Politics

[Downinthebend]

I just don't see how we as a society has the grounds to tell members of society what to eat/smoke/drink or what to believe or how to act toward other people or what to buy as long as they do not put others in harm by doing so.

To me, the definition of liberty is being able to form your own lifestyle and live it free from the threat of other people using violence and fraud.

Regulate, Tax, Mitigate

Those three words describe my stance on everything from industrial pollution to drugs to guns to abortions to... Just about anything. It's a model that was enormously successful with tobacco, and I don't see why it shouldn't be applied for drugs.

I'm don't think we should institute sin taxes on.. anything.. in order to try to influence behavior, I also don't think that mitigating should come from funds derived by violence (taxation), but rather funds given willingly to organizations that desire that.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Kind of a mix of both. Some people make big bucks off the industry. Some a modest living. Then there's all the hydro stores and materials suppliers as well.

Selling dreams is the safest and most profitable way to go to make.

Hydro stores are a joke. They will disappear come legalization IMO.

Careful how you word that with "lazy," there are certain strands that give you something referred to as "couch lock," but marijuana has never been shown to make someone's overall attitude become lazy. You won't turn into a noncontributing loser if you use cannabis, that happens because you're, well, a noncontributing loser.

There has never been a test that has shown that cannabis will cloud judgment or people people lazy, in the long term. But, you cannot expect to be productive while high, and you wouldn't expect that with alcohol either of course.

I think for most middle of the road people this is one of the key points.

And here is that clip I talked about earlier

 

[Black Irish]

I seem to remember there being a drug legalization thread before. I think marijuana should be legalized. The harder drugs, well, I'm still on the fence. But even with full legalization, I don't think we will see the dramatic downturn in violence and criminal activity that many people believe. The Mafia did not wilt up and blow away when Prohibition was repealed, they simply moved into other illegal activities. Scumbag criminals are not going to suddenly become productive members of society because they can't sell dope.

 

[Black Irish]

With regard to tariffs, the consumer gets screwed when we have to pay more for goods that can be imported cheaply from overseas that can't be produced efficiently here. Take sugar for instance. We could pay so much less for it, but sugar tariffs are high so that a few American companies can sell their sugar in a non-competitive marketplace. Oh, yeah, then we have a bunch of high fructose corn syrup that goes into products rather than actual sugar because corn syrup is cheaper. Hooray tariffs!

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I seem to remember there being a drug legalization thread before. I think marijuana should be legalized. The harder drugs, well, I'm still on the fence. But even with full legalization, I don't think we will see the dramatic downturn in violence and criminal activity that many people believe. The Mafia did not wilt up and blow away when Prohibition was repealed, they simply moved into other illegal activities. Scumbag criminals are not going to suddenly become productive members of society because they can't sell dope.

Moved my post to Marijuana thread.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I just don't see how we as a society has the grounds to tell members of society what to eat/smoke/drink or what to believe or how to act toward other people or what to buy as long as they do not put others in harm by doing so.

To me, the definition of liberty is being able to form your own lifestyle and live it free from the threat of other people using violence and fraud.


I'm don't think we should institute sin taxes on.. anything.. in order to try to influence behavior, I also don't think that mitigating should come from funds derived by violence (taxation), but rather funds given willingly to organizations that desire that.

If you equate taxation with violence, you and I will never see eye to eye, and I'm ok with that. Violence is violence. IEDs, hellfire missiles, 5.56 and 7.62 rounds...that's violence. I've seen that, it's a lot different than taxation. I've never heard of a tax taking someone's limb off. I've also seen places that don't tax, that rely on voluntary donations to run... guess what, these places tend to suck.

Anyway, perhaps I should have made myself more clear. Tax doesn't have to mean a sin tax. A simple sales tax on pot, as well as a corporate tax on the companies who would inevitably get into the business, would raise huge amounts of revenue overtime. Regulation would be things like barring the sale of pot to minors, and mitigation would include both individual level damage control (rehab) and societal level damage control (increased penalties if you break any law while under the influence.). So no sin tax needed (though I don't see how a small one would hurt) for increased revenue and decreased expenses, even with the government partially funding things you view as the job of charities.

