Democrats and Republicans

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Tim,

Your post brings up some valuable points but is based on some suspect logic. The elmination of criminal sanction for possession or use of controlled substances would not measurably increase the using population. The emphasis placed on the severe punishment of criminal behaviors committed while under the influence of those substances would better address the impact on society. Treatment could take place within the correctional setting which would take it out of the hands of the money grubbing insurance industry. Successful completion of said treatment with rigorous follow up during parole should be made mandatory for completion of sentence. Further, restitution to victims and to the state for the expense of incarceration should be mandatory as well...even if only a percentage of realized loss, expense or damage. This would all result in appropriately placed sanctions, less cost to society in general and the elimination of the farce that is the 'war on drugs'.
 
I don't really want to 'legalize' drugs, per se. I just want the federal government out of it, and to be limited to their proper constitution powers. And I want the unconstitutional asset seizure laws thrown out. Drug laws will then be left to the states, and the 9th and 10th amendments allow.

As to what to do with the addicts, here's the non touchy-feely darwinian solution:

You pay for your own drugs.
If you need rehab, you pay for it.
If you need hospitalization, you pay for it.
If you can't take drugs and abide by other laws, you get thrown in jail. You also pay for that, too.
If you can't pay for jail, you do menial labor as part of a work detail to work off your 'jail/cold turkey rehab' debt.
If you can't pay for your drugs, and try to steal from law-abiding citizens, those same citizens can use their 2nd amendment rights to protect their lives and their property, and rehabilitate you through reincarnation.

Soccer moms will never go for it. It will probably scare a lot of Conservatives. A lot of liberals will be outraged by the lack of sensitivity. But it will work.
 
AMEN bastiat!

GOD help you if because of drugs you hurt, kill, mame or commit any crime under the influence or to get $ to buy drugs.
 
Glock Glocker:
If they are a danger to others through their activity, they should be arrested just like drunk drivers are. I also think that the fines for such activities are not stiff enough.
Agreed, but what's probable cause for stopping a space cadet? If somebody's DUI, there are telltale signs from how they operate the vehicle. Somebody on drugs can merely be totally irrational. Getting drivers to pee in cups won't fly, so how do you test without some kind of gizmo analogous to a breathalyzer?

What about Jew colonies? You're treading on very dangerous ground here. You can't just herd a group of people somewhere because you don't like them. If they infringe on the rights of others, deal with them appropriately, until then leave them alone.
And lepers weren't just herded into colonies because somebody didn't like them. When they showed leprosy, off they went. Since so many drugs are fiercely addictive, once a person was arrested and found to be an addict, the most damage to society is done after releasing him back into society. Prison isn't the answer, but quarantine from society may be a possibility. Society itself is an enabler for addicts. There's so much stuff to steal, money to be mugged for, and opportunities to feed the monkey that addicts simply cannot live in it without turning to crimes other than addiction. Quarantine removes the addicts from society and protects the addict from its evils as well.

Am I in favor of "addict colonies" analogous to leper colonies of old? No. I'm just bringing the subject up for discussion. All we KNOW now are several things that DON'T work....
 
Ok so we make addict colonies put all the addicts in them. Bring in dump trucks filled with all the powder they can snort/shoot.
In a very short period of time no more addicts:D
 
Naw. Just let them grow their own.

It would be an interesting sociological study to see how addiction is anathema to entrepreneurship.
 
Agreed, but what's probable cause for stopping a space cadet?

Space cadet? I might be a bit green, so forgive me, as I'm not familiar with this term.

Getting drivers to pee in cups won't fly, so how do you test without some kind of gizmo analogous to a breathalyzer?

I have no idea, but shouldn't we be trying to come up with ways to test people for other types of drugs right now, even though they are illegal people are still doing them and driving.

There's so much stuff to steal, money to be mugged for, and opportunities to feed the monkey that addicts simply cannot live in it without turning to crimes other than addiction.

1 - This problem will be severely mitigated when RKBA is fully recognized.

