocaine/crack, and heroin. Then I realized the article said : "Administration officials said Thursday they have reduced the number of U.S. labs that make meth but have not been able to stem the flow of the cheap and highly addictive drug from Mexico, estimated to be the source of 80 percent of the U.S. supply."

    So, this is another justification for building fences around Mexico.
  3. Senior Member
    Viperspit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,766
    Rep Power
    1002
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    75.34%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    I'm sorry to say that I voted for this prick twice. This guy really needs to get his priorities straight.

    1. Let's get the fuk outta Iraq now. ( I could go on forever on this subject).

    2. Get the Border situatiuon straighted around. Use some of this money from above to create Border patrol jobs.

    3. Stay out of politics in the future. Leave it to someone with more intelligence.
    •   
       

  4. Elite Member
    Matthew D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,014
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    46
    Lv. Percent
    99.56%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    The thought of more drug testing just seems to smack of Big Brother to me...
  5. Advanced Member
    Siznoyton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    543
    Rep Power
    449
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    32.83%

    Federal drug agents and local police shut down 11,189 meth labs in the first 10 months of 2005
    For a drug with a lot more social harms than pot, I'd say this is a pretty big number.

    But I think the statement is just political posturing.
  6. Board Supporter
    wastedwhiteboy2's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,990
    Rep Power
    3016
    Level
    38
    Lv. Percent
    59.35%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    here where I live meth is huge. gaining on the number one drug tested positive for. midwest. I disagree with testing at schools. maybe the unemployment line or cash assistance programs.
  7. New Member
    bigSMokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    141
    Rep Power
    177
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    40.41%

    Quote Originally Posted by Viperspit
    I'm sorry to say that I voted for this prick twice. This guy really needs to get his priorities straight.
    I hear ya viper. But I only voted for him once. By 2004 I could see what the guy was about. I didn't give a **** how dry and creepy Kerry was. But it's not just Bush himself. The entire administration is very secretive and there are some strong ultra-right wing players in there. Look at former A.G. John Ashcroft - his beliefs fall somewhere in the puritan range. He's the guy who had Tommy Chong thrown in federal prison for selling bongs....post 9/11, how's that for having priorities out of whack.
  8. New Member
    bigSMokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    141
    Rep Power
    177
    Level
    10
    Lv. Percent
    40.41%

    Quote Originally Posted by joecski
    It seemed odd to me that the Bush admin was making a big deal out of a small problem, meth use is actually pretty insignificant compared to marijuana, cocaine/crack, and heroin.

    So, this is another justification for building fences around Mexico.
    Well, erase pot right off the bat. No matter how many numbers it's users have on meth and crack users, it doesn't matter. Common sense puts the hazard of MJ at or below alcohol.

    As for heroin and cocaine, I'm not even sure that they are, number-wise, bigger than meth. I believe meth is now the #2 illicit drug.

