[wsweeks2]

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.

 

[wsweeks2]

If I want to eat a pile of my own crap, yes I should have the right to do that. It's not going to cause the problems that crack, heroin, and other illegal drugs have. You point out alcohol and tobacco, which are excellent examples, however I am not the one who decided what is legal and what isn't.

Tobacco would be the next one on my list however in public places. In the same sense as the old saying "your right to swing your fist stops at my nose" I would say that "your right to smoke stops at my lungs."

 

[wsweeks2]

I completely agree, and I would not dare insult the framers of the Constitution and think that they left something off of the list of those rights which are to be protected.

Free speech, freedom to practice religion - or not, freedom to assemble, the right to bear arms, and all the others in the Bill of Rights as well as the other amendments are all great examples. Drugs don't seem to cross my mind as something people have an absolute right to possess, use, etc.

 

[wsweeks2]

If that's the case, then I suppose you would do away with any laws that are not mala in se?

 

[wsweeks2]

Then lets do away with speed limits and any other laws except the basic laws of humanity. The framers had laws on the books other than those that were mala in se for a reason.

I'm guessing they were like Sarah Brady as well for enacting legislation prohibiting certain acts that were not inherently evil?

 

[wsweeks2]

No they didn't, they wrote the 10th amendment giving the power to the states.

The states have banned your right to plant certain things on your property for your private use.

 

[wsweeks2]

Check again. There is a federal law against it too. A federal law that is a gross misuse of the commerce clause.

I completely agree with this.

The point is that someone should not have to pay for the rest of their life for using (or just posessing) a drug.

I disagree with this. 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.

 

[wsweeks2]

Agreed. There are worse things one can do that still allow you to obtain a GFL, or a firearm for that matter.

I don't think anyone will disagree that this state needs a major overhaul of carry laws from top to bottom.

 

[wsweeks2]

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.

Do you think this guy was in his buddy's basement getting high when the swat team stormed in, or was he doing something he shouldn't have been doing in a place he shouldn't have been doing it?

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.

Not necessarily. I was using this as an example of a law that restricts ones freedom as that was the argument being used against me in an earlier post.

 

[wsweeks2]

The 'War on Drugs' has been about as effective as prohibition, and has done more to erode our civil liberties than anything else... including the oft-maligned Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act came as a result of 9/11 and the road blocks the Feds found while investigating the money trail.

California, Oregon, New Mexico, and others have passed laws legalizing the use of marijuana for some folks. The Imperial Federal Government has said that it will still prosecute these folks.

Have any of these states filed lawsuits to fight this?

It's gotten us an unchanged overall rate of drug use, a gutted 4th amendment, and the highest prison population in the world...

What's wrong with the prison population being so high? There was a quote from Slick Willy back in the 90's saying something to the effect that "prison population climbs but crime is down." Shouldn't it be that the prison population climbs AND crime is down?

The problem with our justice system the way I see it is the judiciary. Repeat offenders are a huge problem, so why are they back out on the street?

Are there any stats comparing crime from alcohol vs. drugs vs. tobacco? When was the last time someone mugged someone at gunpoint so he could get enough for a pack of smokes? These people are doing this to get their next fix of something harder than tobacco and alcohol in most cases.

 

[wsweeks2]

I was simply stating that many folks are in an uproar over certain provisions of the Patriot Act, but the 'War on Drugs' has done more to erode civil liberties than the Patriot Act. Are you agreeing?

Completely agree. I misinterpreted what I originally read and I stand corrected.

Lawsuits: Should a state be required to spend taxpayers money to sue the IFG for something that you have said is a power reserved by the state?

If that's what it takes, then yes. That's the beauty of the way our government is set up and that we have a system for redress of grievances.

Prisons: Hell no we don't need more Americans in prison.

1. We have to pay for it with our taxes.
2. You put a non-violent marijuana dealer--you know, that goofy dude that sold weed in the dorms in college... the guy down the hall from you-- in jail with murderers, rapists, and armed robbers, then tack on a felony conviction that all but assures he isn't going to get a great job, then folks wonder why he's a repeat offender.

Some people just don't get it, and I'm not one who is sold on rehabilitation for all offenses. More often than not I turn off the news in disgust at what I see.

Where there's smoke, there's fire, and I'm not one who is trusting of people in general. If that were the case, I wouldn't feel the need to carry at all.

Basically, if it took an amendment to the US Constitution to ban alcohol, why shouldn't it take an amendment to ban other drugs?

Agree with this completely. I don't see how one is different from the other by way of legislative act.

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. Next time, it could be anyone caught with tobacco... but if you* don't smoke, that wouldn't affect you* either.

What I think is a tragedy is how this country has glorified a culture of modern day liberal values. No morals, no integrity, and forget about equal opportunity - it has to be equal results. If Tommy and Tyrone don't get the same result from the same opportunity, then something is wrong.

I call BS on that one.

 

[wsweeks2]

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.

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

And I agree with Gunstar. We don't need to keep banning things and building more prisons for that - we need more prisons so we can house the violent offenders who keep getting re-released due to "overcrowding." The violent offenders need to be put away for good. I don't believe in a 3 strikes rule for anyone who becomes a recidivist even once. That's it.

We also need sentencing guidelines for these judges who can't seem to figure it out. Since many judges are political appointees, they aren't there based on merit 100% of the time. Tie their hands a little and see how they like it, then maybe their rulings will start to change.

 

[wsweeks2]

And like I said, the better articulate it. Not just I smelled smoke. Have fun convincing a jury in a civil trial that you smelled smoke in a car from someone who has never smoked or done drugs. The cop better have a roach to plant.

 

[wsweeks2]

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. It's called lying - that's how.

I was in traffic court one day for a speeding ticket in MD and there was someone whose case was called ahead of me. They were cited for having a suspended registration. Cop gets up there and says that he was behind the car and ran a random check on their tag. The judge asked the cop where his PC was. The cop re-read what he had written in his report. Once again, the judge asked him where the PC was. When the cop couldn't say anything, the judge handed the cop his head on a platter for wasting his time, the defendants time, the taxpayers money, and for blatant abuse of the 4th amendment. The judges face was bright red while he was yelling at the guy.

The judge then proceeded to find every other person there for that cop innocent that day.

Some judges get it.

 

[wsweeks2]

Good idea.

 

[wsweeks2]

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

That's between the parents and their offspring. No place for the government to get involved.

 

[wsweeks2]

Like this? :banghead: :banghead:

:lol:

This thread isn't infringing upon your freedom not to look at it.

:wink:

 

[wsweeks2]

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.

 

[wsweeks2]

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.

 

[wsweeks2]

And that should prove I'm not a liberal - my head's not so far up my you know what that I can't see facts.