Legalisation

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Obviously I wasn't referring to murder/violent crime as evidenced in my post. But gun ownership in itself is considered a crime in California in some instances - just because the gun 'looks cool'.

---

Really I live in California and thats news to me oh well ignorance is bliss I'm told.

Anyway I have a fleet related issue thats came down from the SC that I need to discuss with you I'll send you a PM.

[Guest $iLk]

Replied. Think you could go down to the gun shop in California and pick up an AR15 or an AK47?

To be fair - the District of Columbia is the most strict with 100% gun control (and also the highest murder rate coincidentally).

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

2) On the other side, the legalization of drugs would be just another sign of the degradation of our society. True, on an individual level, the only victim is the user, but the overall effect on society would be wholly detrimental, as more people would turn to drugs, have their lives ruined, and become derelicts, transients, and, worse still, criminals. Unemployment, poverty, and crime would rise sharply, and society would suffer as a result.

---

I don't see people becoming criminals if drugs were legal simply because they would be under no pressure to become criminals as they are say when trying to afford a 'fix' that costs a thousand dollars a week with drugs being illegal.

At the very least marijuana cannot be argued against logically as not being legal - considering that alcohol & cigarettes are far more detrimental.

Any police officer I've spoken to would rather subdue a pothead than a drunk simply because drunks tend to get agitated and violent while a pothead wants to eat doritos and catch a nap.

[Guest $iLk]

For some people being 'against' something is ample reason to piss away $$$billions$$$ of hard earned money from John Q Taxpayer. As long as you're making a statement, the results don't matter.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

For some people being 'against' something is ample reason to piss away $$$billions$$$ of hard earned money from John Q Taxpayer. As long as you're making a statement, the results don't matter.

---

No arguments here. And this is one of my biggest beefs with the "war on drugs". It's okay imo for a society to declare something detrimental to them and thus make it illegal, but throwing money without thought at a problem has never fixed a damn thing.

Another problem I have is consistency. Can you really lump pot in with heroin and cocaine? Why is alcohol legal but marijuana isn't? Alcohol is WORSE than pot!

With all due respect to my friend Nomad, I don't think you can compare what happened in Holland with what would happen here in the U.S.

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Prez:

Can you really lump pot in with heroin and cocaine? Why is alcohol legal but marijuana isn't? Alcohol is WORSE than pot!

Don't forget tobacco. Think about it. It's getting banned from places and taxed up the wazzoo and yet it's still legal. In fact, I've heard it stated that Nicotine it's just as addictive as Heroin if not more.

[John Prezioso]

It's crazy, no doubt.

[Guest Remo Williams]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

Replied. Think you could go down to the gun shop in California and pick up an AR15 or an AK47?

---

Of course not but I own a few other guns that look pretty and are legal. I don't think they had the right to limit what law abiding people can register and own, but once a right is impeded on its almost impossible to gain them back as we all know. Now that its illegal to own an AR15 only the criminals have them and I thought thats why they were outlawed.

[John Prezioso]

Wow. That's a whole discussion unto itself. You're exactly right about only criminals owning banned guns. It has an interesting parallel to the drug legalization issue, though.

[Guest]

I for one ALWAYS wear a gun. ALWAYS, except when in bed, or when I am drinking of course.

Nomad made some excellent points, but the bottom line is this, when you outlaw guns, only outlaws HAVE guns, and will use them.

The MOST gun restrictive cities and states in the US have the HIGHEST gun related crimes in the country, yet the liberals and gun haters still scream about gun control.

Gun control to me, is hitting what you are aiming at.

Yes, and I have a concealed weapons permit, for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and when the federal Concealed weapons permit comes out, I am gonna get one of those as well. Won't that just piss off California!! LOL

[Cruis.In]

victimless is relative jaguar. You said it's victimless because you are "doing"it to yourself. If I am a bank teller and I transfer all your money from your account to my secret one in Anguilla, I've stolen from you, but I didn't actually DO you anything. So that is victimless as well by your definition. snippy.

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cruis.In:

victimless is relative jaguar. You said it's victimless because you are "doing"it to yourself. If I am a bank teller and I transfer all your money from your account to my secret one in Anguilla, I've stolen from you, but I didn't actually DO you anything. So that is victimless as well by your definition. snippy.

---

NO, that is a crime against another person, you have stolen from one person to gain for yourself.

BUT, if you smoke pot, and have bought that pot from a person with your OWN earned money, then have at it, have a great time.

So, what exactly was your point, because it made absolutely NO sense....

[Guest $iLk]

He's just having a logic meltdown because there is no conceivable analogy that he can come up with that doesn't relate to crime against another person.

I used to have a problem with drug legalization until I sat down and actually researched the problem, looked at the people in my own life who I've seen, and come up with a conclusion.

Here is some reading from Citizens Against Government Waste:

Up In Smoke: ONDCP's Wasted Efforts In the War on Drugs

[Cruis.In]

there is no logic meltdown. Selling drugs is a crime. Selling potentially harmful substances to others, would be committing a crime against them.

When you smoke drugs or do drugs, you are the victim of a more vicious circle than the simplicity you are looking at, you are a victim. And if you the individual is a victim, drugs cannot be victimless, it has a victim: You.

[Soback]

I guess Netherland is the most vicious country in the world then.

Hey, have you ever heard of responsibility? Have you ever considered that each person has it? Have you ever considered that each person is responsible for themeselvs? Do you think that each person is qualified to make decissions in THEIR OWN best interest? Or do you think that YOU are more qualified to RUN someone elses life? Or do you suggest that we take away indivudals birth right of owning their own life? Do you suggest that your neighbor, the state, or the country owns your life? By your argument smokin should be illegal, drinking should be illegal, stressing your body in any way should be illegal.

On the vicious cycle, you are partially right. But only partially. When an addict robs someone because he needs money to buy drugs, it's NOT THE DRUGS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE. HE, THE ADDICT has made the choice to hurt someone. Just like a gun is no more responsible for murders associated with them so are the drugs no more responsible for crimes associated with them.

INDIVIDUAL carries the responsibility for their actions. Not the state, not the country, not the neighbor.

[ 08-03-2005, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Soback]

Here's something for you to think about

Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it - that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pitch-hitter can live your life - that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of other, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions of facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.

It is of your own free will that you can chose to take drugs, just like as of your own free will you can chose not to. The government and people like you are the ultimate rapers of your mind, the ultimate killers of your free will, the ultimate enslavers of YOU. Thats why we have censorship, that's why we have all this waste, that's where the problems stem from, from people like you saying that we make ourselvs victims and therefore you know better what we can or can't do with our own lives. The consequences of your actions are yours to bear.

Now try and tell me that I can make myself a victim? Or even if there is such a thing as a victim of your own actions. (let me give you a hint, it's called the cause of law and effect, and you are not qualified to run anyone elses life other than your own)

[Guest]

Soback, living in the bay area must drive you to distraction.

There are millions of Cruis.in's there.

I'd lose it, totally, absolutely, and completely...

[Soback]

They don't matter, because I have absolute power over them. I can withdraw my ability and if other men like me withdraw theirs, then these Cruis.in's and their whole system will fall apart. Their whole great, glamorous system can fall apart just at the single action and a single word of NO from the able men and those mens denial to these leaches the product of their mind and their work. Without US - they will starve, Without THEM - we will live, that's why WE have the power, We just need to learn that.

That's how Russia fell apart, when scientists, college teachers, inventors, producers realized that they are being penalized for their work, that they do not get what they deserve for their work, that they are slaves being abused. When a professors stoped teaching and took up genatorial jobs (yes that actually happened), when men of ability would not take a job that matched their ability but would instead hold the lowliest job available because they wouldn't get the same value back for inventing, producing and exercising their ability to their fullest. That's when the Great Socialist Republic of Soviet Union colapsed, it's blood sucked dry by the leaches and robbed blind by looters.

Teach your kids that their live belongs to them, for their enjoyment, and fulfilment, that they do not own anyone undeserved respect, love, food, money nor shelter. All the things material and otherwise need to be deserved. And that no gevernment, men or anything else holds power over their lives, the only power they have is the power of death, and that power they can't exercise on men of ability because they can't survive without them, as soon as they learn that, the world is theirs.

Seriously Jag, give Atlas Shrugged a shot if you haven't yet, it has been written by Ayn Rand.

[ 08-04-2005, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Guest $iLk]

there is no logic meltdown. Speeding is a crime. Driving really fast down the road next to others, would be committing a crime against them.

When you drive really fast, you are the victim of a more vicious circle than the simplicity you are looking at, you are a victim. And if you the individual is a victim, speeding cannot be victimless, it has a victim: You.

I'll try this at my next speeding ticket court date. Since you fail to grasp the concept of spending money on rehabilitating non-violent drug users instead of imprisoning them for 20 years while child molestors who rape two month olds get out in 10. (Heard this story today - simply amazing) there isn't much point discussing it with you.

If you feel that pissing away $$$billions$$$ with no decrease in drug use, and more damage to society than we would have funding rehabilitation, and filling up the jails so much that violent murderers, rapists, and child molestors are freed on parole much sooner - just because the idea of a person smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home by themselves scares you as much as the thought of a gun sitting in a cabinet in an individuals home scares a liberal Democrat - there isn't much point in reasoning with you.

Somehow you equate it as the user being a 'victim' yet you turn around and support drug laws which imprison the 'victim' for 20 years.

INCREDIBLE!

[Wolferz]

Wow!

A debate without the usual, "My Schwartz is bigger than your Schwartz" attitude. I am in awe.Most of you fellows nailed down some very good points in regard to the issue at hand.

Please allow me to offer my own perspective,

It is indeed about viewing these issues with logic. There is always a reason behind everything that goes on in the halls of government and this issue is fueled, like so many other issues, by money. Which we have all heard is the root of all evil. At the top of the root is Audrey( read:US government and those within it) And Audrey says, "FEED ME SEYMOUR!!!"

Cannabis went into prohibition status in the early 1900's at the behest of two lobbies, The Pharmaceutical and Petro-chemical industries.

The drug makers couldn't sell enough aspirin and their arguement was that people weren't smart enough to self medicate themselves with naturally occurring flora. HELL NO! We know what's best for society and it's our man made drugs.Side effects? Don't look behind the curtain.

The Petro-chemical guys had just discovered synthetic fibers. They wanted to sell more rayon, nylon, etc etc. So having naturally occurring hemp being used to make durable clothing and the best rope on the planet just wouldn't do. So, we had this situation at the time. America had recently finished mopping up the Kaiser and was going into an economic depression. Making Cannabis illegal wouldn't hurt anyone but the lowly Hemp farmers and would provide alot of jobs in the chemical industries.

See? It's like everything else on the planet. It's all about the Benjamins. Also at that point in time was a drug cartel that makes the Columbians look like two bit hacks. And that cartel operates business as usual to this day.

As long as the American government considers soft drugs illegal this cartel profits.

Don't look for legalization of anything anytime soon.

[John Prezioso]

With all due respect, Wolferz, that is an overly cynical theory that I can't subscribe to.

[Soback]

Originally posted by $ilk

"there is no logic meltdown. Speeding is a crime. Driving really fast down the road next to others, would be committing a crime against them.

When you drive really fast, you are the victim of a more vicious circle than the simplicity you are looking at, you are a victim. And if you the individual is a victim, speeding cannot be victimless, it has a victim: You."

--Who told you that speeding is a crime $ilk? The goverment? The ones who seem to know how to run your life better than you can? How exactly speeding is a crime? You do know that on some freeways in Europe THERE IS NO SPEED LIMIT. AAAAAA, back up now, the only reason speeding is a crime, THE ONLY ONE, is because THEY SAID SO. NO other reasons, JUST THAT. In some states they also said that spitting on the sidewalk is a CRIME. They are also trying to make it a CRIME to smoke in the privacy of your own CAR, and in FLORIDA, in YOUR OWN HOME. What is a crime $ilk, I will tell you towards the end.

Driving down the road really fast to someone is NOT a crime against them. Crashing INTO them would be an accident against them, crashing INTO THEM on PURPOSE would be a CRIME against them.

When I drive fast, I don't make myself a victim. I know the risks I am taking. I know that the possiblity of me dying, if a crash were to happen, increases with speed. It's an INFORMED decission to drive fast, VICTIMLESS. You are a VICTIM, when there's a CRIME happened, and you HAD NO CONTROL OVER IT. I race my motorcycle, am I a VICTIM? I crashed once because I was doing a wheelie, was I a victim of doing illegal wheelies? Or did I have a choice to NOT do the wheelies because of higher possibility of crashing? Re-examine your beliefs $ilk. You can not fight yourself, You can NOT be a victim of YOURSELF. Because then your own free will, your own mind, whole existence is nullified, when someone tells you they know best what is good for you, and you are not qualified to make a choice on how to live, YOURSELF. You do know what a slave, a work horse is don't you $ilk?

[Joel Schultz]

You know, there are two interesting and opposing philosophical assumptions underlying some of this debate:

AN INDIVIDUAL IS THE BEST ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT GOOD FOR HIM/HERSELF.

A GROUP IS THE BEST ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT GOOD FOR INDIVIDUALS.

Why is either assumption justifiable? For the former, there are obvious counter-examples: children for instance, and the mentally disabled probably are counter-examples of persons who are not capable. What makes a "normal" adult different? (And who defines "normal"?)

But then is the latter assumption justifiable? There would seem to be counter-examples for this too: organized crime that extorts individuals, oppressive governments. (And if a group *is* best, who defines that group?)

Is there any basis for believing that EITHER point of view is justifiable?

Both viewpoints can lead to violations of what one may deem "rights":

(Self-centric)

An individual chooses to be an alcoholic. They suffer mental impairment, radical mood swings, and consequently can not hold down a job. Their spouse and children suffer financial hardship due to this individual's choice.

(Self-centric)

An individual decides for himself they can handle a car at 100MPH on a highway -- and they can. A less-capable motorist is startled (no contact between vehicles) as they pass, and in their startlement loses control and dies in a wreck. That one would likely be alive if they had not been startled by the first individual.

(Self-centric)

A person commits suicide, believing it best for themselves -- and they are correct. Yet family and friends are left emotionally devastated (emotional harm done). Since this person was a breadwinner their surviving family suffers financial hardship.

(Group-centric)

A group decides that all persons without exception within the group must pay $X per year for membership wihtin the group. A person is too poor to afford it and yet can not leave the group due to costs imposed by the group on leaving it. This one lives in poverty and starves to death.

(Group-centric)

A group decides that a particular individuals have traits making them undesirable. Such individuals are imprisoned or executed.

(Group-centric)

A group orders a member to carry out the extermination of a subset of the group. This member is unable to leave the group at will. The group executes the individual because to do so violates their individual conscience or religious beliefs or ethics.

(Self-centric)

An individual refuses to consent to a group's command to assist in providing relief for other individuals who are starving to death, because the individual deems it not in their own best interest. Several of these starving ones die.

(Group-centric)

Another individual consents to the same command despite it not being in their best interest, and consequently *they* die, yet many starving ones are saved.

I submit that no matter which of the two viewpoints you subscribe to, one can all-too-easily come up with an example where application of the principle can lead to harming an individual (or something that is against that one's will).

Reality check:

If an individual decides to be part of a group, then that individual necessarily must cede certain "rights" to the group as per the group's rules. Otherwise, the group would not accept that one (and if the rules are unacceptable, why join?)

I submit there are groups that one is part of not by one's own choice but by accident of birth and geography (e.g. family, country, human species). If the rules governing such a group are unacceptable, the only thing you can do at this point is relocate (if/when you are allowed). Yet this will likely place such one within yet another group's sphere of influence with its own rules.

Unfortunately, there are few places one can go on this planet to form your own group if you disagree with EVERY groups' rules. Which means inevitably one has to make a decision (conscious or otherwise) to abide within SOME group. And that decision cedes individual rights which the group has claimed for itself.

At that point it really is immaterial whether or not you or the group is the one that knows what is "best" for you. You're stuck in that group, with that group's rules, for better or worse, and that group is stuck with you and your needs/wants, for better or worse. (Of course, some groups allow the rules to be changed, but oftentimes one has to be join yet another group to do so, with no guarantee *that* group will always be 100% agreeable to the person).

Deal with it.

[Ben Zwycky]

Car accidents through irresponsible or reckless driving very often are lethal to 3rd parties as well (or just to third parties (pedestrians, cyclists)), the likelihood of an accident occuring (your stopping distance) increasing with the square of your velocity, and the likelihood of serious injury or death also increasing with the square of your velocity, so setting a speed limit appropriate to the road conditions is entirely reasonable, and setting harsh penalties to discourage dangerous driving is also entirely reasonable considering the appalling numbers killed and injured every year in vehicle accidents. Getting behind the wheel is not a right, it is a privilege and a great responsibility. If you cannot use your vehicle responsibly then you should lose that privilege, and if you cause injury or death through your irresponsibility, you should face the consequences.

While it is true that on German autobahns there is no speed limit, German car insurance companies refuse to insure against accidents involving vehicles travelling over 130km/h (last I heard, which was a while ago), so while the police won't stop you, the insurance companies are doing all they can to make drivers keep to a sensible speed.

Personally, I think having a maximum speed on the freeway of 55mph is far too low, it should be around 70-80 like in Europe. Being so low leads to driver frustration and usually a large speed difference between those obeying the law and those breaking it, increasing the risk of a serious accident occurring.

I know that many governments have a cynical approach to speed limits, and see them more as a means to earn money than reduce accidents, but that is not always the case.

Many measures have a lot of scientific and statistical analysis behind them, or are put in place as a result of experience (changing road layouts/speed limits around accident blackspots). Of course speed is only one factor (sometimes overemphasised because it is measurable and easily enforced), road layout, obstructions, appropriate warning signs, driver education and the state of the road surface are other factors to consider as well when developing a road safety strategy.

I don't know whether it works the same way in the US, but many major roads in England have dynamic speed limits which change according to the prevalent weather conditions (fog, ice, high wind , heavy rain etc.) and are updated on electronic roadside signs. In this country, they have static signs which say the speed limit on this road is ... when wet it is ...

I'm much more in favour of community service instead of imprisonment or fines for all minor crimes (I know many people involved in creating alternative punishment schemes in this country, and others working on rehabilitating ex-convicts back into society) It's way cheaper to implement, value is added back to society and the offender might actually learn something useful and be less likely to reoffend. Fines or jail time very rarely solve anything, they are just way easier to sentence. They are useful and appropriate if someone refuses to comply with their alternative punishment, or they committed a serious / violent crime.

[Soback]

Joel, either assumption is not justifiable. Only one of them is. There is no NON - ABSOLUTES, and individual makes decissions in their own best interests or dies, THAT'S AN ABsOLUTE. AN INDIVIDUAL IS THE BEST ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT GOOD FOR HIM/HERSELF. That's also an absolute. You can't have it both ways Joel, this; A GROUP IS THE BEST ONE TO DECIDE WHAT IS OR IS NOT GOOD FOR INDIVIDUALS, that is slavery, destruction of ones mind.

Children, they do know what is best for them, you as a parent, are there to GUIDE them, not FORCE them or make their choices for them. If they want to wear shorts in freezing cold, they will realize their mistake and they will rationalize that shorts and freezing cold don't match. If they want to touch the stove, they will realize that it's hot, and burning their hand is NOT in their best interest. A perfect example is no matter how many times you tell them not to touch a stove, they ALL DO and learn on their own. Mentally disabled on the other hand, do you think a mentally disabled will stick himself in an oven and burn up? Even mentally disabled realize self preservation, if they are at the point that they do not, then their mind is not there, and then you tell me, that society you speak of, are they really a member of it then? If they are so disabled that their mind is non-existent, how do they fit into that society?

"An individual chooses to be an alcoholic. They suffer mental impairment, radical mood swings, and consequently can not hold down a job. Their spouse and children suffer financial hardship due to this individual's choice."

--Your flaw in this argument is that the spouse and her children are tied to her husband. That they cling to him in self preservation. They (the spouse and the children) have free will, they are free to decide and do with their life as they please. When the husband gets drunk and takes a knife to his wife and kids, do you think they will not fight for their existence? or do you think they will stick with the father and let him kill them? Free will, self preservation, therefore an individuals decision in their own best, is what decides the outcome. If the wife sticks through with the husband inspite of his mood swings, and being dead broke, then she is making that choice because at that moment it's in her own best interest. If it was in her own best interest to leave, she would.

"An individual decides for himself they can handle a car at 100MPH on a highway -- and they can. A less-capable motorist is startled (no contact between vehicles) as they pass, and in their startlement loses control and dies in a wreck. That one would likely be alive if they had not been startled by the first individual."

---So what, maybe that same less capable individual is startled by a loud motorcycle going by, by a deer running out, by anything else. He is just that, like you said, less capable. He then has made the choice of getting behind the wheel, fully knowing the risks.

Again, the choice was HIS.

"A person commits suicide, believing it best for themselves -- and they are correct. Yet family and friends are left emotionally devastated (emotional harm done). Since this person was a breadwinner their surviving family suffers financial hardship."

--What do you propose, for that person to torture himself at the need of him friends and family? You are making a slave out of him, a slave to a group of people who decide that all of a sudden they own his life. Since he was the breadwinner, and they couldn't survive without him, he therefore had his own will taken away from himself, and became a slave to feed and provide for them. I LIVE FOR NO MAN, NOR DO I ASK ANY MAN TO LIVE FOR ME. When Egyptians owned slaves, how many people do you think those slaves supported with their production? How many people died because the production dissapeared when the slaves revolted. Do you propose then that just because one person depends on another, then he owns the life of that other?

"A group decides that all persons without exception within the group must pay $X per year for membership wihtin the group. A person is too poor to afford it and yet can not leave the group due to costs imposed by the group on leaving it. This one lives in poverty and starves to death."

---I guess that if he starved to death, then staying with the group was not in his best interset was it now?

And if he could not leave the group because of costs imposed, then didn't that group took away his own free will, and by imposing those costs forced him to stay, LIKE A SLAVE?

"A group decides that a particular individuals have traits making them undesirable. Such individuals are imprisoned or executed."

---If an individual stays with that group, and a group executes him, what point are you trying to make? That the group is evil, and forced their will upon that individual? Are you debating yourself, because you just made the whole argument for me, that an individual WILL decide whats in his own best interest, or he will perish.

"An individual refuses to consent to a group's command to assist in providing relief for other individuals who are starving to death, because the individual deems it not in their own best interest. Several of these starving ones die."

---If it wasn't in his own best interest, then why are you blaming him? What if he gave away his food as relief and then he himself wouldn't have enough to get him through. ONE DOES NOT LIVE AT THE PRICE OF ANOTHER. You can't have something you don't own. Or rather you can, in socialism, by taking it away by force, like in this example, from someone who does own it.

"Another individual consents to the same command despite it not being in their best interest, and consequently *they* die, yet many starving ones are saved."

---If they did it of their own free will that's fine, if they were forced to, that's slavery, murder, and canibalism, exactly in that order. First they enslaved him by submitting him to their will, then they murdered him, and then they took everything he had to feed themselfs. DO YOU SEE, NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY, IT'S STILL THE INDIVIDUALS SELF WILL THAT'S THE CONTROLLING FACTOR, ANYTHING LESS IS WRONG.

"Deal with it."

Deal with what? Enslavement, subjugation, raping of my mind, looting of my property? Because a group is forcing me to, for the better of a society? and when it's not best for me, then I am not a member of that society right? And the society is free to enslave me, subjugate me, loot me?

The looters moto is: From each according to their ability, to each according to his need...here's the face of your GROUP.