[Rammstein]

SPLIT FROM ANOTHER THREAD

How is it the war on "some" drugs?

I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets involved with that stuff, gets a conviction, and then later realizes what they've done.

We all have choices to make, and we have to live with the result of those decisions. Those who play with fire get burned. That's life.

Other than giving us the television series Cops, what have illegal drugs done to improve our society and our culture?

It's not about drugs improving anything. It is about the freedom of adults to put whatever substance they want into their body so long as they do not harm the life/liberty/property of another.

It is the war on "some" drugs because alcohol is a drug that has killed thousands if not millions of people, (and I am going to assume that the OP is talking about possession of cannabis). Cannabis has an Ld50 so low that it is impossible to kill a human by ingestion or inhalation.

I agree that we all make our own choices and must live with those choices, but every human should have the right to do as they please with their body if they do not harm the life/liberty/property of another. Like guns, you don't punish the object, you punish the crime.

 

[Rammstein]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I failed to find the amendment stating that the right of the people to keep and use syringes, crack pipes, bongs, bowls, roach clips, and rolling papers shall not be infringed.

I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.

But the problem is that you see the problem being the object and not the action, or more specifically, the person doing the action.

There are some other people who think the object and not the person is evil.

I don't see why you have to compromise on one set of freedoms. This country should be a land where there are only laws that prohibit the infringement on other's life/liberty/property.

I just don't understand why anyone would want to be a Brady when they could be a Patriot.

 

[Rammstein]

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I failed to find the amendment stating that the right of the people to keep and use syringes, crack pipes, bongs, bowls, roach clips, and rolling papers shall not be infringed.

I will fight for my gun rights until I am no longer breathing as they are guaranteed to us.

But the problem is that you see the problem being the object and not the action, or more specifically, the person doing the action.

There are some other people who think the object and not the person is evil.

I don't see why you have to compromise on one set of freedoms. This country should be a land where there are only laws that prohibit the infringement on other's life/liberty/property.

I just don't understand why anyone would want to be a Brady when they could be a Patriot.

See what I'm saying?

No.

You either do or you do not.

 

[Rammstein]

Then lets do away with speed limits

The state can do anything they want on their land, I just want them to leave people alone while they are on their own land.

Right wrong or indifferent, the laws are the way they are and drugs are illegal. Unless they were planted on the person, they made a conscious choice and now they have to deal with the consequences - valid or not.

So your position is really not about drugs per se, but really that everyone should follow the law regardless of how inane/immoral it is? Correct me if I misinterpreted it.

 

[Rammstein]

wsweeks2,

when an officer searches your vehicle without your consent one day it will be under the guise of looking for drugs. Think "I smell marijuana smoke; please exit the vehicle while I search it and my partner handcuffs you, your wife, and your child."

When a SWAT team busts down your door and points a rifle at you and your wife's head it will be because they got the vests, rifles, and APC from big daddy FedGov to combat the "problem" of illegal drugs.

Think that local police departments are looking more and more like a standing army? Well, they are. The main reason is because of drugs. If drugs were legal we would not have a Fourth Amendment that is near meaningless and would would not have a local police force gearing up for war.

But be sure to understand that whatever freedom that is taken from you in the future will be under the guise of combating drugs.

 

[Rammstein]

They better damn well be able to articulate the PC for searching anything remotely related to me for drugs.

"I smelled marijuana smoke, judge. Upon further inspection I seem to be mistaken. My bad."

 

[Rammstein]

It's called lying

You're right. And "professionals" never do that, do they?

And my point is that I'd like to know how someone can smell smoke when there isn't an inkling of any kind of ignited object anywhere near a vehicle.

"I smelled marijuana smoke, judge. Upon further inspection I seem to be mistaken. My bad."

 

[Rammstein]

I think it's a tragedy that the government can prevent a person from exercising an INALIENABLE right because they got caught with a joint.

I'll one up you on that. If the right to bear arms is INALIENABLE, than how do you justify restricting it to anyone? My view is that an inalienable right is necessarily returned to anyone that has "paid their debt". If someone cannot be trusted to exercise their rights responsibly, they have no business being part of society to begin with.
As an inalienable right, a person's right to bear arms MUST be restored to them as soon as their sentence has been served, just as their right to free speech, choice of religion, etc.

Yep.

 

[Rammstein]

Getting back to the original topic to this thread. Ramm this has been discussed before as you know. I do agree with you that there is selectiveness in categorizing drugs. Alcohol is legal and weed is not. However, I do disagree with your premise that anyone that takes a drug does not harm anyone else. Inotherwords a victimless crime. In the past, as you know, I have brought up the senario of someone driving down the road and is hit head on and killed by someone who is stoned on (pick your drug). You cannot convince me that this is a victimless crime.

You can't be serious.

Drinking and driving is not the same thing as just drinking.

+1

I believe you brought up this argument before and I shot it down before.

Besides, reread what I have always wrote. I don't care what someone does with their body so long as they do not harm the life/liberty/property of another. Furthermore, I've already said the .gov can do what they want (within reason) on their property. If they say no drugged driving on the road, then so be it. They should not be able to say someone can't hit the bong in their own home. No harm is done, no crime is committed.

