Oregon county decriminalizes heroin, meth, cocaine and shoplifting, among others

Originally posted by Rosha
reply to post by Kryties

When was the last time you had an alcoholic drink? Why did you drink it? Was it for the nice feeling you get - the 'pacifying' feeling that you speak so ill of in terms of people who use drugs?

Sorry ..that crap wont work..I dont get baited on this issue and I dont drink or use. Thankfully, I have been clean and sober a very long time. I dont need pacifying anymore..I'm a grown up now and a mature person who can self sooth when I need to, and do so in productive life affirming and useful ways.

When I did..yes it was a pacifier..absolutely...like a babys dummy it provided comfort...unlike a baby I never weaned off it....and it stopped me growing up and accepting life on lifes terms 'like everyone else'..it was a big huge thumb I sucked on for years...until I grew up....untilI HAD to grow up...until people stopped 'helping' me and I had to face the reality of my life and what *I* had allowed it to become, once and for all.

Just because someone chooses to partake of a drug, for whatever reason, they should NOT be punished for it - just as you would not expect to be punished for having a drink.

Then use your own money and go build your own drug farm and drug lab in your home and grow it and cook it there...shoot up in the privacy of your own ( non government supported) home, provide your own ambulance service for your OD emergencies and dont go onto the streets making a scene, streets that dont belong just to you!

If you want to steal my car to go do a break n enter so you can get your fix and feel good for all of 30 secs...yes..you do deserve to be punished for it. In your exercise of YOUR rights...you do not have the right to impede on mine. You cannot claim rights EVER without accepting the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with them and one of those responsibilities of choosing to put your own life at risk is not expecting people to clean up after you!!


If you want to try and justify why you use...you're talking to the wrong person. I have heard them all..said them all. I know first hand..not second..that.there *is* no justification beyond "I want it" and "gimme!"

On the wider level, and in regards to imprisoning people for being caught using, I see it as its being like red lights at traffic stops. No one *wants* to stop at a red light...we're running late or have to be somewhere and the dam light just turned and its a #ful thing that is very annoying.....but I still stop. Why?

I stop because I know to run that light risks my life and the life of another dirver....in that sense..I CHOOSE to stop at the red lights. I make the decision and the choice to obey the red light signal not because I *want* to..or because I am afraid of the fine I might get...but because I am fully aware of the consequences...and I am not an idiot and I dont want to die..and..I dont want to kill someone...its a choice..not just ' the law'.

Being put in prison..is societies way of putting a red light in your face....its a sociatel 'we dont want you to die' and its as simple and difficult as that. Society hasnt the funds or right to put individal 'red lights' for every person..thats not only impractical its impossible..so as a society..we have one set..for all... and the necessary respect for differences comes when people decided to stop.

If you choose to 'drive on through;' and run that light...we cant stop you..no one can..but WE must put it there...because that red light is there for a reason..and that reason isnt just about you and your wants..its about our obligation to our children, to the future you, you may become.. and to ourselves as well.


If you're talking disease model...I can agree with that in regards to alcoholism because the research backs up the inherrent metabolic nature of that drugs affect on the brain in SOME people so afflicted, and so it is scientifically at least, a disease of body as much as mind or emotion/psychology.....science though doesnt provide any evidence beyond the behavoral and emotional when it comes to drug addiction - not beyond the immediate processes of addiction itself.

But they do! Society pays to put them in jail, then keeps paying for them to stay there all the while that person still has access to the same drugs he/she got locked up for.

....and you would be locked up with exactly the same choices as anyone else - to not use if you so desire.
Even allowing for fluid capacity in individals...the choice remains..you can choose to deny hat choice, and the reality of that choice but your not free to deny the consequences of denying that choice...which is..in our society..exclusion from it.

I have a friend doing life for a crime he doesnt remember commiting as he was in blackout..he's been sober for 20years, INSIDE....he's out there every time I see him, sitting in the yard helping others to adjust and helping them to get sober *on the inside*..he wont ever get out. he will die there...but he isnt wasting his time in there....he is doing something about why and what and how and hasnt had a day of self pity yet.

The Prison of drug addiction isnt just four walls of restriction constructed by the state...its one you construct all by yourself!


Yes...as a taxpayer I am happy to pay to keep somones dirty needles out of our kids playgrounds..to keep our streets safe and to keep angry and aggressive addicts out of schools and off the streets until they are no longer a danger to self and others.....prison isnt the best or ideal way to teach that you belong to a wider world than your own mind,but again, I know it is often a significant turning point for many people...its the only way our egalatarian liberal society has to say 'enough already' and show you we mean it....its not societies fault if you dont step up and take that opportunity...its yours.
If you were in Yemen and caught shoting up..you'd be dead..its that simple.

Would you not much rather see that prison money be diverted to the health and rehabilitation system?

If addiction recovery centers were about real and lasting health and rehabilitation not just rest stops for the overpriviliged..yes! To date though, and Ive been around a while now, Ive seen only two places that do the actual job of securing that....the rest..pamper ungrateful adult babies and brats ....and pampering overweaning grown ups isnt societies job either.

Why, again, should others be forced to work all their lives and pay taxes so you can have a holiday and nice gov funded rest and still refuse to clean up your own personal mess?

Methodone programs are merely stopgap measures. Essentially they have taken a substance as equally addictive as heroin and substituted it. Why? Because Methodone is produced in labs by professionals and doesn't contain the filler crap that dealers put in their drugs. Heroin itself is not deadly - it's the fillers they mix it with. Don't believe me? Go ask your grandmother if she remembers when Heroin was sold over-the-counter at pharmacies (called DRUG stores then) and used as a cough medicine.

see..society has grown up...we dont put heroin in drug stores or coc aine in coke any more.. society *learned* the cost of doing that...and has now *learned* the value of life free from drug addiciton. Regardless..what happened 50 years ago doesnt sanction whats happening today.

Being honest...with a success rate < 01% and a recidivism rate > 60%, Methadone treatment is a goverment sanctioned slow suicide for too many.

Go and have another drink mate. Should pacify that urge to rage a bit.

Shock horror...when any reasoned arguments fail he takes the easy way out....true to form. Good luck with that. Truth often hurts..and thats a good thing sometimes.

Again..I dont drink...and if it where your kid that steps on a needle or is bashed for his shoes so some person can "exercise his right" to get high on our expense....you'd be the first one whining 'why why why'.

I know why...been there..seen it..done it...heard it all before...Im over it...but I do get it ...
" it wont happen to you" right...you use the drug it doesnt use you.... drugs are still your solution....they're not mine....and they're not the solution for many people either...people who dont deserve to keep paying time and time again, often with their lives...so you can exercise your rights in complete and utter disregard to the rights of others.

You do have a choice of solutions...whether you like it or not.


Rosha

edit on 12-10-2010 by Rosha because: (no reason given)

I know this was a long post to quote, but it is one of the best ones I have read in a long time so I think it deserves the attention. Wish I could give you ten stars and flags.

The fact that you only recieved a few flags for it and a ton of flack only supports the sorry state our society is in.

That is the problem with addicts, it's impossible to have a real conversation or debate...no matter what you say or how much sense you make they will continue to be in denial.

Go ahead and let the flaming begin, I am done with this thread!

reply to post by Sacri


Is it infuriating because you are being told no to something you want to do, or is it infuriating because you are being told no, which makes it difficult to find the product you want?

The Government is not stopping you from putting whatever you want into your body. They are saying that certain products aren't allowed to be sold. It does not stop you from going and finding where you can buy these products and continue to use them, it just makes it a nono to do so if you are caught.

Also, if its so easy for people to control the use of hard or soft drugs, why is this such a big deal. If its so easy to control, then it should be easy for people to stop using these drugs until they can move somewhere that does allow them.

If you cannot go more than a few hours or days without having a fit over getting a drug, then there might be something more to the habit that is being ignored.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
They are not influenced by it because they have a serious problem, and don't care what it takes to get their next fix. Making an argument based on availability is irrelevant, because all it does is prove that people will go to extremes to get the item they want. That should also tell people that the item itself is a problem, and probably should continue to be restricted / prohibited.

No the item itself has nothing to do with the real problem. It just happens to be the what is available. People can get high off anything; remember meth is made from household objects.

The issue is the underlying psychological and emotional issues that cause self destructive behavior. This behavior is using ANY drug too much; legal or illegal. These people will always find something to abuse.

These people are irresponsible drug users.

However, the truth is MOST people that use drug (yes even hard drugs) are able to do so without seriously hurting themselves or others.

And if these drugs after long term use are damaging than it is the right of the individual to decide if it is worth it.

Just like other legal potentially dangerous activity. We let adults decide if the fun is with the potential for harm.

----

Just to recap.

The "War on Drugs" has not effectively decreased drug use. The price of drugs have fallen and purity is increasing. We waste billions of dollars and imprison millions of innocent people.

Responsible drug users have the right to do drugs.
Irresponsible drug users aren't stopped by intimidation.

The only way to deal with the problem (addiction and abuse) is with education and treatment.

The truth about drugs is the solution; people can decide for themselves what is appropriate use.

Originally posted by Jezus
No the item itself has nothing to do with the real problem. It just happens to be the what is available. People can get high off anything; remember meth is made from household objects.

Then why fixate on getting high off of something illegal? Especially that there are other alternatives around the house that are legal?

Originally posted by Jezus
The issue is the underlying psychological and emotional issues that cause self destructive behavior. This behavior is using ANY drug too much; legal or illegal. These people will always find something to abuse.

Then restricting products, making it harder to get them, is a step in the right direction when helping these people who cannot help themselves?

Originally posted by Jezus
These people are irresponsible drug users.

How do you come to this conclusion? Because they went to jail, or overdosed on a drug? Like sex, something can go wrong the first time you try it, no matter how much you think you know about the topic.

Originally posted by Jezus
However, the truth is MOST people that use drug (yes even hard drugs) are able to do so without seriously hurting themselves or others.

So now we move from not hurting anyone but themselves to not seriously hurting themselves or others. Ignoring the obvious psychological factors involved in drug use and how it can tear a family apart, lets look at the physical damage. Damage is damage, and will continue to be damaged by continuation of the behavior. Moving on to a real medical emergency not related to drugs, where the Paramedics have to get medical control permission to do a jugular stick because there are no veins they can get without it rupturing.

This is caused from "safe" drug use. Since this person never got in trouble because of her drug use, and since the medical issue is not related to drugs, but is now complicated because of it, is she taking drugs irresponsibly?

Do you have the health insurance to pay for the trip to the Hospital for a drug related issue? If not, why should we pay for it. If something goes wrong while taking drugs, I would say based on your argument you assumed the risk, you should assume the Hospital bills as well.

Originally posted by Jezus
And if these drugs after long term use are damaging than it is the right of the individual to decide if it is worth it.

Just like other legal potentially dangerous activity. We let adults decide if the fun is with the potential for harm.

I completely agree on this part. Which means the Government has the right to say what products go to the market, and what products don't go to the market. They also have the right to regulate potentially dangerous behavior, as they do with cigarettes, alcohol, cars, seat belts, etc. The Government represents the people, and not just a small group of people. If we are to make exceptions for drug users, then there will be exceptions for people who want to kill for religious sacrifice.

A line gets drawn somewhere to protect the majority of society.

Originally posted by Jezus
Just to recap.

The "War on Drugs" has not effectively decreased drug use. The price of drugs have fallen and purity is increasing. We waste billions of dollars and imprison millions of innocent people.

Repeating this does not make it true. They broke the law, and paid the price for it. I've said it before, pull there files and see the convictions there, and you will see something other than a one time drug use incarceration.

Originally posted by Jezus
Responsible drug users have the right to do drugs.
Irresponsible drug users aren't stopped by intimidation.

Please point out where drug use is a right guaranteed by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other amendment. This is the same argument people make about not needing to wear a seat-belt in a car, stating its their right.

Guess what, just like drugs, driving is not a right, and can be regulated. Next time you get your driver's license, read the fine print all states have, including that pesky implied consent portion. You can still drive without a seat-belt, but can get ticketed and fined for it. You can exceed the speed limit, but still get cited and fined for it, you can still do drugs, but you can get cited and fined for it. In addition, you do the above enough times, you can get jail time from it.

If you don't like this, either lobby to change it, or walk. Your choice.

Originally posted by Jezus
The only way to deal with the problem (addiction and abuse) is with education and treatment.

Education and treatment still implies there is an issue with the topic. The goal of education and treatment is to get people to stop the behavior. It won't be there to show people how to take "drugs the right way".

Originally posted by Jezus
The truth about drugs is the solution; people can decide for themselves what is appropriate use.

But they can't, and you have already made the distinction in other posts.. people who go to jail are what? doing drugs irresponsibly? You never answered this question. You say the people in jail are innocent, but how do you come to that conclusion not knowing the entire story of how they got there in the first place.

