More war on drugs lunacy

Page 2 of 2 First 12

  1. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    If people's own survival was on their own shoulders, I guarantee they'd be going wherever the jobs were instead of living off of people's taxes who work.
    Its that, the effective push towards senescence that "progressive" policies gives us that makes me despise them. That the effort of the individual isn't that important anymore, if you don't feel like bothering, someone will take care of it for you.

  2. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Its that, the effective push towards senescence that "progressive" policies gives us that makes me despise them. That the effort of the individual isn't that important anymore, if you don't feel like bothering, someone will take care of it for you.

    Note how the nature of drug crime - bare possession - lessens the need for proof of "bad will" or intent to harm others or their interests; the so-called drug "criminal" need not have an iota of actual harmful intent in his heart, in order for her to be cast into the same pit as violent felons, and predators.

    How fair is that?

    Is this calculated to help the vulnerable?

    Is not protection of the vulnerable the only justification for penal sanctions for drugs?

    Is this not an abuse of the criminal law itself, which is directed in all other cases at the vicious, that is, the intent or recklessness of harm to others, and which thereby justifies its attack on an individual's liberty?

    This unwarranted enlargement of the scope and reach of the criminal law brings the entire edifice of the Law into disrepute.

    Unless "vicious" is taken to mean precisely "not to obey the commands of the State, no matter how arbitrary or unreasoned".

    The un-American view, that what the King says, goes. Period. No discussion. Analogous to persecuting protestants, by the criminal law, in a catholic country....

    A rather viciously circular definition of "vicious": "it is whatever the King says it is": and its off to prison with the disagreeable "subject"...in the US that used to be, "citizen".

    And it is certainly not vicious to advocate the execution of those who traffic in harmless or beneficial and popular contraband, no sir, not in the Land of Liberty.
    •   
       


  3. you are apparently missing the whole idea of the social contract that is government, except when it is useful for you to provide additional benefit to those who you happen to feel need it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    Social contract describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states and/or maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order.

    Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, an individual’s actions are bound only by his or her personal power, constrained by conscience. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom one has in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.

    Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers of contractarianism, which formed the theoretical groundwork of democracy.

    The social contract and the civil rights it gives us are neither "natural rights" nor permanently fixed. Rather, the contract itself is the means towards an end — the benefit of all — and (according to some philosophers such as Locke or Rousseau), is only legitimate to the extent that it meets the general interest ("general will" in Rousseau). Therefore, when failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature. Locke theorized the right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.

    Since civil rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who choose to violate their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, abdicate their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" (Hardin 1968).

    If a majority believed as you did, then drugs would be legal. They do not, so drugs are not.
  4. lutherblsstt
    lutherblsstt's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    you are apparently missing the whole idea of the social contract that is government, except when it is useful for you to provide additional benefit to those who you happen to feel need it.


    If a majority believed as you did, then drugs would be legal. They do not, so drugs are not.
    We were intended to be a representative Republic. A Republic is a system in which certain things will never be up for a vote.

    Only things outlined in the Constitution would be subject to a vote, all others would not. In a Republic, the majority would never be able to vote on an issue such as, should a bar owner be able to allow smoking in his establishment?

    This would never be up for a vote in a Republic, but in a Democracy, everything is on the table.

    If they are going to perpetuate the lie of Democracy, they should at least call it by its rightful name, Mobocracy!

    It should never be possible for a group of people to decide what a property owner can do with his or her property, or what someone can put into their body,no matter how big the group or how good the cause.

    I have noticed signs when driving down the road announcing that there will be a meeting of the people to decide if Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store on land they legally purchased. I find this absurd! Who the hell should have the right to decide what the property owner can do with his property, except the property owner?

  5. A big part of the poverty issue has to do with the huge percentage of the lower class that are serving hard time for non-violent drug crimes instead of supporting themselves or their families. Then when they are eventually released they often find that nobody wants to hire convicted felons EXCEPT their old buddies in the drug trade.
    Not quite that simple. I grew up in poverty and never went the drug route. I knew the consequences and knew what I wanted to do with my life. It's a choice you make based off your goals, intentions and convictions. If you choose the easy route then you'll most likely pay the price. That price is usually poverty and in a lot of cases drugs are a part of this. I don't believe it has anything to do with being victimized by taking part in drugs and being jailed for it.

    Simple possession isn't a felony.
    The laws are there.
    Agree with it or not drugs are illegal and the penalties are open for everyone to know.
    If you make the conscious decision to break the law that has nothing to do with 'the man' keeping you down. It isn't a surprise to someone that smokes a joint or deals crack what their choice can bring them.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    We were intended to be a representative Republic. A Republic is a system in which certain things will never be up for a vote.

    Only things outlined in the Constitution would be subject to a vote, all others would not. In a Republic, the majority would never be able to vote on an issue such as, should a bar owner be able to allow smoking in his establishment?

    This would never be up for a vote in a Republic, but in a Democracy, everything is on the table.

    If they are going to perpetuate the lie of Democracy, they should at least call it by its rightful name, Mobocracy!

    It should never be possible for a group of people to decide what a property owner can do with his or her property, or what someone can put into their body,no matter how big the group or how good the cause.

    I have noticed signs when driving down the road announcing that there will be a meeting of the people to decide if Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store on land they legally purchased. I find this absurd! Who the hell should have the right to decide what the property owner can do with his property, except the property owner?
    Or who a business owner should hire? What race they have to be? Or what sort of qualifications allow someone of a particular race into a college?

  7. Quote Originally Posted by lutherblsstt View Post
    We were intended to be a representative Republic. A Republic is a system in which certain things will never be up for a vote.

    Only things outlined in the Constitution would be subject to a vote, all others would not. In a Republic, the majority would never be able to vote on an issue such as, should a bar owner be able to allow smoking in his establishment?

    This would never be up for a vote in a Republic, but in a Democracy, everything is on the table.

    If they are going to perpetuate the lie of Democracy, they should at least call it by its rightful name, Mobocracy!

    It should never be possible for a group of people to decide what a property owner can do with his or her property, or what someone can put into their body,no matter how big the group or how good the cause.

    I have noticed signs when driving down the road announcing that there will be a meeting of the people to decide if Wal-Mart should be allowed to build a store on land they legally purchased. I find this absurd! Who the hell should have the right to decide what the property owner can do with his property, except the property owner?
    I agree with what you are saying, in its application to the Federal government. However, the Constitution spelled out no such limitations to state and local governments. The Constitution was no intended to do anything other than establish the functions and structure of Federal government. For example, the Bill of Rights initially did not apply to anyone other than federal law. The 14th amendment and supreme court decisions changed this later.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 57
    Last Post: 08-13-2010, 08:11 AM
  2. Recent development in the war... on drugs
    By spatch in forum General Chat
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 11-27-2006, 03:13 PM
  3. Replies: 141
    Last Post: 03-01-2006, 05:24 PM
  4. War On Iraq Part 2
    By Zen_69 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2003, 12:36 PM
  5. no more cardio on empty stomach
    By Number 5 in forum Training Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-24-2003, 03:15 PM
Log in
Log in