 

[Downinthebend]

I seem to remember there being a drug legalization thread before. I think marijuana should be legalized. The harder drugs, well, I'm still on the fence. But even with full legalization, I don't think we will see the dramatic downturn in violence and criminal activity that many people believe. The Mafia did not wilt up and blow away when Prohibition was repealed, they simply moved into other illegal activities. Scumbag criminals are not going to suddenly become productive members of society because they can't sell dope.

As this won't be exactly a "Drug" post, this will be on topic.

What illegal activities that have a high demand in this country (thus creating black markets) should remain illegal. To me the standard in deciding that is the amount of fraud or violence inherently used in those markets. Human trafficking would be something I would never want legal. But prostitution? Gambling? Ya, I see little reason to tell consenting adults what to do.

If you equate taxation with violence, you and I will never see eye to eye, and I'm ok with that. Violence is violence. IEDs, hellfire missiles, 5.56 and 7.62 rounds...that's violence. I've seen that, it's a lot different than taxation. I've never heard of a tax taking someone's limb off. I've also seen places that don't tax, that rely on voluntary donations to run... guess what, these places tend to suck.

Anyway, perhaps I should have made myself more clear. Tax doesn't have to mean a sin tax. A simple sales tax on pot, as well as a corporate tax on the companies who would inevitably get into the business, would raise huge amounts of revenue overtime. Regulation would be things like barring the sale of pot to minors, and mitigation would include both individual level damage control (rehab) and societal level damage control (increased penalties if you break any law while under the influence.). So no sin tax needed (though I don't see how a small one would hurt) for increased revenue and decreased expenses, even with the government partially funding things you view as the job of charities.

One instance of violence is when people come to your house and take away your property or liberty through use of force.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent what you meant, just state my opinion. Thanks for clarification, I certainly believe that if we have sales taxes, (insert name of drug here) should have sale taxes. I can also agree with your definition of regulation. I like your definition of mitigation, but I would like the rehab aspect to be done through use of voluntary funding (Which I certainly believe would happen).

 

[Buster Bluth]

I seem to remember there being a drug legalization thread before. I think marijuana should be legalized. The harder drugs, well, I'm still on the fence. But even with full legalization, I don't think we will see the dramatic downturn in violence and criminal activity that many people believe.

That violence and whatnot is normally around the dealing of heroin and whatnot, not so much marijuana. I'm not saying that marijuana trade is particularly peaceful, but that is where the real gangs in our street are.

It's really hard for gangs to fight for marijuana dealing turf when it's literally everywhere...

The Mafia did not wilt up and blow away when Prohibition was repealed, they simply moved into other illegal activities. Scumbag criminals are not going to suddenly become productive members of society because they can't sell dope.

I know a lot of people who sold weed in college, 80% of them now have very fine careers in business and engineering. The other 20% are artists haha

Just saying, your view of who is selling weed at a street level may be off a bit. I've never met the big scary drug dealer who is just as likely to rob me.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Back to the VAT, tariffs, protectionism talk, something to consider:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6qqG6OurHaM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I would pay to watch Karl Marx and Milton Friedman discuss issues. Two fascinating opinions.

 

[irishff1014]

Hey Buster Bluth the drug expert how are you go in to explain the increased drug trafficking. I know that almost every police force in this county has k-9 units. And i know that the police around my area use them a lot for drug scans. Now since Maryland is on the verge of making pot legal it is going to be harder for them to stop the dealers.

If a cop pull someone over suspects drugs and calls for a k-9 scan he detects an odor of drug. The officers go through they search and find that he has legal pot that he didn't tell the officer about. But they also find 10 grams of cocaine, 10000 dollars cash. Now when they lock him up and charge him with multiple charges. When this goes to court now this is all going to be thrown out because (the druggies aren't as dumb as some people make them seem) the first thing their lawyer or public defender is going to say well the dog picked up the pot smell and that's why the found the rest. Since he had it legally that it was an unfair search. And the first case that this happens in the other drug dealers will see this and they will use this to their advantage. And let me tell you these guys go through a lot of trouble to hide their drugs trust me. I have a buddy that is a K-9 officer that i will ask him how thier jobs will change.

