Skip to comments.
War on Drugs - Gov't Overstepping its Bounds?
23 August 02
| Schmedlap
Posted on 08/23/2002 12:42:18 AM PDT by Schmedlap
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-164 next last
To: Schmedlap
Calling someone a moron, as in mentally retarded, stupid or foolish is a personal attack and isn't appropriate behavior in civilized public discourse. Using this crude approach, may gain you friends among the libertarian crowd, but in the real world, shows what a closed minded individual you really are. Just because the vast majority of conservative Americans disagree with your politics, is no reason to revert to namecalling. But since you advocate death to all politicians, I shouldn;t be surprised by these personal attacks from you. You're a real neanderthal.
As for your smug rhetoric and irrational opinions about my understanding of the Declaration of Independence, frankly I could care less. Fact is, either you didn't read what I wrote, or if you did read it, its clear your comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
Human beings aren't perfect people and in the real world, people make mistakes. A person can rail against the injustices of life from cradle to grave, or work through the political system to bring about real cahnge. Since the libertarian philosophy and Libertarian Party Platform has been such an utter failure, I guess railing against everything in life, is the only alternative you libertarians have left.
To: KrisKrinkle
I believe that plutonium gives off harmful radiation. Cocaine does not. If plutonium does not give off harmful radiation, then replace plutonium with something that does, and the statement will be correct.
Having 10 pounds of highly radioactive material violates your neighbors rights by exposing them to harmful radiation, when on their own property. Having 10 pounds of cocaine does not violate their rights.
Posted by Reagan Man:
"Calling someone a moron, as in mentally retarded, stupid or foolish is a personal attack and isn't appropriate behavior in civilized public discourse."
"Using this crude approach...shows what a closed minded individual you really are."
"You're a real neanderthal."
"As for your smug rhetoric and irrational opinions..."
Here's part of my original post. Any thoughts?
"The bottom line is that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of the government’s business, nor is it the business of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one another’s property, or otherwise violate one another’s rights. Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home, whether you want to do it or not. The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.
I welcome thoughtful responses to this post; particularly those which refute any of the arguments above, or offer suggestions to strengthen the arguments."
To: Schmedlap
"...is none of the government’s business,nor...of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one another’s property, or otherwise violate one another’s rights."
In contrast to:
"The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving."
________________________________________________________
Why does the government have this right and duty if there is no direct harm or violation of rights? If one drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, what is the rationale for the government's "right and duty"? (Considering that the point of arrival might be the location at which the arresting officer makes the arrest.)
Jumping ahead here, one response might be that the impaired driver is on public property, but I discount that because the impaired driver is part of the public and has caused no direct harm or violation of rights. You are of course free to dispute that, but do you have any other responses as well?
To: Schmedlap
Note: I screwed up this post. If it turns up twice, I apologize.
"Having 10 pounds of highly radioactive material violates your neighbors rights by exposing them to harmful radiation, when on their own property. Having 10 pounds of cocaine does not violate their rights."
So if one has the plutonium in a container suitably lined with lead so that no rediation escapes, the neighbors are not exposed to harmful radiation and there is no violation of rights.
On the other hand, if one has one's cocaine on the kitchen table by an open window such that a breeze blows cocaine onto a neighbor's property or through a neighbor's window, exposing the neighbor to the harmful effects of cocaine, a violation of rights occurs.
Therefore, the question hangs not just on possession of a substance or engaging in an activity, but whether or not such possession or activity is done in a manner that violates another's rights. Correct?
To: Schmedlap
Why do you keep talking behind my back? Just because you disagree with me and instigate personal attacks, I've still remembered to ping you over to a thread and directed my comments directly to you. Just what are you afraid of anyway?
It would seem you don't want to hear voices that dissent from your opinion and enter into the consersation. Voices that disagree with you and your political philosophy of libertarianism. You and your lib buddies can't stand being challenged on the issues, but you sure enjoy ganging up on the opposition, when the odds are in their favor, say 3-1, 4-1, 5-1. "dcwusmc" is a perfect example of this mentality. He actually thinks he knows what he's talking about. Nothing could be further from the truth. H'e nothing but a ruffian. You and him make a good pair and deserve each other. Enjoy.
