atf bust in nashville this week

Status
Not open for further replies.
atf bust

Otherguy...the insistant reason for outlawing illict drugs and making others very hard to obtain legally is one I listed earlier. When people lose all inhibitions under the influence they make choice that hurt or kill others. Those among us who are walking the path toward life have a right to be free from intimidation. I don't care who invented what where drug and gun laws are concerned. If you think drugs don't hurt people other than the users and sellers consider this: Walk into a crappy flat where mom and dad are cooking a little crank and toddlers are all over the room they're cooking in. Those labs are many times dangerous, yet the little kids aren't able to choose where they live and what they breathe.
Go into a front porch and watch mom, dad or grandma stuff their stash into the diaper of an infant.
Partner that isn't hysteria or prejudice. It is, rather, public safety.
 
aryfrosty, I suggest we also outlaw caffeine, alcohol, and any substance containing either.
 
drugs are bad & should be legal

How many good kids have had their lives ruined because they smoked a joint?
I bet a lot!
I lost a security clearance because at 17 I admitted to a drill SGT that I had tried marijuana, my whole career gone because I had smoked a little pot months before thinking of joing the Army!

I think all drugs are stupid and you shouldn't use them, but destroying millions of young men and women can't be the solution.

The Taliban chopped off the hands of drug users and China might execute you for their use.

These are not the people to emulate!

I've had to bury family members due to their legal drug use (nicotine)
I myself used marijuana to quit ciggs and now my only "drug" use is coffee and tea...no ...I don't smoke pot and now, I hate it and can not tolerate to be around pot users, or drunks, or smokers or speed freaks...any drug users save coffee drinkers.

As far as I can glean from the typical stupid ill informed article, the guy is being railroaded.
 
Besides all that, he's accused of growing MJ not consuming it in public.

I'll agree that the misuse of drugs which could cause harm to others should be criminalized (such as drunk driving) but honestly if someone sits in a room alone somewhere and consumes this crap, yeah that's awful and they shouldn't do that, but the idea that it should be illegal is ludicrous.

You can't enforce it, for starters. You shouldn't have a law you can't enforce.
 
artfrosty

I know a beautiful blonde 21 year old Christian gal who is selling her body, cheap, to support her drug addiction.

If it was legal she could afford the 10 a day instead of the 200 a day it cost.

By insisting on keeping drugs illegal you are supporting all kninds of criminal
enterprises and creating a new generation of Kennedys...

Kennedys got their wealth from bootlegging....

Criminals love drug laws, as do pedophiles...lets keep the black market going!:barf:
 
ATF

Your man sitting in a California jail is indeed sad. Have you ever heard of Morphine Sulfate? I have been a hospice volunteer for years and I have not witnessed on Ca patient who can't manage their pain with legal meds.
Oh, and fled to Canada and was extradited? Sounds like Canada didn't another pot head in their country any more that Americans do.
Human rights. Interesting you should bring that into play. That's the same BS used by the UN to try to govern America. One world, under them...
Guaranteed rights are protected by the founding documents. Other than that, we have never signed off on or voted on laws putting us under the mantle of the UN's one world government. The human rights pap is what insists that prisoners of war are entitled to instant civil rights and have to be tried by a jury of their peers only after some idiotic judge decides which court has jurisdiction.
You want the keep "Big Brother" out of the equation by saying the feds have no right to make laws governing us. What about that? Governed by governments. That is what they do, guys.
One bad news item for the moron who was growing dope is that after 36 years every drug case I've seen personally has been at the state level. I was always aware that the big kids like DEA had mandates for the cases they made. Likely 9 out of 10 cases were local charges.
 
ATF

Gunsmith I agree with you a hundred %.
I firmly believe that if enough people band together they can influence legislators to the degree that they work to change the law. It seems a lot like getting the cart before the horse. So long as it is against federal, state and local laws and ordinances the the pot smokers need to do without. Everybody seems to be swinging all around the principle that gets my personal goat. The smokers and users create much pain and heartache. Using drugs which can cause a person to become addicted or even simply habituated has an terrible impact on countless people who don't smoke pot. Families are forced apart by a member's dope habit. The users rob and murder...often their own familiy...to get the money for the next fix.
 
We have beat the subject of good/bad/indifferent WOD plumb to death, and that horse is still dead.

Drug laws as they are do indeed exist, and that's harsh reality.

So: Stay near the subject of DEA/ATF and "paraphenalia" and the ramifications thereof...

:), Art
 
actually, i was hoping you'd close it. the only thing worse than a moderator closing an interesting thread, is leaving one gone astray open :)
 
Ary, you have GOT to be kidding!!!!

"Your man sitting in a California jail is indeed sad. Have you ever heard of Morphine Sulfate?"

So you are advocating giving him one of the most addictive substances on earth, one that is easy to overdose and die from, to replace one that is not physiologically addictive and has no known death causing dose???????

That my friend is beyond stupid.
 
The bleating about common household items being drug paraphernalia is quite amusing.

Let me give you an example of how it really works. If someone has a couple of clean glass tubes approximately 4 to 5 inches long, they are not drug paraphernalia. However, if those tubes are charred and covered in crack residue they are drug paraphernalia. The difference is painfully obvious to anyone who has actually had to determine what is a crack pipe and what isn't.

The same is true of a grow op. Merely having the equipment to grow plants is not a marijuana grow op. Having that equipment along with marijuana plants and seeds is a marijuana grow op. Again, it's painfully obvious to anyone who has actually dealt with this issue.

Components of a meth lab is the same deal. Merely having some the items that are often used in meth production is not enough to say someone has the components of a meth lab, it's how those items are being used. Again, painfully obvious to those who have experience with this.

Finally, the real determination is when all the evidence and testimony is presented to a jury, and the jury makes a determination of fact concerning whether or not the items are, "drug paraphernalia," "a marijuana grow op," and/or "components of a meth lab." Remember, probable cause is what is required for a warrant, and seizure of evidence, but proof beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury is what is required to get a conviction.

Anyway as someone else said, "It's idiotic and premature to condemn or support this guy since there's not enough information in the article for anyone except a psychic to make sense of."
 
really?

we had 300 very suspicious tomatoe plants taken here in a predawn raid complete with battering ram and entry from balcony by a swat team was reported as a grow op took 6 weeks for cops to tuck tail. never did admit they screwed up but they did settle outa court . funny thing was if they had fixed the door and said they were sorry jerry would let it go. but they circled the wagons about it. cost em a quarter mill that way.
 
Busted

Since we hope the drug agents are as knowledgeable as you and have your standards for exclusion versus inclusion of circumstances it is to be hoped for, also, that if the person was charged with drug charges it wasn't over a couple of lights and pans. Having said that, if seeds are seized and they germinate the possession of marijuana charges will follow. I am acting from personal bias against this guy, since I know nothing of him. I assure you that I would never sit quietly as a pool member in jury selection at his trial/s because I would not give such as the aforementioned person a fair hearing. But when it comes down to expressing my opinion I do claim freedom. I also don't challenge the arrestee as much as I challenge the members of this forum who insist the person has a "human right" to promote dope because it doesn't "hurt anyone".
The illicit narcotics market is one driven by weakness and self indulgence. It hurts anyone close to a user or seller. That guy may be innocent, but this forum is a place for opinions and I have mine just as all others here do.
 
Once again ary, no one is promoting drug use, we just don't think it's apropriate to promote taking people's freedom of choice when it harms no one but themselves.
 
aryfrosty said:
Owning guns is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It's worth every fight we enter to preserve it.

NOWHERE in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights is found the "right" or the privilege or otherwise to smoke dope or use or deal in any other illegal drugs. Nowhere! You guys who believe people have a "right granted by God to disobey the laws" are perverting the spirit of the law to suit your personal agenda.

