[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.

 

[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."

 

[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.

 

[gunsmoker]

Precrime Detected

I think the powers that be have used their amazing psychic powers to predict the future behavior of people who would ingest intoxicating substances (other than alcohol, of course, which remains legal depite being widely abused and a factor in huge amounts of death and destruction and has ruined coutless lives).

These legislative bretheren to Karmak the Magnifiscent (remember the Johnny Carson skit?) have predicted that since some people who smoke marijuana will then drive while impaired, possession of a small amount of marijuana shall be treated just like a DUI. Both misdemeanors with a possible year in jail. If you do the dope, you must be planning on doing the crime, so we'll punish you even before you get that far.

And they've decided that since some people high on crack cocaine or methamphetamine rob people, they'll just make it a major felony to possess cocaine or meth, and set the penalty on par with robbery. Well, it's not quite that bad. Your first robbery can get you 20 years, but your first Schedule 2 drug charge can get you 15 years. But if you think the legislature takes robbery more seriously, think again. Your second offense of robbery is still 20 years, but your second drug offense can get you 30! Either way, the idea is the same. If you have the drug, you're going to do a robbery, so we'll just nail you ahead of time, rather than waiting for you to actually do something bad to others.

That's why in some states carrying a gun is a felony. If you carry a deadly weapon illegally, you must be planning on using it illegally, and any use of deadly weapon in an illegal manner would have to be a felony crime, so it's okay to just put you in prison for several years merely for possessing the weapon. C'mon, we all KNOW you were eventually going to stab some guy in a bar fight, or point it at that guy who pulled into "your" parking spot... so it's fair. Efficient even.

Gee, I wish more people had the power to detect crime before it happens. We need to cultivate such individuals' skills and have them work in a "precrime" detective squad.

 

[mzmtg]

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.

When were these good old days, exactly?

 

[wsweeks2]

So long ago I can't remember.

:lol:

 

[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)

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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

Let's see. Your a family man. Your drunk. You decide to drink more. You die from alcohol posioning. You are right. You were minding your own business, not bothering anyone. Now, explain to me how your wife and children would be victimless? No husband and no father for the rest of their lives.

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

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.

 

[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.

 

[wsweeks2]

Let's stay on drugs.

:drink:

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

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.

Okay, one last post. The mod comment is irrelevant. Ramm, I have defended my position and defended it well. Yes, I am from the old school and that is where our differences reside. You simply won't agree to the senarios that I have put forward that drugs are not a victimless crime. It's okay that we agree to disagree here. I still have the utmost respect for you. There is no need to get hostile towards me. I know you well enough to know that you are very passionate in what you believe and so am I. Maybe this post hasn't changed your mind in anyway about me, but I don't mind telling everyone in this forum that I have always considered you a friend and I still do.

 

[wsweeks2]

 

[slabertooch]

The ban on pot has nothing to do with anything related to "dangerous substances", do a quick history on the reasons why it was banned in the first place and you'll see that it was racial.

The Mexican Connection

In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.

One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them.

However, the first state law outlawing marijuana did so not because of Mexicans using the drug. Oddly enough, it was because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church was not pleased and ruled against use of the drug. Since the state of Utah automatically enshrined church doctrine into law, the first state marijuana prohibition was established in 1915. (Today, Senator Orrin Hatch serves as the prohibition arm of this heavily church-influenced state.)

Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.

When Montana outlawed marijuana in 1927, the Butte Montana Standard reported a legislator's comment: "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." In Texas, a senator said on the floor of the Senate: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."

 

[mzmtg]

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

Scenarios aside, does the federal government have the Constitutional mandate to tell you what you can and cannot put into your body?

Yes or no answer will suffice.