    So you can ask most sheriffs/police chiefs, and they'll tell you what meth is doing to their communities. Many sheriffs have publicly expressed anger at the Bush admin's designation of marijuana as the nation's #1 drug problem (not just #1 usage volume), for it is taking attention away from the devastation being caused by meth.
  9. Banned
    rebelhead's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  205 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    42
    Posts
    157
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    11
    Lv. Percent
    32.9%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by wastedwhiteboy2
    here where I live meth is huge. gaining on the number one drug tested positive for. midwest. I disagree with testing at schools. maybe the unemployment line or cash assistance programs.
    PEOPLE IN UNEMPLOYEMENT LINES AND CASH ASSISTANCE LINES HAVE FAMILIES TO SUPPORT MAINLY CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF THIER DRUG PROBLEM. HOW WILL STARVING CHILDREN HELP ANYONE? ADDICTS WILL JUST START ROBBING AND BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE THEN. MAN YOU HAVE TO BE ABOVE ALL THAT "HURTING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF HELPING THEM AS LONG AS IT AIN'T HAPPENING TO ME" CRAP WILL SOLVE ANY OF THE WORLDS PROBLEMS. BESIDES NO ONE IS OUT OF REACH OF ADDICTION. THIS COUNTRY COULD LEARN SOMETHING FROM THE DUTCH AS FAR AS THE DRUG PROBLEM GOES.
    I BELIEVE DRUG TESTING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. HAVE YOU CHECKED INTO THE COST OF DRUG TESTING? MEANWHILE THE NATIONAL DEFICET IS THROUGH THE ROOF. BESIDES ALL THESE ADD DRUGS LIKE ADERRAL IS AMPHETAMINE AND THE PRESCRIPTIONS GO UP EVERY YEAR TO MOSTLY CHILDREN. THE GOVERMENT DOESN'T GIVE A **** WHAT DRUGS YOU OR YOUR KIDS ARE ON AS LONG AS THE PHARMACUTICAL COMPANIES ARE THE PUSHERS. THIS IS JUST MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO CLOUD THE REAL ISSUES. BIG BROTHER IS HERE TO STAY IT LOOKS LIKE.
    WHEN MOST PEOPLE ARE USING SOME TYPE OF DRUG THEN THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON EVERYONE. HECK, SOME OF THIS BUNCH THINKS CREATINE IS A DANGEROUS DRUG.
  10. Banned
    BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    23
    Lv. Percent
    38.58%

    After reading this thread, I realize that there was never any drug problem until Bush became President. Yep, that's it.
  11. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    First, no need to yell.

    Quote Originally Posted by rebelhead
    PEOPLE IN UNEMPLOYEMENT LINES AND CASH ASSISTANCE LINES HAVE FAMILIES TO SUPPORT MAINLY CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF THIER DRUG PROBLEM. HOW WILL STARVING CHILDREN HELP ANYONE?
    Fine. Let's take their children away when they test positive. As bad as foster care can be, it's a usually a damn sight better than living with a meth-head.

    ADDICTS WILL JUST START ROBBING AND BREAKING INTO YOUR HOUSE THEN.
    They are already doing this.

    MAN YOU HAVE TO BE ABOVE ALL THAT "HURTING PEOPLE INSTEAD OF HELPING THEM AS LONG AS IT AIN'T HAPPENING TO ME" CRAP WILL SOLVE ANY OF THE WORLDS PROBLEMS.
    They are breaking the law. Their actions have devastating consequences for their children and for society. Maybe hurting them with punishment is the only way we can get them to accept help. Remember, someone has to want help in order for it to do some good.

    BESIDES NO ONE IS OUT OF REACH OF ADDICTION.
    Those of us with self control, self respect, and respect for society are pretty goddam far from its reach.

    THIS COUNTRY COULD LEARN SOMETHING FROM THE DUTCH AS FAR AS THE DRUG PROBLEM GOES.
    How's that?

    I BELIEVE DRUG TESTING IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
    Pulling people off the street to do it is unconstitutional. Requiring all high school students to do it might be. Requiring it of high school athletes as a condition of being on the team is not.

    IT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. HAVE YOU CHECKED INTO THE COST OF DRUG TESTING?
    Have you checked into the costs of taxpayer funded drug treatment programs, foster care, welfare, etc, that are either directly or partially related to people's use of drugs?

    MEANWHILE THE NATIONAL DEFICET IS THROUGH THE ROOF.
    Not because of drug testing.

    BESIDES ALL THESE ADD DRUGS LIKE ADERRAL IS AMPHETAMINE AND THE PRESCRIPTIONS GO UP EVERY YEAR TO MOSTLY CHILDREN.
    Prescribed by doctors. Overprescribed sometimes, yes, but not self medicated.

    THE GOVERMENT DOESN'T GIVE A **** WHAT DRUGS YOU OR YOUR KIDS ARE ON AS LONG AS THE PHARMACUTICAL COMPANIES ARE THE PUSHERS. THIS IS JUST MORE SMOKE AND MIRRORS FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TO CLOUD THE REAL ISSUES. BIG BROTHER IS HERE TO STAY IT LOOKS LIKE.
    This is so nonsensical that I don't know how to respond.

