- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
If the republicans do not open up on social freedoms, which I would link to fiscal freedom, they will fail. Seems to me some labeled RINOs fall into this category.
Example is pretending to be two parties instead of one or have a different goal or political philosophy instead of one.
Bi-Partisanship and Cross-Partisanship are two samples.
They are both Left. One may take the role of being the right wing of the left and the other is the left wing of the left.
It's all about control by any and all means which is what makes them fascist in nature.
Still, I'd like to see the country crawl out of the muck and take up what vestiges of freedom are left.
There are many non-looter drug users, including those who grow their own, and are largely outside of the of the import/transport part.
Theft by addicts is made much worse since the supply is limited, price over inflated, etc. Making the use illegal guarantees this, and also introduces the violent criminal element.
People do not break into homes for guns, rather for guns to rob or kill. People do not break into homes for the sheer desire for a neighbors car that is an insatiable need. Heroin addicts are not logical, they do crazy things.
I would be all for a type of farm for addicts who could OD at will, sit there all day, and hurt no one. No family abuse, no stealing, no DUI, just them doing their thing. I do resent when taxpayers have to pay for the meds to treat someone who ODs on heroin three times in one week! Happened her just last week.
Washington State hit $50 a carton thanks to their Attorney General who became Governor.
Except in the reservation stores. There were more of them and more customers than there were police.
I believe Colorado was the first to legalize and tax pot. Welcome to the world of Black Markets.
The long term effects of heroin addiction, for example, is that - you must have heroin. It does not otherwise alter your health nor does it per se cause you to behave in a criminal fashion. So the decriminalization of drugs should result in the reduction of the drugs = looter equation. (It will not erase that equation because of the high percent of non-producers in our society, but it should reduce it from 'causation' to mere 'correlation'.)
Jan
DWI or Driving While Intoxicated and causing a. death or b. injury or c. property damage.
DUI or Driving While Under the Influence of...it included the subject of the conversation and for that matter prescription drugs or non prescription OTC drugs including the natural kind followed by a.b.c. Sometimes called DWI or Driving while Impaired depends on the local jurisdiction.
Reckless Driving causing a. b. or c. when no use of intoxicants or drugs or what ever is involved or cannot be proved.
I've seen all three situations. All three can and do cause accidents. However... IF illegal substances were involved including underage drinking that was a second charge usually added after the arrest and the BA or ot other screening tests were performed.
In one case the dude drove into a ditch rolled his car and smashed someon'es fence. One prescription pill and one adult beverage were involved.
In a second case the dudette was toking and decided to help out the band on the radio.Dividing concentration between driving and conducting i suppose. Dropped the toke and tried to find it on the floor while still driving,,,
Clear and present danger to the other people in the car both in the hospital.
Luckily I guess no children involved.
Not using a proper restraint for a child or baby. or leaving them in a car with the engine running.
Same thing.
You only have scrape a baby off the inside of the windshield or find one has locked the auto button etc. etc. etc. then passed out from the heat to know stuff happens and the stuff that makes it happen defines the charge.
Then when it's over and the ambulance has left you go around behind any convenient bush and puke your guts out.
But there is a persistent perception that recreational drugs are per se unhealthy and cause such things as hepatitis or that drugs cause violence by their own druggy nature. With the exception of stuff such as PCP, most drugs do not cause health problems - with an important proviso: they cause health problems to a degree similar to overeating, sugar consumption, or alcohol.
You are right, no one should have to scrape a baby off a windshield. But I think that by legalizing recreational drugs, we will not increase irresponsible driving, and we will undermine the infrastructure of organized crime. And we will improve our freedom.
Jan
Check This explanation by Thomas for a more complete explanation: http://atlassociety.org/commentary/co...
Check this video by a young lady for the results of your belief: http://www.cato.org/multimedia/cato-v...
Even John Stossel has had excellent segments on the subject.
I am curious, do you consider yourself to be an Objectivist?
Personally, I don't care if they OD to their hearts content, in private and without taking others with them. Do you by your first paragraph, then support an ISIS member who straps explosives onto his own body, willing to die for his belief, but likely to blow up those nearby, as not a crime? Do the wives and children, their safety and financial security being endangered by an addict, not also have rights? I do not care what these people do, as long as they do not cost me money or endanger those I care about. When they do, I want them locked up, you bet I do, or better yet, allowed to OD. We have laws about burning, lest someone burn down a whole neighborhood during dry season. We are licensed to drive, lest someone who cannot pass the skill test be on the roads. I can see the girl's beef in the video, but marijuana is not the threat, hard drugs are. I can say first hand, I grew up with an alcoholic mother from the time I was 3. I know. she was passed out, and at four, I was carrying her burning ash tray to the kitchen sink lest she burn the house down while dad was at work. By high school, I walked in on drug deals when I came home from school. She would throw heavy glass objects at my head, not recognizing me while under the influence. Where were my rights then?She died when I was just 16.I am not an isolated case, kids walk in to these situations all over the country every day. I used to sit on the domestic abuse panel as a reporter, and I heard the stories of people they were trying to help get out of family drug situations. Some wives had been violently battered. I am sure, were Rand in today's culture, she would have much to say, but it is not as simple as you make it seem.
You bet I consider myself an Objectivist, None of this would be an issue if everyone acted in line with Objectivism, being responsible and acting with reason. Stossel, by the way, is Libertarian, he often is not in line with Objectivisim.
Even if you are right, which I do not grant, you idea of illegality does not work. Hard drug use is the same today as it was when hard drugs were legal.
Prohibition of alcohol gave us the mafia. Prohibition of drugs gave us drugs. Strictly from the standpoint of accomplishing what you want, as I understand what you want, you do not stop drug use.
I don't understand what you mean by Stossel is a Libertarian and often not in line with Objectivism.
Libertarian is simply political party in which one must sign a declaration saying you do not agree with the initiation of force. It is not a philosophy. As to the Libertarian concept of the use of force, it is directly in line with Objectivism.
You, however, seem to take the position that your view should be enforced by government upon those who do not agree with you regarding (in this case) drugs. That violates both the Libertarian principle and the Objectivist principle of the non-initiation of force.
As to motive of a crime, if the perp admits he was doing it for drug money, and even police said B&Es are up because of drug users seeking money for drugs, what are you disagreeing with?. Legal or illegal, the crime is the same, only the Sheriff wants to differentiate guilt based on motive. A Federal Marshall said that making the use of hard drugs legal, would not stop the crimes, as the price usually does not drop that much, as the end profit just shifts from one segment of society to another. I agree completely with you on prohibition, it did not stop alcohol consumption. Do you then think DUIs should not exist though?. I do not ask that drugs be banned, the drug companies already hook people legally. However, I do not think that a person should be given a pass on harming or endangering others in pursuit of his drug habit. If they commit a crime which steps on the rights of others, it is a crime, regardless of motive. Drugs as a motive should not be a route to a free pass to infringe on the rights of others or cause them loss or harm. Prohibition of the Mafia, by the way, gave us even more corrupt politicians. My goal is not stopping drug use, my goal is keeping myself and those I care about safe, and most of our local crime is drug related, like it or not. Stopping drug use, is a whole other issue which requires personal responsibility, which is an Objectivist goal. I am not talking medical issues, I am talking recreational, the loss of workers for industry, the rise in welfare costs, and a host of other costs which come with irresponsible use of drugs. Can you suggest a way drugs would be available, without the need for B&Es? Can you suggest a way to reduce the number of fatal accidents we have had this year where people were killed by DUI drivers? We cannot roll over and say, oh well, they are doing their thing, because it becomes our thing. Suggest a solution, because the Marshall I talked to said legalizing will not make them cheap enough. Do you want a drunken surgeon, doing his thing? A friend had to wait for a second surgeon when the first one came in drunk.I worked with two employees who did drugs on the job, and on more than one occasion, we nearly missed deadline because they were too high to function. Like it or not, such irresponsibility can stop the motor of the country, there has to be an answer. It is not just about one person's freedom, it is about one person's lack of responsible actions. These people should have been smart enough to choose a safe time and place, but were willing to ignore their responsibility, or were too out of control.
The rest is just the usual mantra defending as society which has no defense but is searching for self esteem.
I can't imagine why anyone would not include them in the list.
When people get serious about the problem starting with removing the use of marijuana as a third offense under Three Strikes. I solved the problem quite nicely and at the same time no longer live in a police state buy simply...moving.
Now enough with wishful thinking. Let's get practical. What initiatives are in progress that can be supported in a practical sense to change any or all of the above.
Where's the fly swatter?
Works for me.
Clyde. I executed Clyde and his family yesterday.
A friend does outreach in several prisons, esp. women's. She swears that all the women drug offenders, usually not just for drugs use, but crimes connected to them, were because of the women going along with men. She also says that they drug them in prison to keep them quiet. Sounds a bit like what nursing homes do to seniors, only with Rx narcotics.
Study: US Marijuana Legalization Could Cut Cartel Profits By 30%
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-anal...
Legalizing marijuana may decrease violent crime, studies say
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=29478...
Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? (Yes it did!)
http://content.time.com/time/health/a...
California Marijuana Decriminalization Drops Youth Crime Rate To Record Low: Study
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11...
Want more studies? I can get you as many as you want.
"Beyond Politics and Reason" reports the crime rate for such crimes would be reduced, "but not dramatically".The question also arises in some studies about, once decriminalized, would drug use among present non-users increase, leading to future crime? Also, once the present dealers are replaced by politicians, government, or local leaders as suppliers, what will the former dealers do, enter the work force - not likely. Dealers in three piece suits can be just as violent and greedy as street dealers.
The thing that really is the issue for me is, how so many want this drug freedom, yet never are concerned about the freedoms of those they victimize. They never admit they are not free at all, but are tied to some supplier somewhere. They are driven to get their freedom promised drugs, but they are at the mercy of whoever is then supplying them. They are not at all free as Roark or Rearden, which I thought was the goal of an Objectivist. This free drug filled utopia you call for, just seems to be leading us farther from the internal strength shown in the courtroom scene in "Fountainhead". I notice you never mention AS or Rand, but quote the Bilderberg controlled "Time" magazine. Maybe you don't really understand freedom, it does not come in a syringe.
As for the point of your comment the drug problem is a symptom of a weak society or if you are a famous hollywood actor 'very sensitive.' The only way I see to cure it is reinstitute morals, values, standards, responsibility and self worth as in self respect and/or eradicate at the source. That would still leave labs and they seem to be more self correcting in their death rates than the three natural sources.
If you think of jury duty as a chance to vote again it's a wonderful opportunity. Carries a lot more weight and your vote can't be given to the other side. Just don't say the words Fully Informed Jury. Judges hate jurors who are fully informed. They actually think they are the Judges, not the Jury and don't see themselcves as referees.
I'll be eating pig, by the way.
The only way this day can be special for them is buying outdoor grill food with food stamps.
Now you the source of his thoughtlessness.
I put him in the parasitical humanoid category and most likely psychotic as well.
The real Means of Production are all the employees from the CEO to the Janitor
The one's who produce. I wouldn't mind adding in the lady down the street who runs the coffee wagon.
That's when a politician doesn't answer the question but changes the subject with some line like 'what's even more interesting...; When that happens everyone starts quacking just like in Mighty Ducks. Ducks have flat feet. No shoes made for them but if you nail them to the floor????
Then you have to listen to them talk.
gotta be a better way
And yes, you hit the nail on the head when you cite that the party affiliation is more important than the actual values espoused. And why is that? Source of money. It's all right there.
The Libertarian Party folks deserve credit for having principles and trying to follow them, even as they throw away their small chance to win by not even trying to purge themselves of kooks. What the LP needs is a Steve Jobs or Sergey Brin to focus their efforts in ways that can succeed.
Witness a couple of weeks ago ther was a considerable hoopla surrounding the pledge that Donald Trump originally refused to take, to wit all contenders would swear to support whomever the party selected as tha standard bearer. Forgive me, but I somehow or other was under the impression that our job on Election Day was to choose the individual whom we felt could and would lead our nation for the next four years most capably. There are people in BOTH parties that I wouldn't vote for under any circumstances. It seems to have devolved into name your poison and there's only two choices.
BAH!