[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."

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Maybe this thread should be split after about the fourth post on page one and moved to Off Topic . . .

:lol:

 

[wsweeks2]

Good idea.

 

[fallison]

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.

 

[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.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

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.

 

[mzmtg]

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.

 

[Mobster989]

I think you should be able to smoke up all you want. If anything let it be like alcohol/tobacco, leave it up to the state and local government. The war on drugs has lead to the war on terrorism. You know those terrorists? Most of their funding comes from drug money. Hmm, maybe if we made drugs legal American growers who aren't terrorists could take the profit instead of hardliners.

Here's something to think about. Afghanistan was and still is the largest producer of opium. The Taleban didn't make its money from banning kites. Maybe the war on drugs and war on terrorism is linked?

 

[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.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

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.

If a loved one of yours was killed in a head on collision by someone who was high on coke, you would not call that serious??

 

[mzmtg]

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.

If a loved one of yours was killed in a head on collision by someone who was high on coke, you would not call that serious??

Personal experience does not make a logical argument out of an illogical one.

Getting drunk doesn't really harm anyone but the drinker.

Getting drunk AND getting behind the wheel of a car has serious potential to harm many other people besides the drinker.

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?

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

This thread is getting old . . .

 

[mzmtg]

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.

Exactly.

Plus, what are the chances that the legality of meth would have any impact on that situation?

 

[mzmtg]

This thread is getting old . . .

What's the point of a message board if not for people with opposing views to beat their heads against a wall together?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Like this? :banghead: :banghead:


:lol:

 

[wsweeks2]

Like this? :banghead: :banghead:

:lol:

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

:wink:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

No, it is not. I just noticed that the thread isn't really going anywhere. The arguments are not progressing. They are sort of just repeating themselves. I just thought I would point it out, because people often lose the broad picture of the entire thread when they are too busy caught up responding with some contradiction to each new individual post somebody else posted. Then it quickly becomes ten pages of Yes it is, No it isn't, Yes it is, No it isn't . . . and so on.

 

[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?