    WHEN MOST PEOPLE ARE USING SOME TYPE OF DRUG THEN THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON EVERYONE.
    What drug are most people in this country using, besides maybe aspirin?

    HECK, SOME OF THIS BUNCH THINKS CREATINE IS A DANGEROUS DRUG.
    That is true, they do think that, and that is the only thing you said that I will agree with.
  12. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Quote Originally Posted by BioHazzard
    After reading this thread, I realize that there was never any drug problem until Bush became President. Yep, that's it.
    Oh, didn't you know? Absolutely EVERYTHING in the WORLD is his fault. Everything. There was no drug problem, no terrorism, no illegal immigration, no inflation, no foreign debt, no trade deficit, nothing before him. It's all his fault.
  13. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    the bottom line is that there will always be addicts and there will always be drugs, period. By making it a felony we make the situation worse by crowding our prisons with addicts that do not have control of the issue. i am of the opinion that we should let these addicts remove themselves from the gene pool.

    we should take a look at mexico's recent legislation that legalized the use of previously controlled substances. we have spent too much time, too much money, and too much manpower attempting a war on drugs that has not improved whatsoever. the one thing it has done is put people behind bars.

    also, look at some of these controlled substances. marijuana...steroids....and soon ****ing cough medicine?

    i do not smoke marijuana because i do not like the way it makes me feel. i do not drink very often because it is not good for my body, i dont use cocaine because it will make you thin and is highly addictive, and i havent used ecstasy simply because the opportunity has never presented itself.

    all of this boils down to one thing that people cant seem to get through their thick skulls. personal decison. who are you to tell me what i can or cannot do to my own body? think about it. these laws are the equivalent of georege bush standing in front of you and saying no you cannot do that to your own body. if you arent in control of your own flesh and blood then what the hell are you in control of?

    keep your laws off of my body. period
  14. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Sometimes, the costs to society and the danger to others outweighs your ability or right to control what goes into your body.

    All these libertarian viewpoints I see espoused on here would be great in a perfect world. We don't live in a perfect world.
  15. Advanced Member
    Siznoyton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    543
    Rep Power
    449
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    32.83%

    As i said in my post, social harms from meth use are greater than we've seen in the past from other drugs. It is insidious. Small towns have become inhabited with zombie-like tweakers. Meth is very bad ****. We're not talking about weed or a toot of coke here and there...or X or LSD, or even heroin.
  16. Advanced Member
    Siznoyton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    543
    Rep Power
    449
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    32.83%

    I'm with Rogue to the extent that we need more creative law enforcement. Screw paid vacation (jail time). How about mandatory servitude? Couple that with advanced electronic leg shackle monitroing, and let thme live in their own ****ty mess. I'm also 100% behind chemical castration for men and depo shots for women who prove to have addictive drug habits and consistently fail tests. Why allow them to wreck a child's life? We need to use our technologies to REDUCE the cost these addicts affect on our society.

    Bottom line is that the incentive to make meth far outweighs the incentives not to, and until that changes (either through positive reinforcement or positive punishement), nothing will change except the prison population, and no one wants that.
  17. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Quote Originally Posted by Siznoyton
    I'm also 100% behind chemical castration for men and depo shots for women who prove to have addictive drug habits and consistently fail tests.
    I'm 100% behind actual castration for repeat sexual offenders.
  18. Advanced Member
    Siznoyton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    543
    Rep Power
    449
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    32.83%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    I'm 100% behind actual castration for repeat sexual offenders.

    Ha....me too, most definitely....but try convincing the ACLU...they love going to bat for repeat pedophiles and child porn websites.

    They stand up for the KKK, where smart countries just say "F off, hate groups are illegal here."
  19. Senior Member
    Viperspit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,766
    Rep Power
    1002
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    75.34%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by Siznoyton
    Ha....me too, most definitely....but try convincing the ACLU...they love going to bat for repeat pedophiles and child porn websites.

