DEA's pot raid draws protests

The Sacramento Bee (CA) ^ | December 15, 2005 | Robert D. Dávila

[Know your rights]

[...] Organizers blasted the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for targeting businesses that are legal under Proposition 215, a California law that permits marijuana use for medical treatment. Demonstrators said the action would restrict access to regulated pot shops for seriously ill patients. [...] "They didn't do any arrests, just took drugs and computers," said Paula "Cookey" Brown. "It just seems like a straight armed robbery." [...]

[don asmussen]

Fem commented: "Refer to your own post (#60).
In response to my question about why you thought prohibition was just, you responded that alcohol was legal, implying that legal = just."

You replied:

Hey, refer to this. I never said that all laws were just, nor did I ever say that the implementation of those laws equated to justice. Got it now?
What's with you and this law & justice fetish?
There is nothing inherently unjust about a law against immoral behavior. Most of our laws are against immoral behavior. What's your problem with that?

I then noted the "problem":
-- Rule by a 'moral majority' will infringe on our Constitutional rights to life, liberty or property. Bet on it.

Which is why the Founding Fathers developed a representative republic rather than a pure democracy. You were aware of that, weren't you? Maybe not.

Far more 'aware' than you paulsen. You spend your time here arguing in favor of the DEA & the moral majorities 'War'.
I argue for our individual freedoms in our Constitutional Republic. -- "Got it now"?

If you were, then you wouldn't have made such an ignorant statement.

My statement factually contradicted yours on 'moral law'. -- Your "ignorant statement" reply is just another infantile personal comment.

[robertpaulsen]

"... carries with it a reasonable risk of harm to others"

Whoa!

"Reasonable risk of harm"? You said nothing about reasonable risk before. You said actual harm. Let me see ... ah, here it is:

"There's a difference between punishing behavior that results in harm (either to people or property) and restricting behavior for the sake of restricting behavior. The former is justice. The latter represents government intrusion into the life of the individual. And that is inherently unjust."

Hmmmm. Nothing in there about "reasonable risk of harm". Plus, you're admitting you accept some arbitrary, politically driven BAC limit as not being "intrusive into the life of the individual"?? Pretty selectively indignant, aren't you?

Well, now that you've opened the door, then allow me to retort. It appears to come down to society's definition of "reasonable" risk, now doesn't it? And I would venture to say that legal drug use DOES represent a reasonable risk to society. As do the majority of citizens.

"And I choose the former, if only to annoy collectivist, puritanical nanny-staters like you. :o)"

Yes. You believe your crusade to be moral and just. Yawn.

"And by the way... the issue for me has little to do with the legalization of pot. The issue is personal freedom/responsibility."

Oh, for sure. The standard disclaimer for almost all the drug supporters here at FR.

"Man, if that was your best shot, ..."

Actually, it was my parting one.

[don asmussen]

Paulsen pontificates, and shoots down his own case:

The United States is a nation that believes in the rule of law. We, of all the nations on this planet, have democratic ways of amending our laws.
We don't need to resort to breaking the law to do so.

Exactly rob, -- we are breaking our own law of the land with the 'war on drugs'.. There is no amendment to prohibit drugs in our Constitution.

Other than our drug laws (which I don't consider a moral cause) what was the last issue where you considered law breaking to be morally justified? Civil rights in the 60's? And before that?

None of our fed & state laws infringing on our right to keep and bear arms are morally justified. They are repugnant to our basic constitutional principles, as are all such prohibitive decrees.

Look, if you don't like the rules set by society either change them or go live your life above the tree line and smoke dope to your heart's content. I truly don't care what you do in your cabin in the wilderness.
But if you choose to walk erect among us, then you live by our rules. Take that!

Too bad you can't take your own advice paulsen. We've had Constitutional rules for over 200 years, rules you scoff at and want to change [without amendment] to allow a 'moral war' on drugs; -- and anything else you consider "immoral"..

Get real.. You & your cohort do not have the delegated power to wage moral war, nor does any level of government.

[LIConFem]

When a man flails a machete in a crowded room, there's a reasonable risk of harm. When a man, incapacitated by drugs (alcohol included) gets into a car, plane, motorcycle or golf cart, there's a reasonable presumption that he's gonna hurt someone. That risk itself represents a violation of others' rights, as it places everyone in this individual's path in danger.

In one of your posts, you defended the re-legalization of alcohol by saying that prohibition was a mistake. If, in your opinion, drinking should be legal so long as you don't drink and drive (or otherwise cause harm), then why is smoking pot under the same circumstances so different?

