Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[Texaggie79]

Drugs and wmds can both be reasonably regulated using Constitutional means.

Well since I cannot buy or own wmds, then I guess you are fine with the fact that you cannot buy or own crack. So, we have reached an agreement.

Good times.

[tpaine]

Dream on about 'agreements' texbaby. -
I don't agree with anti-constitutionalists.

[tpaine]

Tex opines:


"-- We have come to the heart of the matter.
Drugs and wmds are both regulated through prohibiting private citizens from owning them. It's reasonable --"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Here ya go tex, something else that 'the community' claims should be prohibited; - 'harmful' video games:


Michigan Violent Game Bill Ruled Unconstitutional
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1608973/posts

[Texaggie79]

If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate violent games from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.

The argument with video games is that they send the wrong message. I hardly see that as dangerous as a substance that chemically alters one's brain, causing them to do things they have no control over.

[tpaine]

Paraphrasing your stance:

If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate assault weapons from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.

The argument with assault weapons is that they send the wrong message.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Thank you Ms Brady.

[thinkthenpost]

Texaggie, I am going to try to make this as I can, somebody is stoned, he is affected, his family maybe, maybe a few folks he work with.
I have a nuke and do something stupid with it, who is affected, I am, my family and depending on where I live maybe a few tens or hundred thousand of my neighbors.
YOUR freedoms end where I begin, noise, smoke, trees overhanging a shared fence, as long as a person is not infringing on someone else how is it anyone's business whether he gets high, or if living in the middle of nowhere has a particle accelerator in his basement?

[Texaggie79]

how is it anyone's business whether he gets high,

If that state/township/community agrees that his drug of choice is too much of a threat, it's theirs. If he wants to do that drug, don't do it in a city that prohibits it.

You say, "when someone gets stoned" look, we can all agree pot is less harmfull than alcohol, and it's idiotic and hypocritical to outlaw it. But for hard drugs, they are a threat.

I advocate in court for abused children. And I will tell you that 99.9% of the cases I see are caused by drug usage. HARD drug usage. Crystal Meth, crack, heroin. These drugs are just simply impossible to do responsibly. The very act of doing them at all is irresponsible. And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.

[Texaggie79]

If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate assault weapons from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.

I do believe we have an amendment that would disagree.

[tpaine]

Texaggie79's position, paraphrased:

If you could get enough stupid people in one state to vote to regulate assault weapons from any private citizens owning them in that state, well, they can do that.

I do believe we have an amendment that would disagree.

Meaning that only the enumerated rights are protected? -- Read the 9th.

[thinkthenpost]

I have two responses, they may sound angry, but I'm not, actually hearing someone be somewhat reasonable on a WOD thread is seldom seem.

The second amendment has not been incorporated to apply to the states like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 14th, and a couple of others. So states like California and New Jersey have their Assault Weapons Bans, and towns like Morton Grove, Illinois have their handgun bans that have held up to legal challenge, both in clear violation of the 2nd amendment IMO.

I believe that much of the abuse around drugs is because they are illegal, once you are breaking the law ingesting, why not break it by leaving the kids over night while I go out partying, or beat the crap out of a guy for their wallet to feed my need. I'm sure folks hold other folks up for beer money, but I believe they much more often hold them up for drug money. I might be wrong, or I might be naive but it it wasn't illegal would some of the problems go away or moderate, I believe they would.

Finally, maybe some drugs would have to be regulated or prohibited, ie, pot and coke like tobacco, heroin at a clinic working to wean you off, meth, X continue like we currently are. I don't know if that is a solution, but an honest discussion ought to take place. I also wonder if coke for example were legal and readily available would crack have even been developed, hopefully food for thought.

Sorry it's so long.

[tpaine]

Texaggie79 wrote:

I advocate in court for abused children.
And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.

Please tex, tell us more on how you qualify as an "advocate". -- Is this your new career?

[thinkthenpost]

I'm figure Texaggie works with or for CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) or a similar organization, which means they has more patience than I'll ever have and have also probably seen some disturbing things. Working with abused children is,.... deserving of thanks. Thanks Tex. It also explains why many people take the WOD threads very seriously they've seen how bad people can be and what they do when around those drugs. Rather than abstractly talk about how things ought to be or why they focus or how things are. When you are that close to something it is difficult to be objective.

[tpaine]

Texaggie79 wrote:

I advocate in court for abused children.
And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


thinkthenpost wrote:

I'm ---- actually hearing someone be somewhat reasonable on a WOD thread ---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


You're actually hearing someone that advocates in court that we use drug prohibitions so that we can get kids out of abusive homes quite easily.

'Use a drug, and we take your children'

The 'war on drugs' is destroying our Republic.

[thinkthenpost]

I hope the reason kids would be taken is because of abuse, and laws related to the abuse that a child has received rather than you get high we take your kids. I know here in El Paso County a great deal of cross work takes place between the designated Drug Court and the Family Court when drugs are involved. I'm not a CPS fan, I'm also not a big government fan, and I'm also not a WOD fan, but I am enough of a realist to understand over 50 or 60 years all the things that drive most conservatives crazy grew and put down roots and became entrenched to the point many folks don't realize something came before, to even have a chance of getting back to some semblance of a free country we aren't going to get there overnight, and we aren't going to get there by throwing each other under the bus. (how's that for a run on sentence?)

[tpaine]

"I hope" you say, we "have a chance of getting back to some semblance of a free country."


I fear the more communitarian 'advocates' we have, the less chance of that.

[Texaggie79]

Well, dealing with these families directly I can tell you, legalizing thier hard drug of choice would help nothing but maybe allow them to have more money to pay the bills a little more often. They still wouldn't work, they still would abuse their children they still would be worthless humanbeings that were nothing but a drain on the system.

Legalizing their drug would probably actually create more families like this. Because with the "illegal" stigma taken off, some naive parents might think they can do meth or crack on the weekends while the kids are away only to find out they no longer have any control over their habit and lives.

[Texaggie79]

Please tex, tell us more on how you qualify as an "advocate

It's a volunteer job for a private charity.

[Texaggie79]

Believe me, had these parent's not been getting high, and they were treating their children the same way, you would still agree they should be taken out of the homes.

But sadly, it is the drugs alone that make these parents so dangerous for their own kids. Parent that would sell their own childs bodies for access to drugs. Parent who let their 5 year olds take care of themselves for days at a time.

It's down right horrifying, and just about every single one of them, when you talk to their relatives, they tell you that they were never that way, until they got on the meth, or crack or whatever hard drug it is.

If you legalized it, they would still not be able to afford it legally, because they would still be high all the time, and without a job. Hell, if you made it legal alot of them wouldn't have a job because the local drug store would take over. Then they would do even more desperate things for the drugs.

[thinkthenpost]

In a closer to perfect world I would hope folks would make better choices, but then I also believe welfare has done more to split up the family unit, particularly the black family than drugs have or ever will. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

[tpaine]

Texaggie79 wrote:

I advocate in court for abused children.
And thanks to laws against them, we can get these kids out of these abusive parents homes quite easily.

Please tex, tell us more on how you qualify as an "advocate". -- Is this your new career?

It's a volunteer job for a private charity.

Is the court aware that you consider these parents "-- worthless human beings that were nothing but a drain on the system --"?