The Government's Sick War on Marijuana

http://tx.mpp.org ^ | 7 21 06 | Jim Hightower

[freepatriot32]

Excuse me for a moment while I vent about the mind-boggling stupidity of the autocratic, bureaucratic, right-wing, Neanderthal numskulls who keep pushing an insane, inane, and inhumane holy war against marijuana – which is, after all, a weed.

The most embarrassing thing for these holy warriors is that the weed is winning! They've been at this war since 1937, spending billions and billions of our tax dollars, militarizing our borders, and stomping on our Bill of Rights. They've used phone taps, garbage searches, jackbooted raids, and draconian prison terms to ... well, to do what? To nab peaceful, mellow tokers who aren't bothering anyone, that's what.

Despite 60 years of spending our money, they've failed: 85% of Americans say marijuana is easy to obtain today, a third of our population says they've tried it, nearly 15 million people partake of it at least monthly – and more high school students now smoke marijuana than cigarettes!

Meanwhile, the holy warriors have become more fanatical and thuggish than ever. A marijuana arrest is made every 41 seconds in America – nine out of 10 of them for mere possession. In 2004, 772,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges – more than for all violent crimes combined.

Even sicker, the sanctimonious weed warriors have made it a crime for thousands of seriously sick people to get the medical benefits of using small amounts of doctor-prescribed marijuana. Weirdly, our doctors can prescribe cocaine for patients – but not marijuana. Worse, drug thugs from the DEA and FBI bust down the doors of these patients, seize their dosages ... and haul them to jail.

For information and action to stop this absurd war, call the Marijuana Policy Project: 202/462-5747.

[robertpaulsen]

"And your definition is based on what?"

Why do you ask? Is it incorrect? If so, correct it. If not, don't waste my time.

"Silly ... trespass is not theft"

It would fall under that general category. You asked.

"Sights, like odors, may permissibly be regulated or even banned if they are sufficiently offensive to a sufficient number."

Sorry, you have not shown how the mere sight of something, offensive as it might be, harms another. And I can't believe that you, of all people, would support laws against offensive behavior when that behavior harms no one and is merely offensive to some "sufficient number" of people.

"I don't know any libertarians"

The poster mentioned Libertarians, not libertarians. You just love to cite small "l" libertarians because they stand for nothing and everything, depending on whatever's being discussed. I'll retract that statement if you can point to a small "l" libertarian platform that spells out their stance on the major issues. You can't.

Put 100 small "l" libertarians on a forum and you couldn't get two to agree on all the issues.

[robertpaulsen]

"We were told that taking cold tablets off of store shelves would reduce meth abuse"

We were told no such thing. And cold tablets were not taken off store shelves, your histrionics aside.

Only those cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine were regulated. They were not banned, they were not made illegal, they were not "taken off the store shelves".

And the intent was to reduce the number of local meth labs that were blowing up, poisoning children, and creating toxic sites. The legislation was effective -- it resulted in a 30% decline across the U.S. in less than two years.

"They now tell us that meth "superlabs" employing hundreds of meth cooks have sprung up...more meth, stronger meth and cheaper meth!"

Maybe in Mexico, but not in the U.S.

"As a result of our efforts and those of our law enforcement partners in the U.S. and Canada, we have seen a dramatic decline in methamphetamine “super labs” in the U.S. In 2005, 53 “super labs” were seized in the United States, the majority of which were in California. This is a dramatic decrease from the 246 “super labs” seized in 2001. This decrease in “super labs” is largely a result of DEA’s enforcement successes against suppliers of bulk shipments of precursor chemicals, notably ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Law enforcement has also seen a huge reduction in the amount of pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and other precursor chemicals seized at the Canadian border."

" But with the drop in “super lab” activity in the United States, however, we have also seen an increase of “super lab” activity in Mexico."

[tpaine]

know your rights:
"Where did you get the idea that libertarianism disallows only harm?"

paulsen dissembles:

I defined that earlier when I stated, "The Libertarian conception of justice says that individuals have rights not to be harmed in certain ways (force, theft, fraud) by others, and rights to live as they choose so long as they do not harm others in these certain ways." Since you've decided to weigh in, can you defend Hemingway's Ghost's statement in post #69?
Can you tell me how that behavior harms another (as previously defined)?
Or do you argue that Libertarians believe laws may be passed against behavior that merely offends another?

Typically paulsen 'forgets' that his question was answered to his satisfaction back at post #90:

Public displays of offensive behaviors are harmful as they lead to breaches of peace.

And he agreed at post #96:

True. Then punish the breach of the peace

Time after time we see paulsen repeat his same old pattern. -- He loses/concedes an argument one day, than re-posts the same argument the next day, -- trollishly ignoring defeat.

