 |
Hello again, K:Quote:
Originally Posted by KBC
Nahhh. You didn't lay a glove on me...
What I meant was that prohibition effects the PRICE of drugs. If they were CHEAP, you'd rather go to 7/Eleven to BUY your drugs, and not rob them, wouldn't you?
Nope. That post was about ALL drugs being legal.
YOU'RE chomping at the bit to do drugs again?? I'm not buying it.
excon
This thread has degenerated from citizens' rights to public safety.
:eek:What?, you don't believe I would do drugs again? ARE YOU OFF YOUR ROCKER??Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I am and always will be an addict.
If there were lines in front of me right now, well, there wouldn't be any.
Wish it was around here (only I wish it was every accident with damage)... I think its at their descretion. I need to remember to ask the next cop I get a chance to chat with, but that may be a while, I get the chance at irregular intervals. Usually when streets are closed due to bomb threats or sometimes grabbing lunch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
Citizens don't have the right to use illegal drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot_oi
Hello again, KBC:Quote:
Originally Posted by KBC
I don't know whether you will or won't. We each have our personal demons to deal with. I'll say this. The law didn't stop you before from getting high, and I don't believe the law is stopping you now.
If, however, you're telling me that you'll jump right back into the addicts life, IF drugs become legal, I think you should give up being an addiction expert. I HOPE I misunderstand you.
excon
Correct, and I am arguing that they should be legal. I'm not arguing how drugs should be used which has been the topic of the past few posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
We should be allowed the right to choose.
Not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I wouldn't jump back into the addiction life if it stays illegal, or becomes legal.
The LAW has nothing to do with my choice of using or not.It's a conscious decision I have to make daily which stops me from using.
I fight every day to not use,this thread and the other threads I get involved in help my cause,it strengthens my resolve against the want to use.
Just because I chose not to use doesn't mean my desire isn't there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Hello again, slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot_oi
**greenie**
That IS what this thread is about, no? Thank you for keeping us focused.
excon
There is a HUGE difference between an addict and a social user.Quote:
Originally Posted by KBC
HUGE.
Just like there is a huge difference between social drinkers and alcoholics.
Not all people who use are addicts.
I have not ever stated that, you are making a supposition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I think that was Smoothy in one of those blanket statements implied that one took makes you kill people and kidnap animals, or was it the other way round?Quote:
Originally Posted by KBC
I don't know.. I know I would not call a social user an addict, nor would I judge someone as BEING an addict, that is up to the user to decide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
I certainly had to decide for myself. That's probably why I get so adamant about the militants on both sides of the addiction questions. There is no cookie cutter. A total ban, like with marijuana today, prevents research and leaves us with Smoothy who says it's hardcore and Aurora Bell who says it's nothing and the distinct possibility that under certain circumstances with certain people they're both right and no way to find out what circumstances and which people.Quote:
Originally Posted by KBC
But do you think making it available for all to use is a good idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
If it's testing,then the labs can test,that already happens.If it's for medicinal purposes,that also happens already.
Is the war on drugs a stalemate?Yes, it has been for many a year,but that doesn't make it correct to legalize all drugs.
Work smarter,not harder.
That was a motto an old coworker used all the time.
If something was too tough to handle,think of a better way to handle it.Don't throw in the towel and accept it as impossible.
There's one of those blanket stements again. Let me reiterate that I do not advocate legalization of cocaine, opiates, LSD, MDMA, or other "hard" drugs. I do support repeal of the Marijuana Tax Act and redaction of marijuana from other criminal statutes such as the Controlled Substances Act.Quote:
Originally Posted by KBC
Hello again, KBC:Quote:
Originally Posted by KBC
Is work smarter a euphemism for "cracking down"? I think it is. I said this on the border war thread. But, I thought so highly of what I wrote, I thought I'd repeat it here.It's time to try something different. That's not throwing in the towel.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
excon
*greenie*Quote:
Originally Posted by Catsmine
And KBC--that's EXACTLY what I meant: the user has to decide.
When it is illegal, the LAW decides, not the user.
Given the large ammounts of idiots that walk the streets in any given city in any given country... thats the last thing they need.Quote:
Originally Posted by slapshot_oi
How many Addicts started as casual users? Most I would say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
How many casual users end up causing accidents.. Most just like not all alcohol related deaths are caused by alcoholics.
Yet, in our country, we let those idiots vote, drink legally, own pets, drive cars, have cell phones, and breed children.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
We also allow them to work at jobs that could cause our deaths--food processing, construction (you DID see the bridge fall in Minneapolis a few years ago, right?), child care, garbage disposal, sewer work, firefighters, police officers, social workers, teachers--and ESPECIALLY politicians.
Yet you can't give these SAME idiots the right to choose whether to use pot?
LESS government, please. Not MORE.
The REAL question is this: How many casual users actually became addicts?Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
The way YOU phrased it, you may as well have asked how many people with a sexually transmitted disease got it from having sex--most, right?