To: Reagan Man
Reagan Man:
On what basis do you (and the rest of the mob) have in regulating what goes on in the privacy of my own home? Where does the Constitution authorize the federal War on Drugs?
Washington and Jefferson grew large amounts of hemp-- enough for them to be labeled as Drug Kingpins by today's standards. Were they criminals for doing so?
Peter Krembs
Chairman
RLC-GA
To: Reagan Man
Just what are you afraid of anyway? I'm still waiting for your response to my posting to this thread. So, I'll ask you the same question.
It would seem you don't want to hear voices that dissent from your opinion and enter into the consersation.
I think it's fair to say the same about you. Does the truth really hurt that much?
You and your lib buddies can't stand being challenged on the issues
I directly challenged you on a specific issue: how the War on Some Drugs set the precedents to enable gun control at the federal level. But all you have done is resort to ad hominem arguments and then run away.
I'll ask again: Just what are you afraid of, anyway?
To: Reagan Man; Neil E. Wright
Why do you keep talking behind my back? Just because you disagree with me and instigate personal attacks, I've still remembered to ping you over to a thread and directed my comments directly to you. Just what are you afraid of anyway? This applies to you, statist... and I can handle your ilk one on one or however many of you thugs care to party! Wanna give it a shot? You can't even answer a simple question and yet you have the brass ba!!s to try to claim the moral high ground and you can't even get UP TO the bottom of the mud heap. You are, as we used to say, lower than whale sh!t and THAT's at the bottom of the ocean. Try answering questions if you dare... though I can't blame you for ducking out because you KNOW you have no reasonable and Constitutional answer... so you resort to your invective and your ad hominems and your thuggish barbra striesand.
I am glad to know you think me a ruffian. That means I am effective enough that you want to ignore me. But I will NOT let up. You and your ilk are dead wrong and you know it but you can't get over the heady addiction to power over the lives of others.
50
posted on
08/27/2002 12:17:26 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
To: KrisKrinkle
Posted by KrisKrinkle:
“Why does the government have this right and duty if there is no direct harm or violation of rights? If one drives while impaired, but makes it from the point of departure to the point of arrival without causing any harm, what is the rationale for the government's "right and duty"? (Considering that the point of arrival might be the location at which the arresting officer makes the arrest.)”
“…one response might be that the impaired driver is on public property, but I discount that because the impaired driver is part of the public and has caused no direct harm or violation of rights.”
Public property is ours – yours and mine. Therefore, it is acceptable for you and I to use government to define what one can and cannot do on our property. We have deemed that it is unacceptable for a driver to drive on public roads, when mentally impaired. One of the ways that we quantify the subjective “impaired” is to define a set blood alcohol content which is deemed to sufficiently impair drivers to the point where they cannot drive safely.
Another way that we quantify the impairment of a driver is if he is under the influence of certain drugs other than alcohol. We also deem someone to be unqualified to drive on roads if they are not licensed. These are all reasonable, in my opinion. And, even if they were not reasonable to me, they would still be constitutional, in my opinion, because I do not see where anybody’s rights are violated.
You have the right to drive drunk on your property, but not on mine. I have the right to drive drunk on my property, but not on yours. You come up with ground rules for how people behave on your property. I come up with ground rules for how people behave on my property. But, we come up with ground rules for how we behave on our property, and we do this via government.
I do believe, however, that there is far too much public property in this country.
“So if one has the plutonium in a container suitably lined with lead so that no rediation escapes, the neighbors are not exposed to harmful radiation and there is no violation of rights.
On the other hand, if one has one's cocaine on the kitchen table by an open window such that a breeze blows cocaine onto a neighbor's property or through a neighbor's window, exposing the neighbor to the harmful effects of cocaine, a violation of rights occurs.”
Good point. That is correct.
“Therefore, the question hangs not just on possession of a substance or engaging in an activity, but whether or not such possession or activity is done in a manner that violates another's rights. Correct?”
Correct.
