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." [...]

[elbucko]

Too funny. Lefty potheads screaming "states rights!"

It is a bit hypocritical, isn't it? At the same time that they are lobbying for drug de-control, they want to increase gun control in response to the violence that comes with drug abuse. It's no wonder that the DEA and the ATF are buddies, as are NORMAL and the Brady Campaign.

[LIConFem]

"Oh baloney. Calling it unjust doesn't make it so. Because a law is against certain immoral behavior does not make it unjust."

That sword cuts both ways. And laws against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects are inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust.

"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."

As opposed to the iron-fisted statist crap you espouse. And who gives a flyin' fig about "all of recorded history "? We're talking about what should be, not what's been implemented over the past umpteen years. And of all those wonderful societies/governments you seem to think are so just, tell me which one you'd willingly live in/adopt here in the U.S.

[jmc813]

Sure looks that way to me and others, jmc813. Religious persecution, racial discrimination, gender inequality ... that's one thing. But dope? C'mon. People didn't complain this much when alcohol was banned.

So are the illegal Chinese Catholics morally justified in breaking the law?

[don asmussen]

Well done Fem.. Gotta love it when paulsen goes off the deep end with his ravings:

"-- What's with you and this law & justice fetish? Most of our laws are against immoral behavior.

Watch it, bucko. Fair warning -- once more and were done. I have better things to do than spend half my posts correcting your f^&$ ups.

Nobody's drug use if forcing me to do squat.

I said if anything is unjust it is forcing the majority of society, against their will, to protect the supposed "right" of people to do drugs. Which is what you would have us do.

Getting drunk IS immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive.

Since pot is illegal, I can have the junkies and pot dealers moved far away from me and my family.

I have no choice if drug dealer is legally allowed to move in next door -- not like I do today.

The pot dealer will turn from an importer into an exporter, selling our legal marrijuana to countries where it remains illegal. Unless, again, you assume the ROW will follow The Great Satan's lead.

80 posted by robertpaulsen --"

Good grief; the "Great Satan" is leading us to a society where the will of the majority has the power to have "junkies and pot dealers moved far away" from paulsen and his family?

To the camps robert? -- Is that what you want?

[Mojave]

And laws against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects are inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust.

Beg, beg, beg.

Are condominium association restrictions against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust?

Are website rules against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust?

[Mojave]

Most of our laws are against immoral behavior. What's your problem with that?

This results in what may be seen as moral relativism or the privatisation of morality. One person's morality being as good as another's, the community may not adopt moral standards in legislation. This viewpoint is often expressed by the common and wholly fallacious remark that "You can't legislate morality." Indeed . . . we legislate little else.

--Robert Bork

[don asmussen]

LIConFem wrote:

" -- 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. --"

Mojave 'answers', in an attempt to confuse the issue:

Are condominium association restrictions against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust?

Condo association rules are voluntary, -- they are parts of an agreed upon contract.
And as you well know, any contract can be held to be unenforceable if it it is repugnant to our Constitutional rule of law, - or public policy.

Are website rules against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust?

Same principle applies. If a contract clause is against public policy, a judge or arbitrator won't enforce it.
Rules should make common sense and be applied fairly. -- Ones that aren't are widely ignored.

[Mojave]

Condo association rules are voluntary

So is our society. So is this website. You're free to leave either anytime.

Rules should make common sense and be applied fairly.

You hate society, you hate contract. The only thing that matters to you is getting whatever you want.

A classic liberal.

[don asmussen]

robertpaulsen asks:

Most of our laws are against immoral behavior. What's your problem with that?

Rule by a 'moral majority' will infringe on our Constitutional rights to life, liberty or property. Bet on it.

Mojave quotes Bork on the issue [out of context]:

" -- This results in what may be seen as moral relativism or the privatisation of morality. One person's morality being as good as another's, the community may not adopt moral standards in legislation.
This viewpoint is often expressed by the common and wholly fallacious remark that "You can't legislate morality." Indeed . . . we legislate little else. --"
--Robert Bork

Of course we "legislate morality" in that limited sense, -- within Constitutional bounds, -- as I'm sure Bork would agree.

[don asmussen]

Condo association rules are voluntary, -- they are parts of an agreed upon contract.

So is our society. So is this website. You're free to leave either anytime.

Of course.. So are you..

And as you well know, any contract can be held to be unenforceable if it it is repugnant to our Constitutional rule of law, - or public policy.

Are website rules against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust?

Same principle applies. If a contract clause is against public policy, a judge or arbitrator won't enforce it. Rules should make common sense and be applied fairly. -- Ones that aren't are widely ignored.

You hate society, you hate contract.