    They stand up for the KKK, where smart countries just say "F off, hate groups are illegal here."

    The ACLU is a fuggin joke. It amazes me that this organization exists. Well, look at it's leaders - Al Sharpton? bwahaaha, that guy can't even spell ACLU
  20. Advanced Member
    Siznoyton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    543
    Rep Power
    449
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    32.83%

    Seriously, we've replaced common sense with an alphabet soup of "Advocacy" groups who only exist to perpetuate themselves.
  21. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by Siznoyton
    They stand up for the KKK, where smart countries just say "F off, hate groups are illegal here."
    I hate the ACLU as much as anyone, and as a son of a Jewish father it pains me to say this, but the KKK and other hate groups have a right to their free speech. The First Amendment is not designed to protect popular speech; it is designed to protect unpopular and controversial speech.
  22. Advanced Member
    Siznoyton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    543
    Rep Power
    449
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    32.83%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    I hate the ACLU as much as anyone, and as a son of a Jewish father it pains me to say this, but the KKK and other hate groups have a right to their free speech. The First Amendment is not designed to protect popular speech; it is designed to protect unpopular and controversial speech.
    No offense, I'm part Jewish, and my relatives fled Germany (a country that has seen first hand what actions hate speech can precipitate. As a result, hate groups are illegal there.) and that position is just ridiculous. Why would you willingly allow a group to conspire to destroy you for no reason?

    What right do they have to sit and conspire ways to kill and defile the innocent? DO you really think that's what the 1st ammendment is there for? Since when did common sense become repeatedly trounced by flawed chain of precedent?
  23. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by Siznoyton
    No offense, I'm part Jewish, and my relatives fled Germany (a country that has seen first hand what actions hate speech can precipitate. As a result, hate groups are illegal there.) and that position is just ridiculous. Why would you willingly allow a group to conspire to destroy you for no reason?
    Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Being a member of a hate group is an expression of a viewpoint. In this country, no viewpoint is illegal and no expression of a viewpoint is illegal (unless it might incite imminent violence). Popular points of view need no protection. You should remember that at one point in time, advocating equality between blacks and whites was seen as extremely offensive, as was the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Where would we be today had those unpopular points of view been suppressed?

    BTW, this is not just my position, this is the position of pretty much every state and federal court in this country, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

    What right do they have to sit and conspire ways to kill and defile the innocent? DO you really think that's what the 1st ammendment is there for?
    It is not there to protect their conspiracy. It is there to protect everone's freedom of speech.


    Since when did common sense become repeatedly trounced by flawed chain of precedent?
    Actually, if you understand anything about the First Amendment and constitutional jurisprudence, the position of the courts (and myself) is common sense. Nobody's freedom of speech is protected unless everybody's freedom of speech is protected.
  24. Banned
    jomi822's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,419
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    35
    Lv. Percent
    52.43%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Being a member of a hate group is an expression of a viewpoint. In this country, no viewpoint is illegal and no expression of a viewpoint is illegal (unless it might incite imminent violence). Popular points of view need no protection. You should remember that at one point in time, advocating equality between blacks and whites was seen as extremely offensive, as was the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Where would we be today had those unpopular points of view been suppressed?

    BTW, this is not just my position, this is the position of pretty much every state and federal court in this country, including the Supreme Court of the United States.



    It is not there to protect their conspiracy. It is there to protect everone's freedom of speech.




    Actually, if you understand anything about the First Amendment and constitutional jurisprudence, the position of the courts (and myself) is common sense. Nobody's freedom of speech is protected unless everybody's freedom of speech is protected.
  25. Advanced Member
    Siznoyton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Age
    40
    Posts
    543
    Rep Power
    449
    Level
    19
    Lv. Percent
    32.83%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    Conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime. Being a member of a hate group is an expression of a viewpoint. In this country, no viewpoint is illegal and no expression of a viewpoint is illegal (unless it might incite imminent violence). Popular points of view need no protection. You should remember that at one point in time, advocating equality between blacks and whites was seen as extremely offensive, as was the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Where would we be today had those unpopular points of view been suppressed?

