The Real Hawkeye
member
Agreed. Prohibition leads to more crime and moves us closer to a total police state every year it is enforced. I do not use illegal drugs, and never have. My position is based both on pragmatism and libertarian principle.
Gun-toting Prof: NRA member on anti-gun campus
- Thread starter hillbilly
- Start date
- Status
atek3
Member
So all the stock brokers doing blow, the workaday guy who smokes pot on the weekends, etc. etc. these people all obtain their funding illegally? Is that what you are saying. Or are you specifically refering to Crack? Remember, biologically crack is no different from cocaine , so the ole 'psychotic violent behavior' doesn't stick as neatly as it does with say PCP.
Great, but before you damn eighteen people to a 6x6 cell and a roommate named bubba maybe you should try talking to them first. Say something like "look, I don't care what you do in the confines of your home, but if your crackhead clientele even thinks about stealing my stuff, jacking my car, or hurting my wife, tell them the man at 2345 willow road is good friends with mr. smith and mr. wesson." If he's an honest fellow, great. If he's a scumbag POS Then maybe a non-specific complaint to the PD, "ya my neighbor's friends are violent thieves, I've asked him to rein them in but to no avail, would you mind giving him a ring."
In each of these scenarios we've addressed the behavior's that affect you. Maybe I'm naive thinking that you could possibly engage in discourse with 'those folks' but who knows.
atek3
Unlucky
member
Not all obtain their funding illegally, but all are stealing; any employee who is impaired steals productivity from his employer. Many people who do drugs are talented and may still be able to function at a high level, yet below their optimum. Others, however, never did function that highly and they are reduced to abject conditions.
Pot is no better or worse than legal alcohol, from my point of view. I doubt that consumers of it need to steal except because they were too lazy or stupid to be employed to begin with. Still, use of pot, like alcohol, isn't an endearing quality and is not particularly conducive to maintaining employment when used injudiciously. Neither is it particularly healthy, same as booze.
Biologically?
Do you mean chemically?
I'd say not, as there are other substances, perhaps acting as adjuvants that enhance the uptake of the cocaine. The means of delivery is critical too. Smoking produces a more intense cascade of the drug to the brain than snorting; you could think of this as higher dosage. Many drugs have different effects at higher dosages, including psychotic episodes. All people react differently, so one person may become a raging psychopath while the other just tunes out when given the same drug and dosage.
I don't really want to engage in discourse. I view this pretty much the same as any number of regulated and zoned businesses. My neighborhood is residential, hence I don't want a commercial enterprise nearby. I guess I could say that 24hr. convenience stores also draw a criminal element, just to be fair.
I don't really want to damn anyone but the drug dealer, while the other 18 could be ticketed for their drug use and encouraged not to come back lest they face a vagrancy rap. I don't particularly want to wait until these people do something to me or my property before action is taken. This is purely selfish and I'd be likely to call the cops if a bum decided to camp out on the sidewalk in front of my house as well.
The_Antibubba
Member
Crack Thread
This started out as a story about a pro-gun professor.
I've known a few crackheads, and tweakers. They are not like the pot smokers, or the magic mushroom crowd. They are extremely agitated, violent, and desperate for more crap. They are animals. Yes, I generalize. And yes, neither crack nor meth would have come about if less dangerous drugs had been legal and easy to get. The point is, I back this prof 110%. A neighborhood crackhouse is like having a hornet's nest in your kitchen-just because you haven't been stung yet doesn't mean it's safe.
A few-a very few-who become crackheads EVER break free. And very few of those are ever productive, or not longing for it.
Nuff said.
This started out as a story about a pro-gun professor.
I've known a few crackheads, and tweakers. They are not like the pot smokers, or the magic mushroom crowd. They are extremely agitated, violent, and desperate for more crap. They are animals. Yes, I generalize. And yes, neither crack nor meth would have come about if less dangerous drugs had been legal and easy to get. The point is, I back this prof 110%. A neighborhood crackhouse is like having a hornet's nest in your kitchen-just because you haven't been stung yet doesn't mean it's safe.
A few-a very few-who become crackheads EVER break free. And very few of those are ever productive, or not longing for it.
Nuff said.