I could argue with lots of the rest of this drug stuff, but we'll just continue to talk past each other, so why bother. But this is the kernel of the problem.

The United States government was created to preserve individal liberty. That is the only reason it exists. "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. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Yes, I realize that the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. But it is the spirit of the law of the land, the reason the United States exist.

Liberty means that you and I may do anything we desire. Anything. As long as we do not directly infringe on the liberty of another. The government exists to help control infringements when they happen. Unfortunately, it has become the largest infringer, morphing into a huge mechanism to protect us from ourselves, to try to prevent us from making mistakes instead of allowing us to learn from them, to enforce the majority morality.

The Bill of Rights is important. It states in very plain language, places that government legislation may not go. It's somewhat of a dead letter today, since they've not only gone there, they've built a super highway through the area. What the Bill of Rights is not, however, as elucidated by the Ninth Amendment, is an inclusive list of our rights. It's the other way around. The Constitution is an inclusive list of the government's powers. Anything not explicitly stated there is not their business. They may not restrict our liberty, ever, in any way, unless the Constitution gives permission.

The several states each has its own constitution. I won't discuss state laws here, since that would take a very long time, and since I'm not familiar with most of them. So the rest of this post concerns the federal Constitition and the powers of the federal government.

Show me the place in the U.S. Constitution where the government is given the authority to create new crimes. There are a handful of crimes mentioned in the Constitution. That's all they get.

Show me where the U.S. government is given the power to prohibit possession of anything. It's not there. They used to know this. Prohibition of alcohol was done as a Constitutional amendment because that's the only way it could be done. Legally. The original marijuana prohibition was done as a stamp tax, on interstate commerce. The same for machine guns and short barreled rifles and shotguns. The original law was a transfer tax. The taxes were made large, in the money of the time, to make it difficult for most people to afford. But they only applied to transfers across state lines, because even a liberal reading of the Constitution allows only that, and even that was stretching the Commerce Clause.

Nowadays, the Commerce Clause has been stretched and pulled like salt water taffy. It's become so elastic that it permits anything the feds want to do. The same elasticity that allows them to prohibit drugs will allow them, and not too long from now, to send their goons from house to house to take away our guns.

Note that I don't recommend ingesting psychoactive substances. Been there. Done that. Learned better. If somebody commits an actual crime, hurts somebody or steals their property, under the influence of drugs, arrest him, throw the book at him. But not because he was high. That's nobody's business. Because he directly infringed on another's liberty without their consent.

The natural consequences of drug abuse are severe and appropriate. We need nothing else. And the government has no authority to provide it.
 
NOWHERE in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights is found the "right" or the privilige or otherwise to smoke dope or use or deal in any other illegal drugs. Nowhere!
Apparently you're not familiar with the 9th Amendment.
 
Wow Bill St. Clair nailed it.
The gov't doesn't tell us what we can do and neither does the constitution, it just limits their powers.
I don't think anyone here is advocating the use of drugs. We are concerned about the abuse of power. Power WE the people have GIVEN to these people in the government. They aren't divine beings, and they put their pants on one leg at a time in the morning like like everyone else. We don't like them using the position we granted them with to trample our rights.
 
Bill St. Clair,

That's basically what I believe too, except for the part about the Bill of Rights being important.

I actually don't like the Bill of Rights, for the simple reason that when you lay out ten principles, then come along dimwits (no names) who think that they are the ONLY ten principles that apply. "If it's not in the Constitution, you don't have the right." Sort of like saying that "if you just obey the ten commandments, you're going to be ok with God."
 
...who think that they are the ONLY ten principles that apply. "If it's not in the Constitution, you don't have the right." Sort of like saying that "if you just obey the ten commandments, you're going to be ok with God."
Yeah, they always forget this one, like Molon said.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not to mention this one...
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So if your state desires to suppress it's citizens rights to rub something funny into your bellybutton... it USED to be A-OK.
But then the Fed out-trumped the various state's rights and never really liked the idea of the people having (some) rights without them making some money off it (somebody's gotta pay for Congressional shopping sprees)... and some things never will change, I guess.
Now, if only our Supreme Court Justices (not to mention our Congress) would actually read the darned thing and apply it...
 