Odd thing to attack me about. I made my living for 45 years by contracting. I always honored my word to my customers..

The only thing that matters to you is getting whatever you want. A classic liberal.

Rant on my boy.. Your pitiful & uncalled for personal attack is once again noted.

[Mojave]

I always honored my word

LOL

[don asmussen]

Mojave imagines:

You hate society, you hate contract.

Odd thing to attack me about. I made my living for 45 years by contracting. I always honored my word to my customers..

LOL

How could that comment amuse you. moj?
Are you going to claim you have personal knowledge to the contrary?
Feel free to explain your cheap little snigger, if you have any honor.. -- Which I'll bet you don't.

[LIConFem]

"To the camps robert? -- Is that what you want?"

That's precisely what he wants; he and the rest of his collectivist, nanny-stater brethren.

Personal freedom? Personal responsibility? Who needs 'em? We have robertpaulsen to tell us how to live.

[LIConFem]

"Are condominium association restrictions against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust?"

Condo association rules aren't laws, and I have the freedom to NOT live under those rules (by not living in a condo). In fact, I've exercised that particular freedom when I was looking for my house, as I told my real estate agent that I would not deal with any condo, home-owner and/or neighborhood associations.

"Are website rules against behavior, whether immoral or not, (in your view) without regard to who the behavior affects inherently intrusive, and therefore unjust?"

Same as above. Website rules are not laws, and I have the freedom to avoid the rules by not participating in the goings-on at the site. If, for example, I didn't like Jim Robinson's rules, I would no longer post on FR.

Behavior has consequences. It's the consequences that are often the result of bad behavior that should be punished. 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.

[robertpaulsen]

"So are the illegal Chinese Catholics morally justified in breaking the law?"

I know nothing about their problems -- I avoid the religious threads like the plague.

Let me say this. I can understand how some people, or groups of people, morally justify breaking certain laws. I do not accept/condone their illegal behavior, and believe those people do so at their own risk of arrest and imprisonment.

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.

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?

[robertpaulsen]

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

[commonerX]

""""I mean, what's more dangerous than a plant growing out of the ground?"
Kids smoking it?""""


What is there to stop a kid from smoking leaves off a maple tree, Azalea Bush, Holly bush, etc.... I certainly never tried them and have no intentions to. I am sure smoking any plant isn't good for you and it could be even more dangerous then pot. Not advocating kids smoking just making a point of your statement.

Kids smoking anything is wrong and I believe it would remain illegal regardless of any legalization for adults.

[robertpaulsen]

"Behavior has consequences. It's the consequences that are often the result of bad behavior that should be punished. 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."

Well, let's take a peek at your utopia, and only as it applies to driving. In your world, drunk driving would be allowed, and the driver punished only if he harms another person or their property. Correct?

Speeding, reckless driving, weaving, driving after dark without headlights, driving an unsafe vehicle ... all these things would be allowed for the same reason. Correct?

And that's just one small part of your world. Do you really think people want to live that way? Pedophiles as babysitters. Gays as scout leaders. Airline pilots on drugs.

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!

[robertpaulsen]

"What is there to stop a kid from smoking leaves off a maple tree, Azalea Bush, Holly bush, etc...."

Hmmmm. Did you think the poster was referring to those plants? Call me crazy, but I think "plant" was a code word for marijuana.

"Kids smoking anything is wrong and I believe it would remain illegal regardless of any legalization for adults."

As do I. But in today's society, legalization carries with it a societal acceptance. Teens today drink alcohol 2:1 over marijuana despite the fact that they admit marijuana is easier to get.

When marijuana was legal in Alaska in the 80's, teen use was double the national average. That use fell to within 1% of the national average whan marijuana was made illegal.

Teens today represent 30% of all marijuana smokers. That percentage would very likely increase with adult legalization. Good luck enforcing a law against teens smoking legal marijuana when they represent nearly half the market.

[LIConFem]

"In your world, drunk driving would be allowed, and the driver punished only if he harms another person or their property. Correct?"

Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of mind-altering drugs (pot, alcohol, et cetera), carries with it a reasonable risk of harm to others, and as such, I have no problem restricting such behavior. And the difference between that and smoking pot in your living room are so obvious as to make the comparison absurd. But I suspect even you know that.

"Speeding, reckless driving, weaving, driving after dark without headlights, driving an unsafe vehicle ... all these things would be allowed for the same reason. Correct?"

See above...

"And that's just one small part of your world. Do you really think people want to live that way? Pedophiles as babysitters. Gays as scout leaders. Airline pilots on drugs. "

See above...

"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."

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

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

"But if you choose to walk erect among us, then you live by our rules. Take that!"

LOL!!! Man, if that was your best shot, ...