2 - This problem will be severely mitigated if not eliminated by having a free market with drugs. Addicts steal to get money for drugs because the price is so inflated, because they are only sold on a black market, which exponentially increases the price. Decriminalize the stuff so they can get it at a pharmacy and the dealers will go out of business and the regular addict will be able to afford them without having to turn to crime.

Imagine what things would be like if cigarettes were suddenly declared illegal. Many otherwise law-abiding members of this board would suddenly become criminals. Take a look at a smoker when they cannot get their fix, they become intolerable until they can go out and have a cigarette. What would happen if a pack of cigatettes suddenly cost over $100?
 
The "choice" of Republican or Democratic may be the reason that in most elections, for many years, the clear "winner" is the majority of voters who stay home.
 
This problem will be severely mitigated when RKBA is fully recognized.
And this will happen approximately half-an-hour after the Second Coming!!! :D Seriously, though, I don't see this as a problem with any kind of workable solution. Legalize drugs, and addicts still have to get money to pay for them. Their habit makes them less-than-desirable employees due to its effects on their health and productivity, so as they get more addicted, and need more money to feed the addiction, the likelihood of their remaining gainfully employed goes down like the Titanic. End result - they'll still be committing crimes to fund their habit.

Also, if drugs are legalized, we'll have an even greater problem with our youth. At the moment, dealing to the young is a high-risk occupation, because even the liberal sheeple recognize that "it's for the children" and fund prevention programs. Once drugs are legalized, schools can expect to see them on or around campus, and you're going to find a huge number of otherwise decent kids hooked on them before they know better. (If you think I'm exaggerating, look at how many fine kids end up with venereal diseases, or abortions, or unwanted pregnancies, even though they come from good homes where they've been taught responsibility! They get sucked in anyway...)
 
Once drugs are legalized, schools can expect to see them on or around campus, and you're going to find a huge number of otherwise decent kids hooked on them before they know better.

You really lost me once you got into the "it's for the children" bit.

Legalizing drugs would no more cause all our kids to run out and get addicted to smack than the current legal status of booze, guns and sex causes all our kids to be violent alcoholic prostitutes.

A bad seed is going to be a bad seed; they aren't going to care about legality. We spend twenty four hours a day saying this out of one side of our mouths about guns, does it not feel odd to condradict ourselves out of the other side of our mouths about, say, narcotics?
 
Legalize drugs, and addicts still have to get money to pay for them.

If you can buy pot for the same price as cigarettes (or less -- stop taxing the damn things), where's the ccriminal impulse? Why should morphene sulfate cost more than flour? Did it back when it was legal? (Vin Supernowicz claims it didn't). LSD, ecstasy, methamphetamines are all easy enough to make that they'd qualify as a high-school science project -- also cheap.

Look, if someone needs their fix and is in a state where they won't contribute to society, I'd rather they fund a cheap habit than one that's so expensive that it turns millionaires into paupers.

Their habit makes them less-than-desirable employees due to its effects on their health and productivity

Just like alcahol and tobacco, but we let those addicts work. Was this a problem back when Coca Cola contained cocaine, or were the workers fine then?

Also, if drugs are legalized, we'll have an even greater problem with our youth.

This was a big issue with prohibition, and "protecting our youth" was a goal of the movement. After it'd been around a few years and the prohibitionists realized that making alcohol illegal made it more attractive to youth, they finally gave up.

Would you say that the war on drugs has keps those chemicals out of our schools? If not, are things better now than they were when these laws were enacted? If not, how can you continue to support the argument that we're doing it for the welfare of our kids?
 
I'm a registered republican (as far as I can remember) but I've voted Libertarian every single election across the board.

When you see "Republican" that doesn't assure you that they are for RKBA or lower taxes etc...

I personally can't really tell Republicrats from Democans.

When I vote libertarian, even though I don't know who they are, I know a few things about them:

#1) They are for less taxes
#2) They are for gun ownership
#3) They disagree with me on what the correct answers are; BUT we both agree that the government is NEVER the answer..

That's enough to make me vote for them.

Libertarian is the only party that votes not for the person, but for the ideology. That's why they are a good vote.

Come to the light!!
 
twoblink, your second observation is not always correct.

Take Scott Jameson, 2002 TX Senate candidate:
[blockquote]Some fellow Libertarians told me at the Texas LP Convention that they didn't vote for me to be their U.S. Senate candidate because they weren't certain where I stood on gun ownership rights based on my answer that "I prefer the crossbow." I stand by this statement, and am even willing to add that I really don't like guns. But of course, these are my preferences, not yours.[/blockquote]Libertarian or not, I'm not going to vote for someone who says "I don't really like cars. I prefer bicycles." If you don't like cars that's fine, but they serve an important function. Your personal opinions have no place in your campaign, especially when they are in conflict with basic living requirements.

The Greens have about as much chance of winning an election by saying "we don't like power plants." Does anyone like power plants?
 
Originally posted by tyme
twoblink, your second observation is not always correct.

The Greens have about as much chance of winning an election by saying "we don't like power plants." Does anyone like power plants?

Well, I think the big turbine bits are kinda cool, actually... :D
 
Glock Glockler,

You sure make me FEEL old! A "space cadet" is an old -- apparently ancient -- euphemism for substance abuser, which was used by young people when talking about their "spaced" out peers partly so older people wouldn't know what they were saying. During its heyday, the space race was on and becoming astronauts was a seemingly attainable goal. The term was later replaced by the pejorative "junkie" I suppose.
I have no idea, but shouldn't we be trying to come up with ways to test people for other types of drugs right now, even though they are illegal people are still doing them and driving.
Since alcohol is dissipated to a measurable extent through the lungs, the legality of the breathalyzer rests partially on the fact that a person exhales so has no right under the 4A to deny its use. I suppose the tiny, tiny fraction of many drugs in the blood stream could be picked up in a tweaked breathalyzer, and if so, that might be an answer. Meanwhile, pee and blood are about the only reliable ways to detect drugs, but a person's pee or blood can't be compelled without probable cause and a warrant. Eyeball appearance is a good indicator of drug impairment, but even doctors have trouble being accurate so where does that leave a LEO?
1 - This problem will be severely mitigated when RKBA is fully recognized.

2 - This problem will be severely mitigated if not eliminated by having a free market with drugs. Addicts steal to get money for drugs because the price is so inflated, because they are only sold on a black market, which exponentially increases the price. Decriminalize the stuff so they can get it at a pharmacy and the dealers will go out of business and the regular addict will be able to afford them without having to turn to crime.

Imagine what things would be like if cigarettes were suddenly declared illegal. Many otherwise law-abiding members of this board would suddenly become criminals. Take a look at a smoker when they cannot get their fix, they become intolerable until they can go out and have a cigarette. What would happen if a pack of cigatettes suddenly cost over $100?
Agree, agree, and agree.
 
The only difference I've ever been able to determine between Democrats and Republicans is the specific identities of the groups that they want to oppress.

Democrats want to use the government to oppress the economic productive class, property owners, cultural conservatives, gun owners, and the like.

Republicans, on the other hand, want to use the government to oppress people with tans and/or funny accents, homosexuals, and other people further than one sigma off the cultural mean.

Both major parties are admitted enemies of freedom, individuality, and everything else that is right and good in the world.

If you must participate in the political system, support libertarians.

- Chris
 
Blackhawk,

...the legality of the breathalyzer rests partially on the fact that a person exhales so has no right under the 4A to deny its use.

So the breath from your lungs is only protected by the Fifth Amendment if it vibrates your vocal cords in passing? ;)

I can't put my finger on exactly why it is, but any time somebody says "put this in your mouth and blow" and they're carrying a gun, I get this whole "my rights are being violated" vibe. Call me kooky... :p
 
Small Poxes (Fred Reed)

A Penetrating Study Of Left And Right


I am trying to understand Liberals and Conservatives. It isn't easy. I think I've about got it, though.

Conservatives believe in the wisdom of common Americans to manage their affairs and make decisions for themselves. Exceptions to this are the half of the public who regularly vote Democratic. These common Americans are unfit to run their affairs and make decisions for themselves. It is because they been deluded by liberal propaganda.

