Heavy illegal drug use, question and input needed, goes along w/ my defense thread. - Page 3

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Heavy illegal drug use, question and input needed, goes along w/ my defense thread. (Page 3 of 5)

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:03:42 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
First of all, these aren't heavy drugs you're talking about.

Cocaine isnt a "heavy" (hard) drug. It kills more people from meth. Coke has a nasty little tendacy to kill people through sudden heart problems. its not an overdose, its just something about the drug makes some peoples ticker stop. Other stims dont share this trait.

BTW; nothing draws scum like a willing female doper. I hunt tweeker for a living and its just like deer hunting, you want to get the bucks, you stake out the does. A couple strippers willing to trade pie for coke are going to draw a lot of losers into your complex.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:06:21 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all, these aren't heavy drugs you're talking about.

Cocaine isnt a "haeavy" (hard) drug. It kills more people from meth. Coke has a nasty little tendacy to kill people through sudden heart problems. its not an overdose, its just something about the drug makes some peoples ticker stop. Other stims dont share this trait.

So how many people are killed by coke in a typical year? Just for grins, include the numbers for alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, tylenol, and aspirin, just so we can get a fair comparison of risk.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:12:30 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all, these aren't heavy drugs you're talking about.

Cocaine isnt a "haeavy" (hard) drug. It kills more people from meth. Coke has a nasty little tendacy to kill people through sudden heart problems. its not an overdose, its just something about the drug makes some peoples ticker stop. Other stims dont share this trait.

So how many people are killed by coke in a typical year? Just for grins, include the numbers for alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, tylenol, and aspirin, just so we can get a fair comparison of risk.

You're obviously missing his point. I don't think the "war on drugs" envisioned having to send DEA agents out to bust up a Tylenol Den.
Illegal drugs attract people who are morally and ethically crippled. Eventually their constant presence results in all kinds of additional problems. I don't think you get this kind of problem from aspirin or prescription drugs.

If you want ot be specific, pick ONE type of alcohol, or one type of prescription drug. There's only ONE kind of cocaine, there's an endless number of different types of alcohol.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:14:15 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
How do you think those drug infested places started out? It's not like when a house developer starts building homes in an area they also plan out in advance which places will house the crackheads, which ones will be the drug dens, and which ones will be the innocent bystanders who will get shot in a crossfire.

These places start nice and turn into fucked up drug infested neighborhoods because people stand by with their thumbs in their asses and do/say nothing because they're a bunhc of fearful sheep. Then, as time goes on and the problem escalates from one house and one drug dealer to 5 out of 10 houses they start bitching about how the police aren't doing anything to keep their neighborhoods safe for their children to play in.

So call the fucking cops. Do it for the children. Do it for yourself. Just fucking do it.

The one sure sign that someone has stopped thinking and is so full of shit it is coming out their ears -- Do it for the children!

Ban drugs -- Do it for the children!
Ban guns - Do it for the children!, etc., etc., etc.

That was the excuse for alcohol prohibition, too. Look how well that worked out.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:15:17 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all, these aren't heavy drugs you're talking about.

Cocaine isnt a "haeavy" (hard) drug. It kills more people from meth. Coke has a nasty little tendacy to kill people through sudden heart problems. its not an overdose, its just something about the drug makes some peoples ticker stop. Other stims dont share this trait.

So how many people are killed by coke in a typical year? Just for grins, include the numbers for alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, tylenol, and aspirin, just so we can get a fair comparison of risk.

You're obviously missing his point. I don't think the "war on drugs" envisioned having to send DEA agents out to bust up a Tylenol Den.
Illegal drugs attract people who are morally and ethically crippled. Eventually their constant presence results in all kinds of additional problems. I don't think you get this kind of problem from aspirin or prescription drugs.

If you want ot be specific, pick ONE type of alcohol, or one type of prescription drug. There's only ONE kind of cocaine, there's an endless number of different types of alcohol.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:16:27 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
I know, it was some other guys. Instead on being reasonable or talking about what to do, they call names and say i will get killed for sure. They can go back to DU with their "whatever i do in the comfort of my own home is fine" attitudes.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it appears to me that our Founding Fathers had the idea that the Government should not be intruding in people's homes. IIRC, there are even things in the Constitution about it.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:18:59 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It's not shootings I would be worried about. Your biggest risks are the girls or there friends stealing your stuff to trade for drugs. Whatever you do dont loan the girls your car. you dont need the grief of some coked out stripper crashing it or forgeting to bring it back for a week.

Yeah. Friends cannot be drug users. Its trouble. Like garandman said peers are influential on you. More than you think.

Choose friends wisely.

Is this experience or just opinion ?

My experiences sure differ from that.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:20:18 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
You're obviously missing his point. I don't think the "war on drugs" envisioned having to send DEA agents out to bust up a Tylenol Den.