The Real Hawkeye
member
The prof did the right thing, because the fact that those drugs are illegal means that those who deal in them tend to be desperate criminals. People have a right to clean up their neighborhoods of such slime balls. If, however, none of this were illegal, the motive for getting people hooked would be gone, as only small profits would be available in the trade, and the number of users overall would decrease. Also, those that did use would not tend to be the criminally violent, as they could get their fix very cheaply.
I am all in favor, by the way, of outlawing public drunkeness, and being publicly high. The majority have a right to legislate regarding activities in the public square.
I am all in favor, by the way, of outlawing public drunkeness, and being publicly high. The majority have a right to legislate regarding activities in the public square.
Dannyboy
Member
No offense, guy, but this is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. Have you ever met someone jacked up on crack? For the most part there is no reasoning with them. On top of that, you basically think that we should threaten them AND give them our address as well. Brilliant.
Eskimo Jim
Member
I've read Mike Adams' work for quite a while and enjoy his writings very much. They are well thought out and very entertaining to read. It's a shame that such nonsense goes on.
Gun control for the most part is the same as victim disarmament.:banghead:
When will people learn?
Standing Wolf, boy you sure did draw a fine bead on this topic and pull the trigger.
-Jim
Gun control for the most part is the same as victim disarmament.:banghead:
When will people learn?Standing Wolf, boy you sure did draw a fine bead on this topic and pull the trigger.
-Jim
from Unlucky
What, are we SLAVES, that any loss of productivity is STEALING from our 'Employers'? If doing drugs impairs my work effectivity, that's between me and my employer. The drug-users have to accept lower pay or getting fired if they insist on coming into work impaired. This holds true whether it be alchohol, tobacco, caffeine, pot, red meat, the couch, or any others on the list. Note that I listed caffeine. It IS a drug. It's legal, and has what many consider a POSITIVE performance on their work. Some studies have shown that pot users are better drivers after a joint than without. Becase of the WOD, we have all sorts of studies that concetrated on finding negative aspects of drugs, and not looking for positive.
Interesting enough, I've read that studies have shown that the percentage of population that abuses drugs remains more or less constant. Abuse in this case is defined as severe loss of functionality as a result of unrestrained usage.
Besides, it's all a personal responsibility thing. I don't smoke, drink only a couple of drinks a year, and do any of the illegal list. I don't even use OTC meds regularly. If you want to harm yourself, it's your thing, not the governments. Much less the federal government.
What, are we SLAVES, that any loss of productivity is STEALING from our 'Employers'? If doing drugs impairs my work effectivity, that's between me and my employer. The drug-users have to accept lower pay or getting fired if they insist on coming into work impaired. This holds true whether it be alchohol, tobacco, caffeine, pot, red meat, the couch, or any others on the list. Note that I listed caffeine. It IS a drug. It's legal, and has what many consider a POSITIVE performance on their work. Some studies have shown that pot users are better drivers after a joint than without. Becase of the WOD, we have all sorts of studies that concetrated on finding negative aspects of drugs, and not looking for positive.
Interesting enough, I've read that studies have shown that the percentage of population that abuses drugs remains more or less constant. Abuse in this case is defined as severe loss of functionality as a result of unrestrained usage.
Besides, it's all a personal responsibility thing. I don't smoke, drink only a couple of drinks a year, and do any of the illegal list. I don't even use OTC meds regularly. If you want to harm yourself, it's your thing, not the governments. Much less the federal government.
MaterDei
Member
"IF it were legal it wouldn't require such violent and predatory behavior to succeed selling it."
That is one hugh if. The reality is that it IS illegal.
That is one hugh if. The reality is that it IS illegal.
Unlucky
member
You are paid to do a day's work, so doing less than that is stealing. If your employer can adjust what he's paying you based on your productivity, then it would not be theft. You can always quit and go on welfare, so you aren't a slave.
Isn't that what your employer should already be doing (setting your wages at what he deems your work worth)? . . . unless . . . are your unionized? 
It's good to know that there are some pro-RKBA professors at universities these days -- I'm not sure if there were any at mine...
It's good to know that there are some pro-RKBA professors at universities these days -- I'm not sure if there were any at mine...
Loss of productivity
I guess my point is that in a free society, if you choose to use drugs or do any of a number of things that results in your performance at work suffering, that your employer can make a choice on whether to adjust your pay, or even whether to continue employing you.
