Twenty-three year old man shot dead by police in a marijuana raid

Dayton Daily News ^ | 10/01/02 | Cathy Mong

[headsonpikes]

LOL!! You're a funny guy. 'Don't talk to me; I'm pouting'.

Answer this question: Why should any rational person believe that the the government can be the ally of the citizen?

Master, perhaps...servant, perhaps...ally--never!

It is plain on the face of it that the WOD is a criminal conspiracy to protect the revenues of illegal drug cartels.

I don't know where the argument is in this regard. Seriously.

[FormerLurker]

It's an alcoholic beverage. Time to change your story again?

Roscoe, are you brain dead? Do you remember that the Amendment said "intoxicating liquor"? It didn't say alcoholic beverage. "Intoxicating liquor" included REAL beer and wine.

Do you enjoy being vague and dense at the same time?

[Havoc]

You're more than welcome. But I'm just being the only thing I know how to be - a decent, law abiding Christian with respect for authority. Most of what you see being argued is from a stance of rebellion and disrespect for authority combined with a worldview that anything goes and a mindset that they should have the right to do anything they want and not be held accountable (ie responsible) for their actions. It's the same mindset that allows two adults to murder their parents and gets a jury to let them go out of relativistic hogwash that "they'll don't have their mother anymore..." That they murdered her is beside the point. Fools have no shame.

[Havoc]

You're more than welcome. But I'm just being the only thing I know how to be - a decent, law abiding Christian with respect for authority. Most of what you see being argued is from a stance of rebellion and disrespect for authority combined with a worldview that anything goes and a mindset that they should have the right to do anything they want and not be held accountable (ie responsible) for their actions. It's the same mindset that allows two adults to murder their parents and gets a jury to let them go out of relativistic hogwash that "they'll don't have their mother anymore..." That they murdered her is beside the point. Fools have no shame.

[Roscoe]

1. It banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol.

2. Do you remember that the Amendment said "intoxicating liquor"?

Remember? I pointed it out to you in response to the ignorant falsehood you posted.

[FormerLurker]

You pro druggies: Go find another forum.

You pro fascist totalarian newbies: Go find another forum.

[FormerLurker]

Remember? I pointed it out to you in response to the ignorant falsehood you posted.

Again, you are playing mindless word games here Roscoe. What is your point? Do you want to admit that the 18th Amendment was necessary to PROHIBIT INTOXICATING LIQUORS, or will it take another 100 posts for you to understand what I'm asking you?

[FormerLurker]

Do you think anyone has ever been killed by a druggie needing money to feed his habit?

A) INNOCENT people have been killed by drug warriors.

B) Do you think that pot smokers kill people to "support their habit"?

[Havoc]

Excuse me but the deaths caused during prohibition were not a result of alcohol use but of a mindset bent on rebellion against the law instead of on finding a way to change the minds of the lawmakers. When bootlegging became a way of life it was a crime. Glorify it if you will; but, it was still a crime. The argument is a non-starter. I ignored it to get to more fluid points. It's still a nonstarter.

[Havoc]

I didn't say it was rosy - I only said people should be held responsible for their own choices.

Right. It's illegal. If they use and get caught, they go to jail. That is being held responsible.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Right. It's illegal. If they use and get caught, they go to jail. That is being held responsible.

How do you feel about drivers getting ticketed or even tossed in the slammer for not wearing a seat belt?

[KDD]

Cartoon

Not very funny though.

[Havoc]

havoc , you don't give up , your little stories are nice but all made up . you talk about something you really know nothing about. as i said to you before on another thread, when you lump pot in with hard drugs ie; meth,coke,horse ect. you have to include nicotine and alcohal and as i said before the only one of the above that is NON lethel is .....you guessed it, pot

No the stories are quite true and quite real. I've had family in the stuff. I've got friends still in it unfortuneately. I've had three past girlfriends that have been users.. one of whom was divorced from a guy that moved on to cocaine and used in front of his three kids. But the last thing you can deal with is someone who can speak from experience and damage your prattling stained glass world of the perfection that comes with smoking pot and doing it legally. Yippee. You might try actually visiting a few clinics with pot smokers going through withdrawel amongst those who used to be pot smokers and moved on to bigger things because after a while, one can't smoke enough pot anymore to get the buzz. God forbid someone should slap ya'lls fantasies silly with reality. Of course reality is what most are trying to avoid with drugs to begin with so it must really suck to have it intrude upon ones arguments.

[dcwusmc]

BUMP to finsh later....

[Roscoe]

Do you want to admit that the 18th Amendment was necessary to PROHIBIT INTOXICATING LIQUORS

The Emancipation Proclamation preceded the 13th Amendment.

[KDD]

FACTS

Something you seem to be a little short on. Maybe this will help inform you so you are better prepared for debate on this subject.

[Virginia-American]

You might try actually visiting a few clinics with pot smokers going through withdrawel

Right. Happens all the time, except for the fact it's not addictive.

because after a while, one can't smoke enough pot anymore to get the buzz.

Like what, 30 years?! You obviously are getting pot confused with something else

God forbid someone should slap ya'lls fantasies silly with reality

Or your fantasies, which just happen to be the same as the lies the gov't has been spreading since the thirties.

[Roscoe]

Strawman.

Where did I call for a "War on Drugs?"

[Roscoe]

http://www.schick-shadel.com/marijuana-addiction.html

[Hemingway's Ghost]

You might try actually visiting a few clinics with pot smokers going through withdrawel amongst those who used to be pot smokers and moved on to bigger things because after a while, one can't smoke enough pot anymore to get the buzz. God forbid someone should slap ya'lls fantasies silly with reality. Of course reality is what most are trying to avoid with drugs to begin with so it must really suck to have it intrude upon ones arguments.

I've enjoyed your posts, but I think you may be missing something. I don't think you'll find many anti-W.o.D. posters on FR who suggest that smoking pot is harmless or the best possible way you could spend your life here on Earth. If we do at all, we do it tongue-in-cheek, much the same way drinkers will josh each other about drinking. And as a matter of fact, many anti-W.o.D. posters here claim they don't do drugs of any kind.

My opposition to the Drug War stems from my belief that the government that governs the least governs the best. Roscoe's arguments to the contrary, I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government the power or authority to wage an actual war on its citizens predicated by what they decide to do with their own bodies. Except, of course, for an overly-broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. But I think furthering this New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause sets a dangerous precedent, and that precedent gives the federal government the predicate to wage whatever kind of prohibitionary war they want to wage in the future.

You seem to be a Christian with a strong desire to help his fellow man, and I respect that. I respectfully suggest, however, that when it comes to drugs, there are better ways of helping your fellow man than giving the federal government carte blanche to wage a "war"---once rhetorical, now a real, bona fide shooting war---against its own citizens.