Third rail stop fighten american socialism. Gone are the days of having a right to be left alone.

(and I dont even smoke.....anything......ok jerky...but damn it....its good)
 
1. the medical profession's obsession with morphine simply amazes me. I've watched what it has done to my father. I bet a couple of hits off a joint wouldn't have left him a babbling invalid.

2. Boy! Didn't this thread make a record breaking turn.

3. Amen Bill!

Funny, I started out a middle of the road Republican. Now I keep hoping for a conversion of a big name player into a viable Libertarian candidate ( not holding my breath).

You know, untold dollars are spent putting a warning sign on gasoline pumps, telling you not to drink gasoline.

I think if you want to drink gasoline, drink it, no skin off my butt.
 
Aryfrosty is no different than sarah brady and all the other MMM's who have had tragedy strike their lives... They need to blame, but since they can't wrap their minds around who is REALLY responsible for their tragedy, they blame the inanimate object... For Aryfrosty it is the drugs, and the faceless "pushers" who got his kid hooked...

So since these people have been touched by tragedy... they intend to keep that same tragedy from happening to others, by further limiting the freedoms the rest of us enjoy... Thanks, but no thanks, I'll take my chances with tragedy and come out a stronger person because of it....
 
ATF

I don't think of myself as a Brady type. I also don't think of myself as against freedoms. I also don't think that any of you have any sort of freedom to do as you please when the results hurt other people.
But...I've been wrong before.
Like I was wrong in thinking that this forum was about guns...Boy did I miss that guess.
It's about apologizing for drug users and their ilk. Any of you who think that drug sales and use are "victimless" crimes are really out of touch with life. If you can't see what you're espousing then I certainly have no desire to show you. Not that you'd listen. In addition to taking up for druggies you also have clearly shown that civil liberties are the property of only those who think as you do. No room for dissent here.
Good luck
 
I also don't think that any of you have any sort of freedom to do as you please when the results hurt other people.

I think most people will agree with this statement. I love the old line about swinging fists and tips of noses. Where they disagree is in the matter of whether smoking a joint, or drinking a beer, or shooting a gun constitutes hurting other people.

If you do any of those three examples irresponsibly, then yes, someone else can get hurt. And that outcome is the sole responsibility of the person who made the conscious choice to engage in those activities. It is wrong to prevent people from doing something because they might act irresponsibly. If they're irresponsible, they, as adults, have no place in civilized society.
 
Anti-gunners act as if they believe guns have a mind of their own. That guns kill people all by themselves, or that they force anybody who owns one to use it for pre-emptive violence. We know better.

Drug warriors think that drugs have a mind of their own. That drugs inject themselves into people's veins, or burn themselves and force their smoke into people's lungs. That drug users are helpless to resist them. We should know better.

The behavior of both gun owners and drug users is completely voluntary. Every bullet is fired because the gun user points the gun and pulls the trigger. Every toke of pot or drag on a cigarette or injection of heroin or drink of alcohol is taken intentionally by the drug user. The gun user is not compelled by the gun to do anything. Neither is the drug user compelled by the drug.

The difference is that when a gun is abused, some person other than the gun owner is directly harmed. When a drug is abused, only the drug user himself is directly harmed.

Addiction is a myth. Yes, people become attached to all sorts of things. And the immature among us imagine those attachments to be compelling, to be somehow a property of the object of addiction. In reality, addiction is a property of the addict. And only an internal change in the addict can cure it. Remove the object of addiction and the addict will find another. Allow the addiction to play out and the addict will learn or die. Most learn. If this world has any purpose at all, that learning is a big part of it.

Drug prohibition and gun prohibition are products of the same mindset. The mindset that believes that we the people are the property of the state That the state must protect its property. At any cost. If we do nothing when they come for the drug users, we should expect no help when they come for the gun owners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top