Not to mention no that it is legal the price will go up and now have to pay tax on it. Which leads them to still buy it off the streets from dealers.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Hey Buster Bluth the drug expert how are you go in to explain the increased drug trafficking. I know that almost every police force in this county has k-9 units. And i know that the police around my area use them a lot for drug scans. Now since Maryland is on the verge of making pot legal it is going to be harder for them to stop the dealers.

If a cop pull someone over suspects drugs and calls for a k-9 scan he detects an odor of drug. The officers go through they search and find that he has legal pot that he didn't tell the officer about. But they also find 10 grams of cocaine, 10000 dollars cash. Now when they lock him up and charge him with multiple charges. When this goes to court now this is all going to be thrown out because (the druggies aren't as dumb as some people make them seem) the first thing their lawyer or public defender is going to say well the dog picked up the pot smell and that's why the found the rest. Since he had it legally that it was an unfair search. And the first case that this happens in the other drug dealers will see this and they will use this to their advantage. And let me tell you these guys go through a lot of trouble to hide their drugs trust me. I have a buddy that is a K-9 officer that i will ask him how thier jobs will change.

Not to mention no that it is legal the price will go up and now have to pay tax on it. Which leads them to still buy it off the streets from dealers.

So many things you got wrong here....

 

[irishff1014]

So many things you got wrong here....

must not have been much if you aren't going to say what it is wrong

 

[Downinthebend]

Hey Buster Bluth the drug expert how are you go in to explain the increased drug trafficking. I know that almost every police force in this county has k-9 units. And i know that the police around my area use them a lot for drug scans. Now since Maryland is on the verge of making pot legal it is going to be harder for them to stop the dealers.

If a cop pull someone over suspects drugs and calls for a k-9 scan he detects an odor of drug. The officers go through they search and find that he has legal pot that he didn't tell the officer about. But they also find 10 grams of cocaine, 10000 dollars cash. Now when they lock him up and charge him with multiple charges. When this goes to court now this is all going to be thrown out because (the druggies aren't as dumb as some people make them seem) the first thing their lawyer or public defender is going to say well the dog picked up the pot smell and that's why the found the rest. Since he had it legally that it was an unfair search. And the first case that this happens in the other drug dealers will see this and they will use this to their advantage. And let me tell you these guys go through a lot of trouble to hide their drugs trust me. I have a buddy that is a K-9 officer that i will ask him how thier jobs will change.

Not to mention no that it is legal the price will go up and now have to pay tax on it. Which leads them to still buy it off the streets from dealers.

Theres a ¨drug discussion¨thread, but why should any of the drugs you mentioned be illegal?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Hey Buster Bluth the drug expert how are you go in to explain the increased drug trafficking. I know that almost every police force in this county has k-9 units. And i know that the police around my area use them a lot for drug scans. Now since Maryland is on the verge of making pot legal it is going to be harder for them to stop the dealers.

If a cop pull someone over suspects drugs and calls for a k-9 scan he detects an odor of drug. The officers go through they search and find that he has legal pot that he didn't tell the officer about. But they also find 10 grams of cocaine, 10000 dollars cash. Now when they lock him up and charge him with multiple charges. When this goes to court now this is all going to be thrown out because (the druggies aren't as dumb as some people make them seem) the first thing their lawyer or public defender is going to say well the dog picked up the pot smell and that's why the found the rest. Since he had it legally that it was an unfair search. And the first case that this happens in the other drug dealers will see this and they will use this to their advantage. And let me tell you these guys go through a lot of trouble to hide their drugs trust me. I have a buddy that is a K-9 officer that i will ask him how thier jobs will change.

Not to mention no that it is legal the price will go up and now have to pay tax on it. Which leads them to still buy it off the streets from dealers.

...what?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

must not have been much if you aren't going to say what it is wrong

Lol... Can you list the drugs that a K9 can smell?

 

[irishff1014]

Lol... Can you list the drugs that a K9 can smell?

The drug dogs can detect Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and other narcotics. Depending on where the dog is trained depends on if the dog barks,sits down, or whatever else it might do.

 

[Buster Bluth]

must not have been much if you aren't going to say what it is wrong

Well then, shall we...

