Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
21 - 40 of 90 Posts

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
76,021 Posts
mzmtg said:
...my point is that the consequences for this particular action are grossly out of line when one considers the actual harm done by the act.
There have been bills on this before, but they do not get very far.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
wsweeks2 said:
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.

wsweeks2 said:
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
Rammstein said:
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?

Rammstein said:
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,033 Posts
I'm totally on board with Ramm and mzmtg.

Alcohol is a drug. It's legal. THC is a drug. It's illegal.

Why? While my rights stop an inch from your nose, if your nose isn't in my house, how am I affecting your rights?

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.

I don't smoke marijuana, have no desire to smoke marijuana, and think think the abuse of any drug is incredibly stupid. However, as a firm believer in the freedom of the individual, I don't care if person sits in their home and gets high from marijuana or alcohol. If said individual chooses to drive high, then we have a problem.

Wsweeks, You're saying that it's up to the states to choose whether or not to legalize certain drugs. Let's say I agree...

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.

My support of freedom doesn't stop at the Second Amendment, or even the Bill of Rights.

As an aside, if I was forced to choose between sitting in a room with an alcoholic or a pothead who was holding a loaded gun... I'll take the smoker.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
M249 said:
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.
It's gotten us an unchanged overall rate of drug use, a gutted 4th amendment, and the highest prison population in the world (both absolute numbers and per capita).

yay!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
M249 said:
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.

M249 said:
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?

mzmtg said:
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,033 Posts
wsweeks2 said:
The Patriot Act came as a result of 9/11 and the road blocks the Feds found while investigating the money trail.

Have any of these states filed lawsuits to fight this?

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.
Patriot Act: I don't understand the response. 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?

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?

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.

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

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.

As far as the social cost of "addicts" committing crimes... how has Prohibition II stopped it?

* you in the general sense, not you specifically, wsweeks.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
M249 said:
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.

M249 said:
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.

M249 said:
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.

M249 said:
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.

M249 said:
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.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,459 Posts
M249 wrote:
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.
Tried and failed. Commerse clause gives the feds the ability.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
8,459 Posts
As for laws and jail, I see 2 options.

Build more jails for the breakers of all the new laws.

Quit making new laws/repeal old ones or at the least lessen the punishment for non-violent offenses.

If you keep making more laws and increasing the penalties for the ones already on the books, crime will stay the same and the prisons will keep increasing in population.

I have no problem with those doing the crime having to do the time. My problem is the excessive time given for some "crimes" and the fact that violent offenders are let out early so that a non-violent person can have that space.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
4,321 Posts
But be sure to understand that whatever freedom that is taken from you in the future will be under the guise of combating drugs
or "Homeland Security", can't let those terrorists win!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
Rammstein said:
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter · #36 ·
wsweeks2 said:
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."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
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.
 

· Super Moderator
Joined
·
76,021 Posts
wsweeks2 said:
And like I said, they 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.
That is articulating it. There is already case law on that.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
6,306 Posts
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.
 
21 - 40 of 90 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top