    BTW, this is not just my position, this is the position of pretty much every state and federal court in this country, including the Supreme Court of the United States.



    It is not there to protect their conspiracy. It is there to protect everone's freedom of speech.




    Actually, if you understand anything about the First Amendment and constitutional jurisprudence, the position of the courts (and myself) is common sense. Nobody's freedom of speech is protected unless everybody's freedom of speech is protected.

    I'm well aware of everything you're saying. I have a degree in philosophy and studied law. I'm aware of chain of precedence and why things are the way they are. I'm simply saying its stupid that we can't make common sense laws like other countries. Comparing KKK rhetoric with racial equality rehtoric is not accurate. If you exist in an ethical vacuum, then yes, but there are ethical standards that can be and in fact are applied when weighing positions. To say KKK rhetoric deserves protection on the same grounds that integration rhetoric did in the past is to assume that in a later date we may find that KKK rhetoric was indeed the right viewpoint, and we had been mistaken all those years.

    Likewise, ACLU and free speech advocates support NAMBLA, while child abuse and exploitation explodes....yet how horrible a suggestion that we ban such "expression" that is certainly criminally, socially, and psychologically corrupt.

    So then you may say we are judging one position or viewpoint better than the other...to which I would say, of course we are, that's how people work, that's how the world works, that's common sense.

    I understand why we're in the bind we are. I'm saying its stupid. We value a horrible person's freedom to hate more than justice, more than safety, more than equality, more than society. For what? To preserve a concept that is just a theory of rights which has balooned into a flawed modern collective consciousness viewed as a "law"? Because we're so afraid of an imagined slippery slope that were paralyzed to act against those that are not?

    And this conspire vs. speech delineation you're making...go right now and read threads on any white power forum. I don't see any line there. Likewise, I don't see any Al Queda "speech" as speech, but conspiracy. If I call my friend and say "Damn, I hate Jew bastards, lets do everything we can do destroy the race" am I conspiring?

    I'm sure I'm not convincing you of anything--I'm just not happy that rules and decisions we make in everyday life can't be applied on a national level.
  26. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by Siznoyton
    I'm well aware of everything you're saying. I have a degree in philosophy and studied law. I'm aware of chain of precedence and why things are the way they are. I'm simply saying its stupid that we can't make common sense laws like other countries. Comparing KKK rhetoric with racial equality rehtoric is not accurate. If you exist in an ethical vacuum, then yes, but there are ethical standards that can be and in fact are applied when weighing positions. To say KKK rhetoric deserves protection on the same grounds that integration rhetoric did in the past is to assume that in a later date we may find that KKK rhetoric was indeed the right viewpoint, and we had been mistaken all those years.

    Likewise, ACLU and free speech advocates support NAMBLA, while child abuse and exploitation explodes....yet how horrible a suggestion that we ban such "expression" that is certainly criminally, socially, and psychologically corrupt.

    So then you may say we are judging one position or viewpoint better than the other...to which I would say, of course we are, that's how people work, that's how the world works, that's common sense.

    I understand why we're in the bind we are. I'm saying its stupid. We value a horrible person's freedom to hate more than justice, more than safety, more than equality, more than society. For what? To preserve a concept that is just a theory of rights which has balooned into a flawed modern collective consciousness viewed as a "law"? Because we're so afraid of an imagined slippery slope that were paralyzed to act against those that are not?

    And this conspire vs. speech delineation you're making...go right now and read threads on any white power forum. I don't see any line there. Likewise, I don't see any Al Queda "speech" as speech, but conspiracy. If I call my friend and say "Damn, I hate Jew bastards, lets do everything we can do destroy the race" am I conspiring?

    I'm sure I'm not convincing you of anything--I'm just not happy that rules and decisions we make in everyday life can't be applied on a national level.
    Our liberty guarantees that we will have to tolerate those with whom we disagree. If we are to live in a free society, we must begrudgingly accept that fact.
  27. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Some aspects of free speech confuse me. Is it legal to publicly advocate comitting a crime? Further still, is it legal to publicly ENCOURAGE others to commit a crime?