Liberals also believe in the inherent wisdom of common Americans, especially those who don't have any. They think that the mother lode of wisdom lies on the low side of the bell curve. They discern qualities in the stupid, ignorant, and shiftless that engender a capacity to govern a country they can't spell. Coincidentally, these people vote Democratic.

Liberals do not believe in the wisdom of the half of the country who vote Republican, as these are all CEOs of major corporations. The Left knows that CEOs, unlike welfare recipients, are motivated by economic interest.

Conservatives believe that it is not the business of government to legislate morality, and thus want laws against abortion, pornography, sex education, and marijuana. Liberals don't want to legislate morality either. They want to eliminate it, along with learning, thought, civility, and other impediments to the undisturbed enjoyment of uniform mental darkness.

(A third point of view is held by Libertarians, but I'm not sure what it is. I have never been able to distinguish Libertarianism from a bull session in a sophomore dorm.)

The Right believes passionately in freedom, particularly economic freedom. The conservative therefore cherishes his right to strip-mine Appalachia. He does not, however, believe in your right to build a hog-rendering plant next to his house. That would violate zoning laws.

The Left believes in economic freedom too, specifically the unalienable right of the shiftless to be supported by someone else. Oddly, the someone else is usually a conservative businessman.

Now, confusion is essential to politics. Just as third-world countries regularly mistake incompetence for socialism, liberals mistake peasantry for equality. Thus they promote the decline of civilization with the enthusiasm of Crusaders sacking Jerusalem, making us into dim comfortable serfs ungrammatically grunting.

Conservatives also are subject to confusion. They regard unrestricted rapacity as a virile expression of freedom, like being in George Washington's army, and so favor reproductive incontinence, overbuilding, and the making of anything slow enough to be caught into dog food.

In short, Left and Right both strain to make the world unlivable, with liberals degrading the human world and conservatives, the natural. We can work together if only we try.

Economically, conservatives say that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Liberals say that if it ain't broke, tax it till it is. The economic philosophy of conservatives is to take what they can get. The liberal philosophy is also to take what conservatives can get, and use it to buy votes. This is a form of trickle-down. Consequently liberals are seen to be Reaganites. The study of politics is endlessly enlightening.

Race is a major divide between Left and Right. Conservatives don't give a wan emaciated damn about blacks, whom they regard in electoral terms as the equivalent of a golf handicap. This distinguishes them from liberals, who don't give a damn about blacks, but find it useful to pretend. Blacks don't give a damn about blacks either, or they would cause their children to do their homework. In this tripartite agreement we may have the seeds of national accord.

Racially, the underlying difference between Left and Right is that the liberal policy is active, the conservative passive. Conservatives are content to do nothing and let blacks rot. So, usually, are blacks. Liberals make sure that blacks rot by promoting bastardy as a birthright and illiteracy as a credential of cultural authenticity. Otherwise blacks might make money and vote Republican.

However, liberals and conservatives agree on one thing. When their first child reaches school age, they head for the white suburbs. The difference is that while conservatives admit to each other that they are avoiding black schools, liberals say that they seek the wide open spaces or want their little boy to be near the hockey rink.

The Right opposes abortion as being murder when someone else's sixteen-year-old is pregnant by a tattooed drifter with a guitar and a vanishing IQ. This is why Roe-vs.-Wade will never be repealed: Conservatives also have daughters. Conservatives do think that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest, making it acceptable to murder children whose fathers behaved badly.

While conservatives see abortion as murder, liberals see murder as convenience. If a woman changes her mind twelve seconds before giving birth to a perfectly healthy baby, liberals want a doctor to kill it for her. Presumably it takes a curious sort of doctor, but that is another matter.

Left and Right differ in social consciousness. Liberals oppose elitism, and send their children to Harvard to avoid it. Conservatives support elitism, and send their children to Harvard to practice it. By elitism, the liberal elite mean that everyone but themselves should live in a uniform state of social and moral degradation. The conservative means by elitism the view that the better is preferable to the worse. He dislikes degradation, in part because it invariably produces Democrats.

Liberals like government because it enables them to misbehave. Conservatives believe that the best government is the least government. The perfect government is therefore no government. Thus conservatives are seen to be anarchists, like Bakunin.

Conservatives oppose the intrusion of government into the private life, which explains why a Republican administration is rapidly turning the United States into a surveillance state. Yet the leftist American Civil Liberties Union opposes the creeping advance of the unblinking eye. This might seem puzzling. Actually we are witnessing the formation of a hybrid system: The wretched political aims of communist regimes pursued by efficient capitalist means. No communist state could make computers good enough for the new watched hive. (I think of this convergence as Bimeddlism.)

Left and Right work together more often than you might think. Hollywood, the home of freewheeling unprincipled capitalism, is also the wellhead of the socially destructive social agendas of the left. The movie industry grows rich by promoting promiscuity, violence, and the use of drugs. Then its denizens appear on television to denounce the chaos they have engendered, blaming it on capitalism and conservatives.

OK. I've understood all the politics I can handle today. I need a drink, or maybe anesthesia. I know a bartender who has knockout drops.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/LeftRightLeft.shtml
 
Okay, Kooky! :D

You don't have an expectation of privacy to your fingerprints you leave on glasses, tables, etc., or in a public place, nor do you have one regarding your garbage not on your property, so it's fair game for gathering evidence without a warrant.

You do have an expectation of privacy regarding your pee and blood, and you can't really be forced to submit to a breathalyzer, but if you refuse, you can trigger a presumptive conclusion, which can lead to your becoming a blood donor. A breathalyzer doesn't need to be blown into to determine if your breath contains alcohol, but it does to determine your blood alcohol content.

Illegal drugs are different in that there is no minimum threshold that determines a violation. Any amount in your bloodstream indicates a violation. Theoretically, dogs could be trained to detect a tell tale drug odor just like a person can detect "garlic breath," and the dog could do it from several feet away.

There are low tech and reliable ways to detect much latent drug use by drivers, etc., but since the government isn't really serious about the WOD, they're not used.

Also, since I wouldn't trust the average lab technician with getting accurate results any more than I'd trust a dog to leave an unattended steak alone, I wouldn't submit to any random drug or alcohol test, including a guy carrying a gun saying breathe into this tube. Molon Labe, in a manner of speaking....
 
1. In the end politics is all about money and power. Governance is about freedom and justice.

2. The knowledge that personal responsibility is ascendant will, over time, cause better decisions to be made out of sheer self preservation. Example of personal responsibility: Putting a sharp stone on the end of a very long stick caused some people to recognize they would not get eaten by sabre tooth tigers.

Grampster
 
I am with Tamara: breathalizers sodomize your rights...."put this in your mouth and blow."..
is the crux of the violation of rights. Thought police are also major violaters of my rights with their right think PC garbage. Oh yeah, I usually vote Republican...
 
I can agree on this : the federal govt. does have the right to regulate or prohibit interstate commerce of drugs; however, they do not have the right to regulate intrastate commerce of drugs. The problem with the Libertarian message that I have been hearing is they would deny me the right as a Texan to vote this issue at the state level, too.
 
Legalize pot. No contingencies or limitations of any kind on the supply chain. Apply regulations on usage (similar to alcohol).

A sound jumping off point to ending the great 'war on drugs' (crock).

What Im after is taking a huge revenue source away from the thugs.

I believe that there would be a net gain. Lives would be spared, taxpayer $$$ would be saved. And, following the metrics of its legalization would be incredible revealing.

Damn it, if it’s good enough for Canada...


""The committee recommends that cannabis should be from here on in legal and of restricted use, so that Canadians can choose whether to consume or not in security," Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chair of the committee.

The committee also says the government should wipe clean the records of anyone convicted of marijuana possession. There is no good reason pot smokers should be subject to criminal law, he said. "

From - http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/09/04/pot_committee020904

Diesle
 
Gun registration is good enough for Canada. You'll have to come up with a better example to follow....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top