Hey Buster Bluth the drug expert how are you go in to explain the increased drug trafficking.

I'm not a drug expert, and I have no idea why drug (illegal) trafficking would increase.

If you drink or smoke, does that make you a drug expert? If you use prescription pills, does that make you a drug expert? It's sad how you've assign such a negative distinction to something way less harmful than those two. It's asinine in every sense.

I know that almost every police force in this county has k-9 units. And i know that the police around my area use them a lot for drug scans.

Which, for the record, is a total ****ing waste of money.

Now since Maryland is on the verge of making pot legal it is going to be harder for them to stop the dealers.

And impossible for pigs to ruin people's lives for consuming a basically harmless substance, only to get off their shift and drink beer and is 1000x more harmful. That doesn't seem like a bad trade off.

If a cop pull someone over suspects drugs and calls for a k-9 scan he detects an odor of drug. The officers go through they search and find that he has legal pot that he didn't tell the officer about. But they also find 10 grams of cocaine, 10000 dollars cash. Now when they lock him up and charge him with multiple charges. When this goes to court now this is all going to be thrown out because (the druggies aren't as dumb as some people make them seem) the first thing their lawyer or public defender is going to say well the dog picked up the pot smell and that's why the found the rest. Since he had it legally that it was an unfair search. And the first case that this happens in the other drug dealers will see this and they will use this to their advantage. And let me tell you these guys go through a lot of trouble to hide their drugs trust me. I have a buddy that is a K-9 officer that i will ask him how thier jobs will change.

I don't know how your buddy lives with himself after destroying people's lives like that, but I digress. Nothing in your story is even remotely concerning to me. You need probable cause regardless, and if the cannabis is legal...I don't know what to tell your buddy other than to go eat a doughnut.

Not to mention no that it is legal the price will go up and now have to pay tax on it. Which leads them to still buy it off the streets from dealers.

The price will certainly plummet. It being legal and the economies of scale will do that. The government can, will, and should tax it. But cannabis is difficult to tax a great deal because you can simply grow it (not many people are willing to manufacture cigarettes and beer/liquor). If you taxed tomatoes a ridiculous amount, people would just grow them. I expect people to grow their own.

"off the streets from dealers" is pretty hilarious. Do you live with your head in the sand? Dealers come in all shapes and sizes. Marijuana use is ubiquitous in today's world. EVERYONE has access, and not everyone has access to a dealer who looks like some thug. So much of the weed comes from BRITISH COLUMBIA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO. They look like you do. They look like I do. Off the streets? lololol

 

[Buster Bluth]

The drug dogs can detect Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines, and other narcotics. Depending on where the dog is trained depends on if the dog barks,sits down, or whatever else it might do.

...so if it can smell cocaine what is the issue?!

 

[irishff1014]

...so if it can smell cocaine what is the issue?!

The dog has the same reaction for all the drugs. and since this is real life and not Hollywood the dog can't talk to the officer and say what he has found.

First off cops do ruin anybody's life they ruin there own by F7ucking up.

And the mature doughnut and cop joke. I haven't seen you nor does it sound like i want to but he is probably older then you and in better shape.

Obviously you have a hard on for all officers of the law due to small percentage of bad ones.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

So the dog warns the officer that there are drugs in the car. The officer smells marijuana and searches and finds cocaine... arrests him and then finds out in court that the person can legally have marijuana. Do you see the next problem?

 

[Downinthebend]

The dog has the same reaction for all the drugs. and since this is real life and not Hollywood the dog can't talk to the officer and say what he has found.

First off cops do ruin anybody's life they ruin there own by F7ucking up.

And the mature doughnut and cop joke. I haven't seen you nor does it sound like i want to but he is probably older then you and in better shape.

Obviously you have a hard on for all officers of the law due to small percentage of bad ones.

No, its the law ****ing (f-u-c-k-i-n-g) up people's lives when they penalize actions that don't affect anyone except the consenting. Unless of course, you think laws should be followed regardless of what they penalize, I'll create some absurd scenarios if you think that.

What is the role of (criminal) laws? Laws should be made to penalize and stop violence and fraud, and not too much more

Why do you want to point guns (or have guns be pointed at) people who do actions you dislike? One of the major principles of the Christianity that I subscribe to is to treat people how I would like to be treated: I don't want other people pointing guns at me for my lifestyle, so I won't do the same to others. I don't think drugs are moral, I don't think they are healthy, I don't want to do drugs. I don't think violence is the answer.

If you think laws should be made to enforce morality, or lifestyles, then lets make clear that you support the government running the lives of people.

 

[Buster Bluth]

First off cops do ruin anybody's life they ruin there own by F7ucking up.

I assume you mean "don't," and that is horseshit considering how police unions and drug enforcement budgets created the incredibly wasteful Drug War to employ cops and dogs. It's disgusting. I'd jump off a bridge before I arrested a kid for possession marijuana.

"Oh, not my fault. It's the law." Billions upon billions of dollars to play Cowboys and Indians; what a joke. Those *******s made the law. Read up on it. So, again, **** the police.

The really sick part is that you've all convinced yourself that you're keeping people safe. Never mind that facts:

"Tetrahydrocannabinol is a very safe drug. Laboratory animals (rats, mice, dogs, monkeys) can tolerate doses of up to 1,000 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram). This would be equivalent to a 70 kg person swallowing 70 grams of the drug—about 5,000 times more than is required to produce a high. Despite the widespread illicit use of cannabis there are very few if any instances of people dying from an overdose. In Britain, official government statistics listed five deaths from cannabis in the period 1993-1995 but on closer examination these proved to have been deaths due to inhalation of vomit that could not be directly attributed to cannabis (House of Lords Report, 1998). By comparison with other commonly used recreational drugs these statistics are impressive."

An exhaustive search of the literature finds no deaths induced by marijuana. The US Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) records instances of drug mentions in medical examiners' reports, and though marijuana is mentioned, it is usually in combination with alcohol or other drugs. Marijuana alone has not been shown to cause an overdose death.

Then when you take into account the 1,300,000 people behind bars right now for marijuana offenses. Those people put 1,300,000 people behind bars so you can stay employed (gotta have those dogs!) at the cost of ~$45,000/yr per person. You're doing a great job for society!!

And now I'm pissed. I'm taking a break from this malarkey.

 

[Bluto]

So I've had a bunch of bad experiences with the police and I'm no big cheerleader for our current drug policy. However, I think people arguing for across the board legalization have never known or had to deal with someone addicted to crack, heroin, meth or cocaine. It's not pretty. Legalization of these substances could eaily provide a spark that causes the abuse and addiction levels of them to easily surpass those of alcohol. Then what?

 

[chicago51]

So the supreme court may overturn the voting rights act the key piece of legislation to come out of the civil rights movement era.

Basically the complaint is that it singles out certain states and that we as a nation have moved past race and it is no longer needed. We have in fact have let many states out of it. Apparently though there has been evidence to re-authorize it at least according to Congress last time was in 2006.

Apparently though the Supreme Court is going to reverse it. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the voting rights act. I don't see how this is unconstitutional. 15th amendment basically says nobody will be denied the right to vote based on race and section 2 says that Congress shall have the power to enforce. Is the voting rights act not Congress enforcing the 15 amendment even they are singling out certain states?

I'm white but I am concerned of what the Supreme Courts intentions are here.

 

[Bluto]

So the supreme court may overturn the voting rights act the key piece of legislation to come out of the civil rights movement era.

Basically the complaint is that it singles out certain states and that we as a nation have moved past race and it is no longer needed. We have in fact have let many states out of it. Apparently though there has been evidence to re-authorize it at least according to Congress last time was in 2006.

Apparently though the Supreme Court is going to reverse. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the voting rights act. I don't see how this is unconstitutional. 15th amendment basically says nobody will be denied the right to vote based on race and section 2 says that Congress shall have the power to enforce. Is the voting rights act not Congress enforcing the 15 amendment even they are singling out certain states.

I'm white but I am concerned of what the Supreme Courts intentions are here.

The current Supreme Court is going to go down as one of the worst in modern history.

 

[Downinthebend]

So I've had a bunch of bad experiences with the police and I'm no big cheerleader for our current drug policy. However, I think people arguing for across the board legalization have never known or had to deal with someone addicted to crack, heroin, meth or cocaine. It's not pretty. Legalization of these substances could eaily provide a spark that causes the abuse and addiction levels of them to easily surpass those of alcohol. Then what?

I think drug use is a terrible thing, and every PRIVATE effort should be used to dissuade people from ruining their lives. I of course think using violence against such people is a worse thing. If I see you doing something I don't like (as long as you aren't cheating me or aren't being violent to me), I don't shoot/take your property/kidnap you, why shouldn't the same principle be applied to members of government? Carrying a cool badge from the organization in north america with the largest army or being voted by a majority of people in a given segment of said area doesn't give you license to violate common sensical moral and societal values.

 

[chicago51]

The current Supreme Court is going to go down as one of the worst in modern history.

Justice Scalia said we need to stop raical entitlement. Since when is voting an entitlement. I have many friends of many different races I work at an office were as white guy I am in the minority and I have never heard any ever expect something extra because they were a minority.

Voting rights should not be a political issue but I am afraid that this clearly has not been the case. Not only here but in these voter ID laws and early voting changes that strangely seem to affect urban black areas the most.

 

[Black Irish]

So the supreme court may overturn the voting rights act the key piece of legislation to come out of the civil rights movement era.

Basically the complaint is that it singles out certain states and that we as a nation have moved past race and it is no longer needed. We have in fact have let many states out of it. Apparently though there has been evidence to re-authorize it at least according to Congress last time was in 2006.

Apparently though the Supreme Court is going to reverse it. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the voting rights act. I don't see how this is unconstitutional. 15th amendment basically says nobody will be denied the right to vote based on race and section 2 says that Congress shall have the power to enforce. Is the voting rights act not Congress enforcing the 15 amendment even they are singling out certain states?

I'm white but I am concerned of what the Supreme Courts intentions are here.

I think the problem is that the Voting Rights Act assumes that southern states of today are the same as southern states of the 1960s. Since we already have a law on the books to prevent racial discrimination with regard to voting, why don't we enforce that rather than having other redundant laws on the books that are a burden to the states and localities in question? Chief Justice Roberts had a good point when he said something along the lines of "why are we assuming that southern states are more racist than northern states?" The cheerleaders for progress and looking forward are very willing to stay rooted in the past when it's convenient for them. When it comes to racial relations, its always 1959 for many on the Left.

 

[chicago51]

I think the problem is that the Voting Rights Act assumes that southern states of today are the same as southern states of the 1960s. Since we already have a law on the books to prevent racial discrimination with regard to voting, why don't we enforce that rather than having other redundant laws on the books that are a burden to the states and localities in question? Chief Justice Roberts had a good point when he said something along the lines of "why are we assuming that southern states are more racist than northern states?" The cheerleaders for progress and looking forward are very willing to stay rooted in the past when it's convenient for them. When it comes to racial relations, its always 1959 for many on the Left.

Fair enough but Congress has been reviewing this thing, states like North Carolina have been freed from it and Arizona and Alaska got added at some point. So there was some evidence obviously if NC got taken off but others have not got taken off.

Let's say you are right the law no longer applies. What is the SCOTUS doing sticking its nose in it? How is it unconstitutional? That is only thing the Symptoms Court should be deciding not if the law is bad or even unfair. Read the 15th amendment it is really short only a few sentences. Section 1 basically says people can not be the right to vote based on race. Section 2 says Congress can enforce section 1 basically as it sees fit.

 

[Bluto]

I think drug use is a terrible thing, and every PRIVATE effort should be used to dissuade people from ruining their lives. I of course think using violence against such people is a worse thing. If I see you doing something I don't like (as long as you aren't cheating me or aren't being violent to me), I don't shoot/take your property/kidnap you, why shouldn't the same principle be applied to members of government? Carrying a cool badge from the organization in north america with the largest army or being voted by a majority of people in a given segment of said area doesn't give you license to violate common sensical moral and societal values.

You have been throwing around the term "violence" in a pretty haphazard manner to describe everything from taxation to law enforcement. I'm just curious as to how you would define this term?

The "free market" can be a and often is a pretty "violent" place, right?