    Wouldn't publicly asking others to commit a particular crime be inciting criminal activities? If the crime then IS committed and those who committed it did so at the encouragement of those who publicly asked, then aren't those who asked guilty of conspiracy to commit that crime since they asked the party guilty of the crime to do so beforehand?
  28. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    Some aspects of free speech confuse me. Is it legal to publicly advocate comitting a crime? Further still, is it legal to publicly ENCOURAGE others to commit a crime?

    Wouldn't publicly asking others to commit a particular crime be inciting criminal activities? If the crime then IS committed and those who committed it did so at the encouragement of those who publicly asked, then aren't those who asked guilty of conspiracy to commit that crime since they asked the party guilty of the crime to do so beforehand?
    Short answer: states cannot punish the advocacy of violence or criminal activity, "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

    In other words, a general "let's kill all the Jews" cannot be punished, but a "follow me to Temple Beth El and let's burn it to the ground right now" said to a KKK rally can be.

    See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=395&invol=444
  29. Banned
    Nullifidian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    1,741
    Rep Power
    0
    Level
    32
    Lv. Percent
    14.57%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by jrkarp
    Short answer: states cannot punish the advocacy of violence or criminal activity, "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

    In other words, a general "let's kill all the Jews" cannot be punished, but a "follow me to Temple Beth El and let's burn it to the ground right now" said to a KKK rally can be.

    See Brandenburg v. Ohio.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=395&invol=444
    From those examples, it seems that the law has to do with whether or not they are inciting general lawlessness/general disregard for a specific law as opposed to inciting the act of committing a specific crime.

    For example, according to the law, you can say "kill all left handed people." But you cannot say "you should go and kill all the left handed people at <X place> on <Y date>" One talks of an indefinite place and time and thus an indefinite act. The ther talks of a specific time and place for the crime and thus points to a specific crime.

    Or as another example, you can't advocate the killing of specific people I would imagine; it would seem to be illegal to incite others to seek out with to kill a specific individual. i.e. you can't say "Go and kill Bob Smith." That's pretty much the same as murder for hire; you gave a command, the only difference is money never changed hands.
  30. Registered User
    jrkarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    970
    Rep Power
    1993
    Level
    24
    Lv. Percent
    49.38%

    Re: The Bush administration wants to cut methamphetamine use in the United States by


    Quote Originally Posted by Nullifidian
    From those examples, it seems that the law has to do with whether or not they are inciting general lawlessness/general disregard for a specific law as opposed to inciting the act of committing a specific crime.

    For example, according to the law, you can say "kill all left handed people." But you cannot say "you should go and kill all the left handed people at <X place> on <Y date>" One talks of an indefinite place and time and thus an indefinite act. The ther talks of a specific time and place for the crime and thus points to a specific crime.
    Sort of, but it's not quite that simple. If you look at the language of the holding, the second part says "and is likely to incite or produce such action." This means that what you are saying has to be likely to actually produce the result you are advocating, so the context in which it is said is important.


    Or as another example, you can't advocate the killing of specific people I would imagine; it would seem to be illegal to incite others to seek out with to kill a specific individual. i.e. you can't say "Go and kill Bob Smith." That's pretty much the same as murder for hire; you gave a command, the only difference is money never changed hands.
    Under this holding, everything depends on context - who it was said to, under what circumstances, etc. It is very fact and situation specific, so it's difficult to say what would be allowed from a general example.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 03-09-2011, 05:52 PM
  2. want to know WHY it is the best
    By xtatic in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-25-2007, 09:27 PM
  3. Wanting to get Bulky (using x mass)
    By String Up in forum Bulking
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-04-2007, 04:17 PM
  4. Took a major fall, now Dr. wants to cut me open
    By scrufff in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-13-2006, 11:35 PM
  5. Wanting to cut after alot of bulking
    By Rictor33 in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-24-2003, 05:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in