 

[Rammstein]

Let's say that someone is at home minding their own business getting high on meth playing with their gun. They overdose shoot themselves by accident (yes, it does happen) and they die. Victimless crime? I bet not to their parents.

Ban guns?

 

[Rammstein]

Let's say that someone is at home minding their own business getting high on meth playing with their gun. They overdose shoot themselves by accident (yes, it does happen) and they die. Victimless crime? I bet not to their parents.

Ban guns?

That right there Ramm was the one thing I needed to see to change my mind on the entire issue.

And they say people can't change.

I'm glad I could change someone's mind on what I feel is am important issue of liberty.

 

[Rammstein]

In all honesty though, is it just me, or were drugs not as much of a problem when people stayed home and did them? People got bold and decided they could take them anywhere and now look at how things are.

I feel that the shift is more from trying to take personal responsibility out of the equation. These days (listen to me...I sound like an old man ) people are more apt to blame the object instead of the person and their actions.

It is not even that drug use besides the two main societal drugs in America is becoming more prevalent, as history will show you that for much of our history as a country all drugs were legal.

I think it is through this disconnect with people not being responsible for their actions that they think it will not be a problem if they [insert method of intoxication here] and drive.

America today, especially the youth, looks to Hollywood and takes what they say as the infallible word of the celebrity. One only has to look at all the problems these celebrities have and their solution. "It's not me, I have a disease." "I yelled all those racial epithets because I was drunk." "I slammed my car into a tree because I was on coke."

 

[Rammstein]

<snip>

On this, we are in perfect agreement gunsmoker.

Wanna hear something funny?
Marijuana, a schedule I (highest level...no pun intended) has an Ld50 of 1270 mg/Kg.

Cocaine, a schedule II drug has an Ld50 of 95.1 mg/kg

So basically, big daddy FedGov believes that cocaine, while having the ability to cause death by overdose, is less dangerous than marijuana, which does not have the ability to cause death by overdose.

Anyone still think FedGov still knows best?

 

[Rammstein]

So long ago I can't remember.

:lol:

Damn stoners and their memory loss. 8)

 

[Rammstein]

Let's say that someone is at home minding their own business getting high on meth playing with their gun. They overdose shoot themselves by accident (yes, it does happen) and they die. Victimless crime? I bet not to their parents.

Ban guns?

This is my last post. Ramm it surprises me that you took editing liberties with my post. You changed the entire meaning.

Editing liberties? I'm not a mod in this sub forum. I did so to show you how easily your argument can apply to something that you hold dear.

Yeah, I changed the meaning because I put it in terms you could understand.
Instead of packing up your toys, defend your position.

 

[Rammstein]

Getting back to the original topic to this thread. Ramm this has been discussed before as you know. I do agree with you that there is selectiveness in categorizing drugs. Alcohol is legal and weed is not. However, I do disagree with your premise that anyone that takes a drug does not harm anyone else. Inotherwords a victimless crime. In the past, as you know, I have brought up the senario of someone driving down the road and is hit head on and killed by someone who is stoned on (pick your drug). You cannot convince me that this is a victimless crime.

Do you support the banning of cell phones because people who drive and talk on the phone at the same time are a danger to their fellow motorists?

You are drifting off topic. Let's stay on drugs.

We're giving you analogous examples and you choose not to see how they can equally apply to other things besides drugs.
Approach the arguments with an open mind and you'll see your error in logic.

 

[Rammstein]

PM replied.

 

[Rammstein]

You simply won't agree to the senarios that I have put forward that drugs are not a victimless crime.

[/quote]

There is no evidence what-so-ever that someone sitting at home and drinking a beer or smoking a joint or smoking a cigarette is infringing on someone else's life/liberty/property.

If they smoke a bowl or drink some beer and then get on the road they are putting other people's life in danger of death or great bodily harm. That is a tangible infringement.

Smoking a bowl and dieing years later from lung cancer is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property. Sure it would be sad for the family, but he did not harm anyone else.

Drinking a beer and dieing years later from cirrhosis is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property. Sure it would be sad for the family, but he did not harm anyone else.

If a homeless alcoholic guy steals to support his alcoholism there is no outcry to ban alcohol. They put him in jail for his action, not the reason for his action.

If a crazy guy with a gun shoots up an office full of people, they put him in jail for killing an office full of people, not because he used a gun to do it.

Any object can be used for good or for evil. Guns, drugs, cars. It is not the object that should be banned. Rather, society must punish the individual for their actions.

 

[Rammstein]

Lysander Spooner[/URL]]Vices Are Not Crimes

A Vindication Of Moral Liberty

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime â€" that is, the design to injure the person or property of another â€" is wanting. It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another....

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property.... For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be a falsehood, or falsehood truth.

Source

 

[Rammstein]

Smoking a bowl and dieing years later from lung cancer is not a tangible infringement on another's life/liberty/property.

Then why do they have a claim on my income?

Because the voters discovered they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury.

Using public tax dollars to pay for the health care of others in not only immoral, it is not fiscally responsible.