And as far as blood-alcohol level is concerned, I would much rather see a test that could accurately test a person's level of impairment, than the arbitrary BAC limit. But until such a test is available, a standard has to be set. Personally, I'd just as soon people not drive after drinking, but that's a personal opinion (and reflective of my own behavior).

"And I would venture to say that legal drug use DOES represent a reasonable risk to society. As do the majority of citizens."

Correct, which is why pot is still illegal. But as far as drug use posing a reasonable risk, I still think that it poses no more risk than alcohol use (except, perhaps, to the individual).

"Yes. You believe your crusade to be moral and just. Yawn."

I wasn't aware that I was on a crusade, 'cept perhaps on this thread. But you're correct if you mean that I consider the preservation of personal freedoms as a moral imperative, and the usurpation of such freedoms as immoral.

"Oh, for sure. The standard disclaimer for almost all the drug supporters here at FR."

LOL!! Think what you will. Next you'll accuse me of being a drug addict, and that too is fine by me.

"Actually, it was my parting one."

Have a nice day.

[Durus]

Aw, geez. The old harm vs. no harm argument. You'd have more credibility with that one if you could point out just one society/government in all of recorded history that used that philosophy as a guideline for their laws. It's a Libertarian utopian wet dream.

It wasn't a mistake to create a Constitutional Representative Republic when one had never existed, credibility be damned. Harm vs. No Harm is not uniquely libertarian and it certainly doesn't raise to the level of attempting to create a utopia. The Harm vs.No Harm merely gives a rational basis for law and government. If a majority of people agree with a position that doesn't inherently make the position moral or just but simply popular. Popularity is rarely a good indicator of justice or worth.

Your arguments, devoid of a rational basis, devolves to a caricature.
"It's Illegal because it's Immoral"
What makes it immoral?
"It's Immoral because it's Illegal"

[don asmussen]

paulsen:

"Actually, it was my parting one."

Another empty promise.. Our boy never stops spouting the same old agitprop..

[LIConFem]

"Another empty promise.. Our boy never stops spouting the same old agitprop.."

And that's fine. He's entitled. People like him will always be with us; those who pay more attention to what their neighbor is doing than their own behavior aren't exactly scarce. If anything bothers me at all about he and his ilk it's that many call themselves conservatives, or pretend (outside of these discussions) to believe in personal freedom. C'est la vie, I guess...

[Mojave]

Condo association rules aren't laws

So what? They're rules with the force of law.

and I have the freedom to NOT live under those rules (by not living in a condo).

And you have the freedom to NOT live under society's rules (by not living in the society).

But laws that take away an adult's personal freedom, on the assumption that NO ONE will behave responsibly are, in my view, immoral and unjust.

OK, you've amended you original argument and inserted a falsehood into it. What laws make the assumption "that NO ONE will behave responsibly"?

[Mojave]

Call me crazy, but I think "plant" was a code word for marijuana.

They're heavily into euphemisms to hide the poverty of their arguments.

[NCC-1701]

"...Too bad the UN can't get in on the scheme too...."

Who to say they're no involved in some way?

[Mojave]

Are you going to claim you have personal knowledge to the contrary?

The let's see how honest you are. How many banned accounts have you had?

[robertpaulsen]

"That risk itself represents a violation of others' rights, as it places everyone in this individual's path in danger."

Fine. That's how the majority of people view drugs. Deal with it. If we're wrong, convince us otherwise and the laws will change. Until then, they remain.

"In one of your posts, you defended the re-legalization of alcohol by saying that prohibition was a mistake."

And I told you why. The people really didn't want it, the lowest consumption of alcohol was at the beginning of Prohibition, the laws weren't being enforced (eg., the known existence of the speakeasies), and it lasted a mere 13 years. Two-thirds of the people voted to take that power away from the federal government and return it to the states and all the states voted to make alcohol legal again.

"... then why is smoking pot under the same circumstances so different?"

Under the same circumstances as what I just posted? There's your answer -- the circumstances are totally different.

"But as far as drug use posing a reasonable risk, I still think that it poses no more risk than alcohol use (except, perhaps, to the individual)."

Are you, therefore, saying that pot smokers will replace alcohol drinkers, such that there is no increase in the reasonable risk of harm to society? Or will pot smokers add to the reasonable risks we already face with legal alcohol?

"But you're correct if you mean that I consider the preservation of personal freedoms as a moral imperative, and the usurpation of such freedoms as immoral."

I think I hear God Bless America playing in the background. Spare me. We're discussing dope here, not man's inhumanity to man.