They already have to deal with this problem occasionally with alcohol users. Heck, somebody might just suddenly decide to become lazy. My point is that the cause doesn't matter, the result does, and it's the employer's choice on what to do, not the gov's.
Let them have an anti-drug policy if they want. They just have to be aware that finding workers might be a bit harder, and they'll probably have to pay a little more for non-drug using employees. Of course, I live in a right to work state, so firing workers is very easy. Getting a job is easy too, because there's no need to get into a union, and the employer can get rid of them if they don't work out.
Nebraska's a right to work state. Unions don't have much power here, so yes, employers can adjust wages as they see fit, within the terms of the employment contract. Of course, the employee can always quit (no notice required!), so they need to pay enough to keep the worker from finding another job. Min wage is $5.15/hour here. Even McD's pay starts at $6-7 for High Schoolers here.
I guess my point is that in a free society, if you choose to use drugs or do any of a number of things that results in your performance at work suffering, that your employer can make a choice on whether to adjust your pay, or even whether to continue employing you.
They already have to deal with this problem occasionally with alcohol users. Heck, somebody might just suddenly decide to become lazy. My point is that the cause doesn't matter, the result does, and it's the employer's choice on what to do, not the gov's.
Let them have an anti-drug policy if they want. They just have to be aware that finding workers might be a bit harder, and they'll probably have to pay a little more for non-drug using employees. Of course, I live in a right to work state, so firing workers is very easy. Getting a job is easy too, because there's no need to get into a union, and the employer can get rid of them if they don't work out.
Nebraska's a right to work state. Unions don't have much power here, so yes, employers can adjust wages as they see fit, within the terms of the employment contract. Of course, the employee can always quit (no notice required!), so they need to pay enough to keep the worker from finding another job. Min wage is $5.15/hour here. Even McD's pay starts at $6-7 for High Schoolers here.
Unlucky
member
What about if you drink coffee for two hours trying to get rid of the "buzz" from the night before out of an eight hour shift? I think most government entities would file some sort of penalty against an employer who only paid for the six hours of work he actually got from the employee on the clock. Hence, the government is involved.
To go back to your original post, yes, this ought to be the case. However, drug users are now considered to be "disabled" and, depending on the size of the employer (I think it is 20 or 30 employees), terminating them would be a violation of the "Americans with Disibilities Act."
One of Many
Member
Murder is a crime; it is against the law to commit murder. If that was the only law, the Police would have to wait and watch as murder was committed before arresting the killer.
To prevent murder we make another law. It is now a crime to attempt murder. So the police have to wait and watch someone try to murder another (with high probability of success) before arresting the (attempted) murderer.
To reduce successful attempted murders we make another law. It is now a crime to commit assault. The Police have to wait until assault is committed before arresting the (attempted) murderer. Too many people die of assault.
To reduce death due to assault, we make possession of deadly weapons a crime.
You see the pattern. Every law is an attempt to prevent at an earlier stage, a serious crime against life or property.
Drug sellers and users have been shown statistically to be much more likely to be the perpetrators and victims of these crimes. That is why drug use/possesion/sales is a serious crime.
Take the drug seller and/or user off the streets, and the remainder of the population is much safer. That to me is sufficient justification for making drugs illegal.
To prevent murder we make another law. It is now a crime to attempt murder. So the police have to wait and watch someone try to murder another (with high probability of success) before arresting the (attempted) murderer.
To reduce successful attempted murders we make another law. It is now a crime to commit assault. The Police have to wait until assault is committed before arresting the (attempted) murderer. Too many people die of assault.
To reduce death due to assault, we make possession of deadly weapons a crime.
You see the pattern. Every law is an attempt to prevent at an earlier stage, a serious crime against life or property.
Drug sellers and users have been shown statistically to be much more likely to be the perpetrators and victims of these crimes. That is why drug use/possesion/sales is a serious crime.
Take the drug seller and/or user off the streets, and the remainder of the population is much safer. That to me is sufficient justification for making drugs illegal.
a random jerk
Member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 24
He got a crackhouse raided?
Good for him!
If you think crackhouses don't destroy neighborhoods, you go live near one for a week or three. I guarantee you'll want to pin a medal on this guy for having the testicular fortitude to stick his neck out about it.
Nothing destroys neighborhoods like crackhosues. Nothing.
Good for him!
If you think crackhouses don't destroy neighborhoods, you go live near one for a week or three. I guarantee you'll want to pin a medal on this guy for having the testicular fortitude to stick his neck out about it.
Nothing destroys neighborhoods like crackhosues. Nothing.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Welcome to THR, One of Many.
"To reduce death due to assault, we make possession of deadly weapons a crime."
Murder is a crime, attempted murder is a crime, and assault is a crime. These are all offenses for which the perpetrator can and should be arrested. But the arrest has to come after the act. You can't arrest someone for having the means or even the thought of commiting any of those crimes.
"Possession of deadly weapons" is an offense which often requires proof which demonstrates that the possessor had intent, and intent is something that prosecutors are loathe to pursue. When it comes to charging actual Bad Guys who have priors, the weapons charges usually are dropped. It's only when the person with no priors---like you or me---is found in possession of "deadly weapons" that such a minor infraction is pursued.
Murder, attempted murder, assault, and other violent crimes have been crimes for eons. It's been in the last century that politicians have grandstanded and said, "we're going to make these crimes even more criminal if the perpetrator uses a weapon." Weapon usually meaning a gun. Who cares if it's a gun, knife, or the urn that was holding Grampa's ashes? It's still the same crime, just with a new name.
Pretty much any new "tough" law I can think of is just a re-hashing of an existing law. Sammy Scumbag abducts a child, rapes and then kills her. Three crimes, but the public is still outraged. "There oughta be a law!" Along comes Peter Politician to satisfy their outrage with his new proposal that usually won't really affect Sammy, but will affect you or me.
"To reduce death due to assault, we make possession of deadly weapons a crime."
Murder is a crime, attempted murder is a crime, and assault is a crime. These are all offenses for which the perpetrator can and should be arrested. But the arrest has to come after the act. You can't arrest someone for having the means or even the thought of commiting any of those crimes.
"Possession of deadly weapons" is an offense which often requires proof which demonstrates that the possessor had intent, and intent is something that prosecutors are loathe to pursue. When it comes to charging actual Bad Guys who have priors, the weapons charges usually are dropped. It's only when the person with no priors---like you or me---is found in possession of "deadly weapons" that such a minor infraction is pursued.
Murder, attempted murder, assault, and other violent crimes have been crimes for eons. It's been in the last century that politicians have grandstanded and said, "we're going to make these crimes even more criminal if the perpetrator uses a weapon." Weapon usually meaning a gun. Who cares if it's a gun, knife, or the urn that was holding Grampa's ashes? It's still the same crime, just with a new name.
Pretty much any new "tough" law I can think of is just a re-hashing of an existing law. Sammy Scumbag abducts a child, rapes and then kills her. Three crimes, but the public is still outraged. "There oughta be a law!" Along comes Peter Politician to satisfy their outrage with his new proposal that usually won't really affect Sammy, but will affect you or me.
One of Many:
I had about a page written to try to answer you post. But I couldn't come up with anything me or other people haven't said a hundred time before, even in this thread, so I deleted it.
I have been exactly where you are now. I used to be very pro-drug war. I have even used your line of reasoning on myself a time or two to keep myself from seeing the obvious. Please don't take that the wrong way. I don't mean it as a slam. It is not easy to reevaluate long-held and emotional views. Again, not a slam. I am describing myself.
If you are interested in exploring reasons why keeping drugs illegal is a bad idea read this thread. Every possible argument for or against it is in there. Be patient and consider what is being said (it won't be easy the discussion gets a little heated at times) and read through to the end.
Also, reread some of the posts in this thread. The reason why this is actually backwards is discussed.
Laws can't prevent anything.
Look into "proir restraint".
You should also realize that your line of reasoning will make it impossible for you to defend you right to carry a gun. By arguing for the War on Drugs you have argued yourself out of your firearms. The principles are the same. That might be something you did on purpose. I don't know where you stand on that.
Welcome to THR. You'll like it here.
I had about a page written to try to answer you post. But I couldn't come up with anything me or other people haven't said a hundred time before, even in this thread, so I deleted it.
I have been exactly where you are now. I used to be very pro-drug war. I have even used your line of reasoning on myself a time or two to keep myself from seeing the obvious. Please don't take that the wrong way. I don't mean it as a slam. It is not easy to reevaluate long-held and emotional views. Again, not a slam. I am describing myself.
If you are interested in exploring reasons why keeping drugs illegal is a bad idea read this thread. Every possible argument for or against it is in there. Be patient and consider what is being said (it won't be easy the discussion gets a little heated at times) and read through to the end.
Also, reread some of the posts in this thread. The reason why this is actually backwards is discussed.
Laws can't prevent anything.
Look into "proir restraint".
You should also realize that your line of reasoning will make it impossible for you to defend you right to carry a gun. By arguing for the War on Drugs you have argued yourself out of your firearms. The principles are the same. That might be something you did on purpose. I don't know where you stand on that.
Welcome to THR. You'll like it here.
another okie
Member
I don't count as a professor; I'm a junior college instructor. (That's our title, "Instructor.") We get paid about the same as high school teachers, but at least we don't have bathroom duty.
There are at least four fierce pro-2nd Amendment teachers at my school, but most are in math and science. There are a half dozen more men and women that hunt and shoot regularly, and I would guess easily half the teachers here own guns. Of course, this is Oklahoma, where even the pro-Clinton Democrats have a .357 stashed at home.
I think at large universities you're going to find the gunnies in engineering, science and business, but since politics is not the subject matter in those courses you tend not to hear about the views of those professors. It is certainly true that in the liberal arts you are going to find a lot of mushy Kumbaya types.
There are at least four fierce pro-2nd Amendment teachers at my school, but most are in math and science. There are a half dozen more men and women that hunt and shoot regularly, and I would guess easily half the teachers here own guns. Of course, this is Oklahoma, where even the pro-Clinton Democrats have a .357 stashed at home.
I think at large universities you're going to find the gunnies in engineering, science and business, but since politics is not the subject matter in those courses you tend not to hear about the views of those professors. It is certainly true that in the liberal arts you are going to find a lot of mushy Kumbaya types.
One of Many
Member
Possession of deadly weapons (firearms - without a lawfully issued license to carry) while not on your own property or business, or transporting from one of these locations to a shooting area, repair shop, purchase store or police (to register) for lawful purpose, is a crime in Michigan. Intent to carry for illegal purposes is included in the law.
The intent is part of the determination whether a knife with a blade longer than three inches is legal at the state level. In some localities any knife is illegal (even if the persons has a CPL and carries a gun legally).
While in practice these laws may only be enforced against persons with no previous criminal record, their purpose is to allow the police to arrest someone they consider to be a dangerous threat, when no other violation has occured.
Drug laws are also preventive in nature. If drug users and sellers did not damage other people in society, there would be no reason for drug use to be illegal. If we (productive taxpayers) are willing to cover the cost of paying for the drugs addicts use, and their food, clothing, shelter and medical care, while they do nothing productive to support themselves, then by all means make drug use legal.
The intent is part of the determination whether a knife with a blade longer than three inches is legal at the state level. In some localities any knife is illegal (even if the persons has a CPL and carries a gun legally).
While in practice these laws may only be enforced against persons with no previous criminal record, their purpose is to allow the police to arrest someone they consider to be a dangerous threat, when no other violation has occured.
Drug laws are also preventive in nature. If drug users and sellers did not damage other people in society, there would be no reason for drug use to be illegal. If we (productive taxpayers) are willing to cover the cost of paying for the drugs addicts use, and their food, clothing, shelter and medical care, while they do nothing productive to support themselves, then by all means make drug use legal.
Agreed, Mr. Clark.
MANY of the laws that we face today were either meant to be "selectively enforced," or inconsequential (look into 'pork'). However, people who seek power never seem to be satisfied, and they end up taking more than was ever expected. The more rights we lose, "inconsequential" or not, bring us one inch closer to the brink.
MANY of the laws that we face today were either meant to be "selectively enforced," or inconsequential (look into 'pork'). However, people who seek power never seem to be satisfied, and they end up taking more than was ever expected. The more rights we lose, "inconsequential" or not, bring us one inch closer to the brink.
- Status