Because Tylenol, by some quirk of fate, escaped being illegal. Now, if you knew the numbers of deaths by each, you might better understand my point.

Illegal drugs attract people who are morally and ethically crippled.

Alcohol attracts people who are morally and ethically crippled.

Eventually their constant presence results in all kinds of additional problems. I don't think you get this kind of problem from aspirin or prescription drugs.

You are right. Those problems occur far more commonly with beer and other alcoholic products than any of the products you mentioned.

If you want ot be specific, pick ONE type of alcohol, or one type of prescription drug. There's only ONE kind of cocaine, there's an endless number of different types of alcohol.

Alcohol is alcohol. The only thing different between one form and another is the flavor. But, go ahead and separate out whatever kinds of alcohol you like. You will still find that it causes more problems (including deaths) in society than all the illegal drugs combined.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:24:03 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all, these aren't heavy drugs you're talking about.

Cocaine isnt a "haeavy" (hard) drug. It kills more people from meth. Coke has a nasty little tendacy to kill people through sudden heart problems. its not an overdose, its just something about the drug makes some peoples ticker stop. Other stims dont share this trait.

So how many people are killed by coke in a typical year? Just for grins, include the numbers for alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, tylenol, and aspirin, just so we can get a fair comparison of risk.

You're obviously missing his point. I don't think the "war on drugs" envisioned having to send DEA agents out to bust up a Tylenol Den.
Illegal drugs attract people who are morally and ethically crippled. Eventually their constant presence results in all kinds of additional problems. I don't think you get this kind of problem from aspirin or prescription drugs.

If you want ot be specific, pick ONE type of alcohol, or one type of prescription drug. There's only ONE kind of cocaine, there's an endless number of different types of alcohol.

Not only is that BS, but it is my long held belief that government should not be passing laws forcing people to be moral or ethical. Just what harm does someone cause when they get home afterwork and decide to catch a buzz taking a bong hit? No different than if someone came home and killed a 12 pack (while you can't compair the buzz of pot to beer, the impairment level is the same)? People who drink/smoke/snort etc are trying to get away from their problems. Is that unhealthy? Hell yes. Is it some how unethical or immoral? No it isn't.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:32:05 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
People who drink/smoke/snort etc are trying to get away from their problems.

I will take issue with that part. If they are attempting to escape their problems then most of the world does it. I think a better explanation is that higher nervous systems require sensory input and change within themselves just to stay alive. People crave entertainment of various forms, even when they don't have any particular problems. Throw a barbecue with some beer in the cooler for a good demonstration.

This would account for the fact that, in all the history of the world, there is perhaps only one society that never used drugs for recreation -- and the fact that most of the people in the US take one or more recreational drugs.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:37:26 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Not only is that BS, but it is my long held belief that government should not be passing laws forcing people to be moral or ethical. Just what harm does someone cause when they get home afterwork and decide to catch a buzz taking a bong hit? No different than if someone came home and killed a 12 pack (while you can't compair the buzz of pot to beer, the impairment level is the same)? People who drink/smoke/snort etc are trying to get away from their problems. Is that unhealthy? Hell yes. Is it some how unethical or immoral? No it isn't.

The difference is the people using the drugs. Someone who comes home after working a regular job and smoking the reefer is different than a couple of low rent skank strippers who are discussing branching out from reefer to what sounds like a drug buffet. Those are the types of low lifes I'm referring to that attract the type of shit birds that will destroy a neighborhood.

A recreational user like the guy who comes home and puffs on a joint and the junkies, which, if those strippers aren't now they're well on their way to becoming is the distinguishing line.

Don't get me wrong. If drugs were legalized and regulated like alcohol I would be saying any of this because I think that by legalizing drugs it would almost eliminate the problem of drug dealers and "street drugs".

How often do you see a raid on a house making "illegal" alcohol or guys selling "illegal" alcohol on a street corner. Once alcohol was legalized and regulated that part of the problem pretty much went away.

Granted the issue of alcoholism and drunk driving and all that wonderful stuff that goes along with alcohol use is there there, but that's more a result of people's in ability to control their urges... different problem.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:43:31 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
The difference is the people using the drugs. Someone who comes home after working a regular job and smoking the reefer is different than a couple of low rent skank strippers who are discussing branching out from reefer to what sounds like a drug buffet. Those are the types of low lifes I'm referring to that attract the type of shit birds that will destroy a neighborhood.

I have been in many neighborhoods, from high to low. People who use pot/coke, etc. are found in every such neighborhood in relatively equal quantities. Government stats seem to back up that idea, too.

A recreational user like the guy who comes home and puffs on a joint and the junkies, which, if those strippers aren't now they're well on their way to becoming is the distinguishing line.

The odds that they will become junkies is small, indeed.

Don't get me wrong. If drugs were legalized and regulated like alcohol I would be saying any of this because I think that by legalizing drugs it would almost eliminate the problem of drug dealers and "street drugs".

How often do you see a raid on a house making "illegal" alcohol or guys selling "illegal" alcohol on a street corner. Once alcohol was legalized and regulated that part of the problem pretty much went away.

Granted the issue of alcoholism and drunk driving and all that wonderful stuff that goes along with alcohol use is there there, but that's more a result of people's in ability to control their urges... different problem.

We agree on that.

Posted: 10/5/2005 6:57:20 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Not only is that BS, but it is my long held belief that government should not be passing laws forcing people to be moral or ethical. Just what harm does someone cause when they get home afterwork and decide to catch a buzz taking a bong hit? No different than if someone came home and killed a 12 pack (while you can't compair the buzz of pot to beer, the impairment level is the same)? People who drink/smoke/snort etc are trying to get away from their problems. Is that unhealthy? Hell yes. Is it some how unethical or immoral? No it isn't.

Your net is too wide. EVERY LAW falls under "moral or ethical."

Further, its NOT about the bong hit. Its about the libertine mentality that says if I don't like a law, I'll just break it anytime I want to, never working to change the law.

Its not about pot. Its about lawlessness.

Potheads are the type of people who are a blight on society. They disobey laws, they don't work to change laws, they just think no one should ever be able to tell them what to do.

I don't see the problem with pot, if alcohol is gonna also be legal.

I DO have a big problem with the pothead mentality.

And FAR too often potheads become wards of teh state, welfare recipients, AFDC recipeints, food stamps, etc.

Not all but EVEN ONE is too many.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:03:29 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Not only is that BS, but it is my long held belief that government should not be passing laws forcing people to be moral or ethical. Just what harm does someone cause when they get home afterwork and decide to catch a buzz taking a bong hit? No different than if someone came home and killed a 12 pack (while you can't compair the buzz of pot to beer, the impairment level is the same)? People who drink/smoke/snort etc are trying to get away from their problems. Is that unhealthy? Hell yes. Is it some how unethical or immoral? No it isn't.

Your net is too wide. EVERY LAW falls under "moral or ethical."

Jaywalking, speeding, expired registration, building codes, etc.

Further, its NOT about the bong hit. Its about the libertine mentality that says if I don't like a law, I'll just break it anytime I want to, never working to change the law.

It is not about the booze. It is about the libertine mentality that says I can drink a beer any time I want.

BTW, if you are interested in changing the law yourself, I could refer you to any number of organizations that are full of potheads working to change the law. It might do you good -- and get rid of some of your wild misconceptions.

Its not about pot. Its about lawlessness.

Yeah, never mind the stupid law that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Potheads are the type of people who are a blight on society. They disobey laws, they don't work to change laws, they just think no one should ever be able to tell them what to do.

You did a survey of a few hundred thousand of them and this was the conclusion, I suppose.

I don't see the problem with pot, if alcohol is gonna also be legal.

Note that alcohol is illegal because we discovered that banning it just didn't work. People said the same kinds of things about beer drinkers that you are saying about pot smokers.

I DO have a big problem with the pothead mentality.

I DO have a big problem with the beerhead mentality.

And FAR too often potheads become wards of teh state, welfare recipients, AFDC recipeints, food stamps, etc.

Not all but EVEN ONE is too many.

Alcohol wins all the prizes in that category. Always has, always will. Pot has never even come close. Would you have a problem with a bunch of beer drinkers in your building?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:07:25 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Not only is that BS, but it is my long held belief that government should not be passing laws forcing people to be moral or ethical. Just what harm does someone cause when they get home afterwork and decide to catch a buzz taking a bong hit? No different than if someone came home and killed a 12 pack (while you can't compair the buzz of pot to beer, the impairment level is the same)? People who drink/smoke/snort etc are trying to get away from their problems. Is that unhealthy? Hell yes. Is it some how unethical or immoral? No it isn't.

Your net is too wide. EVERY LAW falls under "moral or ethical."

Further, its NOT about the bong hit. Its about the libertine mentality that says if I don't like a law, I'll just break it anytime I want to, never working to change the law.

Its not about pot. Its about lawlessness.

Potheads are the type of people who are a blight on society. They disobey laws, they don't work to change laws, they just think no one should ever be able to tell them what to do.

I don't see the problem with pot, if alcohol is gonna also be legal.

I DO have a big problem with the pothead mentality.

And FAR too often potheads become wards of teh state, welfare recipients, AFDC recipeints, food stamps, etc.

Not all but EVEN ONE is too many.

Oh there are a lot of people trying to change the law, though most people are "scared" to come out in favor of legalizing pot. I would also concede that a lot of illegal drug users are wards of the state (along with a lot of alcohol and tobacco users). It is also my philosophy that if you are dependent of the state/.gov you should not be allowed to use tobacco/alcohol or drugs. If you do you should be treated for your problem. You do realize that every study done has shown that if you want to reduce the number of users out there, treatment works more than locking someone up.

Furthermore, if I think a law is unjust, I tend to ignore it like dumb gun laws that say that my CHP isn't valid in certain states- which is another law that I am trying to change by regularly writing my congressman and senators.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:11:41 AM EDT

[#16]

Just for the record I would pass any drug test.....been along time. You tend to realize that there are more important things in life than just getting high.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:16:52 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Not only is that BS, but it is my long held belief that government should not be passing laws forcing people to be moral or ethical. Just what harm does someone cause when they get home afterwork and decide to catch a buzz taking a bong hit? No different than if someone came home and killed a 12 pack (while you can't compair the buzz of pot to beer, the impairment level is the same)? People who drink/smoke/snort etc are trying to get away from their problems. Is that unhealthy? Hell yes. Is it some how unethical or immoral? No it isn't.

Your net is too wide. EVERY LAW falls under "moral or ethical."

Further, its NOT about the bong hit. Its about the libertine mentality that says if I don't like a law, I'll just break it anytime I want to, never working to change the law.

Its not about pot. Its about lawlessness.

Potheads are the type of people who are a blight on society. They disobey laws, they don't work to change laws, they just think no one should ever be able to tell them what to do.

I don't see the problem with pot, if alcohol is gonna also be legal.

I DO have a big problem with the pothead mentality.

And FAR too often potheads become wards of teh state, welfare recipients, AFDC recipeints, food stamps, etc.

Not all but EVEN ONE is too many.

I've been working for legalization for years , the rest of your broad bruch, have anything to back it up?

were it not for the lies and deceit of the fed (IE: too far along in their lies since the harrison act to take them back),and the lobby for the prescription drug market, pot would be legal.

sorry garandman, but you really know zip about me personally or most of those out there who actually do still smoke pot.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:17:36 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Just for the record I would pass any drug test.....been along time. You tend to realize that there are more important things in life than just getting high.

Me too, but it sure isn't by choice.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:19:20 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Just for the record I would pass any drug test.....been along time. You tend to realize that there are more important things in life than just getting high.

Me too, but it sure isn't by choice.

Same here....when I retire.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:20:52 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Just for the record I would pass any drug test.....been along time. You tend to realize that there are more important things in life than just getting high.

I could try to answer all the silly replies , but I'll jst say "see my earlier post" and throw out a big +1 to what vthokie says here.

The rabid fight for legalization of pot just indicates a general immaturity in the individual.

If they outlawed smacking yourself in the head with hammer, I wouldn't like it, but there's more important battles to be fought.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:21:28 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not only is that BS, but it is my long held belief that government should not be passing laws forcing people to be moral or ethical. Just what harm does someone cause when they get home afterwork and decide to catch a buzz taking a bong hit? No different than if someone came home and killed a 12 pack (while you can't compair the buzz of pot to beer, the impairment level is the same)? People who drink/smoke/snort etc are trying to get away from their problems. Is that unhealthy? Hell yes. Is it some how unethical or immoral? No it isn't.

Your net is too wide. EVERY LAW falls under "moral or ethical."

Further, its NOT about the bong hit. Its about the libertine mentality that says if I don't like a law, I'll just break it anytime I want to, never working to change the law.

Its not about pot. Its about lawlessness.

Potheads are the type of people who are a blight on society. They disobey laws, they don't work to change laws, they just think no one should ever be able to tell them what to do.

I don't see the problem with pot, if alcohol is gonna also be legal.

I DO have a big problem with the pothead mentality.

And FAR too often potheads become wards of teh state, welfare recipients, AFDC recipeints, food stamps, etc.

Not all but EVEN ONE is too many.

I've been working for legalization for years , the rest of your broad bruch, have anything to back it up?

were it not for the lies and deceit of the fed (IE: too far along in their lies since the harrison act to take them back),and the lobby for the prescription drug market, pot would be legal.

sorry garandman, but you really know zip about me personally or most of those out there who actually do still smoke pot.

I think a lot of people would be simply AMAZED to learn just how many people light up. I am talking sucessful people who have high level positions....

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:24:25 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Just for the record I would pass any drug test.....been along time. You tend to realize that there are more important things in life than just getting high.

I could try to answer all the silly replies , but I'll jst say "see my earlier post" and throw out a big +1 to what vthokie says here.

The rabid fight for legalization of pot just indicates a general immaturity in the individual.

If they outlawed smacking yourself in the head with hammer, I wouldn't like it, but there's more important battles to be fought.

Is that outlawed garandman?

could you come back from that quasar your visiting please and rejoin the conversation?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:24:40 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
I think a lot of people would be simply AMAZED to learn just how many people light up. I am talking sucessful people who have high level positions....

I know there are alot of people who spark up.

I also know less than half of America is capable of making an intelligent choice in the voting booth.

Many of them are "successful" and have "high level positions." (whatever that means)

And I wouldn't trust them with my dog.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:26:04 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
I could try to answer all the silly replies , but I'll jst say "see my earlier post" and throw out a big +1 to what vthokie says here.

Uuuuuh, yeah. Good ploy. Nobody noticed that you really didn't have a response.

The rabid fight for legalization of pot just indicates a general immaturity in the individual.

The rabid fight for gun ownership rights just indicates a general immaturity in the indivudual. In fact, the rabid fight for any citizen's rights just indicates a general immaturity in the individual. We should just accept whatever laws anyone decides to pass. I am sure Congress doesn't make mistakes.

Sounds like you need to take a basic lesson in American history.

If they outlawed smacking yourself in the head with hammer, I wouldn't like it, but there's more important battles to be fought.

That would make more sense than the drug laws, anyway.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:26:29 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If they outlawed smacking yourself in the head with hammer, I wouldn't like it, but there's more important battles to be fought.

Is that outlawed garandman?

could you come back from that quasar your visiting please and rejoin the conversation?

Far as I'm concerned, smoking pot is as stupid as smacking yourself in the head with a hammer. So is drinking alcohol (to a drunken state)

So if they outlaw STOOPID stuff, I don't like it, but I got bigger fish to fry.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:27:40 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think a lot of people would be simply AMAZED to learn just how many people light up. I am talking sucessful people who have high level positions....

I know there are alot of people who spark up.

I also know less than half of America is capable of making an intelligent choice in the voting booth.

Many of them are "successful" and have "high level positions." (whatever that means)

And I wouldn't trust them with my dog.

unworthy of discussion.

your mind is lost to prpaganda garandman.

HAND

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:28:16 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The rabid fight for legalization of pot just indicates a general immaturity in the individual.

The rabid fight for gun ownership rights just indicates a general immaturity in the indivudual. .

Yer an idiot. Thanx for proving my point.

GUn ownership is in the Constitution, and is ESSENTIAL for stopping tyrants, as well as personal defense.

Hemp is not.

Put down teh bong.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:28:43 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I think a lot of people would be simply AMAZED to learn just how many people light up. I am talking sucessful people who have high level positions....

I know there are alot of people who spark up.

I also know less than half of America is capable of making an intelligent choice in the voting booth.

Many of them are "successful" and have "high level positions." (whatever that means)

And I wouldn't trust them with my dog.

I agree. We ought to ban people as a first step to solving the problem.

"Successful" and "high level positions" would include a few billionaires that I know of. Do you think those would generally qualify under "successful" and "high level positions"?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:29:03 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they outlawed smacking yourself in the head with hammer, I wouldn't like it, but there's more important battles to be fought.

Is that outlawed garandman?

could you come back from that quasar your visiting please and rejoin the conversation?

Far as I'm concerned, smoking pot is as stupid as smacking yourself in the head with a hammer. So is drinking alcohol (to a drunken state)

So if they outlaw STOOPID stuff, I don't like it, but I got bigger fish to fry.

Don't really care "as far as you're concerned" we aren't talking about you here are we? you made the choice to not, yet can't allow them the same choice can ya?

Let me guess, you read the bible at least once a day?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:29:34 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

"Successful" and "high level positions" would include a few billionaires that I know of. Do you think those would generally qualify under "successful" and "high level positions"?

Not necesarily.

Success has to do with character, not size of bank account.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:30:05 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Just for the record I would pass any drug test.....been along time. You tend to realize that there are more important things in life than just getting high.

I could try to answer all the silly replies , but I'll jst say "see my earlier post" and throw out a big +1 to what vthokie says here.

The rabid fight for legalization of pot just indicates a general immaturity in the individual.

I am still for legalization of pot, but I agree if it came down to living in Amsterdam where it is legal and living here in the US where I can have weapons and keep more of my money then the choice is easy.

However bad law is bad law.

If they outlawed smacking yourself in the head with hammer, I wouldn't like it,

You are a riot g-man.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:30:32 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Far as I'm concerned, smoking pot is as stupid as smacking yourself in the head with a hammer. So is drinking alcohol (to a drunken state)

So what if someone is smoking pot and never gets anywhere close to the drunken state of alcohol drinkers?

So if they outlaw STOOPID stuff, I don't like it, but I got bigger fish to fry.

Yeah, who gives a shit about the government passing laws to regulate private behavior, anyway? We ought to just accept whatever shit they come up with. Right?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:32:12 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Don't really care "as far as you're concerned" we aren't talking about you here are we?

Since hemp ain't in the Constitution , "far as I'm concerned" is the ENTIRE basis of this internet conversation, Bill. (or is it Ted? How's your "Excellent Adventure " going?)

Let me guess, you read the bible at least once a day?

What's that got to do with anything? Other than show your general hatred..

Did I quote Scripture? No, I did not.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:32:34 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The rabid fight for legalization of pot just indicates a general immaturity in the individual.

The rabid fight for gun ownership rights just indicates a general immaturity in the indivudual. .

Yer an idiot. Thanx for proving my point.

GUn ownership is in the Constitution, and is ESSENTIAL for stopping tyrants, as well as personal defense.

Hemp is not.

Put down teh bong.

Just FYI, when the drug laws were originally passed, even the people who wrote them agreed that the US Constitution did not give the Federal Government any right to regulate private behavior. That's what tyrants try to do, you know.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:33:13 AM EDT

[#35]

Can't we all just get along

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:36:28 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
However bad law is bad law.

I agree. Theres just more important bad laws that I'll spend my time on.

If others feel the most important thing is the legal right to put themselves into a insipid stupor by means of a chemical agent, making themselves temporarily useless lumps of protein, hey - it is a free country. Head out to Washington, and fight the good fight for THC.

You are a riot g-man.

These threads with the Arfcom potheads always amuse me. And I like to share the joy.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:36:32 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
ETA: There was this "cheap" opium going around a few years back. A big purplish rock that looked like a giant jolly rancher. It was basicly a rip-off, you would get a bigger high if you bobbed your head up and down rapidly, or so I have heard.

There you go. Tell the two strippers that they can get a big high by bobbing their heads up and down rapidly. Offer to help them with it.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:37:23 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Just FYI, when the drug laws were originally passed, even the people who wrote them agreed that the US Constitution did not give the Federal Government any right to regulate private behavior. That's what tyrants try to do, you know.

Please document that.

Who? When? Quotes?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:37:34 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Since hemp ain't in the Constitution , "far as I'm concerned" is the ENTIRE basis of this internet conversation, Bill. (or is it Ted? How's your "Excellent Adventure " going?)

Hemp isn't really the issue. The issue (of the laws, not the thread) is government's power to regulate private behavior.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:39:16 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Since hemp ain't in the Constitution , "far as I'm concerned" is the ENTIRE basis of this internet conversation, Bill. (or is it Ted? How's your "Excellent Adventure " going?)

Hemp isn't really the issue. The issue (of the laws, not the thread) is government's power to regulate private behavior.

And there's an appropriate means of addressing that.

And it AIN'T flouting the law.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:40:42 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Just FYI, when the drug laws were originally passed, even the people who wrote them agreed that the US Constitution did not give the Federal Government any right to regulate private behavior. That's what tyrants try to do, you know.

Please document that.

Who? When? Quotes?

A couple of years ago the History channel ran a special on drugs and said that the people looking to ban the evil chemicals thought that the bans would be judged as unconstitutional which later paved the way for I guess it was the 1934 MG ban.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:42:39 AM EDT

[#42]

Your net is too wide. EVERY LAW falls under "moral or ethical."

Wrong. Not all laws deal with morals or ethics. Some deal with revenue, Tax code, Industrial guidelines (food prep, building specs) Etc, etc. And you seem to be overlooking "Unjust laws". Ghandi once said about breakiing the law, "there are unjust laws, just as there are unjust men" Meaning the state is'nt God or infallable (like the pope

) Look at Jim Crow or Apartheid or ourFOUNDING FATHERS! They defied unjust tax laws! God bless'em. Now maybe they' could've "worked to change parliaments mind" But I'm glad they took up arms against their own tyrannical Govt! To obey all laws passed blindly, is totalitarian.

Its not about pot. Its about lawlessness.

Again i state, Who created this "lawlessness"? The potheads or the people who passed the law? The people who passed the law must bear responsability for the consequences of their action. Who was responsable for the lawlessness Of prohibition? The jerk off Dry voters!

Potheads are the type of people who are a blight on society. They disobey laws, they don't work to change laws, they just think no one should ever be able to tell them what to do.

Guess how long it's been since the first Drug laws were passed? 90 years! What are they supposed to do ? Wait around till the law is done away with, then start smoking pot?? Ii fiind your poiint valiid that people are picking and choosing to obey the laws they want to follow. But guess what? Maybe the "super state" should not basically try to make all "fun" or "vice" things Illegal!! Then they would'nt have 40% of the population being lawbreakers! Try living in NYC some time! Virtually everything fun is banned (for the children I'm sure) Here is a short list- Fireworks of all kinds, Firearms highly restricted, Prostitution, Carrying hunting knives, Martial arts weapons, tinted windows, playing music too loudly, Concealed carry impossable, Pepper spray, Self-defense Batons, Hitchiking, Smoking in bars or public buildings, "replica weapons", Buying Spray paint if under 18!!, Buying engine starter and Road flares together!!, Buying Alcohol on Sunday ( i guess if you need to celebrate a mass you better use grape juice or maybe Jesus can turn water into wine for you!!), parking on your lawn, ETC fucking ETC! total horseshit.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:42:59 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just FYI, when the drug laws were originally passed, even the people who wrote them agreed that the US Constitution did not give the Federal Government any right to regulate private behavior. That's what tyrants try to do, you know.

Please document that.

Who? When? Quotes?
A couple of years ago the History channel ran a special on drugs and said that the people looking to ban the evil chemicals thought that the bans would be judged as unconstitutional which later paved the way for I guess it was the 1934 MG ban.

You really haven't given me any more info than wolfman.

Should I call up the History Channel and have to pay $29.95 to order the video? What do I ask for? The video that proves wolfman is right?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:44:56 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Just FYI, when the drug laws were originally passed, even the people who wrote them agreed that the US Constitution did not give the Federal Government any right to regulate private behavior. That's what tyrants try to do, you know.

Please document that.

Who? When? Quotes?

From www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm -- a short history of the marijuana laws by a professor of constitutional law who has been studying the subject since 1970 when he and a partner completed the first legal history of the marijuana laws.

The Harrison Act

The very first criminal law at the Federal level in this country to criminalize the non-medical use of drugs came in 1914. It was called the Harrison Act and there are only three things about the Harrison Act that we need to focus on today.

Number one is the date. Did you hear the date, 1914? Some of you may have come this morning thinking that we have used the criminal law to deal with the non-medical use of drugs since the beginning of the Republic or something. That is not true. The entire experiment of using the criminal sanction to deal with the non-medical use of drugs really began in this country in 1914 with the Harrison Act.

The second interesting thing about the Harrison Act was the drugs to which it applied, because it applied to almost none of the drugs we would be concerned about today. The Harrison Act applied to opium, morphine and its various derivatives, and the derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine. No mention anywhere there of amphetamines, barbiturates, marijuana, hashish, hallucinogenic drugs of any kind. The Harrison Act applied only to opium, morphine and its various derivatives and derivatives of the coca leaf like cocaine.

The third and most interesting thing for you all as judges about the Harrison Act was its structure, because the structure of this law was very peculiar and became the model for every single piece of Federal legislation from 1914 right straight through 1969. And what was that model?

It was called the Harrison Tax Act. You know, the drafters of the Harrison Act said very clearly on the floor of Congress what it was they wanted to achieve. They had two goals. They wanted to regulate the medical use of these drugs and they wanted to criminalize the non-medical use of these drugs. They had one problem. Look at the date -- 1914. 1914 was probably the high water mark of the constitutional doctrine we today call "states' rights" and, therefore, it was widely thought Congress did not have the power, number one, to regulate a particular profession, and number two, that Congress did not have the power to pass what was, and is still known, as a general criminal law. That's why there were so few Federal Crimes until very recently.

In the face of possible Constitutional opposition to what they wanted to do, the people in Congress who supported the Harrison Act came up with a novel idea. That is, they would masquerade this whole thing as though it were a tax. To show you how it worked, can I use some hypothetical figures to show you how this alleged tax worked?

There were two taxes. The first (and again, these figures aren't accurate but they will do to show the idea) tax was paid by doctors. It was a dollar a year and the doctors, in exchange for paying that one dollar tax, got a stamp from the Government that allowed them to prescribe these drugs for their patients so long as they followed the regulations in the statute. Do you see that by the payment of that one dollar tax, we have the doctors regulated? The doctors have to follow the regulations in the statute.

And there was a second tax. (and again, these are hypothetical figures but they will show you how it worked.) was a tax of a thousand dollars of every single non-medical exchange of every one of these drugs. Well, since nobody was going to pay a thousand dollars in tax to exchange something which, in 1914, even in large quantities was worth about five dollars, the second tax wasn't a tax either, it was a criminal prohibition. Now just to be sure you guys understand this, and I am sure you do, but just to make sure, let's say that in 1915 somebody was found, let's say, in possession of an ounce of cocaine out here on the street. What would be the Federal crime? Not possession of cocaine, or possession of a controlled substance. What was the crime? Tax evasion.

And do you see what a wicked web that is going to be? As a quick preview, where then are we going to put the law enforcement arm for the criminalization of drugs for over forty years -- in what department? The Treasury Department. Why, we are just out there collecting taxes and I will show you how that works in a minute.

There are plenty of other discussions of the subject on the web, including druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/szasz1.htm

This information has been posted numerous times before in threads where I am pretty darn sure you participated. Do you mean to tell us that you didn't read any of it?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:45:09 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just FYI, when the drug laws were originally passed, even the people who wrote them agreed that the US Constitution did not give the Federal Government any right to regulate private behavior. That's what tyrants try to do, you know.

Please document that.

Who? When? Quotes?
A couple of years ago the History channel ran a special on drugs and said that the people looking to ban the evil chemicals thought that the bans would be judged as unconstitutional which later paved the way for I guess it was the 1934 MG ban.

You really haven't given me any more info than wolfman.

Should I call up the History Channel and have to pay $29.95 to order the video? What do I ask for? The video that proves wolfman is right?

Oh I now I don't have specifics just reciting on what I remember from 2 years ago. I am sure a google search would yield that facts that you request.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:45:22 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Your net is too wide. EVERY LAW falls under "moral or ethical."

Wrong. Not all laws deal with morals or ethics. Some deal with revenue, Tax code, Industrial guidelines (food prep, building specs) Etc, etc.

Every law is moral or ethical WITHOUT regard to the underlying statute as violation of that law is a matter of ethics / morals in how the law breaker views the authority of the law maker.

If you don't like a law, CHANGE IT.

If you break it intentionally, you indicate your disrespect for the authority that underlies law.

The law is NOT a menu to pick and choose from.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:47:48 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since hemp ain't in the Constitution , "far as I'm concerned" is the ENTIRE basis of this internet conversation, Bill. (or is it Ted? How's your "Excellent Adventure " going?)

Hemp isn't really the issue. The issue (of the laws, not the thread) is government's power to regulate private behavior.

And there's an appropriate means of addressing that.

And it AIN'T flouting the law.

Did I say that flouting the law was a good thing? Or were you just out of answers and trying to deflect the subject a little?

Like I said, I can refer to you lots of organizations -- some containing potheads, and others that don't -- that are working to change the law, if you are really interested.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:48:44 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Your net is too wide. EVERY LAW falls under "moral or ethical."

Wrong. Not all laws deal with morals or ethics. Some deal with revenue, Tax code, Industrial guidelines (food prep, building specs) Etc, etc.

Every law is moral or ethical WITHOUT regard to the underlying statute as violation of that law is a matter of ethics / morals in how the law breaker views the authority of the law maker.

If you don't like a law, CHANGE IT.

If you break it intentionally, you indicate your disrespect for the authority that underlies law.

The law is NOT a menu to pick and choose from.

Heck yeah have a lot of discrespect for authority when a bunch of idiots in Washington decide to regulate what happens in the privacy of ones home. Look at the Founding Fathers and what they did with the Boston Tea Party, by your statements I would venture to guess that you would be against what they did. Perhaps if they just lobbied London a little harder they wouldn't have had to resort to breaking the law.

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:49:55 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't really care "as far as you're concerned" we aren't talking about you here are we?

Since hemp ain't in the Constitution , "far as I'm concerned" is the ENTIRE basis of this internet conversation, Bill. (or is it Ted? How's your "Excellent Adventure " going?)

Let me guess, you read the bible at least once a day?

What's that got to do with anything? Other than show your general hatred..

Did I quote Scripture? No, I did not.

it fits your argument to me. a yes or no would be ok

so is it once a day or more?

In your opinion, ONLY what is stated word for word in the constitution is protected?

would that include equal rights to all?

Posted: 10/5/2005 7:50:06 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just FYI, when the drug laws were originally passed, even the people who wrote them agreed that the US Constitution did not give the Federal Government any right to regulate private behavior. That's what tyrants try to do, you know.

Please document that.

Who? When? Quotes?
A couple of years ago the History channel ran a special on drugs and said that the people looking to ban the evil chemicals thought that the bans would be judged as unconstitutional which later paved the way for I guess it was the 1934 MG ban.

You really haven't given me any more info than wolfman.

Should I call up the History Channel and have to pay $29.95 to order the video? What do I ask for? The video that proves wolfman is right?

Oh I now I don't have specifics just reciting on what I remember from 2 years ago. I am sure a google search would yield that facts that you request.

You guys could just ask the source. They did that special out of my web site and I was featured on the show. I am the largest publisher of historical research on the subject in the world.

Yes, you are correct in what you said. They knew they didn't have the constitutional power to write prohibition laws, so they wrote "tax" laws instead and then busted people for "tax" violations.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Heavy illegal drug use, question and input needed, goes along w/ my defense thread. (Page 3 of 5)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us