He has no shame, no honor. -- As we see again today:

Sorry, you have not shown how the mere sight of something, offensive as it might be, harms another. And I can't believe that you, of all people, would support laws against offensive behavior when that behavior harms no one and is merely offensive to some "sufficient number" of people.

You really are disturbed paulsen, arguing that public displays of masturbation "-- harms no one and is merely offensive to some "sufficient number" of people. --"

Good grief man, you would abandon all sense of decency in order to 'win' a argument?

[mugs99]

Only those cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine were regulated. They were not banned, they were not made illegal, they were not "taken off the store shelves".
Which pretty much covers all cold pills. I live in a rural area. Our general store no longer carries cold pills because of the law. If I want cold pills I have to drive 120 miles round trip.

the legislation was effective -- it resulted in a 30% decline across the U.S. in less than two years
ROFL!
Your copy and paste from the Propaganda Ministry doesn't jive with the news. Here's an article from your neck of the woods:
Daily Review Atlas
Monmouth, Illinois
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Even though the overall number of meth labs seized has decreased in many areas, methamphetamine, also known on the street as crystal meth or crank, is still abundant as well as cheap compared to some drugs.

Most law enforcement officials believe the Methamphetamine superlabs in the southwest are manufacturing more of the drug to make up for the decreased local production.

In the metro areas meth abuse continues to fuel an increase in crimes like robbery and assault, which is straining the workload of local police forces.

A survey of the National Association of Counties found nearly half of county law enforcement officials consider methamphetamine their primary drug problem, more than cocaine, marijuana and heroin combined.

The survey of 500 county law enforcement officials in 44 states showed that about half reported a decrease in the number of meth lab busts as a result of laws that restrict the sale of cold medicines with precursor ingredients used in the manufacture of meth.

The survey is also consistent with federal figures released last month showing a 30 percent drop in the number of labs seized nationwide. But county officials said supply of the drug remains high from super labs in California and Mexico.

There are 25 additional newspapers, across the country, running stories about superlabs filling in for the lost mom & pop labs on this date. Fact: More meth...Stronger meth...Cheaper meth.

the intent was to reduce the number of local meth labs that were blowing up,
You'd think exploding meth labs would be big news. I have never seen an exploding meth lab on the news. Where are these exploding meth labs? How many exploding meth labs are we talking about?

Fact: The drug war protects the drug gangs that flood the country with meth!
.

[Know your rights]

Silly ... trespass is not theft

It would fall under that general category.

Nonsense.

Sights, like odors, may permissibly be regulated or even banned if they are sufficiently offensive to a sufficient number.

Sorry, you have not shown how the mere sight of something, offensive as it might be, harms another.

I never said it did. Do offensive odors in and of themselves harm another? If not, may they not justly be banned?

And I can't believe that you, of all people, would support laws against offensive behavior when that behavior harms no one and is merely offensive to some "sufficient number" of people.

There are a great many things you don't know.

The poster mentioned Libertarians, not libertarians.

I also don't know any Libertarians who claim that you have no right to object if your next-door neighbor burns tires in his yard. Do you?

[robertpaulsen]

"Do offensive odors in and of themselves harm another?"

We were discussing "sights". Not "odors". "Sights". Stick with "sights".

"There are a great many things you don't know."

About you? Not in particular, no. That's why I just generalize and call you a hypocrite. Then it covers all of them.

"I also don't know any Libertarians who claim that you have no right to object if your next-door neighbor burns tires in his yard. Do you?"

Again, let's stay on the original topic -- an individual masturbating in public. How would a Libertarian justify his objection to that behavior based on harm to others through force, theft, or fraud?

[Know your rights]

Odors are very relevant to the discussion, but I understand why you want to pretend otherwise.

How would a Libertarian justify his objection to that behavior based on harm to others through force, theft, or fraud?

We still have only your unsupported word that harm is a Libertarian's only basis for objecting.

[robertpaulsen]

"We still have only your unsupported word that harm is a Libertarian's only basis for objecting."

Yep. You have another basis that you'd care to share with the class? Didn't think so.

So, care to answer my question as posed?

[Know your rights]

You have another basis that you'd care to share with the class?

Here's one: violation of rights.

Didn't think so.

No, you just don't think.

[tpaine]

Typically paulsen 'forgets' that his question was answered to his satisfaction back at post #90:

Public displays of offensive behaviors are harmful as they lead to breaches of peace.
> Which he agreed to at post #98:

True. Then punish the breach of the peace

Time after time we see paulsen repeat his same old pattern. -- He loses/concedes an argument one day, than re-posts the same argument the next day, -- trollishly ignoring defeat.

He has no shame, no honor. -- As we've seen again at #161:

Sorry, you have not shown how the mere sight of something, offensive as it might be, harms another. And I can't believe that you, of all people, would support laws against offensive behavior when that behavior harms no one and is merely offensive to some "sufficient number" of people.

You really are disturbed paulsen, arguing that public displays of masturbation "-- harms no one and is merely offensive to some "sufficient number" of people. --"

Good grief man, you would abandon all sense of decency in order to 'win' a argument?

Again, let's stay on the original topic -- an individual masturbating in public. How would a Libertarian justify his objection to that behavior based on harm to others through force, theft, or fraud?

Sigh - Again paulsen; --- Public displays of offensive behaviors are harmful as they lead to breaches of peace.

Are you really this obsessed? Can't you 'remember' that you agreed with this answer at #98?

[robertpaulsen]

"Here's one: violation of rights."

Are you saying a person has a God-given inalienable right to masturbate in public? And society may not violate that right?

[robertpaulsen]

"Public displays of offensive behaviors are harmful as they lead to breaches of peace."

They MAY lead to breaches of peace. If the peace is breached, punish those who are breaching the peace.

Are you saying that we may prohibit offensive behavior which harms no others through force, fraud, or theft, simply because that behavior may result in a breach of the peace by others?

[tpaine]

Again, let's stay on the original topic -- an individual masturbating in public. How would a Libertarian justify his objection to that behavior based on harm to others through force, theft, or fraud?

Sigh - Again paulsen; --- Public displays of offensive behaviors are harmful as they lead to breaches of peace. Are you really this obsessed? Can't you 'remember' that you agreed with this answer at #98?

They MAY lead to breaches of peace.

At #98 you said "true", -- as they do indeed lead to breaches. Now you quibble, typically.

If the peace is breached, punish those who are breaching the peace.

The peace is breached, and those who initiate breaching the peace [in this case the masturbator] are restrained by removing them from the public eye.

Are you saying that we may prohibit offensive behavior

We can reasonably regulate public aspects of such behavior, yes.

which harms no others through force, fraud, or theft,

Public displays of offensive behavior are a use of force on unwilling viewers.

simply because that behavior may result in a breach of the peace by others?

Offensive behaviors ~will~ result in further breaches of the peace.

Libertarians and other rational people know this to be true. -- Democratic quibblers equivocate and troll the issue.

[Know your rights]

Are you saying a person has a God-given inalienable right to masturbate in public? And society may not violate that right?

No, close to the opposite: I'm saying that one's right to not have the sight of public masturbation inflicted on one is on par with one's right to not have, for example, the smell of burning tires inflicted on one.

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm saying that one's right to not have the sight of public masturbation inflicted on one"

So you're saying that a Libertarian would support a law banning offensive behavior? How would your Libertarian justify this?

[robertpaulsen]

"We can reasonably regulate public aspects of such behavior, yes."

How would a Libertarian justify that regulation based on harm to others through force, theft, or fraud?

"Public displays of offensive behavior are a use of force on unwilling viewers."

A use of force? WTF are you talking about? No one's forcing anyone to do anything. They can look the other way.

[tpaine]

Again, let's stay on the original topic -- an individual masturbating in public. How would a Libertarian justify his objection to that behavior based on harm to others through force, theft, or fraud?

Sigh - Again paulsen; --- Public displays of offensive behaviors are harmful as they lead to breaches of peace. Are you really this obsessed? Can't you 'remember' that you agreed with this answer at #98?

We can reasonably regulate public aspects of such behavior, yes.

Public displays of offensive behavior are a use of force on unwilling viewers.

A use of force? WTF are you talking about?

"-- an individual masturbating in public --" is in effect forcing his display of offensive behavior on an unwilling public, creating a breach of the peace.

No one's forcing anyone to do anything.

So you would claim.

They can look the other way.

But you hope they don't.

[robertpaulsen]

"Public displays of offensive behaviors are harmful as they lead to breaches of peace."

tpaine, I don't care. I want to know how a Libertarian would justify making this behavior illegal. If you don't know, STFU.

[tpaine]

Exactly paulsen, you don't care what the facts are, you just want everyone else to "STFU".

As a constitutional libertarian, I'm stating the facts. -- As a democratic 'majority rule' prohibitionist, you're spinning agit-prop that I'm countering.
-- Learn to live with it.

[robertpaulsen]

"As a constitutional libertarian, I'm stating the facts"

I don't care what a "constitutional libertarian" or a "libertarian" or a "classical liberal" or a "Randian objectivist" or a "von Mises subjectivist" or anyone else has to say about this.

For the umpteenth time, I want to know how a Libertarian justifies a law against this behavior. You don't know. Butt out.