And again--how many people cause accidents versus how many people use the product? Alcohol OR drugs. Now please compare that to how many people cause accidents by using their cell phones while driving, and then tell me that cell phones should be completely outlawed because SOME people are stupid with them.
Hello again, synn:Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Seems smoothy ain't much of a tea partier, after all. In fact, Rand Paul, the tea party's choice for US Senate in Kentucky, believes exactly like you and I do on the subject.
excon
We all have our crosses to bear. We three must be his.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Lot of casual drinkers have an accident and get busted for DUI... not just Alcoholics...Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Same with casual drug users doing EXACTLY the same thing.
Fewer drugs being used... fewer drug related accidents, deaths etc.
And cell phones should be and ARE outlawed for being used while driving in many states. And still idiots pay more attention to the people on the phone than the cars around them or what they are doing. If I see someone driving erratic, weaving, running stop signs, lights... etc. Odds are they have a phone up to their ear. Personally I would take their license away from them for doing it... but I don't have the power to do so. But trust me... if I get hit by an idiot with a cell phone... I'm going to milk it for all its worth. Accidents are accidents... but THAT is no different than driving drunk or stoned.
There is no phone call that's so important it can't wait until you get off the road.
I'm a firm believer in if you are going to drive... then focus on driving, let someone else drive if you have other stuff to do. There are other people sharing the road and their lives are more important than your phone call.
Yes I have a cell phone... no I don't yap on it when I am driving.
Smoothy--you missed the point.
Outlawing something completely because SOME people are idiots is well... stupid.
Because sooooooo many people cause accidents with cell phones, cell phones must be DANGEROUS! Let's make them ILLEGAL! They KILL people!
When you see the ridiculousness of the above statement, you will understand what we are saying about drugs and alcohol.
And frankly, I'm really getting tired of having MY rights and freedoms taken away simply because SOME people can't control themselves and not be idiots.
PS--I was a collections agent for King County, WA for a bit. Taking away someone's license doesn't stop them from driving. Most of the people I was trying to collect from were for tickets for driving without a license---MULTIPLE offenses! Idiots are GOING to be idiots, whether they're being an idiot legally or not. The point here is that I'm tired of being punished with the idiots when I'm NOT an idiot.
Ex , you make it sound like the tea party has made drug legalization a major cause . You would be wrong if you think that.
Rand Paul won the support of the tea party because of one and only one issue... government spending .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Nahh... I don't think that. Smoothy diligently represents them, and he HATES drugs. As a matter of fact, my post was to point out the hypocrisy and/or schizophrenia of the movement that has NO real goals, except YELLING at the status quo.
excon
NO real goals, except YELLING at the status quo.
Hmmm sounds like the antiwar movement... the drug legalization movement... the antiabortion movement... the civil rights movement (take your pick ).
Except you would be wrong about the goals as they have been published in a pledge document called 'Contract From America'.No doubt Rand Paul is a signatory .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know about that... You see, we got a tail wags dog kind of thing going on here. Rand Paul just handed the tea party its biggest victory to date. I don't think they're going to throw him under the bus...
Interesting that you should mention the contract. Rand Pauls view of what the Contract From America means, is CLEAR. He thinks it means what it says. He takes the LITERAL meaning of it. Actually, you could call it a strict constructionist viewpoint - maybe even original intent... After all, it's pretty clear to ME...
-------------------
Individual Liberty
Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.;)
----------------------------------------
But, Smoothy's interpretation, as well as the bulk of the tea partiers is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than Rand Pauls. When THEY read the thing above, they see the little WINKING guy I threw in. The wink means, they want government OUT of their lives, EXCEPT when they want 'em IN. And, they certainly want the government IN the drug war, to STOP you from freely exercising your economic choices.
Rand Paul?? Not so much. So, who's tail is going to wag what dog?
excon
Yes but if you actually researched Paul's positions on drugs you would find that he doesn't necessarily take a decriminalization or legalization stance. He basically calls it a matter of local jurisdiction.
I do not support eliminating all federal laws or penalties on marijuana. I do believe, in general, that issues of crime and punishment are best handled at the state level.
Rand responds to attacks | Rand Paul 2010 | U.S. Senate
So my guess would be that there are some economic activities he actually would regulate as opposed to you're off again on again laissez fare approach .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes, he would. But more importantly, he'd let MY state decide, and MY state wouldn't. Like a good libertarian, he puts his personal beliefs aside, and supports what the Constitution says.
Aren't you a 10ther?
excon
Not completely ,and certainly not to the extent most of them claim to be .I do not as an example think secession is constitutional.Quote:
Aren't you a 10ther?
The 'interstate commerce 'and the 'necessary and proper' clauses were in the Constitution before the 10th amendment ,and there is nothing in the 10th amendment that makes them void. Since both are enumerated then the 10th would not apply. Further ,Federal law ,unless ruled unconstitutional ,trumps State law according to the 'supremacy clause'.
Now ,I do believe the commerce clause has often been abused ;but not in the case where dangerous substances are involved .
I hope these people get a good lawyer and sue, if they don't have a good case, nobody does.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 PM. |