To: Reagan Man
Keep in mind that I am new here, so I am not sure what a "ping" is. I also do not know how to go about talking behind an individual's back in an open forum, unless you mean sending private messages about you, which I have not done. In fact, you are the only person who I have sent a private message to.
I actually welcome dissention, which I why I respond to you more than anyone else. I think that I continue to give tempered responses, as you characterized my posts earlier. I only hope that you will disregard the incorrect assumption that I do not desire dissent and challenges. I welcome and desire challenges against my arguments, because this helps me to either refine correct arguments or discard incorrect arguments (read the last paragraph of my original article that opened this thread).
I do, however, have no interest in challenges to straw man arguments that I have not made, or assumptions about my character.
To: justlurking
>>>... and then run away.I'm still here and besides, I already answered you in my post at RE:#30.
>>>I'll ask again: Just what are you afraid of, anyway?
Again?! When did you ask me the first time? Actually, you stole that line from me at. See RE#47. Btw, if I choose to enter a "hot button" issue thread and attempt to engage you libertarians and other political fringers in intelligent and civil debate, I'd say thats a sign of cojones. But afraid? Not me, bucko!
To: dcwusmc
>>>... and I can handle your ilk Not hardly. You have a tough time staying out of the gutter with your abusive trash talk and you're understanding of American politics, is woefully inadequate. But I'm glad you realize, you're a ruffian. That clears up any confusion and makes my point. You're a bully and you admit it. Case closed.
To: Reagan Man
Nope. I don't bully. What I actually SAID was I am glad YOU SEE ME that way. You are a coward and it shows I am effective. YOU cannot even answer a simple question: DO YOU OWN MY BODY?
Does big gooberment own my body? Just a simple yes or now will do. Try it, RM, or just go snivel somewhere else that I abuse you, coward. ANSWER THE QUESTION.
55
posted on
08/27/2002 8:42:23 PM PDT
by
dcwusmc
To: Reagan Man
I'm still here and besides, I already answered you in my post at RE:#30. No you didn't. All you wrote was:
Ad hominem argument? Say what!You have presented convoluted rhetoric that makes no sense at all. The federal governemnt hasn't infringed on my right to keep and bear arms. You're reactionary absolutism is showing.
I actually thought it was a pretty funny posting. First, you pretend to be shocked when I called you on the ad hominem argument and then you did it again!
And the real kicker: You claimed that "The federal governemnt hasn't infringed on my right to keep and bear arms." That's an absolute laugh riot -- anyone that owns a gun and knows anything about the state of federal gun control law knows that's a bunch of Barbra Streisand. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried to help you understand, giving you a link to a whole raft of Supreme Court, appeals court, and state court decisions that were enabled by NFA '34.
Again?! When did you ask me the first time? Actually, you stole that line from me at. See RE#47.
Yes, I did. I quoted it from your own posting #47 because I thought it was also a relevant question for you, and asked you to respond. Then, I added it again at the bottom of my posting.
Btw, if I choose to enter a "hot button" issue thread and attempt to engage you libertarians and other political fringers in intelligent and civil debate, I'd say thats a sign of cojones. But afraid? Not me, bucko!
That would be an admirable endeavour, if you were actually doing so. But, I challenged you on a specific issue: how the precedents set by the War on Some Drugs has enabled federal gun control and clear infringements on the Second Amendment. And all you did was bury your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen.
If you truly don't understand how it happened, I'll be happy to talk you through the chronology. If you don't want to be bothered, just say so -- but quit claiming that you are participating in intelligent and civil debate, because you aren't, at least not when someone gets the upper hand.
However, I will insist that you cease the personal attacks on me, such as:
You see a sinister plot behind everything to do with the government.
You're reactionary absolutism is showing.
engage you libertarians and other political fringers
I'm an independent, which I suppose makes me one of your "political fringers". But, your use of that term was a pejorative, not a description. And, regardless of what my political ideology might be, it doesn't make my points any less valid.
As I said in #25 in this thread, I believe that Prohibition is a very relevant case study -- everything from the authority of government to prosecute a "War" on anything, to the consequences of doing so, and the subsequent consequences of not doing so. All of the things that are happening today -- high violent crime rate (particularly murders), easy availability to minors, gang warfare in pursuit of market share, corruption of law enforcement -- happened during Prohibition.
When Prohibition was repealed, the murder rate dropped by more than half within a year or two afterwards. It stayed low until the government began escalating the War on Some Drugs, peaking again in the 60's. Whatever your rationale for the War on Some Drugs might be, the evidence is overwhelming that the "cure" is worse than the "disease".
So, what's it going to be? Are you truly interested in a civil and intelligent discussion about the effects of the War on Some Drugs? Or are you oblivious to them, because the alternatives offend your morality?
To: dcwusmc; justlurking; Reagan Man; radical4capitalism; KrisKrinkle; Mike4Freedom; M.K. Borders; ...
Getting kind of ugly... I just figured that I would make one last attempt:
"The bottom line is that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of the government’s business, nor is it the business of you or I, so long as people do not do direct harm to one another, one another’s property, or otherwise violate one another’s rights. Neither I, nor my government, have the right to tell you that you cannot snort cocaine in your home, whether you want to do it or not. The government has the right, and the duty, to arrest you if you attempt to drive on a public road, while under the influence of a drug, while impaired visually or mentally, or even if you have not had sufficient sleep to stay awake, while driving.
I welcome thoughtful responses to this post; particularly those which refute any of the arguments above, or offer suggestions to strengthen the arguments."
To: justlurking; Schmedlap
Don't ever expect to get any responsible answers from RM or any of the other WODDIES that troll here. They are wholly incapable of dealing in reason, logic or Constitutionality. Their whole mantra consists of "It's the law of the land. Drugs are evil because they are illegal and they are illegal because they are evil. Society {left undefined by them} needs to protect itself from druggies and drugs."
This is the whole of the War on Americans known as the war on (some) drugs. Your attempts at reason will be rebuffed with strawmen, ad hominems and gratuitous flaming. They will attribute to you, as RM has to me, perjoratives such as "bully" or "ruffian" which are, in fact, fully descriptive of them and their tactics. About as subtle as a JBT kicking in your door at 3:00 in the morning.
I applaud your clarity of thought and reasoned arguments. The WODDIES do not. Sad state of affairs, isn't it?
58
posted on
08/28/2002 8:52:01 AM PDT
by
dcwusmc
To: Schmedlap
Hey, don't quit on me yet. I want to respond to your post 51 and get your thoughts on my response, I just don't have time at the moment. (Fedex delivered the blinds and my wife wants me to stop playing with the computer, finish the painting and put them up.)
As for some of the things this thread has drawn, don't let them get you down. Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crud) applies here just as it does elsewhere. The problem with "mud-wrassling" with pigs is that they enjoy it more than you do. If you try and match wits with half-wits you have to lose some of your own wits (and you might need them for me :)
Sort the wheat from the chaff and only respond to the wheat. (And try not to mistake wheat for chaff just because someone is having a bad day and didn't "say it right."
That's enough from someone who doesn't always follow his own advice.
Later.
To: Mike4Freedom; Reagan Man
I still ask-What are we to do when laws are passed by our elected representatives that clearly violate the limits set down in the constitution?
Surely I can use free speech and point out the error of their ways. I can demonstrate my displeasure and campaign against legislators that voted for the bad law.
Can I also use civil disobedience, like blatently violating the law and arguing the invalidity in court, when I get arrested. What is to be done if the judge does not let me argue the constitutional issue or present relevant facts? (example-medical use of marijuana and I am prevented from presenting medical evidence).
As a juror, can I refuse to convict one of those who practiced civil disobedience because I agree the law was bad?
What if I withheld taxes because the govt was misusing the money due to one of these bad laws? (IMO)
__________________________________
Well said Mike.
-- You got no answer from R-man because he has no answers. -- He really does NOT believe in the individual liberties guaranteed by our constitution. -- His agenda is big government & more control.
60
posted on
08/28/2002 1:05:29 PM PDT
by
tpaine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-164 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson