Go Back   Georgia Outdoor News Forum > Woody's Campfire Talk > Political Forum

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-15-2018, 09:47 AM
ambush80's Avatar
ambush80 ambush80 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: GA
iTrader: (0) Check/Add Feedback

Originally Posted by pbradley View Post
What is the moral principle the empowers the state with the authority to deprive a man of life, liberty or property for the act of possessing or consuming a product? If I possess pot or consume it, who is the victim?
It's not a moral principle, it's a Utilitarian one. The state is a product of organizing a society. Laws and the morals that they are built on are voted on. Sorry, they don't come from God, they come from people. The argument that God gave you your morals will fail when someone else says that THEIR God gave them THEIR morals. As an example, you and Ritchie share the same God and the same religious text and you both make different moral judgements about laws. The argument should be whether or not a certain type of law should exist or not.

Clearly Ritchie either isn't reading the statistics that show that legalization of drugs doesn't lead to increases in addiction nor that it increases crime. Ritchie should attack the statistics.

Attack the statistics, Ritchie. Show how wherever legalization has occurred that life got worse. Show the correlation. Prove to me beyond your anecdotes that legalization will increase the chances that my door gets kicked in. Prove to me that legalizing drugs will increase the likelihood that my daughter will become a meth head. If you can convince me I will be on your side.

I can get heroin if I want to. Why haven't I gotten any? It's not because of the cops. My daughter knows where the Jim Beam is. Why isn't she an alcoholic? Do your kids know where the guns are? Have they shot up a school? Is it easier for them to shoot up a school since they have easy access to guns? Make an argument against easy access to guns and public safety.
Ezekiel 23:20-21
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 09:48 AM
ClemsonRangers's Avatar
ClemsonRangers ClemsonRangers is offline
Join Date: May 2013
Location: SC
iTrader: (0) Check/Add Feedback

Originally Posted by red neck richie View Post
Is this site becoming a liberal Forum or what. I thought we learned the danger's of drug use? Apparently not. Yeah drugs are good ? Are you people idiots? Like I said pbrad ban me. I stand for what is right. # Trump Train.
i think you have a case, the responses take the liberal view that the attorney general is not obligated to uphold federal law, liberal forum indeed

"we're hiding in our own land"
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 09:50 AM
MudDucker's Avatar
MudDucker MudDucker is offline
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lowndes County, Georgia
iTrader: (3) Check/Add Feedback

The gene pool needs cleansing ... let the hair go with the hide!
November 2016, a date when the snowflakes freaked and started melting!. The idiots lost!
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 10:29 AM
GeorgiaBob GeorgiaBob is offline
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: St Marys, GA
iTrader: (0) Check/Add Feedback

All the disputation around this complicated issue. I guess it is time for my grossly ill informed opinions. How about the following as a, "for instance?"

Why not simplify the whole "protection" racket? If, as most of you seem to indicate, the individual should be responsible for their own actions, AND we know many drugs (both "illegal" and RX) are dangerous if misused, then why not change the approach?

What if - instead of arresting individuals for use or simple possession - the country establish drug safety standards across all drugs of all kinds? The kind of standards we see every day in the grocery store, where the grower, processor, distributor and the grocer are all responsible for the safety of the food on the shelf. Eliminate all laws against the use of any and all drugs, remove all laws prohibiting possession of "personal use" amounts of any drug.

What if every drug sold had to pass tests for content, purity, and safety (within intended usage)? What if cocaine (and every other drug) was on the shelf and labelled properly with health risks, minimum fatal dosages, long term consequences of usage? Turn the criminal penalties around and point them only at the people who make, distribute and sell the drugs. Inventory, count, control every step of manufacture and sale. Force every company to name everyone responsible for manufacturing the drug, transporting, distributing, and selling the drug - and if there is anything wrong with the drug or the label, drop the criminal hammer upon them all - individually. Actually enforce felony charges against the president of Phil's Drug Co. (I made that name up) if his meth isn't pure or has unlabeled peanut oils or other ingredients.

Apply this to ALL drugs, no more "illegal" drugs. No more ugly, explosive little "meth houses". No more market for Mexican drugs smuggled across the border. Make it all "legal" for anyone to buy, but make it all subject to the kind of production, processing, purity, measurement, labeling, and tracking standards that this country already applies to food - except - make it a major felony to fail at any step in the process and prosecute the people who fail to make pure and properly labeled drugs. Make it an automatic life sentence to mfg, transport or distribute unlabeled or mislabeled drugs.

Then let anyone buy whatever their wee little hearts desired. If healthy folks wanted to stop by the pharmacy and pick up a few opiates, or antibiotic, or birth control pills, or some aspirin, that's OK. A doctor's Rx would still work for paying with insurance and for the pharmacist to put appropriate instructions on the bottle, but it would not be required by law for someone to buy the drug (whether the business would sell something and what restrictions they apply would still be up to the business). Anyone could buy anything they wanted, no illegal underground, no pill mills, no long lines of drug addled idiots awaiting sentencing for simple possession. The illegal drug scheme of Mexican cartels, smugglers, street gangs and corner poison dealers would collapse.

But also, make it very clear that intoxication with any drug, whether it is booze, pot, meth, oxy, coke, bath salts, or anything else, is NOT a defense if a user commits a crime or harms someone else. In fact, while "decriminalizing" sale, possession, and use of all drugs, ADD sentencing "enhancements" to all other crimes committed "under the influence." Employers would still have the right to NOT employ people who use certain drugs.

Personally, I think the net result would be little different from the current hash. There would still be drug addled bums on the streets. There would still be an underground for drugs, just something very different from today. There would still be crime.

Some businesses would refuse to participate. I can't see CVS selling "pure" meth alongside smaller doses of the same drug sold to treat ADHD, without a prescription (even if not required by law). New shops would open, specializing in recreational drugs, with careful precautions. But between the purity standards and tracking, those newly legal drugs will still carry a big price tag. Certainly not often as expensive as the current illegal drug, but not cheap either (look at prices for pot in CO). There will be a whole new set of problems. AND there will still be druggies doing stupid things.

I am certain that the laws we now have, with the way they are enforced, is not working well. I know there are a lot of ideas out there for different options in dealing with the epidemic of drug misuse and abuse. But I am not certain that anyone knows another way that will actually be better. (Just my opinion)
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 10:45 AM
atlashunter's Avatar
atlashunter atlashunter is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Harris county
iTrader: (3) Check/Add Feedback

Originally Posted by ClemsonRangers View Post
i think you have a case, the responses take the liberal view that the attorney general is not obligated to uphold federal law, liberal forum indeed

The highest law of the land is the constitution. No federal law lacking constitutional authority should be enforced. That includes federal drug laws.
"The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits." ~Plutarch
Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2018, 05:47 PM
elfiii's Avatar
elfiii elfiii is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The country formerly known as America
iTrader: (0) Check/Add Feedback

Originally Posted by atlashunter View Post
No federal law lacking constitutional authority should be enforced. That includes federal drug laws.
There's the conundrum.
The World is fine. The circus just won't leave town. - PopPop
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 Georgia Outdoor News, Inc.Ad Management by RedTyger