By the way, that philosophy demands that all drugs be legal. Do you support that, or do you have yet another qualifier waiting in the wings?

"Next you'll accuse me of being a drug addict, and that too is fine by me."

Since I haven't done so already, the chances of me doing it in the future are pretty slim.

[LIConFem]

"So what? They're rules with the force of law."

Civil law, as opposed to criminal. And all parties have the freedom to not enter into a contract, making this an issue of choice. By signing a contract, you agree to its terms and are bound by them. Don't sign, and the rules are meaningless.

"And you have the freedom to NOT live under society's rules (by not living in the society)."

"Society's rules" don't have the right to suppress my freedoms, and if/when they do, I'll fight the infringement, as is my right and responsibility under the Constitution.

"OK, you've amended you original argument and inserted a falsehood into it. What laws make the assumption "that NO ONE will behave responsibly"?"

Gun laws that limit access to firearms by law-abiding citizens fall into that category.

[Mojave]

Civil law, as opposed to criminal.

Wow, you're in full retreat.

And all parties have the freedom to not enter into a contract, making this an issue of choice.

Nonsense. You move into a condominium, you're bound by any agreemnets you may have signed as well as pre-existing rules, regulations, covenants, conditions and retrictions, whether you've signed them or not. In fact, you're bound by them whether or not you ever signed any contract with the condo association.

"Society's rules" don't have the right to suppress my freedoms

Backwards. Society's rules define your freedoms within that society.

[Mojave]

Organizers blasted the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for targeting businesses that are legal under Proposition 215

BTW, Proposition 215 didn't legalize pot selling businesses.

[robertpaulsen]

"It wasn't a mistake to create a Constitutional Representative Republic when one had never existed, credibility be damned."

But one WAS created, unlike a Harm vs. No Harm government which has yet to see the light of day anywhere in the world in all of recorded history.

" Popularity is rarely a good indicator of justice or worth."

No, but coupled with longevity it comes closer.

"It's Illegal because it's Immoral"

Who claims that? Granted, most of our laws concern immoral behavior, but many immoral acts remain legal. It used to be that people were restrained from immoral acts by their own sense of decency and self esteem. That's been replaced by a selfish, hedonistic, individualistic "if it's legal I can do it and don't you dare criticize me" attitude. Hence, all the laws.

"It's Immoral because it's Illegal"

It immoral because it debases Man, and we're better than that.

[Mojave]

[OK, you've amended you original argument and inserted a falsehood into it. What laws make the assumption "that NO ONE will behave responsibly"?]

Gun laws that limit access to firearms by law-abiding citizens fall into that category.

Assume the premise, beg the question.

[robertpaulsen]

"Assume the premise, beg the question.

A lot of that going around. It seems to be what passes for an argument from the other side.

Like arriving late to a lecture and hearing, "So in conclusion ...".

[LIConFem]

"By the way, that philosophy demands that all drugs be legal. Do you support that, or do you have yet another qualifier waiting in the wings?"

Honestly? Yes, I might actually consider that. What stops me is that I know so little about the effects of other drugs, as opposed to pot and alcohol (which I've witnessed first-hand). If there are drugs that make the user violent, for example, that would pose an unacceptable risk. If other drugs simply put the user to sleep, that'd be a different story altogether. So the answer is, I don't know.

"Fine. That's how the majority of people view drugs. Deal with it. If we're wrong, convince us otherwise and the laws will change. Until then, they remain."

I'm dealing with it just fine. And as far as trying to convince you, that's what I'm doing here right now. But if you think about it, I should be asking you to convince me of why the government has the right outlaw pot. After all, you're the one who posits that pot-smokers are a danger to society. Shouldn't you at least make an attempt to prove it?

"Under the same circumstances as what I just posted? There's your answer -- the circumstances are totally different."

Huh? I was inquiring as to your what you thought the difference was between drinking in private and smoking pot in private.

"Are you, therefore, saying that pot smokers will replace alcohol drinkers, such that there is no increase in the reasonable risk of harm to society? Or will pot smokers add to the reasonable risks we already face with legal alcohol?"

You're assuming that the number of pot smokers would increase significantly. That's not at all a foregone conclusion. And aside from the risk to society posed by pot-smoking drivers (which already exsits), you still haven't told me why pot smokers are inherently dangerous.

"I think I hear God Bless America playing in the background. Spare me.

I'm sorry if that offends you. But not at all surprised.

[Mojave]

I should be asking you to convince me of why the government has the right outlaw pot.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson