Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:27 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again. 
Author Message
Post Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
American fascism is alive and well


Thu May 19, 2011 11:28 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Fascism? That's a pretty dramatic reaction. The fact that you were able to make this thread indicates that our government has a way to go before it approaches fascism.

It appears to me that because there was already a felony in progress at the scene, the court ruled that the police acted within the constraints of reasonable conduct. It might set a crappy precedent for similar situations in the future, but it's not as though the cops were just meandering by, caught a whiff of grass, and busted in. If that were the case, I strongly doubt the judges would have ruled in the cops' favor.

As a marijuana advocacy organization, it's understandable that NORML would overreact and commence to proclaiming the death of the 4th Amendment. But while it's understandable, it's not warranted. This is hardly the first time that a ruling has revealed the limits of the scope of the 4th Amendment and it won't be the last. If it's any consolation, there have been many cases of cops busting in without a warrant that have been ruled against their favor. This case falls somewhat short of confirming NORML's fears of a police state.

I consider it less an issue of Constitutionality and more an issue of error-ridden law enforcement tactics, blind traditionalism, poor education, and limits placed upon scientific inquiry for political purposes. I suspect that if schools were to stop disseminating propaganda to young people and start teaching the truth--that marijuana is relatively innocuous and certainly isn't comparable to other schedule I drugs like heroin and methamphetamine--these issues will begin to evaporate.


Fri May 20, 2011 12:53 am
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
We have a president that is a-okay with TSA agents molesting children at airports. People that sell raw milk have Feds putting guns to their heads. People minding their own business, in their own homes, get raided because cops and/or Feds have "probable cause". If using "fascism" as a general term for an oppressive government, that claim is not far from the truth.


Fri May 20, 2011 1:32 am
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Bondurant wrote:
We have a president that is a-okay with TSA agents molesting children at airports.


Huh? I scratch my head at comments like this. You're not serious I hope?
Rob


Fri May 20, 2011 1:36 am
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Bondurant wrote:
We have a president that is a-okay with TSA agents molesting children at airports. People that sell raw milk have Feds putting guns to their heads. People minding their own business, in their own homes, get raided because cops and/or Feds have "probable cause". If using "fascism" as a general term for an oppressive government, that claim is not far from the truth.
Fascism is not a general term. It is a specific term, with specific criteria. Throwing it around in circumstances in which it doesn't apply only dilutes your position by devaluing your choice of language.

We have a president who, thankfully, cannot unilaterally implement anything he wants and cast aside anything he doesn't. I'm sure he's well aware that many Americans are uncomfortable having the tips of their penises brushed through the cloth of their pants by overzealous TSA operatives. We have an FDA that strongly tends not to interfere with the sale of food items unless it identifies such items as a specific health hazard. Unpasteurized milk transmits food-borne illnesses, has not been demonstrated to have any unique health benefits, and is illegal to sell across state lines due to differing state laws on the matter. When law enforcement agents intervene, it's because they're doing their jobs, which we pay them to do. "Probable cause" is the language we use--indeed, the very language contained in the 4th Amendment--to ensure that our police officers cannot consider criminal charges against us unless they adhere to a predetermined standard. While that standard is not always clearly defined, it is at least in part because our leaders attempt to give us what we want. It is extraordinarily difficult for them to define when the police should and should not act when both action and inaction are likely to be heavily criticized by the public for different reasons.

I can't speak for anyone else, but this doesn't even come close to fascism to me. Bear in mind, there have been actual fascist governments in the western world, within a century of our lifetimes--a few minutes ago on the timescale of human civilization. Our situation is far from perfect, but I'd certainly prefer to live in Obama's America rather than in Mussolini's Italy.


Fri May 20, 2011 3:10 am
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Its either use dramatic words or play Rage against the machine really loud. As we cant hear music on this forum the choice is clear.


Fri May 20, 2011 6:16 am
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Ken wrote:
Fascism? That's a pretty dramatic reaction. The fact that you were able to make this thread indicates that our government has a way to go before it approaches fascism.


Consider the source. Timmy Shoes is carving out quite the niche on the forum as the resident Angry College Kid.