The people in jail for drug violations - Did they use drugs irresponsibly, thereby going to jail for that irresponsible use?

Again we agree.. Because you want to take something that has potential harm doesn't mean the Government has to let someone else make the product for you to use.

There is nothing stopping you from building a lab and making your own drugs. Unlimited supply, cheap labor, lower prices. Why do you need Government approval to do drugs that the majority of people don't do? You don't want the Government telling you what you can or cannot put in your body, then grow / make the stuff on your own.

How come people who are arguing in this thread don't do this?

Could it be people want to do the drugs, but don't want the consequences from making the drugs? Its intresting that people who push for decriminalization are ok with people who manufacture and distribute going to prison.

Your trying to legally justify the lesser of 2 evils.

Out of curiosity, people maintain the use of drugs does not harm anyone but the person taking the drugs. If this is the case, then why is there complete chaos in Mexico by the cartels? Why are they finding people beheaded, prosecutors and Police Officers gunned down, and innocent people who live in these areas killed in the cross fire. Why do we have farms in New Mexico that have been over run by drug cartels out of Mexico, and the recent incident on the lake in Texas where a guy was shot from Mexican cartel members. The Mexican investogator assigned to the case has since been killed.

How is drug use not affecting innocent people?

Al-Jazeera - Drug war stats from 2006 - present

Nearly 23,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since the launch of a government crackdown on drug gangs at the end of 2006, according to a government report. The report, leaked to media on Tuesday, said gang violence has continued surging this year, with 3,365 people killed between January and March.

The confidential report, sent to parliamentarians, indicated security forces have been involved in most of the gunbattles of the past three years: 977 fights have been between gangs and security forces, compared to 309 between rival gangs.

The "War on Drugs" is fueled by ignorance and greed.

It will be remembered as an atrocity.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Then why fixate on getting high off of something illegal? Especially that there are other alternatives around the house that are legal?

Well people have different preferences but mostly because meth is much much much worse for you than natural hard drugs like coc aine or heroin.

Also, if you mean huffing paint and glue and stuff this simply doesn't have a good ratio of high to damage.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Then restricting products, making it harder to get them, is a step in the right direction when helping these people who cannot help themselves?

1. Many people can use these drugs without a problem.
2. Attempting to restrict them doesn't work and creates more problem (a market for criminals, violence, etc.)

Originally posted by Xcathdra
How do you come to this conclusion? Because they went to jail, or overdosed on a drug? Like sex, something can go wrong the first time you try it, no matter how much you think you know about the topic.

Just because someone gets arrested does not mean they were hurting themselves or anyone else.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Do you have the health insurance to pay for the trip to the Hospital for a drug related issue?

This isn't relevant. Many things can be potentially dangerous but we don't outlaw them. We give people information and let adults makes informed decisions.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If we are to make exceptions for drug users, then there will be exceptions for people who want to kill for religious sacrifice.

Why are you being ridiculous?

Many people use drugs without hurting anyone.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Please point out where drug use is a right guaranteed by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, or any other amendment. This is the same argument people make about not needing to wear a seat-belt in a car, stating its their right.

Pursuit of happiness.

Drug use is not in itself immoral. Many people use drugs without incident.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
You say the people in jail are innocent, but how do you come to that conclusion not knowing the entire story of how they got there in the first place.

I didn't say all people...but MANY people are in prison for non violent drug charges. These people are victims of an immoral war. They are innocent and it is horrible that so many of them are in prison.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Out of curiosity, people maintain the use of drugs does not harm anyone but the person taking the drugs. If this is the case, then why is there complete chaos in Mexico by the cartels?

The cartels in Mexico are billionaires BECAUSE of the American "War on Drugs",

The "War on Drugs" has fueled criminals with an extremely profitable market by disrupting the free market.

All this violence is because of this insane war against substances.

reply to post by Maslo

Using drugs directly leads to criminal behaviour, because you cannot control yourself when you use them and are addicted, so you become a threat to society when under the influence of drugs.

This absurd statement is so full of holes and falsehoods it is remarkably demonstrative of your ignorance. There is no empirical data to support your contention that "using drugs directly leads to criminal behavior", and this is why instead of providing any studies what-so-ever, you instead offer merely your opinion.

First, let's address your contention that a person cannot control themselves when using drugs. If you are correct that people cannot control themselves when using drugs, (and presumably you mean psychoactive drugs that alter the brain chemistry, and one must presume this since you are woefully lackadaisical in your use of language), then why are doctors prescribing psychotropic drugs in record numbers? In fact, children are being prescribed psychotropic drugs in outrageously large numbers:

• Percentage increase from 1985-1999 in stimulant psychotropic drugs prescribed to children: 327%.
• Percentage increase from 1991-2000 in stimulant psychotropic drugs prescribed to preschoolers between 2 & 4 years of age: 50%.
• The number of antidepressants prescribed annually for children under 19: 11 million.
• The number of children diagnosed with ADD/ADHD & drugged in 1985: 500,000.
• The number of children diagnosed with ADD/ADHD & drugged in 2002: approximately six million.

healthydoctors.com...

By definition, prescription means:

a. The act of establishing official rules, laws, or directions.
b. Something prescribed as a rule.

Those taking prescription drugs as prescribed are, by definition, controlling their behavior.

Here is a list of drugs prescribed by psychiatrists. Take note how this article makes clear it is not an exhaustive list, and take note of how many drugs, most of them psychoactive, that are listed.

Further, the term "functional addict" which describes a large portion of drug users who are addicted to some sort of drug, or alcohol, but continue to function in a social, work, and family setting, suggests your opinion is not at all based upon any hard data, or educated theory.

Now, let's your address you unsupported claim that drug use directly leads to criminal behavior. First of all, the claim that there is a direct link between drug use and criminal behavior is just speculation, and a speculation first made about one hundred years ago, and since it was first speculated the controversy surround this speculation has been palpable, but those who continue to make the speculation, conspicuously absent of any empirical data, continue to insist that their speculative powers are superior to those who disagree with them. Fortunately, the empirical data regarding the drug/crime connection is not as non existence as it once was, and since there is now empirical data to rely upon, the speculations of the drug/crime connection are, at best, suspect, and at worst, fabricated nonsense.

Consider Nurco, Kinlock, and Hanlon's, "The Drugs-Crime Connection":

Literature reviews have documented that hundreds of studies of the relationship between addiction and crime wer performed from the 1920's to the late 1970's. Several reviewers have commented that these studies contained numerous flaws. As James J. Inciardi has summarized elsewhere, the theories, hypothesis, conclusions, and other findings generated by these studies were of little value since there were considerable biases and deficiencies in their designs. Given the many methodological difficulties, it was impossible to draw reliable conclusions about the magnitude, shape, scope, or direction of drug related crime.

~Nurco, Kinlock, and Hanlon, "The Drugs-Crime Connection"~

In addressing the methodological deficiencies of early studies, the authors cite; the employment of seriously deficient measures of criminality, the preoccupation with "single cause" issue, which is to say the question of how many drug users were criminals first was never taken into account, the use of "captive" samples of narcotics addicts, which is to say that most studies relied upon drug addicts who were all ready convicted of a crime while ignoring any statistics of drug addicts never convicted of any crime, the failure to apply measures of criminal activity over time, and finally, the failure to correctly identify the empirical precursors, correlates, possible determinants, and patterns of criminality, and the ignoring of covariation of such factors within an addict population.

Among these concerns, and what Alfred Blumstein and Jaqueline Cohen called a particular concern, in "more effectively disentangling the apparent drug/crime nexus", is the official arrest records, or "rap sheets", as indicators of criminal activity. As James J. Collins, et al, concluded in their review of 65 studies to determine the methods of criminal activity regarding the individual that; arrest data are a seriously deficient indicator of criminal involvlement--In fact it is more accurate to view arrest data as an indicator of criminal justice involvement." Arrest data indicates how often an individual is caught committing a crime, and that data does not in anyway indicate how often that individual is actually committing a crime. Most importantly, arrest data only addresses the addict who was caught committing a crime, and does nothing to indicate how much crime an addict who has never been caught committing a crime, actually commits a crime, if in fact they do at all.

More effective studies regarding criminal activity and arrests has shown that arrest data as an indicator underestimates the actual amount of criminal activity most addicts arrested engage in before finally getting arrested. The above mentioned Inciardi noted that in one of his samples of 573 narcotic abusers in Miami, many had engaged in criminal activity for up to two years before their first arrest. The actual arrests as an indicator suggest that the link between drug use and criminal activity is extremely low, but only so of those drug addicts that are actually involved in criminal activity.

These samples of under reported arrests in relation to self reported criminal activity, however, are studies taken relying on "captive samples", which means all the drug addicts studied were in jail at the time of the study, which does nothing to distinguish the characteristics of the "captive samples" from those drug addicts who have never been arrested of any crime, nor have the self reported any crime.

In short, the vast majority of studies linking drug use and criminal activity are studies done based on arrest data, any "self reporting" has largely been done on "captive samples", meaning most of these studies have focused on criminals in order to make a link between drug use and criminals, and have largely ignored non criminals who use drugs, in order to make the link between drug use and crime.

Crime rates among drug users are higher than among general population, even if you exclude the crime of drug posession.

You are obviously failing to provide any data or statistics to support this conclusion, and of course, I on the other hand, have provided much data and statistics to challenge the efficacy of your claim. Looking at the problem of linking drug use with criminal behavior from another angle, we can look at the above reported statistics of prescribed psychotropic drugs. Clearly, there is a large portion of children and young adults on prescribed psychoactive drugs. If we were to rely solely on arrest data, this would discount the majority of children on those drugs and only focus on those who had been arrested for a crime. In fact, there is a clear correlation between school shootings and SSRI's, and virtually all shooters in the school shootings were either on, or had recently stopped taking these psychotropic drugs prescribed to them. This correlation can be used to claim a link between psychotropic drugs and violent behavior, but in order to make the link we would have to necessarily ignore the vast majority of children actively taking these SSRI's but are not involved in any violent behavior.

In addition, it leads to serious health problems which society must pay to cure, because all hard drugs are toxic, and we cant leave people to die in the streets. Unless you think we can, because you are that blinded by your anarcho-libertarian ideology.

"Society" doesn't pay a damn thing to "cure" or even treat the health problems caused by drug addiction, or even its controlled use. Individuals pay the price, it is always the individuals that pay, no "society". Society does not have a bank account, nor does it even have a wallet.

Further, it can be fairly extrapolated from your claim that "society pays" the price, that you are advocating socialized medicine, where the price of medical care is paid for by the taxation of individuals. You then take use the advocacy of socialized medicine to advocate regulating personal choices claiming that the expense of certain choices becomes a strain on society, but it can only become a strain on society if society is burdened with socialized medicine.

There is nothing orwellian about it, look up what that term even means.

Orwell's 1984 is surely one of the best known novels of the century. It projects a negative utopia, or dystopia, of a future totalitarian society which uses terror, surveillance, and a repressive bureaucracy to exert total power over the individual.

www.uta.edu...

* Invasion of personal privacy, either directly physically or indirectly by surveillance.
* State control of its citizens' daily life, as in a "Big Brother" society.
* Official encouragement of policies contributing to the socio-economic disintegration of the family.
* The substitution of traditional religion with the adoration of state leaders and their Party.
* The encouragement of "doublethink", whereby the population must learn to embrace inconsistent concepts without dissent, e.g. giving up liberty for freedom. Similar terms used, are "doublespeak", and "newspeak"
* The revision of history in the favour of the State's interpretation of it.
* A (generally) dystopian future.
* The use of euphemism to describe an agency, program or other concept, especially when the name denotes the opposite of what is actually occurring. E.g. a department that wages war is called the "Ministry of Peace" or Ministry of Defence."

en.wikipedia.org...

The drug war you advocate is most assuredly an invasion of personal privacy, a state control of its citizens daily life, the use of the title "Drug Czar" most certainly suggests that adoration of "our leader" is called for, the use of doublethink is evident by your posts alone, where you in one sentence claim that society must pay for the drug use of individuals, while in the same sentence attempt to demonize me for advocating the sovereignty of the individual, then immediately follow that sentence by claiming their is nothing Orwellian about such advocacy. You are clearly relying upon a state sponsored revised history in order to claim that drug use is directly linked to criminal behavior, and given the euphemism "the war on drugs" is actually a war being waged on individuals and not drugs, this is just another characteristic of an Orwellian nature regarding the drug war that you advocate.

They are outlawed because they harm people and society, not because they threaten the establishment.

This is just another example of your doublethink. First, you insist on separating people from society, as if the two are distinguishable, and then follow with an assertion that has nothing at all to do with what I am arguing, and what's worse, attempt to distinguish "the establishment" from society and people, as if each are separate entities. This is classic doublethink and convoluted logic.

Even if we exclude the crime of drug posession, drug users still have higher crime rates (stealing, murders, rapes, all other crimes because they cannot control themselves, economic problems, health services abuse).

Here is a classic example of a propaganda technique, where you just repeat your claim that drug use leads to criminal behavior without ever providing any evidence to support this claim. The technique is constant repetition of an idea, the belief being that the more it is repeated the more likely it will be accepted as truth.

I was talking about illegal poisons, not rat poison. You cannot manufacture sarine or other neural poisons at home, can you? Even if you claim you intent to harm noone with it. There are many substances which you cannot mnufacture or posses without a license.

You most certainly did not make that distinction when you spoke of poisons and only spoke of them in generalities, which is a common characteristic of suppressive people, they tend to speak in generalities, and then when called on their generalities they act offended and defensive, expecting people to believe that it should have been clear what they meant with their generalities. Further, when you finally do get into specifics you specifically mention sarine. While sarine was developed as a pesticide, it only took a year before this poison was passed onto the chemical warfare section of the military, and in fact, the primary use of sarine has been by the military for the purposes of chemical warfare.

The point being that, where you are all too willing use poison as an example of something that is rightfully outlawed, when called on the falsehood of such a claim, and pointed out to you that many poisons exist that are used for a wide variety of positive uses, you dismiss this fact and backpedal claiming you are talking about poisons used by the military in chemical warfare, a practice widely criticized by humanitarians across the political spectrum. However, you do not condemn the use of sarine for chemical warfare, and instead simply speak to its licensing and regulation by government. Governments that use sarine, do so as a form of chemical warfare. Once again, here is a horrifying example of your Orwellian nature where you are all in favor of the state having the right to use sarine, but argue that it should be licensed, and/or outlawed by use of the general public. The power you are willing to cede to the state is dangerous and reckless, and the disregard you hold for the public equally dangerous.

Can you bear arms without license in the US?

Yes.

Can you bear full-auto military grade weapons, grenades, rocket launchers or nuclear weapons in the US?

The banning of arms such as "full-auto" military grade weapons is fairly recent in the history of the U.S., and reflective of yet another Orwellian technique you rely upon. You wish to revise history, and ignore the fact that there was a time when "Tommy guns" and other machine guns were not banned by government in the U.S., nor were grenades, and other military grade weapons, and of course, your referencing nuclear weapons only once again reveals your reckless and dangerous nature, perhaps even criminal, who knows? You do not even think twice about the fact that the U.S. government holds an arsenal of nuclear weapons and how this is a demonstrable and genuine threat to the world, and instead smugly taunt with the question if individuals can bear nuclear weapons.

If this question was seriously asked and the full respect and regard for the 2nd Amendment given when asked, it is quite possible that the U.S. would have never developed nuclear weapons to begin with. Tragically, people like you are not anomalous, and tend to proliferate in government and the military. It is very likely that the question did arise "what of the 2nd Amendment?" when developing the atom bomb, and the decision was made to develop the bomb and engage in a propaganda strategy convincing the public that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to individuals.

Think of legal weapons as soft drugs and illegal weapons as hard drugs. Ones should be legal for general public to obtain, the others should not.

More doublethink! You are creepily Orwellian in your propaganda. I would counter your doublespeak with this:

Think of legal weapons in terms of what the people can have and whatever the people can have governments can have. If it is demonstrable that people can't have them, it is demonstrable that governments can't either. Of course, this is logic for free people and governments mandated with protecting that freedom. What you advocate is something entirely different.

I was not talking about driving an automobile, I was talking about SPEEDING. Speeding in itself also does not produce any victim, its also outlawed because of adverse consequences. Does it mean it should be legal to speed, and you would be prosecuted only after you kill someone?

\

If you weren't talking about an automobile then what was your point of license to drive? But, this is your game, isn't it? Speak in generalities until that backfires on you and then play a game of bait and switch. Reckless endangerment is a crime, and there are certain localities where speeding is demonstrably reckless endangerment is obvious. Speeding in a parking lot filled with people is reckless endangerment, and demonstrably abrogates and derogates the rights of other people, who have the right to reasonable expectation of walking to and from their cars to and from the store without being plowed over by a speeding vehicle.

Conversely, speeding on the highway is much more subjective, and so much so that the speeding limit has changed several times since speeding limits were first set.

There is no reasonable comparison between speeding as reckless endangerment and using drugs.

OK, you disagree in principle with laws which outlaw beahviour leading to crime because of adverse consequences, so lets see what kind of society you are advocating:

Never mind the fact that what follows this statement is a disingenuous assessment of what I advocate, first we would have to accept your premise. That premise being that using drugs leads to crime. This correlation has all ready been challenged as problematic, and lacking any empirical data to support its assumption.

Further, your histrionic attempt to argue that my ideology advocates the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons is premised upon the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for governments to have nuclear weapons. It is not okay for anyone to have these kinds of weapons of mass destruction, and if governments don't want them falling into the hands of individuals, they have no business using them to begin with.

You are not advocating peace, nor are you advocating freedom. What you are advocating is the right for the state to be heavily and dangerously armed, and then use that advocacy as an excuse to disarm the public. It is a well known and long held military strategy that the first thing you do with your enemy is attempt to disarm them. It should be quite clear who you deem as the enemy.

You have willingly engaged in falsehoods and lies to distort what I am advocating, which is freedom, in order to advocate your ideology of tyranny. Only a fool would fall for your propaganda.

Abrogation of BASIC human rights is a crime, because only they are unalienable. If society agrees something should be outlawed, and it is not a basic unalinable human right, there is nothing wrong or illegal with outlawing it. You clearly dont know how legal system works, and the difference between unalienable and alienable right.

Who decides what a 'basic" unalienable right is? How is it that you have come to the conclusion that using drugs is not a "basic" unalienable right?

Unalienable Defined:

Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines unalienable as "not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred; as in unalienable rights" and inalienable as "cannot be legally or justly alienated or transferred to another." The Declaration of Independence reads:

Take note in the subtle difference between the two:

Modern dictionaries blur the difference, as does modern intellectual thought. The modern definition of unalienable is the same as the historical definition of inalienable. The contemporary blurring of the meaning of unalienable and inalienable is evidence of the process of dictionary evolution that Orwell forecasted in “1984.”

www.freedomadvocates.org...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

~Declaration of Independence~

Any person who defines the use of drugs as being within the context of their unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, does not in anyway diminish your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have failed to provide any credible evidence what-so-ever that using drugs is not an unalienable right. You have failed to demonstrate how you as an individual are harmed by another using drugs. You have quite simply, and epically, failed.

Anarcho-libertarian extremist ideologies are as dangerous for the society as collectivist extremism, IMHO. The truth is in the middle.

This again is just another example of your creepy Orwellian doublespeak. Far from being from any middle, you have incessantly relied upon the use of "society" as being the justification for your intrusion into the privacy of individuals and their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your insistence that "society" has authority over any individual, demonstrates how zealously a collectivist you are.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I must say JPZ, that was quite an impressive post.

Thank you for making it, your eloquence is much appreciated.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I must say JPZ, that was quite an impressive post.

Thank you for making it, your eloquence is much appreciated.

Thank you for taking the time to read it, my friend. It is more than likely that who I addressed in that post will not be swayed by my words, as experience has shown that those entrenched in their ideology are rarely swayed by argument, myself included. However, I can hope that by passionately arguing my position with a modicum of intelligence and erudition, that any person not decided on the issue might be convinced by my argument that perhaps the repealing of prohibition laws are generally better for people, than not.

Originally posted by Jezus
Well people have different preferences but mostly because meth is much much much worse for you than natural hard drugs like coc aine or heroin.

Also, if you mean huffing paint and glue and stuff this simply doesn't have a good ratio of high to damage.

So people want the illegal drugs because they can get higher off of it? How is this not a problem?

Originally posted by Jezus
1. Many people can use these drugs without a problem.
2. Attempting to restrict them doesn't work and creates more problem (a market for criminals, violence, etc.)

and many cannot use drugs without a problem. The reason their is a market is because people are addicted to the drug they are doing. If they were not, then they could easily stop. Even more so to those who arent affected by it and can control their behavior.

Originally posted by Jezus
Just because someone gets arrested does not mean they were hurting themselves or anyone else.

Correct - They were arrested for breaking the law.

Originally posted by Jezus
This isn't relevant. Many things can be potentially dangerous but we don't outlaw them. We give people information and let adults makes informed decisions.

The Hospital question is extremely relevant to this for the simple fact there are people out there who "try" a drug and end up overdosing, or failing to control their actions. Some of these people do not have health insurance to cover their experimentation, or worse, their drug addiction.

This is what I am trying to point out to you. Not everyone can control themselves. Not everyone reacts the same way to a drug when the manufacturing is not consistent. You can see this in the pharmaceutical market, where the research is done, testing is done, norms established, human studies for effects etc. The reason this is not done is because most of the drug we are talking about either have no valuable medical contribution, or they are just plain unsafe in the manner they are used in.

Originally posted by Jezus
Why are you being ridiculous?

I'm not being ridiculous, as its a valid question. People have a guaranteed right for religious expression, which is in the Constitution. If its guaranteed then how can the Government restrict it? How can the Government outlaw bigamy?

Through supreme Court rulings that clarified the Government's authority and constitutional questions regarding the topic at hand. If the Government has the right to regulate some religious beliefs, which is in the constitution, then they have a right to regulate the drugs as well, which by the way is not in the constitution.

The pursuit of life, liberty and happiness are there, and are granted with compliance of the laws. If the Government is not suppose to punish, then the founding fathers would never of created a Judicial.

Originally posted by Jezus
Many people use drugs without hurting anyone.

And many more do drugs that end up hurting people.

Originally posted by Jezus
Pursuit of happiness.

The pursuit of happiness, as I stated above, is there when its within the Law. It does not guarantee happiness to those who want to do whatever it wants. If this was the case, religious human sacrifice would be allowed.

Originally posted by Jezus
Drug use is not in itself immoral. Many people use drugs without incident.

You consider it moral, others consider it immoral. This is one of those areas I was talking about with Societal views.

Originally posted by Jezus
I didn't say all people...but MANY people are in prison for non violent drug charges. These people are victims of an immoral war. They are innocent and it is horrible that so many of them are in prison.

They were found guilty in a court of law by judge, jury, or plea bargain / guilty plea. They knew the consequences for doing an illegal drug. And again, morality is different in each person. In this case, with the laws we have, I would assume the majority of people find some drug use immoral, and other drug use acceptable (Marijuana).

As far as non violent drug charges, again we come back to this. Using marijuana as an example, people will not go to prison. Possession of less than 35g is a misdemeanor. If its felony possession the result could be more than a year in prison. The argument earlier was they are being locked up with violent criminals, which is not true.

Sentencing is based on prior history. Placement within the system is based on history. Check the stats on how many people are on P and P for one crime, who do drugs and have the original sentence instated. This will counter your argument about the number of people in jail for drug related offense.

Originally posted by Jezus
The cartels in Mexico are billionaires BECAUSE of the American "War on Drugs",

They are billionaires because people who have "control" want to continue to do drugs. They are billionaires because people think they should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies. Your argument is going back and forth in this area.

If the Federal Government, for argument sake, legalized drugs, do you really think they would allow importation of drugs? Do you think the cartels would be happy about loosing the money? You don't think this would cause a reaction?

I see people on the drug side in this forum talking about treatment instead of jail time, while in the next breath argue the government should not tell them what to put in their bodies.

Which is it... Do we want decriminalization and treatment, or no? The argument for decriminalization almost looks like a front for people to abuse the change in the system. I can do more drugs now because I can just choose rehab time and time again, because im in control when I do drugs.

The only reason people do drugs is because of the effect it has on the body, and nothing more.

Originally posted by Jezus
The "War on Drugs" has fueled criminals with an extremely profitable market by disrupting the free market.

All this violence is because of this insane war against substances.

The war on drugs has failed because we have not done enough to educate our citizens and help people to get off drugs. We have failed in the war on drugs because we give more rights to criminals, than we do victims.

The argument based on "controlling ones self" is bogus. Its like saying because I have advanced training in motor vehicles, I should be allowed to drive as fast as I want.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This absurd statement is so full of holes and falsehoods it is remarkably demonstrative of your ignorance. There is no empirical data to support your contention that "using drugs directly leads to criminal behavior", and this is why instead of providing any studies what-so-ever, you instead offer merely your opinion.

Not his opinion, there are studies that have been done to back this up. Just as there are counter studies done to discredit those reports.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
First, let's address your contention that a person cannot control themselves when using drugs. If you are correct that people cannot control themselves when using drugs, (and presumably you mean psychoactive drugs that alter the brain chemistry, and one must presume this since you are woefully lackadaisical in your use of language), then why are doctors prescribing psychotropic drugs in record numbers? In fact, children are being prescribed psychotropic drugs in outrageously large numbers:

Which are prescribed by a doctor after careful exam and documentation of the issue at hand. Where are illegal drugs falling into this argument? If you want to use it as an argument to decriminalize, then they should be scheduled the same way as Psychotropic - By diagnosis and prescription with medical oversight.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
By definition, prescription means:

a. The act of establishing official rules, laws, or directions.
b. Something prescribed as a rule.

Those taking prescription drugs as prescribed are, by definition, controlling their behavior.

The drugs are helping the person control their behavior. Remove the drugs, and the behavior reverts / changes. There is a reason these drugs are by prescription only - Their ability to be abused.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further, the term "functional addict" which describes a large portion of drug users who are addicted to some sort of drug, or alcohol, but continue to function in a social, work, and family setting, suggests your opinion is not at all based upon any hard data, or educated theory.

I have dealt with many "functional alcoholics" who have had BAC's above .4. Not .04, but .4. If they lean against something they can talk normally. Ask them, or anyone intoxicated for that matter, to multitask, and they cannot. The term functional is not in reference to them being able to carry on a normal existence while continually drunk, at the same time not presenting themselves as a danger to others.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Now, let's your address you unsupported claim that drug use directly leads to criminal behavior. First of all, the claim that there is a direct link between drug use and criminal behavior is just speculation, and a speculation first made about one hundred years ago, and since it was first speculated the controversy surround this speculation has been palpable, but those who continue to make the speculation, conspicuously absent of any empirical data, continue to insist that their speculative powers are superior to those who disagree with them. Fortunately, the empirical data regarding the drug/crime connection is not as non existence as it once was, and since there is now empirical data to rely upon, the speculations of the drug/crime connection are, at best, suspect, and at worst, fabricated nonsense.

This has been documented and logged, just as other reports that counter the argument. Take a look at some of the studies when people were sentenced for drug crimes. They were committing other crimes in the process. They were on P an P when the committed a drug offense etc. Whether you want to believe this is your thing, as the evidence is there to support the accusation. Usually directly from the mouths of those who are heading to prison.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Consider Nurco, Kinlock, and Hanlon's, "The Drugs-Crime Connection":

Literature reviews have documented that hundreds of studies of the relationship between addiction and crime wer performed from the 1920's to the late 1970's. Several reviewers have commented that these studies contained numerous flaws. As James J. Inciardi has summarized elsewhere, the theories, hypothesis, conclusions, and other findings generated by these studies were of little value since there were considerable biases and deficiencies in their designs. Given the many methodological difficulties, it was impossible to draw reliable conclusions about the magnitude, shape, scope, or direction of drug related crime.

Drug-Crime related

Drug related crime stats Report

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You are obviously failing to provide any data or statistics to support this conclusion, and of course, I on the other hand, have provided much data and statistics to challenge the efficacy of your claim. Looking at the problem of linking drug use with criminal behavior from another angle, we can look at the above reported statistics of prescribed psychotropic drugs. Clearly, there is a large portion of children and young adults on prescribed psychoactive drugs. If we were to rely solely on arrest data, this would discount the majority of children on those drugs and only focus on those who had been arrested for a crime. In fact, there is a clear correlation between school shootings and SSRI's, and virtually all shooters in the school shootings were either on, or had recently stopped taking these psychotropic drugs prescribed to them. This correlation can be used to claim a link between psychotropic drugs and violent behavior, but in order to make the link we would have to necessarily ignore the vast majority of children actively taking these SSRI's but are not involved in any violent behavior.

I can speak to this from first hand knowledge. A LOT of the people I arrest for drug have prior history in this area as well as outside of the drug related convictions.. They also have criminal records more often than the people I arrest for other crimes. As I have pointed out and posted before, there are stats to back this up.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
"Society" doesn't pay a damn thing to "cure" or even treat the health problems caused by drug addiction, or even its controlled use. Individuals pay the price, it is always the individuals that pay, no "society". Society does not have a bank account, nor does it even have a wallet.

Further, it can be fairly extrapolated from your claim that "society pays" the price, that you are advocating socialized medicine, where the price of medical care is paid for by the taxation of individuals. You then take use the advocacy of socialized medicine to advocate regulating personal choices claiming that the expense of certain choices becomes a strain on society, but it can only become a strain on society if society is burdened with socialized medicine.

Not really sure where you are getting this from. Hospitals cannot refuse anyone for a medical treatment (Overdose, reaction, etc). If the person does not have insurance, the Government (Federal/State) cover a portion of it, with the rest being eaten by the Hospital. I have had 6 years of working specifically within a Hospital Environment and this issue.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Orwell's 1984 is surely one of the best known novels of the century. It projects a negative utopia, or dystopia, of a future totalitarian society which uses terror, surveillance, and a repressive bureaucracy to exert total power over the individual.

Fear monger much? The pros and cons of doing illegal drugs are well known. You cannot blame the Government for personal responsibility lapses.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The drug war you advocate is most assuredly an invasion of personal privacy, a state control of its citizens daily life, the use of the title "Drug Czar" most certainly suggests that adoration of "our leader" is called for, the use of doublethink is evident by your posts alone, where you in one sentence claim that society must pay for the drug use of individuals, while in the same sentence attempt to demonize me for advocating the sovereignty of the individual, then immediately follow that sentence by claiming their is nothing Orwellian about such advocacy. You are clearly relying upon a state sponsored revised history in order to claim that drug use is directly linked to criminal behavior, and given the euphemism "the war on drugs" is actually a war being waged on individuals and not drugs, this is just another characteristic of an Orwellian nature regarding the drug war that you advocate.

I see once again we are going off on some pointless tangent that demonizes the Government and supports the rights of right wing - left wing extremists groups who feel the Federal Government is the enemy and you are responsible to no one but yourself.

If we gave up the war on drugs, gave in to legalizing it, then we just reversed the entire argument, placing your theory on the side of the Government, against the minority, those wanting it outlawed.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This is just another example of your doublethink. First, you insist on separating people from society, as if the two are distinguishable, and then follow with an assertion that has nothing at all to do with what I am arguing, and what's worse, attempt to distinguish "the establishment" from society and people, as if each are separate entities. This is classic doublethink and convoluted logic.

If you don't separate people from society, then you must accept the conclusion that society thinks drug use is a bad idea. There are studies about the effects of drug use on the individual, as well as societal impacts (The justice system, Law Enforcement, Healthcare, rehab, probation, parole). Lets take a look at how the people get their drugs, taking over neighborhoods to have their drug stash.driving down property values of those around them, causing an increase in crime in the area (damage to houses, cars, people, private property).

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Here is a classic example of a propaganda technique, where you just repeat your claim that drug use leads to criminal behavior without ever providing any evidence to support this claim. The technique is constant repetition of an idea, the belief being that the more it is repeated the more likely it will be accepted as truth.

Kind of like the Drugs are not immoral argument people keep coming up with. There is data to back up the claims. Go to almost any Law Enforcement website that has a corrections facility and you can find basic stats. Check the DOJ for crime statistics nationwide (UCR reporting from local agencies goes into making these reports).

Here is what you were asking for:

Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of National Findings

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You most certainly did not make that distinction when you spoke of poisons and only spoke of them in generalities, which is a common characteristic of suppressive people, they tend to speak in generalities, and then when called on their generalities they act offended and defensive, expecting people to believe that it should have been clear what they meant with their generalities. Further, when you finally do get into specifics you specifically mention sarine. While sarine was developed as a pesticide, it only took a year before this poison was passed onto the chemical warfare section of the military, and in fact, the primary use of sarine has been by the military for the purposes of chemical warfare.

The point being that, where you are all too willing use poison as an example of something that is rightfully outlawed, when called on the falsehood of such a claim, and pointed out to you that many poisons exist that are used for a wide variety of positive uses, you dismiss this fact and backpedal claiming you are talking about poisons used by the military in chemical warfare, a practice widely criticized by humanitarians across the political spectrum. However, you do not condemn the use of sarine for chemical warfare, and instead simply speak to its licensing and regulation by government. Governments that use sarine, do so as a form of chemical warfare. Once again, here is a horrifying example of your Orwellian nature where you are all in favor of the state having the right to use sarine, but argue that it should be licensed, and/or outlawed by use of the general public. The power you are willing to cede to the state is dangerous and reckless, and the disregard you hold for the public equally dangerous.

Another example of obfuscating the debate by latching on to some minor non issue in order to parse words. If you cannot counter an argument then just say so. Attacking part of a larger statment while using it out of ontext is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Can you bear arms without license in the US?


Yes.

If we are splitting hairs, then this answer is wrong. If you are convicted of different types of crimes you can loose the individual right to own a weapon.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The banning of arms such as "full-auto" military grade weapons is fairly recent in the history of the U.S., and reflective of yet another Orwellian technique you rely upon. You wish to revise history, and ignore the fact that there was a time when "Tommy guns" and other machine guns were not banned by government in the U.S., nor were grenades, and other military grade weapons, and of course, your referencing nuclear weapons only once again reveals your reckless and dangerous nature, perhaps even criminal, who knows? You do not even think twice about the fact that the U.S. government holds an arsenal of nuclear weapons and how this is a demonstrable and genuine threat to the world, and instead smugly taunt with the question if individuals can bear nuclear weapons.

And there was a time where you could buy coc aine, heroin and marijuana as well. Just like the above statement, society changes its views on whats a good idea and whats not.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If this question was seriously asked and the full respect and regard for the 2nd Amendment given when asked, it is quite possible that the U.S. would have never developed nuclear weapons to begin with. Tragically, people like you are not anomalous, and tend to proliferate in government and the military. It is very likely that the question did arise "what of the 2nd Amendment?" when developing the atom bomb, and the decision was made to develop the bomb and engage in a propaganda strategy convincing the public that the 2nd Amendment did not apply to individuals.

and until recently the 2nd amendment did not apply to the individual. Again, court cases in Washington DC and Chicago forced this issue, and its now applied. The flaw in your logic though is the USSC has ruled the Government has a right to regulate what type of guns and ammunition are allowed.

Just as they have the right to do for drugs and its use.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
More doublethink! You are creepily Orwellian in your propaganda. I would counter your doublespeak with this:

Think of legal weapons in terms of what the people can have and whatever the people can have governments can have. If it is demonstrable that people can't have them, it is demonstrable that governments can't either. Of course, this is logic for free people and governments mandated with protecting that freedom. What you advocate is something entirely different.

Again the flaw is the criminal element you fail to take into account. The notion if the people can't have it, then the government cannot have it is ridiculous. I refer you to the North Hollywood incident, where the robbers had body armor and fully automatic weapons. Law Enforcement was forced to find a gun shop and commandeer some AR's.

Also, The Government is responsible for more than the average citizen is. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in some places, and by your argument the Government should not have Fully automatic weapons, warplanes, naval vessels, missiles? If this were the case, we would be screwed in a war.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If you weren't talking about an automobile then what was your point of license to drive? But, this is your game, isn't it? Speak in generalities until that backfires on you and then play a game of bait and switch. Reckless endangerment is a crime, and there are certain localities where speeding is demonstrably reckless endangerment is obvious. Speeding in a parking lot filled with people is reckless endangerment, and demonstrably abrogates and derogates the rights of other people, who have the right to reasonable expectation of walking to and from their cars to and from the store without being plowed over by a speeding vehicle.

This is a new one to me. A private parking lot is just that, private. Unless and injury accident occurs, or someone is drunk / dui that results in an accident, or there is more than $,1500 +/- in damage / vandalism depending on state or property damage, its a civil issue.

we don't have authority to enforce anything on private property (unless we are called by the property owners) or there is some other weird circumstance. The crime you are describing above requires a witness to the crime, as well as to be a witness in court. Simply telling an officer this person was wreckless driving in the parking lot will do no good..

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Conversely, speeding on the highway is much more subjective, and so much so that the speeding limit has changed several times since speeding limits were first set.

As have drug laws.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
There is no reasonable comparison between speeding as reckless endangerment and using drugs.

There is... Both are a result of personal responsibility and willful disregard of the law, with consequences for both, just like drug use and possession.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Never mind the fact that what follows this statement is a disingenuous assessment of what I advocate, first we would have to accept your premise. That premise being that using drugs leads to crime. This correlation has all ready been challenged as problematic, and lacking any empirical data to support its assumption.

Further, your histrionic attempt to argue that my ideology advocates the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons is premised upon the idea that it is perfectly acceptable for governments to have nuclear weapons. It is not okay for anyone to have these kinds of weapons of mass destruction, and if governments don't want them falling into the hands of individuals, they have no business using them to begin with.

We wont be putting you on the National Security Council anytime soon. Your failure to see there are countries that hate us because we are a country based on individual freedoms that accept more than one idea is dangerous and ignores the facts.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You are not advocating peace, nor are you advocating freedom. What you are advocating is the right for the state to be heavily and dangerously armed, and then use that advocacy as an excuse to disarm the public. It is a well known and long held military strategy that the first thing you do with your enemy is attempt to disarm them. It should be quite clear who you deem as the enemy.

Please provide documentation the Government is disarming the population.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You have willingly engaged in falsehoods and lies to distort what I am advocating, which is freedom, in order to advocate your ideology of tyranny. Only a fool would fall for your propaganda.

You are not advocating Freedom, but more like Anarchy, where people should be allowed to do what they want with no consequences. As far as the falsehood accusation, you engage in that practice more than anyone I have ever come across. You obfuscate the topic and use large words in hopes people don't see through your non answer. You latch onto small parts of the larger argument and nitpick it for whatever reason you have.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Abrogation of BASIC human rights is a crime, because only they are unalienable. If society agrees something should be outlawed, and it is not a basic unalinable human right, there is nothing wrong or illegal with outlawing it. You clearly dont know how legal system works, and the difference between unalienable and alienable right.

You should, again, probably read up on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, as well as case law that defined these issues. The very issues you ignore while referring back to lines from our constitution before case law defined intent. You bounce back and forth through history, picking the documents that support your argument at any given time, even though its already been settled and defined.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Who decides what a 'basic" unalienable right is? How is it that you have come to the conclusion that using drugs is not a "basic" unalienable right?

How have you come to the conclusion it has?

You use the Constitution to back your arguments, while at the exact same time ignoring the Constitution when it doesn't support your argument. If we want to get technical, since drugs use is not spelled out in the Federal Constitution, then its reserved to the States (which coincidentally enough is what California is arguing). I am going to guess if California wins, you will agree with the case law behind it. If they don't win, you will ignore the fact our Government setup worked correctly, but since you didn't get your way its an entity taking away your perceived rights.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

~Declaration of Independence~

How does our kiss off letter to King George factor into The Constitution of the United States?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Any person who defines the use of drugs as being within the context of their unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, does not in anyway diminish your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have failed to provide any credible evidence what-so-ever that using drugs is not an unalienable right. You have failed to demonstrate how you as an individual are harmed by another using drugs. You have quite simply, and epically, failed.

Gonzales V. Raich

This is how the Federal Government can regulate drugs within a State that allows them. Ruling is from 2005.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This again is just another example of your creepy Orwellian doublespeak. Far from being from any middle, you have incessantly relied upon the use of "society" as being the justification for your intrusion into the privacy of individuals and their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your insistence that "society" has authority over any individual, demonstrates how zealously a collectivist you are.

You have done nothing but invoked parts of the Constitution and ignored Supreme Court rulings when it doesn't fit your argument, while at the same time claiming your rights are being taken away. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for the use of illegal drugs. What it does do, is give the Federal Government, and the States, the ability to control commerce and protect the general welfare by passing laws, which it does.

You have cherry picked your arguments to support your claims, while invoking then ignoring parts of the U.S. Constitution.

The Government refusal to allow drugs is valid, and is not a violation of your rights. If it were, it would have been settled a long time ago.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
So people want the illegal drugs because they can get higher off of it? How is this not a problem?

Getting high is not a problem...

Drug use is not intrinsically attached to other negative behavior.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
and many cannot use drugs without a problem.

Why is it appropriate to arrest all drug users because SOME can't use them responsibly?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is what I am trying to point out to you. Not everyone can control themselves.

Why is it appropriate to arrest all drug users because SOME can't control themselves?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The pursuit of happiness, as I stated above, is there when its within the Law. It does not guarantee happiness to those who want to do whatever it wants. If this was the case, religious human sacrifice would be allowed.

Ridiculous comparison.

Using drug does not infringe on other people's right.

Also, you keep bring up the fact that it is the law. We all know that. That isn't a logical or moral argument.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by Jezus
The cartels in Mexico are billionaires BECAUSE of the American "War on Drugs",

They are billionaires because people who have "control" want to continue to do drugs. They are billionaires because people think they should be able to put whatever they want into their bodies. Your argument is going back and forth in this area.

They are billionaires because drugs can not be legally manufactured and sold in the U.S.

This is exactly why prohibition creates organized crime and empower it. Learn History.

People have a right to do what they want as long as they do not infringe on other people's rights.

MANY people do drugs without incident; and yes even hard drugs...

reply to post by Xcathdra




There is not one shred of evidence to prove that taking drugs leads people to other criminal activites.


No "studies" no "proof" Just propoganda that is fueled by the ignorant that believe it

Originally posted by Jezus
Getting high is not a problem...

It is for other people, which is a problem

Originally posted by Jezus
Drug use is not intrinsically attached to other negative behavior.

You guys can ignore the stats all you want, and use the counter websites to support that position. I can show you, and have, stats that say other.

Originally posted by Jezus
Why is it appropriate to arrest all drug users because SOME can't use them responsibly?

How were these people arrested? Implying we arrest all drug users is a joke and you know it. Of all the drug arrests I have made, its been during the investigation of a crime (traffic stop, shoplifting, burglary etc). I have had a number of arrest for the above that had no drug involvement.

Originally posted by Jezus
Why is it appropriate to arrest all drug users because SOME can't control themselves?

Why are these people who have the drugs stupid enough to have a forced contact with Law Enforcement, putting themselves in that situation?

Originally posted by Jezus
Ridiculous comparison.

Using drug does not infringe on other people's right.

You have no rights under Law, or the Constitution, to do drugs. You have no individual right to do drugs. You have no state right (unless in some Western States) to do drugs.

Originally posted by Jezus
Also, you keep bring up the fact that it is the law. We all know that. That isn't a logical or moral argument.

It doesn't have to be. It is the law. Just by continually saying its immoral doesn't negate the fact it is there, and enforceable. If drug use was a violation of a guaranteed individual right, the judicial system would of ruled on it by now. So no matter how much you don't like that answer, it is what it is. Its illegal to be in possession of a controlled substance -( illegal).

Originally posted by Xcathdra
They are billionaires because drugs can not be legally manufactured and sold in the U.S.

They make money due to the demand for the drugs. They make money because people like the effects of doing drugs. Even the "responsible" drug users are part of the drug war issue. The Government, for failing to help those who have a problem, and the individual, for their ability to be in denial about having a substance abuse problem.

You never answered the other question. Why don't you grow your own marijuana, or have your own meth lab?

Originally posted by Jezus
This is exactly why prohibition creates organized crime and empower it. Learn History.

Which is why it was repealed, then heavily regulated by the Government, including age, availability, how its made, what ingredients can be used, where it can be bought, who can buy it, in addition to criminal consequences for failing to abide by those laws.

You will notice that not all alcohol is allowed here in the U.S.

Originally posted by Jezus
People have a right to do what they want as long as they do not infringe on other people's rights.

And again what were people doing when they were arrested for drug possession?

Originally posted by Jezus
MANY people do drugs without incident; and yes even hard drugs...

and MANY more people do drugs, even hard drugs, that have disastrous, life altering, life ending results.

All its takes is once.

Originally posted by Sacri
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

There is not one shred of evidence to prove that taking drugs leads people to other criminal activites.


No "studies" no "proof" Just propoganda that is fueled by the ignorant that believe it

I provided a link for you to look at in my post - 2009 substance abuse result.

I have seen what drugs do first hand. I have seen the end results of people wanting to do drugs, I have dealt with people on drugs in a Hospital setting. I am not buying into propaganda, since I have seen it first hand. But hey, if you want to ignore anything that says what you put in your body might be deadly, more power to you.

in the end you will become a statistic.

Here, I will help you out:

National Survey on Drug and Health - 2009

Did the Drugs Make Them Do It?

Drug czar Gil Kerlikowske says the latest data from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program "reaffirm the strong link between drug use and crime," while the headline over his office's press release about the survey's 2008 results says, "New Study Reveals Scope of Drug and Crime Connection." But what is the nature of this connection? The survey found that at least half of arrestees in the 10 cities covered by ADAM tested positive for illegal drugs. In the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, by contrast, about 8 percent of respondents reported "current" (past-month) use of illegal drugs.* Even allowing for underreporting in the general population survey, it's clear that drug use is higher than normal among arrestees, which is consistent with the findings of earlier research. But there are several possible explanations for this association.

Substance abuse, not mental illness, causes violent crime

Dr Seena Fazel, a clinical senior lecturer in forensic psychiatry and consultant forensic psychiatrist at the University of Oxford, said: "The relationship between violent crime and serious mental illness can be explained by alcohol and substance abuse. If you take away the substance abuse, the contribution of the illness itself is minimal."

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile Justice System May 1998

Study shows link between cannabis and crime

More than seven out of 10 teenage criminals have smoked cannabis every day for at least 12 months, a government report has revealed. The study shows for the first time the shocking link between use of the drug and a youngster's chances of ending up behind bars. The Youth Justice Board said that, of the 6,500 individuals who pass through young offender institutions every year, 72 per cent have used cannabis "daily" in the year leading to arrest. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

reply to post by Xcathdra




I still fail to see how that proves that drug use is related to crime??


If I walked around the streets or shopping mall and polled people, asking them on the drug use in the past few 3 months, and then came on here saying well out of the 100 people I polled 76 have used, or use drugs in the past 3 months, without commiting any crime that is proof that drug use doesn't lead to crime you would dismiss me also.



Sure you have seen first hand what drugs do, but all you see is the very worst cases, these people will commit crime, rape murder, do whatever with or without drugs.


I too have seen first hand what drug use does, not the same things you have seen why is this ? Because there are different people who use, every day normal upstanding citizens who like to let loose on the weekends, or smoke away and relax after a days work, or love the feeling that a certain drug brings, these people are able to distinguish between the line of whats acceptable useage and whats not. They have their fun, but they still go to work, they still provide for their families, they pay their taxes, they do their jury duties. Normal upstanding citizens.


Every day hundreds thousands of people use drugs, wether they be hard or soft, and live perfect normal lives, the wall street broker, the banker, the mailman, the gas attendant. These people are the sorts of people who use without hitch.

reply to post by Sacri

Read the stats in the articles and you will see what I am referring to.

As far as your comment about people doing drugs and not getting in trouble that's fine. If they are "responsible" users then they will be fine since Law Enforcement can't just walk into anyone's house and look around.

I have also seen, and had to take children, because the parents want to do drugs. Whats even worse is they choose the drugs over the child. How is this not an issue?

The people arrested though aren't sitting in their houses minding their own business. They are doing something that forces contact with Law Enforcement which in most cases is not voluntary where they can just walk away.

You can have drugs on your person, but law enforcement (US anyways) can't just randomly stop you and frisk / search you.

The people were doing something that forced contact, IE investigation of a crime / possible crime. If these people who are arrested for possession are innocent because they are not hurting anyone, then why did they have the drugs on them?

Wouldn't a responsible drug user leave those drugs at home and not bring them into the public (where you do not have an absolute right to privacy)?

Wouldn't a responsible drug user leave the drugs at home if they were going to be doing something that would force contact with Law Enforcement?

If they are responsible drug users, then why are they bringing the drugs with them?

I can assume the intention, but we don't like doing that.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Sacri

 

As far as your comment about people doing drugs and not getting in trouble that's fine. If they are "responsible" users then they will be fine since Law Enforcement can't just walk into anyone's house and look around.

But it's not fine because to source these drugs it forces such person to commit by the law criminal activites, so it's not fine at all.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I have also seen, and had to take children, because the parents want to do drugs. Whats even worse is they choose the drugs over the child. How is this not an issue?

Once again the worst end of the scale, you have no idea how many adults responsibly use drugs, and still look after their children.

That is an issue of course, that's a terrible problem, however it is not set to drugs only, Parents walk out on their children all the time for other reasons.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The people arrested though aren't sitting in their houses minding their own business. They are doing something that forces contact with Law Enforcement which in most cases is not voluntary where they can just walk away.

You can have drugs on your person, but law enforcement (US anyways) can't just randomly stop you and frisk / search you.

The people were doing something that forced contact, IE investigation of a crime / possible crime. If these people who are arrested for possession are innocent because they are not hurting anyone, then why did they have the drugs on them?

Yes the banker who on his way home from work to source some coc aine for the weekend, that gets pulled over by the cops who have seen the deal go down is treated just like any other heinous criminal.

I haven't been clubbing in the US, but here in Australia they have drug detection dogs around the club scene every weekend. So the poor soul who takes a few pills into town with him to have a good night, runs the risk of facing very serious criminal charges. When it simply shouldn't be the case, the government is taking a double stance by allowing someone else to chug as much alcohol as they want (it's ok to use one drug, but not another)

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Wouldn't a responsible drug user leave those drugs at home and not bring them into the public (where you do not have an absolute right to privacy)?

Wouldn't a responsible drug user leave the drugs at home if they were going to be doing something that would force contact with Law Enforcement?

If they are responsible drug users, then why are they bringing the drugs with them?

I can assume the intention, but we don't like doing that.

I think your misunderstanding my responsible drug user ideal, people can take them into parties, festivals clubs, and use responsibly, not causing any trouble, wake up monday morning and get on with their life.


That is responsible use.



I think personally it boils down to.

Keep the laws the way they are.

1. Waste more money
2. Put more people in jail who arguably don't deserve to be there
3. Continue to allow bull# propaganda about drugs and their effects be taught in school, which only disinforms the young on drugs, and they still do them anyway.
4. Continue to place all this money and power in the hands of criminals.
5. Continue to allow the killings of hundreds of people daily over fight for drug turfs.
6. Not make any head way whatsoever to eliminating the problem.


Legalize ALL drugs.

1. The jails will be freed up allowing room for people who deserve to be there.
2. Police will be freed up to allow more effort and time being put into working on cases, and catching real criminals.
3. Proper education in schools about drugs and their effects.
4. All drug wars will be eliminated seeing that everything is legal to produce, sell, and buy.
5. All the money that is wasted on the WOD could be spent elsewhere on more important things, research into fixing illness, world hunger to name a few.

Originally posted by Sacri
But it's not fine because to source these drugs it forces such person to commit by the law criminal activites, so it's not fine at all.

Then don't buy the drugs - Make / Grow it yourself.

Originally posted by Sacri
Once again the worst end of the scale, you have no idea how many adults responsibly use drugs, and still look after their children.

And what kind of example is this setting? That its ok to break the law, and do drugs.

Originally posted by Sacri
That is an issue of course, that's a terrible problem, however it is not set to drugs only, Parents walk out on their children all the time for other reasons.

I am not talking about parents who voluntarily leave. I am talking about parents who are so messed up with their drug habit, that having the kids taken away frees up more money for them to buy more drugs with. Its one thing for a parent to leave due to divorce. That's hard on a kid, but its going to be devastating when they find out the reason they are living with someone else is because their parents chose drugs over there kid.

Originally posted by Sacri
Yes the banker who on his way home from work to source some coc aine for the weekend, that gets pulled over by the cops who have seen the deal go down is treated just like any other heinous criminal.

Once again you are missing my point, but it might be because you are not in the States. I can observe suspicious behavior and initiate a voluntary contact / investigative detention, but here in the States I can't just pull someone over and search them because they were talking to someone in a "suspicious manner". There are exceptions to this (known drug area etc) but its rare. Even if I did pull the person over, unless something is in plain sight, I can ask for consent to search, but the driver does not have to grant it.

Originally posted by Sacri
I haven't been clubbing in the US, but here in Australia they have drug detection dogs around the club scene every weekend. So the poor soul who takes a few pills into town with him to have a good night, runs the risk of facing very serious criminal charges. When it simply shouldn't be the case, the government is taking a double stance by allowing someone else to chug as much alcohol as they want (it's ok to use one drug, but not another)

Our bars/clubs operate under a license issued by the municipality they are in. If they sell alcohol then law enforcement can do the occasional visit and check for under age drinking. I have never seen anything about being able to bring a drug dog. As a matter of fact aside from traffic stops the only other place I see them used is the Airport and high schools. Ive never seen a dog outside of a club / bar.

Out of curiosity how is it a double stance? The Alcohol is government regulated, who can buy it, who can sell it, what goes in it, alcohol amount in it, in addition to consequences on drinking and driving etc. The same could be the same for some drugs, government regulated.

You are making the argument that drugs, all of them, should be completely legal while pointing out how the Government allows the sale of Tobacco and Alcohol. Why should the sale of alcohol and tobacco be regulated, yet the drugs you want to do should not be regulated, and should not have any criminal consequences attached to it?

How is that not a double stance from your point?

Originally posted by Sacri
I think your misunderstanding my responsible drug user ideal, people can take them into parties, festivals clubs, and use responsibly, not causing any trouble, wake up Monday morning and get on with their life.


That is responsible use.

You have changed the goal post again man. Before its do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home. Now it parties, festivals and clubs, where here in the States, you have no expectation of Privacy in Public. Just because you have taken a drug 900 times before this night, doesn't mean you won't have a reaction at the club on use #901.

Should we invoke Mr. Spock here? The good of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?

Originally posted by Sacri
I think personally it boils down to.

Keep the laws the way they are.

1. Waste more money
2. Put more people in jail who arguably don't deserve to be there
3. Continue to allow bull# propaganda about drugs and their effects be taught in school, which only disinforms the young on drugs, and they still do them anyway.
4. Continue to place all this money and power in the hands of criminals.
5. Continue to allow the killings of hundreds of people daily over fight for drug turfs.
6. Not make any head way whatsoever to eliminating the problem.


Legalize ALL drugs.

1. The jails will be freed up allowing room for people who deserve to be there.
2. Police will be freed up to allow more effort and time being put into working on cases, and catching real criminals.
3. Proper education in schools about drugs and their effects.
4. All drug wars will be eliminated seeing that everything is legal to produce, sell, and buy.
5. All the money that is wasted on the WOD could be spent elsewhere on more important things, research into fixing illness, world hunger to name a few.

Legalizing all drugs will not lead to a decrease in the problem. Drug wars would not be stopped because there is now an unregulated market, and cartels being cartels, they want to control it. Proper education on drugs is kinda funny, because no one will agree on it. You guys have shown reports about how drugs are ok, I have shown reports showing they are dangerous.

Here is a better question - Why should schools be teaching kids about doing drugs? To me this is a parental responsibility.

The money saved from not doing anything to the war on drugs will be used to offset the health care costs of people overdosing, medical issues with complications, and Law Enforcement trying to track down the groups making the "bad" stuff because they wanted to make a quick buck and used strict-9 instead of blah blah.


Marijuana and some other drugs decriminalized? Only if treatment is the result, but after so many failed attempts at rehab, something else needs to be done. If drugs became legal for all those responsible people, then the drinking / driving under the influence laws should be toughened. If you are responsible enough to take the drug, then you should be responsible enough to respect the rights of those people on the road who are not drunk / driving under the influence.

They should be allowed based on medical condition, only as a prescription, and under medical control, like all other controlled substances that all the other people have to live by. Which also means not all the drugs on your list will be allowed.

Surrendering the war on drugs won't solve the problem, it will only enhance it. We need a new strategy with treatment and focused help, with emphasis on ending the drug problem.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Not his opinion, there are studies that have been done to back this up. Just as there are counter studies done to discredit those reports.

Unlike myself, who has diligently offered up citations and links to studies, that member has not, and the "studies" you are referring to remain nameless, and of course, do nothing at all to refute my claim, backed up with citations, that there is no empirical data to support the contention that drug use leads to crime. The methodology used in the presumed studies you mention, (you certainly don't name these studies), is woefully suspect, and as such, are studies filled with conjecture...that is to say opinion. Even if that member, or you, had cited a study by name, because those studies offer no empirical data, and only correlation and conjecture, you or that member would be backing up your own opinion with some other opinion. Two opinion, or any number of opinions, do not make a fact.

Which are prescribed by a doctor after careful exam and documentation of the issue at hand. Where are illegal drugs falling into this argument? If you want to use it as an argument to decriminalize, then they should be scheduled the same way as Psychotropic - By diagnosis and prescription with medical oversight.

This odd argument is made in response to my reply to that member, which was:

First, let's address your contention that a person cannot control themselves when using drugs. If you are correct that people cannot control themselves when using drugs, (and presumably you mean psychoactive drugs that alter the brain chemistry, and one must presume this since you are woefully lackadaisical in your use of language), then why are doctors prescribing psychotropic drugs in record numbers? In fact, children are being prescribed psychotropic drugs in outrageously large numbers:

I am quite clearly and specifically addressing that members contention that people cannot control themselves when using drugs, and use empirical data that shows that psycotropic drugs are prescribed to numerous people on a regular basis, and that by definition, using drugs as prescribed is a method of control. Your attempt to turn that specific response into me making an argument for "decriminalization" is disingenuous.

Further, I am not arguing for "decriminalization". I am arguing for repealing the legislation that has criminalized drugs. Decriminalization is too vague and varied to have any standard by which we can all understand what is meant by the term. When I argue that the legislation criminalizing drugs should be repealed, this is much more precise, and leaves little room for misunderstanding.

The drugs are helping the person control their behavior. Remove the drugs, and the behavior reverts / changes. There is a reason these drugs are by prescription only - Their ability to be abused.

Your first point only underscores my point in reply to that member who claims that people who use drugs cannot control themselves, your second point is moot, since people do abuse prescription drugs anyway.

I have dealt with many "functional alcoholics" who have had BAC's above .4. Not .04, but .4. If they lean against something they can talk normally. Ask them, or anyone intoxicated for that matter, to multitask, and they cannot. The term functional is not in reference to them being able to carry on a normal existence while continually drunk, at the same time not presenting themselves as a danger to others.

Clearly, by definition, you were not dealing with "functional alcoholics" by your description. A "functional alcoholic" would not act in the way you have described, and it is arguable that a "functional alcoholic" wouldn't even enter under your radar. You are describing a non functional alcoholic and calling them "functional" while clearly showing they are not. This a fallacious argument.

This has been documented and logged, just as other reports that counter the argument. Take a look at some of the studies when people were sentenced for drug crimes. They were committing other crimes in the process. They were on P an P when the committed a drug offense etc. Whether you want to believe this is your thing, as the evidence is there to support the accusation. Usually directly from the mouths of those who are heading to prison.

Any document that has been countered by another document leaving the truth or facts of the matter in question is only an example of the lack of empirical data I am asserting is the problem. By empirical data, I mean those facts that are provable by observation and experiment. What is proved cannot be countered.

Further, your insistence on relying on confessions from an accused criminal only supports my assertion that the data you are relying on is suspect methodology. If the only data you can provide to show a correlation between drug use and crime is to show only those drug users who commit crimes, you are stacking the deck in order to show causation.

Even further, since the use of certain illicit drugs is classified as a "crime", the likelihood of creating a controlled experiment where drug users speak openly and honestly about their drug use is highly unlikely, since admission to using drugs can lead to an arrest. An effective study needs to take place where a cross section of drug users are used as a sample. If you insist on ignoring any data that suggests there are drug users who do not commit any crimes, in order to argue that drug use leads to criminal behavior, you are not making a scientific argument, you are making a fallacious one.

Drug-Crime related Drug related crime stats Report

Here is a perfect example of the dubious information you present as being a "crime stats report". First of all, it should be noted that the "report" is a .gov "report" from the U.K., and is no doubt government propaganda presented as "fact". Yet, when carefully reading the "fact" this government site provides, certain truths are revealed. Consider the first paragraph provided in the government propaganda presented as a "report":

The links between drug use and crime are clearly established. In fact, around three-quarters of crack and heroin users claim they commit crime to feed their habit. It is our priority to break this damaging chain.

Three quarters of crack and heroin users? Are we to believe this report sampled a cross section of people, instead of the "captive samples" they most likely relied upon? It is after all, a government "report". Are we to seriously believe that people who have not been all ready arrested for the possession of, or trafficking in crack or heroin volunteered for a study in order for this government site to claim that three fourths of those sampled claimed to commit crime to feed their habit?

The only "source" this "report" provides is "recorded crime" figures, which underscores the findings found in the study I cited in the above post that the data used to link drugs to crime relies upon arrest figures, which more correctly shows a correlation between law enforcement and drugs than it does show a correlation between drug use and crimes. It also supports the presumption that the figures they used to make the claim that three fourths of crack and heroin users commit crimes to support their habit was gained by using "captive samples". This methodology is incredibly biased, and by no means offers up any proof linking drug use to crime. The best this report can do is show correlation, and correlation does not prove causation.

I can speak to this from first hand knowledge. A LOT of the people I arrest for drug have prior history in this area as well as outside of the drug related convictions.. They also have criminal records more often than the people I arrest for other crimes. As I have pointed out and posted before, there are stats to back this up.

Your pretense at speaking to an argument I made, is precisely that, a pretense. Here is what I said, that you "speak to" offering up anecdotal "evidence":

You are obviously failing to provide any data or statistics to support this conclusion, and of course, I on the other hand, have provided much data and statistics to challenge the efficacy of your claim. Looking at the problem of linking drug use with criminal behavior from another angle, we can look at the above reported statistics of prescribed psychotropic drugs. Clearly, there is a large portion of children and young adults on prescribed psychoactive drugs. If we were to rely solely on arrest data, this would discount the majority of children on those drugs and only focus on those who had been arrested for a crime. In fact, there is a clear correlation between school shootings and SSRI's, and virtually all shooters in the school shootings were either on, or had recently stopped taking these psychotropic drugs prescribed to them. This correlation can be used to claim a link between psychotropic drugs and violent behavior, but in order to make the link we would have to necessarily ignore the vast majority of children actively taking these SSRI's but are not involved in any violent behavior.

You ignore the fact that there is a correlation between school shooting and SSRI's, but that are demonstrably a multitude of children taking SSRI's, and when compared to the relatively low numbers of school shootings, that the correlation between SSRI's and violence is suspect, and instead what you do is offer up your own anecdotal evidence, claiming that of the people you arrest those who are using drugs have bigger rap sheets than people who don't. Further, while I have effectively cast a shadow on arrest records as a definitive methodology for linking drug use to crime, you keep insisting on relying on this methodology to claim a link.

Not really sure where you are getting this from. Hospitals cannot refuse anyone for a medical treatment (Overdose, reaction, etc). If the person does not have insurance, the Government (Federal/State) cover a portion of it, with the rest being eaten by the Hospital. I have had 6 years of working specifically within a Hospital Environment and this issue.

I asserted that "society" does not pay but that individuals do, and all you have done is back up my assertion with your own understanding. If the government is picking up part of the tab, they are doing so by the tax dollars they collected, and those tax dollars were collected from individuals. The remaining portion of the tab "eaten" by the hospital means those individuals expecting profits from the hospital can expect less because of this, which means individuals paid for this health care. "Society" did not pay, but very real quantifiable people did.

Fear monger much? The pros and cons of doing illegal drugs are well known. You cannot blame the Government for personal responsibility lapses.

I am blaming the government and their sycophants for insisting they have a right to control the behavior of individuals, and that they have the authority to decide what is and what isn't a right. This is Orwellian, and of course, typical of the Orwellian doublespeaker, instead of directly addressing that argument you ignore it and speak to something else and attempt to make it appear as if that reply is in direct response to my argument. If you had a valid argument you would have made it instead of deflecting.

I see once again we are going off on some pointless tangent that demonizes the Government and supports the rights of right wing - left wing extremists groups who feel the Federal Government is the enemy and you are responsible to no one but yourself.

You spent the vast majority of this last post I am replying to going off on pointless tangents, and just like criminals always lock their doors, people who make pointless tangental arguments at some point accuse others of doing the same.

In the United States of America, we have a system of government, both federal and state, that derive their authority from the Constitutions ordained by the people. These Constitutions are express limits on government not on the people, and have granted government a limited amount of power, and these governments must stay within the bounds of those limits in order to remain lawful and just. When I argue that government has stepped outside of its bounds, this is not some pointless tangent demonizing government, this is my right and my responsibility to do so. God knows that government officials such as you are highly unlikely to do so, and instead will spend their time arguing for tyranny, and demonizing classes of people in order to justify this tyranny.

If we gave up the war on drugs, gave in to legalizing it, then we just reversed the entire argument, placing your theory on the side of the Government, against the minority, those wanting it outlawed.

First, I am not in favor of "legalizing" drugs, I am favor of repealing the legislation that has prohibited its use and sale. Secondly, if the situation were reversed, I would not be arguing in favor of government, I would be arguing in favor of unalienable rights, just the same as I am doing now. The best government is that which governs least, and when it does govern it does so in defense of unalienable rights of individuals.

If you don't separate people from society, then you must accept the conclusion that society thinks drug use is a bad idea.

If this were true, then there would be no argument in this thread, would there? What this statement reveals is that you view all those who agree with your opinion as people who belong in society, and all those who disagree with your opinion as people who don't belong in society. Given you are a law enforcement officer, this a disturbing revelation.

There are studies about the effects of drug use on the individual, as well as societal impacts (The justice system, Law Enforcement, Healthcare, rehab, probation, parole).

Once again, and with the exception of "health care and rehab" studies, you rely upon the biased studies of government agencies in order to support your opinions. Pointing to another bias that agrees with your bias does not make your bias a fact.

Lets take a look at how the people get their drugs, taking over neighborhoods to have their drug stash.driving down property crimes of those around them, causing an increase in crime in the area (damage to houses, cars, people, private property).

Let's take a hard look how prohibition has created this effect, and let's take a hard look at how these symptoms did not exist prior to prohibition, and let's really take a hard look at the very damaging effects the drug war has had on numerous people, ultimately affecting "society" adversely.

Kind of like the Drugs are not immoral argument people keep coming up with.

Talk about your pointless tangents. Let's be clear here, I have not once made any reference to the morality of drug use one way or another, so when you use my assertion that another member is using propaganda technique of constant repetition to make the comment above, either it is getting too late in the day for you, or you are playing your own games of propaganda.

There is data to back up the claims. Go to almost any Law Enforcement website that has a corrections facility and you can find basic stats. Check the DOJ for crime statistics nationwide (UCR reporting from local agencies goes into making these reports).

And here you are constantly repeating the law enforcement data claims, as if they alone are all that is needed to have the empirical data necessary to make an informed decision.

Here is what you were asking for: Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of National Findings

How can you possibly conclude that government issued report based on findings made by administrative agencies within that government is the empirical data I was looking for? Is this report fairly construed as empirical data? Let's just take a look at some of their findings:

Marijuana was the most commonly used illicit drug. In 2009, there were 16.7 million past month users. Among persons aged 12 or older, the rate of past month marijuana use and the number of users in 2009 (6.6 percent or 16.7 million) were higher than in 2008 (6.1 percent or 15.2 million) and in 2007 (5.8 percent or 14.4 million).

Are we to believe that a survey made by the NSDUH, and SAMHSA, respectively surveyed more than 16.7 million people to come to this conclusion? Surely if 16.7 million past months users were surveyed then the number of total respondents must have been quite a bit higher. The fact of the matter is that this is an estimate, but where they begin with their first claim by qualifying that the numbers they present are an estimation, they drop this qualification instantly and all subsequent claims are presented as fact, not an estimate.

In 2009, there were 1.6 million current coc aine users aged 12 or older, comprising 0.7 percent of the population. These estimates were similar to the number and rate in 2008 (1.9 million or 0.7 percent) but were lower than the estimates in 2006 (2.4 million or 1.0 percent).

Presented as fact, not an estimate.

Hallucinogens were used in the past month by 1.3 million persons (0.5 percent) aged 12 or older in 2009, including 760,000 (0.3 percent) who had used Ecstasy. The number and percentage of Ecstasy users increased between 2008 (555,000 or 0.2 percent) and 2009.

Presented as fact and not an estimate.

In 2009, there were 7.0 million (2.8 percent) persons aged 12 or older who used prescription-type psychotherapeutic drugs nonmedically in the past month. These estimates were higher than in 2008 (6.2 million or 2.5 percent), but similar to estimates in 2007 (6.9 million or 2.8 percent).

Presented as fact, and not an estimate. And what do all these estimated figures presented as fact prove? If the numbers are to be believed, what they prove is that prohibition and the "war on drugs" is not working, but continuing to cost more than $40 billion in both federal and state tax dollars combined, clocking in at more than $600 dollars per second to fight a drug war they are quite clearly losing.

Another example of obfuscating the debate by latching on to some minor non issue in order to parse words. If you cannot counter an argument then just say so. Attacking part of a larger statment while using it out of ontext is ridiculous.

This, of course, is in response to my reply to another member who first claimed that poisons were only allowed by license, and when I called that member on that, that member replied claiming they were only referring to the types of poisons used in chemical warfare, and when I spoke directly to that pointing out that chemical warfare is perpetuated by governments, you pipe in and call this obfuscation. It is you obfuscating, not I. It is you desperately attempting to dissemble, not I. It is you doing this out of context, not I. I spoke directly to what that member said, and if it was out of context, it was that member speaking out of context not I, but since that member agrees with you, you ignore that and hope to make it seem as if I am the one speaking out of context. Your fallacies are what are ridiculous.

If we are splitting hairs, then this answer is wrong. If you are convicted of different types of crimes you can loose the individual right to own a weapon.

How ironic you make this argument directly after accusing me of obfuscation and out of context argumentation. And of course, you are replying to my one word response to another members question, and that answer was yes. Yes, people can bear arms in the U.S. without a license, and your obfuscation, claiming my answer is wrong, is ridiculous. My one word answer of yes to the question was not "splitting hairs", that's what you just did, genius.

And there was a time where you could buy coc aine, heroin and marijuana as well. Just like the above statement, society changes its views on whats a good idea and whats not.

I did not make any statement that "society changes on what's a good idea and what's not", this has been your pathetic argument made ad nauseum. The fact that people could once buy coc aine, heroin and marijuana without being arrested for it is evidence of its nature, which would be an unalienable right to do so, and that unalienable right has been abrogated and derogated by unlawful means.

and until recently the 2nd amendment did not apply to the individual.

This is a flat out lie! The 2nd Amendment has always applied to the individual. Prior to the recent ruling you fail to name, District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller, and even more recently; McDonald v. Chicago, there were only five other SCOTUS rulings pertaining to the 2nd Amendment. The first of those five rulings is:

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)

Here is a bit of that text in regards to the 2nd Amendment:

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."

The Cruikshank ruling held that the 2nd Amendment applied only to Congress and not the states, but made perfectly clear that the enumeration of the 2nd Amendment was not a granting of the right to keep and bear arms, because that right preexisted the Bill of Rights. It also made clear that the 2nd Amendment only prohibits Congress and the federal government from infringing upon this unalienable right, and does not prohibit states from doing so, but in no way validated the prohibition of this unalienable right and instead suggested that when it comes to its infringement from a state, or fellow citizens, that they look to protection from of that right from "internal police".

Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)

In Presser, the Court reaffirmed what was held in Cruikshank that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the federal government in terms of its prohibition of infringement, but in an opinion rendered that was dicta, not holding, it was considered that:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

Because this was dicta and not holding, there was still no SCOTUS ruling on the individuals right to keep and bear arms, but as dicta, it still served as other authorities on the matter, and the legal reasoning that the states could not prohibit any able bodied person from keeping and bearing arms because such an act directly conflicted with the federal governments right to raise a military force, and that all able bodied persons capable of keeping and bearing arms constituted a militia.

Miller v. Texas (1894)

Frank Miller was convicted of murder but claimed in appeal that his 2nd and 4th Amendment rights were violated under the 14th Amendment. The Court upheld Cruikshank again, and refused to consider the 14th Amendment argument, claiming:

"And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court."

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Here the Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling held against Frank Layton and Jack Miller regarding the violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act, and specifically in regards to short barreled shot guns, remanding the case back to the lower court to give Layton and Miller a chance to prove that short barreled shot guns did indeed contribute to "the efficiency of a well regulated militia". On what a "well regulated militia" meant, the Court had this to say:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

A 1996 Law Journal article interprets this text to mean:

while far from clear, this passage is not inhospitable to the view that it is a private individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected. For only if there existed such a "body of citizens" in possession of "arms supplied by themselves," could they, should the need arise, be "enrolled for military discipline" to act "in concert for the common defense."

www.guncite.com...

There have been lower courts, as is often the case, that have mis cited the Miller ruling to mean that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right" and not an individual right, but in now way shape or form did the Supreme Court in the Miller Case make such a ruling.

Lewis v. U.S. (1980)

In this ruling the SCOTUS only tangentially referenced the 2nd Amendment as it was not an issue brought to the Court, and Lewis had asserted his 5th and 6th Amendment rights had been violated. The reference to the 2nd Amendment is found in a footnote of that ruling:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").

The legislative restrictions they are speaking to is the legislation denying a convicted felon the right to keep and bear arms, and further noted it was customary to deny convicted felons the right to vote, hold union office, or practice medicine as well. By reaffirming the Miller Case, however, they upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms as it pertains to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

No where in any Supreme Court ruling will anyone ever find any language to support the contention that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right", nor any language denying that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. It is outrageous that you, as a police officer, are attempting to argue that until recently people did not have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms, and that only after The Supreme Court granted this right did it become an unalienable right. It is absurd, and a gross misunderstanding of what unalienable rights are.

Again, court cases in Washington DC and Chicago forced this issue, and its now applied.

It was always applicable and the Court rulings you are referring to would never have seen the light of day had individuals not forced the issue and asserted their unalienable rights. It is not as if The Supreme Court just whimsically decided to step into legal matters in D.C. and Chicago, and tell these people whats what. They heard the arguments made by private individuals asserting their rights were being violated, and agreed with this, and then based upon the requests of these private individuals who exercised their rights to petition the government for a redress of grievances, did the SCOTUS tell D.C. and Chicago what's what. They did not magically pull a rabbit out of a hat and declare "Presto! Keeping and bearing arms is now an individual right!" They acknowledged that it was always a right, and that individuals had the right to expect protection of that right.

The flaw in your logic though is the USSC has ruled the Government has a right to regulate what type of guns and ammunition are allowed.

This is not a flaw in my logic and it is a leap of logic you are making. The government has a right to regulate what type of guns and ammunition are allowed as it pertains to the efficient preservation of a militia. There is nothing in what I have argued that contradicts this ruling.

Just as they have the right to do for drugs and its use.

Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause has been widely expanded to mean just about anything and everything, but in order to make this expansion it has been necessary to pair the Interstate Commerce Clause with the Necessary and Proper Clause, and this has been the case ever since Wickard v Filburn which dramatically increased and expanded Congress ability to regulate commerce.

The flaw in your logic, however, is that you believe that all SCOTUS rulings are binding upon the people, as opposed to the correct and proper way to view their rulings, which would be binding upon government, and it should be noted that the Supreme Court upheld the 18th Amendment as Constitutional, but the people told all branches of government to piss off and their mind their own damn business and drank booze anyway.

As then President Andrew Jackson once said regarding a SCOTUS ruling in Worcester v. Georgia:

"They have made their ruling, now let them enforce it!"

Jackson's defiance of that SCOTUS ruling is perhaps the most famous example of good old American non acquiescence, but it is not, by far, the only example of non acquiescence. If the good people of California vote overwhelmingly in support of Proposition 19, it makes little difference how much the federal government huffs and puffs in regard to this ballot measure, and while they can use their force to prosecute people who rely on Proposition 19 to use and traffic marijuana, good luck in finding a jury willing to convict.

Again the flaw is the criminal element you fail to take into account. The notion if the people can't have it, then the government cannot have it is ridiculous. I refer you to the North Hollywood incident, where the robbers had body armor and fully automatic weapons. Law Enforcement was forced to find a gun shop and commandeer some AR's.

Ridiculous? Really? Then how is it your own argument only supports my contention? The North Hollywood incident only demonstrates that the government relied upon the very same weapons the people were capable of owning. Further, and most importantly is the notion that if it is a bad idea to let individuals own nuclear weapons, you can bet your sweet patootie it is a real bad idea to let governments own them. This is why the strategy of mutually assured destruction is an acronym spelling out M.A.D., because it is madness! This is why so many nations are up in arms regarding Iran's nuclear capability, and North Korea's nuclear capability, and let's not pretend that the U.S. and other governments are any saner.

Also, The Government is responsible for more than the average citizen is. Fully automatic weapons are illegal in some places, and by your argument the Government should not have Fully automatic weapons, warplanes, naval vessels, missiles? If this were the case, we would be screwed in a war.

This is not my argument at all. I am not asserting that individuals shouldn't have fully automatic weapons, warplanes, or even naval vessels or missiles, I am asserting that no one should have nuclear weapons, not any individual, nor any government. All the rest are not fairly defined as weapons of mass destruction. Certain weapons, such as nuclear weapons, and the aforementioned sarine, and other agents of chemical warfare are weapons of mass destruction, and a sane populace would be arguing for the disarmament of such weapons, not arguing that governments should have them but not individuals.

If keeping and bearing arms is to be understood in the way the SCOTUS has understood it, then owning fully automatic weapons, warplanes, naval vessels, and missiles most assuredly add to the efficiency and preservation of a militia. Owning nuclear weapons or chemical or viral agents that can destroy everyone, enemies and allies alike, does not in anyway add to the efficiency or preservation of a militia.

This is a new one to me. A private parking lot is just that, private. Unless and injury accident occurs, or someone is drunk / dui that results in an accident, or there is more than $,1500 +/- in damage / vandalism depending on state or property damage, its a civil issue.

Welcome to the real world, pal:

Va. Code § 46.2-864: Reckless in Parking Lot

This statute covers driving that endangers “life, limb or property” on private property open to the public and on public roads under construction. The most common examples of private property open to the public are parking lots.

www.avvo.com...

The California Vehicle Code defines reckless driving as driving a vehicle “in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.” You can be charged with reckless driving on public roads or in a public or private parking facility. A reckless driving charge can, and often does, come along with other criminal charges stemming from the same incident.

Code of Alabama 1975, Title 32 (Motor Vehicles and Traffic), Section 32-5A-190 (Reckless driving):

(a) Any person who drives any vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard for the rights or safety of persons or property, or without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of reckless driving.

Alaska Statutes, Title 28 (Motor Vehicles), Chapter 35 (Offenses and Accidents), Section 40. (Reckless Driving)

(a) A person who drives a motor vehicle in the state in a manner that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to a person or to property is guilty of reckless driving. A substantial and unjustifiable risk is a risk of such a nature and degree that the conscious disregard of it or a failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

Arizona

28-693. Reckless driving; classification; license; surrender

A. A person who drives a vehicle in reckless disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

Arkansas Code, Title 27 (Transportation), Subtitle 4 (Motor Vehicular Traffic), Chapter 50 (Penalties and Enforcement), Subchapter 3 (Offenses and Penalties Generally)

(a) Any person who drives any vehicle in such a manner as to indicate a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

California Vehicle Code§ 23103.5: Wet Reckless or Reckless Driving Involving Alcohol (Priorable as a California DUI)

(a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.
(b) Any person who drives any vehicle in any offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't really think I need to go through all the several states in order to get my point across. What is interesting to me, is that while you as a law enforcement officer are adamant that using drugs is a crime that you must arrest people for, you then act surprised that reckless driving in a parking facility where people are present and in clear and present danger is considered to be a crime. I think this clearly demonstrates your priorities.

we don't have authority to enforce anything on private property (unless we are called by the property owners) or there is some other weird circumstance. The crime you are describing above requires a witness to the crime, as well as to be a witness in court. Simply telling an officer this person was wreckless driving in the parking lot will do no good..

None of what you have said is true. If a person murders someone on private property, surely you as a law enforcement officer have the authority to enforce the law. If a person commits theft on private property, surely you have the authority to enforce the law, and I don't think anyone here buys the idea that if they were doing drugs on private property you would helplessly shrug your shoulders and say; "Gee, lucky for you that you're on private property."

In regards to the specific crime of reckless driving, if you as a law enforcement officer witness this crime, you are expected to uphold the law. If such a crime happens, and a person manages to survive the crime of reckless driving of another, that person can file a verified oath swearing that a crime was committed:

The information, dated August 20, 1979, charges that on or about July 1, 1979, respondent was present in Bay County, Fla., and obtained an automobile from one Stimmett by issuing a personal check for $1,300 drawn upon a closed account at an Alabama bank. After describing this transaction in detail and alleging that respondent acted with knowledge that there were insufficient funds on deposit to cover his check, the information charges that respondent thereby [452 U.S. 920 , 921] committed two felonies: (a) obtaining a motor vehicle with intent to defraud and (b) passing a worthless check. 1 The information is verified by an oath in which the prosecutor swears that the charges "are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true, and which, if true, would constitute the offense therein charged," and also that the information "is filed in good faith."

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux Conversely, speeding on the highway is much more subjective, and so much so that the speeding limit has changed several times since speeding limits were first set.

As have drug laws.

Which only supports my contention that the "drug laws" are not based upon any objective facts, and are highly subjective.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux There is no reasonable comparison between speeding as reckless endangerment and using drugs.

There is... Both are a result of personal responsibility and willful disregard of the law, with consequences for both, just like drug use and possession.

Wrong again! Speeding recklessly so as to endanger other people is not at all a comparison to drug use and possession. One demonstrates the willful disregard for other peoples rights, and the other is a personal choice that does not in any way harm other people.

We wont be putting you on the National Security Council anytime soon. Your failure to see there are countries that hate us because we are a country based on individual freedoms that accept more than one idea is dangerous and ignores the facts.

Pffffft. Who do you think your kidding? Other countries hate us because of our individual freedoms, while you spend hours for day on end in this thread arguing why you as a law enforcement officer should have the right to continue arresting drug users? Right.

How about this? Other countries hate us because we were not only the nation that first developed and used nuclear weapons, but because we have proliferated and placed arsenals of nuclear weapons in other countries, while aiming an arsenal at home at other countries, and then using our ownership of nuclear weapons as an excuse to engage in imperialism, justifying bombing other countries, and any collateral damage that brings, as just a part of doing business. You don't think its at all possible other countries hate us for this?

No, of course you don't, instead you want to defend the U.S. governments right to keep on making and aiming nuclear weapons while simultaneously arguing that the we the people should be limited in what weapons we can bear, and then absurdly claiming other countries hate us for our individual freedoms. Please.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux You are not advocating peace, nor are you advocating freedom. What you are advocating is the right for the state to be heavily and dangerously armed, and then use that advocacy as an excuse to disarm the public. It is a well known and long held military strategy that the first thing you do with your enemy is attempt to disarm them. It should be quite clear who you deem as the enemy.

Please provide documentation the Government is disarming the population.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Where in the above quote have I asserted that the government is disarming the population? Read again what I wrote, and stop obfuscating.

You are not advocating Freedom, but more like Anarchy, where people should be allowed to do what they want with no consequences. As far as the falsehood accusation, you engage in that practice more than anyone I have ever come across. You obfuscate the topic and use large words in hopes people don't see through your non answer. You latch onto small parts of the larger argument and nitpick it for whatever reason you have.

Look at your own language, you believe in tyranny so vehemently that while you're pulling the "anarchy" card, you use the word "allowed" in terms of the people. Stupidly ignoring the fact that I have several times in this thread made clear that all people have unalienable rights and that those rights mean that no one can abrogate and derogate another persons rights, you foolishly attempt to frame that has doing what we want without consequence. Your foolishness is only accentuated by your complaint that I "use large words", and while you want to claim I am nitpicking, you have made the post you have, nitpicking away, in your clumsy oafish ways.

You should, again, probably read up on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, as well as case law that defined these issues. The very issues you ignore while referring back to lines from our constitution before case law defined intent. You bounce back and forth through history, picking the documents that support your argument at any given time, even though its already been settled and defined.

Between you and I, I think it is perfectly clear who runs the risk of running afoul of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and it sure isn't me, Napoleon. Sooner or later you are going to wind up acting under color of law with the wrong person, and then you will discover just how much you know about case law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and few here are impressed with your "knowledge" thus far.

You use the Constitution to back your arguments, while at the exact same time ignoring the Constitution when it doesn't support your argument. If we want to get technical, since drugs use is not spelled out in the Federal Constitution, then its reserved to the States (which coincidentally enough is what California is arguing). I am going to guess if California wins, you will agree with the case law behind it. If they don't win, you will ignore the fact our Government setup worked correctly, but since you didn't get your way its an entity taking away your perceived rights.

Since you're getting technical, why don't you explain why in several posts you have ignored my assertion that each State comes with a Constitution that expressly Declares Rights, while claiming the federal Constitution doesn't apply to the states? Several times you have sidestepped this issue, and here you are again, pretending as if I have not on several occasions relied upon State Constitutions to make clear that certain inalienable rights are made clear.

How does our kiss off letter to King George factor into The Constitution of the United States?

Typical of every tyrant since King George, you too dismiss the validity of the Declaration of Independence. Never mind the fact that I posted it to make clear what unalienable rights meant, you saw the opportunity to piss all over the document and took it. Nice job, Stalin.

Gonzales V. Raich

This is how the Federal Government can regulate drugs within a State that allows them. Ruling is from 2005.

The Supreme Court has made its ruling, now let them enforce it. Jury nullification is increasingly becoming a part of the American vernacular. Pay attention, watch and learn.

You have done nothing but invoked parts of the Constitution and ignored Supreme Court rulings when it doesn't fit your argument, while at the same time claiming your rights are being taken away. Nowhere in the Constitution does it allow for the use of illegal drugs. What it does do, is give the Federal Government, and the States, the ability to control commerce and protect the general welfare by passing laws, which it does.

No where in the Constitution does it allow for free speech either, but that fact seems to get lost on you. No where in the Constitution does it allow for freedom of the press, bu that fact seems to get lost on you. No where in the Constitution does it allow for the right to keep and bear arms, but that fact seems to get lost on you. The 1st Amendment does not allow anything, and it certainly doesn't allow Congress to make any laws that would infringe upon the peoples right to free speech, and freedom of the press, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't allow anything either, and it certainly doesn't allow for any federal official to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, and the 9th Amendment, and Amendment you love to pretend doesn't even exist, doesn't allow anything either, but it certainly makes clear that just because certain other rights have been mentioned, that the federal government does not have any authority to disparage or deny any other rights retained by the people.

You have cherry picked your arguments to support your claims, while invoking then ignoring parts of the U.S. Constitution.

Uh-huh. You just tried to argue that the people can only do what the Constitution allows them to do, so don't lecture me on "cherry picking", sport.

The Government refusal to allow drugs is valid, and is not a violation of your rights. If it were, it would have been settled a long time ago.

Of course, it makes sense that you're the one who claims I use the Supreme Court when it suits my purposes, then ignores them when it doesn't, and of course it was you who made the argument that the 2nd Amendment only recently became a right for the individual, and now you arguing that if drug use was a right it would have been settled a long time ago.

Your passion for tyranny is not impressive. Your want of suppression of the peoples rights is offensive. You are not above the law, and no badge, or tin star will give you any legal authority to trample over the rights of people. Your willful disregard for your own State Constitution reveals your lawlessness, and pity the people in your county, for surely you are a dangerous soul, ready to harm people just as any other thug would.