Ken wrote:
As a marijuana advocacy organization, it's understandable that NORML would overreact and commence to proclaiming the death of the 4th Amendment. But while it's understandable, it's not warranted. This is hardly the first time that a ruling has revealed the limits of the scope of the 4th Amendment and it won't be the last. If it's any consolation, there have been many cases of cops busting in without a warrant that have been ruled against their favor. This case falls somewhat short of confirming NORML's fears of a police state.


Agreed. It seems as if you have considered the source in this instance. Good for you, Kenneth.

Ken wrote:
I can't speak for anyone else, but this doesn't even come close to fascism to me. Bear in mind, there have been actual fascist governments in the western world, within a century of our lifetimes--a few minutes ago on the timescale of human civilization. Our situation is far from perfect, but I'd certainly prefer to live in Obama's America rather than in Mussolini's Italy.


Not even close to fascism. Like Ken says, fascist regimes have existed and America doesn't even begin to compare. It's as ridiculous as people calling Obama a socialist. They're just buzz words used to play on people's pre-established fears/dislikes and get them to automatically fear/dislike whatever is in question, without actually taking anything substantial into consideration. The dangers (or benefits, depending on your angle) of labeling.


Last edited by PeachyPete on Fri May 20, 2011 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Fri May 20, 2011 8:31 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1266
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Ken wrote:
Bondurant wrote:
We have a president that is a-okay with TSA agents molesting children at airports. People that sell raw milk have Feds putting guns to their heads. People minding their own business, in their own homes, get raided because cops and/or Feds have "probable cause". If using "fascism" as a general term for an oppressive government, that claim is not far from the truth.
Fascism is not a general term. It is a specific term, with specific criteria. Throwing it around in circumstances in which it doesn't apply only dilutes your position by devaluing your choice of language.


Yes, this is true. It's actually a bit of a challenge to specifically and concretely define what fascism is (though I think I have a pretty good working definition), but it's quite easy to observe what it is not, and it is not what people claim to be it 90% of the time.

Quote:
We have a president who, thankfully, cannot unilaterally implement anything he wants and cast aside anything he doesn't.


Well, Obama is contemplating doing that right now with a rather terrible and unconstitutional executive order (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/ ... ctor-order) but nevertheless there are indeed checks on executive authority.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Fri May 20, 2011 9:48 am
Profile
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Part Deu(sp). This may not be fascist...but it's certainly not democratic...


^ The fact that they actually recorded themselves (the police) doing this "raid" is mind boggling to me. Buncha supped up bullies who wanted to finally dress up in their SWAT gear and see some "action". Would this constitute something fascist? I guess not...they had a warrant... -_-

For the record, of the 2 dogs shot and killed during the raid, one was a pit bull (almost...ALMOST understandable) and the other was a corgi....yes, a corgi.


Fri May 20, 2011 1:34 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Bondurant wrote:
People that sell raw milk have Feds putting guns to their heads.


I just read a story about that a couple of weeks ago and find it especially confusing. The FBI is actually setting up stings with undercover agents in order to target people who buy and sell raw milk. The FBI. And milk. Really? The FBI?


Fri May 20, 2011 2:04 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Would this constitute something fascist?


Not even close. Your insistence on using the term borders on being offensive given that people in this world have to actually deal with fascism.


Fri May 20, 2011 2:13 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Shade wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Would this constitute something fascist?


Not even close. Your insistence on using the term borders on being offensive given that people in this world have to actually deal with fascism.


So how would you describe an armed SWAT team breaking into your home and shooting your family pets (in front of your children, no less) over a grinder, pipe, and some nuggets of a plant? If it's not an example of how a police state might operate, what would you call it?

It may not be fascism, but to dismiss it (and therefore validate the actions) because of the inappropriate label is stupid.


Fri May 20, 2011 2:28 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1266
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Shade wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Would this constitute something fascist?


Not even close. Your insistence on using the term borders on being offensive given that people in this world have to actually deal with fascism.


So how would you describe an armed SWAT team breaking into your home and shooting your family pets (in front of your children, no less) over a grinder, pipe, and some nuggets of a plant? If it's not an example of how a police state might operate, what would you call it?

It may not be fascism, but to dismiss it (and therefore validate the actions) because of the inappropriate label is stupid.


Dismissing your incorrect usage of the term fascism is not the same as dismissing the objections to the event in question.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Fri May 20, 2011 2:39 pm
Profile
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Timmy Shoes wrote:
So how would you describe an armed SWAT team breaking into your home and shooting your family pets (in front of your children, no less) over a grinder, pipe, and some nuggets of a plant? If it's not an example of how a police state might operate, what would you call it?

It may not be fascism, but to dismiss it (and therefore validate the actions) because of the inappropriate label is stupid.


As firefly said, I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the event itself. To say that by dismissing your incorrectly used terms is to validate the actions makes no sense at all.

I'm not dismissing the event. But if you insist on using the term fascism when it clearly doesn't apply, we aren't able to have a real conversation about what did happen.

There's nothing police-state about a SWAT team raiding a home they believed to be housing lots of illegal contraband. There was an investigation and they thought they were correct; it appears they weren't. That's a helluva lot different than the police barging in and shooting up the place whenever they feel like it.

And the "in front of children" argument is silly and way off the point of all of this. While I don't think it's a good thing, I don't see how it bears into the argument.


Fri May 20, 2011 2:50 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Shade wrote:
There's nothing police-state about a SWAT team raiding a home they believed to be housing lots of illegal contraband.


*facepalm*

Shade wrote:
There was an investigation and they thought they were correct; it appears they weren't. That's a helluva lot different than the police barging in and shooting up the place whenever they feel like it.


So I'm guessing shooting the corgi was part of their investigation?

Shade wrote:
And the "in front of children" argument is silly and way off the point of all of this. While I don't think it's a good thing, I don't see how it bears into the argument.


You must not have read the part where the courts charged the guy with "child endangerment" for having weed in the house. So having weed in the house is more dangerous and harmful to your children then having an armed SWAT team bust into your home, who proceed to open fire on family pets. Gotta love it. Fascist? Maybe not. Excessive, unnecessary and amoral? Absolutely.

Fundamentally, the "war on drugs" in unconstitutional. Not only does it give the federal government unjust power over the states, it also dictates that we police people's personal behaviors.


Fri May 20, 2011 3:10 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Timmy Shoes wrote:
*facepalm*


Explain this. What's so mind-bogglingly dumb about what I'm said? Was it not illegal?

Timmy Shoes wrote:
You must not have read the part where the courts charged the guy with "child endangerment" for having weed in the house. So having weed in the house is more dangerous and harmful to your children then having an armed SWAT team bust into your home, who proceed to open fire on family pets.


Who said that? No one. Neither does the situation say that. Do you think the guy was not endangering his child at all? Do you think we should hand out joints in schools? Is there no possible bad ramifications from young children being around drugs all the time?

Timmy Shoes wrote:
Gotta love it. Fascist? Maybe not. Excessive, unnecessary and amoral? Absolutely.


You've already acknowledged that killing the pitbull is potentially understandable. Yes, it's over the top, excessive and probably unnecessary.

Timmy Shoes wrote:
Fundamentally, the "war on drugs" in unconstitutional. Not only does it give the federal government unjust power over the states, it also dictates that we police people's personal behaviors.


Your argument might make some sense if drug use happened in a vacuum. It doesn't. If an individual's drug use didn't affect others, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't work that way.

We can argue if any or all drugs should be illegal or not. You can say that the war on drugs is misguided and corrupt and no one here is disagreeing with you. But no matter who or what's to blame, the illegal drug industry right now is fueled by drug abuse, violence, infighting -- and whether you blame the government for that or not, when you buy illegal drugs you're supporting that industry. Isn't that unnecessary and amoral?


Fri May 20, 2011 3:29 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Shade wrote:
There was an investigation and they thought they were correct; it appears they weren't. That's a helluva lot different than the police barging in and shooting up the place whenever they feel like it.


So I'm guessing shooting the corgi was part of their investigation?


For the record, the link to the actual article says the pit bull was shot and killed for being "uncontrollably aggressive". The corgi was shot and wounded, but not killed. Maybe that makes it better, maybe it doesn't, but facts are facts. 2 dogs weren't killed.

Personally, if the police think they're raiding a drug dealer's house and deem it necessary to call in the SWAT team, and a pit bull who is being "uncontrollably aggressive" is shot, I don't have a huge problem with that. This is coming from someone who's owned dogs his entire life.

This particular instance may be excessive. It seems like the police were acting on bad intelligence, and brought an abnormally large contingent to something they thought was more large scale than it turned out to be. Personally, it sounds like they made a mistake more than it does they were being fascist or undemocratic. However, who really knows? The investigation is still ongoing. I think it's a rash rush to judgement to start throwing around the kind of ideas and statements you're throwing around before the investigation is complete. It sounds like your mind is made up and you're using this as evidence to support your preconcieved notions about police without really knowing all the details. That's more than a little unfair.

Timmy Shoes wrote:
Fundamentally, the "war on drugs" in unconstitutional. Not only does it give the federal government unjust power over the states, it also dictates that we police people's personal behaviors.


It's called upholding the law, man. It isn't unconstitutional for police to punish criminals for committing crimes. That's what's supposed to happen. If someone is involved in any way with illegal drugs, they're committing a crime. They deserve to pay whatever penalty is associated with that crime. Police enforcing that is not unconsitutional. It's exactly why they exist in the first place. Calling drug related activity "people's personal behaviors" is beyond ridiculous. People don't get to commit crimes and chalk it up to being their personal behavior. Come on. You don't really believe that.

If you want to argue the legality of drugs, that's a separate issue. Currently, being involved with them is a crime.


Fri May 20, 2011 3:50 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
A few things. Here's a definition, taken from a dictionary:

fascism (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

What you guys are suggesting is that to use the term, you must hold it against every fascist government that existed, despite my making a distinction in the original post (notice that I didn't say fascism, I said American fascism). In my point of view, in accordance with this definition, I'd say some of the things I've brought up are most certainly fascist, or at least fascistic (is that even a word? fascist-like? lol...)

Shade wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
*facepalm*


Explain this. What's so mind-bogglingly dumb about what I'm said? Was it not illegal?


Maybe it's just my warped, angry college kid viewpoint, but enforcing an unenforceable mandate against a plant material is very police-state like. Slavery used to be legal, woman couldn't vote, gays still can't get married. Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.

Shade wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
You must not have read the part where the courts charged the guy with "child endangerment" for having weed in the house. So having weed in the house is more dangerous and harmful to your children then having an armed SWAT team bust into your home, who proceed to open fire on family pets.


Who said that? No one. Neither does the situation say that. Do you think the guy was not endangering his child at all? Do you think we should hand out joints in schools? Is there no possible bad ramifications from young children being around drugs all the time?


You're assuming this guy was sitting at home blowing weed smoke in his kid's face. I'd bet anything the kid had no idea there was any drugs in the house.

Shade wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Gotta love it. Fascist? Maybe not. Excessive, unnecessary and amoral? Absolutely.


You've already acknowledged that killing the pitbull is potentially understandable. Yes, it's over the top, excessive and probably unnecessary.


Pit bull, maybe. Corgi...are you fucking kidding me? :?

Shade wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Fundamentally, the "war on drugs" in unconstitutional. Not only does it give the federal government unjust power over the states, it also dictates that we police people's personal behaviors.


Your argument might make some sense if drug use happened in a vacuum. It doesn't. If an individual's drug use didn't affect others, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't work that way.


This is a fallacy. Drug addiction doesn't lead to criminality, drug prohibition leads to criminality. A crackhead doesn't break into your car to steal your radio when he's high, he does it when he needs money to buy crack.

Moreover, how can you even make this argument when drunk driving kills 40,000 people a year, and alcohol is perfectly legal? Not to mention the fact that there hasn't been one recorded marijuana-related death, ever, and it's one of the very few substances on the planet that you can't overdose on.

Shade wrote:
We can argue if any or all drugs should be illegal or not. You can say that the war on drugs is misguided and corrupt and no one here is disagreeing with you. But no matter who or what's to blame, the illegal drug industry right now is fueled by drug abuse, violence, infighting -- and whether you blame the government for that or not, when you buy illegal drugs you're supporting that industry. Isn't that unnecessary and amoral?


Drug prohibition forced the market into the "black" market, into the hands of criminals and bad people. How do you think Al Capone got rich? Think he would have made all that money if alcohol was still legal? By making these things illegal, your forcing the market into the hands of not so nice people. If these things were legal and regulated, there would be no "abuse, violence and infighting." Drugs aren't to blame, prohibition is.

Also, I grow my own, so I'm not a contributor.

PeachyPete wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Shade wrote:
There was an investigation and they thought they were correct; it appears they weren't. That's a helluva lot different than the police barging in and shooting up the place whenever they feel like it.


So I'm guessing shooting the corgi was part of their investigation?


For the record, the link to the actual article says the pit bull was shot and killed for being "uncontrollably aggressive". The corgi was shot and wounded, but not killed. Maybe that makes it better, maybe it doesn't, but facts are facts. 2 dogs weren't killed.

Personally, if the police think they're raiding a drug dealer's house and deem it necessary to call in the SWAT team, and a pit bull who is being "uncontrollably aggressive" is shot, I don't have a huge problem with that. This is coming from someone who's owned dogs his entire life.

This particular instance may be excessive. It seems like the police were acting on bad intelligence, and brought an abnormally large contingent to something they thought was more large scale than it turned out to be. Personally, it sounds like they made a mistake more than it does they were being fascist or undemocratic. However, who really knows? The investigation is still ongoing. I think it's a rash rush to judgement to start throwing around the kind of ideas and statements you're throwing around before the investigation is complete. It sounds like your mind is made up and you're using this as evidence to support your preconcieved notions about police without really knowing all the details. That's more than a little unfair.


Did you even watch the video?

PeachyPete wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Fundamentally, the "war on drugs" in unconstitutional. Not only does it give the federal government unjust power over the states, it also dictates that we police people's personal behaviors.


It's called upholding the law, man. It isn't unconstitutional for police to punish criminals for committing crimes. That's what's supposed to happen. If someone is involved in any way with illegal drugs, they're committing a crime. They deserve to pay whatever penalty is associated with that crime. Police enforcing that is not unconsitutional. It's exactly why they exist in the first place. Calling drug related activity "people's personal behaviors" is beyond ridiculous. People don't get to commit crimes and chalk it up to being their personal behavior. Come on. You don't really believe that.

If you want to argue the legality of drugs, that's a separate issue. Currently, being involved with them is a crime.


First off, it is unconstitutional. The war on drugs gives power to the federal government beyond the states control, and that is unconstitutional. Upholding the law, huh? So is that why the DEA continues it's raids on medical marijuana facilities in California, even though it's legal under state law there? Second off, why is it OK to label someone a criminal for lighting up? They're grouped in with murderers, rapists, thieves, wife-beaters, child molesters. Arresting people for their personal choice to smoke a planty material is unconstitutional in my eyes, but I guess that's up to the interpretation of the reader.


Fri May 20, 2011 4:03 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Timmy Shoes wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
For the record, the link to the actual article says the pit bull was shot and killed for being "uncontrollably aggressive". The corgi was shot and wounded, but not killed. Maybe that makes it better, maybe it doesn't, but facts are facts. 2 dogs weren't killed.

Personally, if the police think they're raiding a drug dealer's house and deem it necessary to call in the SWAT team, and a pit bull who is being "uncontrollably aggressive" is shot, I don't have a huge problem with that. This is coming from someone who's owned dogs his entire life.

This particular instance may be excessive. It seems like the police were acting on bad intelligence, and brought an abnormally large contingent to something they thought was more large scale than it turned out to be. Personally, it sounds like they made a mistake more than it does they were being fascist or undemocratic. However, who really knows? The investigation is still ongoing. I think it's a rash rush to judgement to start throwing around the kind of ideas and statements you're throwing around before the investigation is complete. It sounds like your mind is made up and you're using this as evidence to support your preconcieved notions about police without really knowing all the details. That's more than a little unfair.


Did you even watch the video?


I did. Now if you would kindly respond to my post with an actual response and not a condescending question, maybe we could get this debate back on track.

Timmy Shoes wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Fundamentally, the "war on drugs" in unconstitutional. Not only does it give the federal government unjust power over the states, it also dictates that we police people's personal behaviors.


It's called upholding the law, man. It isn't unconstitutional for police to punish criminals for committing crimes. That's what's supposed to happen. If someone is involved in any way with illegal drugs, they're committing a crime. They deserve to pay whatever penalty is associated with that crime. Police enforcing that is not unconsitutional. It's exactly why they exist in the first place. Calling drug related activity "people's personal behaviors" is beyond ridiculous. People don't get to commit crimes and chalk it up to being their personal behavior. Come on. You don't really believe that.

If you want to argue the legality of drugs, that's a separate issue. Currently, being involved with them is a crime.


First off, it is unconstitutional. The war on drugs gives power to the federal government beyond the states control, and that is unconstitutional. Upholding the law, huh? So is that why the DEA continues it's raids on medical marijuana facilities in California, even though it's legal under state law there? Second off, why is it OK to label someone a criminal for lighting up? They're grouped in with murderers, rapists, thieves, wife-beaters, child molesters. Arresting people for their personal choice to smoke a planty material is unconstitutional in my eyes, but I guess that's up to the interpretation of the reader.


It sounds like what you're doing here is advocating the legalization of drugs. That's all well and good, but that's a separate debate.

It's ok to label someone a criminal for lighting up because, hello, it's a crime. Whether or not it should be can be up for debate, but smoking marijuana is currently a crime. Police aren't lawmakers. Faulting them for upholding the current laws is ridiculous. They don't get to pick and choose which laws to enforce.


Fri May 20, 2011 4:18 pm
Post Re: Drug War shits on the Constitution, yet again.
Timmy Shoes wrote:
Maybe it's just my warped, angry college kid viewpoint, but enforcing an unenforceable mandate against a plant material is very police-state like. Slavery used to be legal, woman couldn't vote, gays still can't get married. Just because it's the law doesn't make it right.


No one's saying it's the right law or the perfect law. But it IS the law. That's why I used the term "illegal." Because that's what it is, whether it should be or not.

Timmy Shoes wrote:
You're assuming this guy was sitting at home blowing weed smoke in his kid's face. I'd bet anything the kid had no idea there was any drugs in the house.


I'm not assuming anything. I'm basing this on what I see and have seen. For a variety of reasons, my job takes me around this stuff every day, and I've never met a kid who had no idea their parents are smoking/shooting up/taking pills etc etc. Parents kid themselves that they hide it, but it doesn't happen. Kid's are much, much smarter with stuff like this then they're given credit for.

Timmy Shoes wrote:
This is a fallacy. Drug addiction doesn't lead to criminality, drug prohibition leads to criminality. A crackhead doesn't break into your car to steal your radio when he's high, he does it when he needs money to buy crack.


I said that drug use doesn't happen in a vacuum. That's a fallacy?

No one's disagreeing that the illegalities of drugs lead to crimes and violence.

Here's a fallacy that you just said: Drug addiction doesn't lead to criminality. Are you fucking kidding me? If crack was legal the price may or may not skyrocket, but it would not be free -- addicts would still need money for crack. Some would still commit crimes to do so. Are you seriously going to contend that crack doesn't ever lead to violence? Sure, sometimes a crackhead breaks into your car to get money. What about when a crackhead kills his wife while he's high? That's the governments's fault too? How exactly would that change if the legality changed?

Now, you're right in that the illegality of drugs hugely amplifies the criminal aspect. But to say it's solely responsible for the criminal aspects is insane.

Timmy Shoes wrote:
Moreover, how can you even make this argument when drunk driving kills 40,000 people a year, and alcohol is perfectly legal? Not to mention the fact that there hasn't been one recorded marijuana-related death, ever, and it's one of the very few substances on the planet that you can't overdose on.


Maybe alcohol should be illegal too, then.

You can't overdose and die from marijuana use, true. But plenty of deaths are related to the drug.

Timmy Shoes wrote:
If these things were legal and regulated, there would be no "abuse, violence and infighting." Drugs aren't to blame, prohibition is.


Again -- and you're the one who brought up crack -- crack users would never abuse anyone again? Drugs would never lead to violence again? That's what legality would do?

Timmy Shoes wrote:
Arresting people for their personal choice to smoke a planty material is unconstitutional in my eyes, but I guess that's up to the interpretation of the reader.


Maybe you're the rare exception who exists totally outside of the drug trade. But the vast majority of user are affiliated with the trade in some way, and thereby support the violence created by it. To most users, apparently, their freedom to toke is more important than anyone else's safety. If drug users actually cared about the curbing the violence, they would stop using and campaign like hell to get the laws changed. But too many prefer to just get high and wax poetic about how fucked-up the government is.


Fri May 20, 2011 4:26 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 35 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr