The War on College Students by SergeantX

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-drugbust7-2008may
07,0,1445478.story

Protecting us from dangerous criminals.

They were drug dealers.

I think they'll do well in prison...its just like being in a frat (only with fewer women).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-drugbust7-2008may
07,0,1445478.story

Protecting us from dangerous criminals.

They were drug dealers.

I think they'll do well in prison...its just like being in a frat (only with fewer women).

H

Thanks Hero. That really underlines the idiocy of the whole thing. You obviously assume that because they were dealing drugs, they were dangerous criminals.

From what I can tell, they weren't accused of any violent crimes. They weren't dealing to children. They weren't robbing convenience stores to finance a habit. Just college kids entertaining themselves without government approval. Regardless they're treated as violent criminals, kicked out of school, kicked out of their homes. Many will likely end up in jail where they'll have ample opportunity to become the violent criminals the cops ought to be going after in the first place.

Some kinda backasswards society we've created, eh?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:11 AM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3025396475247394113

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:24 AM

REAVERMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Thanks Hero. That really underlines the idiocy of the whole thing. You obviously assume that because they were dealing drugs, they were dangerous criminals.

From what I can tell, they weren't accused of any violent crimes. They weren't dealing to children. They weren't robbing convenience stores to finance a habit. Just college kids entertaining themselves without government approval. Regardless they're treated as violent criminals, kicked out of school, kicked out of their homes.

As someone who has done drugs, dealt with the consequences, and watched several very good friends ruin their lives with them, I can honestly say I have no sympathy for those idiots.

It's not like what happens to people who do this stuff and get caught is some big secret. Everyone knows that it's against the law, most people, by the time they get to college, know the physical risks involved, and schools almost always have a readily available list of their policies in regards to drug use. They chose to ignore all of that, and so they pay the price.

----------------------------
"O' course, ya couldn't buy an invite with a diamond the size of a testicle, but luckily I got my hands on a couple." -Badger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:33 AM

It's not about sympathy, Reaverman, it's about intelligent government policy. Did you watch the video?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 7:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You obviously assume that because they were dealing drugs, they were dangerous criminals.

Yeah, I kinda put those two together. I think its because of all the dangerous criminals who deal drugs...gives drug dealers a bad name. You should take it up with them, I've heard they take criticism really well.

I note for the record that there is no legal distinction between dangerous criminals and the other kind. I also note that the whole reason the investigation kicked off was due to the overdose of a freshman the previous year.

Quote:

From what I can tell, they weren't accused of any violent crimes. They weren't dealing to children. They weren't robbing convenience stores to finance a habit. Just college kids entertaining themselves without government approval.

I don't think you can trivialize drug use. This is more then just a couple guys smoking a little weed in their dorm room. This was a large scale drug dealing operation. Personally I find your comments racist (or elitist). You want special treatment for these poor rich frat boys then what we'd give a couple gangbangers pushing drugs on a street corner.

Quote:

Regardless they're treated as violent criminals, kicked out of school, kicked out of their homes. Many will likely end up in jail where they'll have ample opportunity to become the violent criminals the cops ought to be going after in the first place.

Hmm...these folks are in college, you'd think they would have considered this possibility. Perhaps the University could include this in their mandatory drug/alcohol education they give freshman. A simple "you might go to jail" should do it".

I note for the record that most will get deals, probation, and/or diversion programs. Only multiple offenders, ringleaders, and folks caught with large amounts of drugs will do prison time.

They will likely get kicked out of school and be forced to find alternatives to financial aid and that's just so sad. Oh well, more money for kids who decided NOT to deal drugs.

You know, I see this a lot this time of year. We get kids busted at local concerts or summer parties for underage consumption and possession. They cry and moan and are shocked and I remind them they are the smart kids with lots of breaks in life and no lack of opportunity...they should have known better. I don't give the pretty white honor-student-girl any different treatment then the high school dropout can't-hold-a-job types I see. First offense gets you diversion program...second gets you jail or house arrest. Third...jail.

My policy makes me unpopular with the drug abusing kids, their permissive parents, and hired gun defense lawyers...but oddly, I'm also unpopular with the 'dangerous criminals', their permissive parents, and their hired gun lawyers.

Its a burden, but I carry it for the good of all mankind.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 8:43 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think our drug policy is bass-akwards. MJ is trivial. It should be legalized.

AFA other drugs are concerned... I read an interesting opinion that the dose makes the drug. Poor Andean farmers chew coca leaves like poor farmers in the Horn of Africa chew khat like we drink coffee. And they don't become raving drug addicts anymore than coffee drinkers. (Except me. If I don't get my coffee I get very very focused on finding some.

) The problem is that when you raise the concentration and find a way of giving a bolus (inhaling or injecting) you get SO high that some susceptible people get hooked. Instantly. So it seems to me that low-grade drugs in oral form could be legalized but not other drugs.

AFA the freedom to use drugs is concerned... if it only affected the drugee that would be okay. But usually a lot of other people get sucked into addiction nightmare (and that includes alcoholism) because they are the children, spouses, parents and co-workers of the addict. I've seen whole families get sucked down the drain due to addiction. The idea that "It's my body and I can do what I want with it" only works if you have no responsibilities and commitments to others, and I know very few people who are SO isolated that nobody depends on them. Sarge, for a person who espouses libertarianism based on indiviudal responsibility you seem to have lost sight of that important concept.

AFA no "legal" distinction between serious and violent criminals... Hero, you mean to say your criminal code doesn't distinguish the levels of violence of a particular crime?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA no "legal" distinction between serious and violent criminals... Hero, you mean to say your criminal code doesn't distinguish the levels of violence of a particular crime?

Generally there is no distinction in level of violence for a crime. In many examples, however, various factors can 'enhance' offenses. These include using weapons, using guns (which is different then just another 'weapon'), injury, and intent.

But thats about the crime, not the criminal and a person is a criminal if they break the law...regardless of being 'dangerous'.

There is no difference, for example, between a raving psycho who murders someone and some otherwise nice fella who murders someone (I'm talkin actual murder, not self defense or anything silly like that).

Likewise there is no distinction between a person with 20 traffic violations who speeds and a person who is cited for the first and only time.

Those factors go to sentencing...not guilt.

These young folks were caught dealing and using and possessing and trafficking in drugs. If found guilty their relative 'dangerousness' will be a factor in sentencing...bearing in mind that the crime they have CHOSEN to commit often carries harsh mandatory penalties duly enacted by the legislature for the purpose of ensuring meaningful punishment and deterence.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 9:18 AM

FREMDFIRMA

History.

Prohibition.

Mafias.

Nuff said ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 9:25 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I wonder where SDSU ranks on Playboys top party schools in the nation?

My fraternity was not on the list of those involved.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 9:49 AM

I’m very strongly against the use of drugs. I’ve watched them destroy lives. I watched as my best and longest friend was reduced to a thieving worthless piece of shit because of drugs. A friend of mine from high school is serving two life sentences because while running from police at a drug deal, he ran a red light and killed a mother and her child. This is what drugs do to people. So I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for this crowd. Throw the book at them and let them rot in jail. The only caveat is make sure its well advertised so that other college students who might be enticed by the party-lies of fraternities and sororities get the message.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:06 PM

Did anyone here watch the vid I linked to? My opinions on prohibition are well represented there. I'm interested in any responses to the points they bring up.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Did anyone here watch the vid I linked to? My opinions on prohibition are well represented there. I'm interested in any responses to the points they bring up.

What video? I read the article and that was about a campus drug ring brought down by police. I don’t know what your opinions are on prohibition, but if you’re argument is that the use of illegal drugs should be permitted in our universities, it is a poor one at best. This is not just casual marijuana use. These guys were hardcore and regardless of whether one believes drugs should be legalized or not, they shouldn’t be permitted on college campuses or they sure as hell shouldn’t be sold to high school students. So as far as I’m concerned there is no responsible prohibition argument to be made here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...So as far as I’m concerned there is no responsible prohibition argument to be made here.

Well, a closed mind is a closed mind.

But, if you should manage to pry it open, I linked to the video in the fourth post of this thread.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 1:49 PM

RIVERLOVE

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
You obviously assume that because they were dealing drugs, they were dangerous criminals.

From what I can tell, they weren't accused of any violent crimes. They weren't dealing to children. They weren't robbing convenience stores to finance a habit. Just college kids entertaining themselves without government approval. Regardless they're treated as violent criminals, kicked out of school, kicked out of their homes. Many will likely end up in jail where they'll have ample opportunity to become the violent criminals the cops ought to be going after in the first place.

Some kinda backasswards society we've created, eh?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Oh, I gotta tell ya, I love your post! Quite profound & true...and I've been there myself; no violence, no crime, unless buying alot of Haagen Dazs & pizza is also illegal now. This is so stupid. On many levels these guys are heroic. They're willing to do it to fulfill a desire of choice for the folks and themselves for a harmless, and come on now, fun l'il escape many enjoy from the horrendous realities of the times we live in. Hey, cool and no problemo in the 60's, why not now? Lot worse things out there, and I know it's not a good point to compare different types of "bad" behavior, but I'll take a head over a drunk any day! A drunk will beat and rape and abuse and gamble and philander and get violent and dangerous .......while a pothead's likely sin is to quietly fall asleep on the couch watching Ariel for the 194th time....then ya wake up with that spoon in your back...sucks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:01 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

SergeantX, enjoyed the video, never watched these guys before....

I agree there is much room for widespread policy change....

but have little hope or faith that this will happen

The Alliance said they were gonna waltz through Serenity Valley. And we choked 'em with those words. We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 2:07 PM

CHRISISALL

They weren't dangerous peeps...why, if just anyone doing anything illegal regardless of actual danger to society were locked up, that would lead to a huge prison population, maybe even the biggest on Earth, with a whole industry to support it, and new laws passed every day to ensure it's growth....

Hard to imagineisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 3:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...So as far as I’m concerned there is no responsible prohibition argument to be made here.
Well, a closed mind is a closed mind.

Well that’s asinine. It has nothing to do with closed mindedness. Supporting legalization of drugs doesn’t mean accepting that drug dealers should be set loose on society without restriction. There’s nothing closed minded about not accepting your fanatical view of drug use.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
They weren't dangerous peeps...

Of course not, the guns were just decorations and of course selling to high school students doesn’t hurt anyone, except children. To saying nothing of what would happen to our colleges if illicit drugs were tolerated in such an environment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 4:01 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Of course not, the guns were just decorations

Very possibly planted & laid out carefully by the authorities...?

Suspicious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 4:06 PM

ALLIETHORN7

Yeah...
Now, normally, I'd be all for the Anarchy and such, but...
Well, I really don't like druggies. Sure, the Mary-Jay serves to calm the nerves, but the other shit... To put it to a type of perspective, I despise most smokers with a passion, and believe they should should sit down and stop bitching about their addiction. Now, you get all the shit out there... what takes away what makes humans human,what sucks the life out of most whatever it touches...
Yeah, I ain't one to see eye to eye with these kids. And they're maybe three years my seniors, mostly.
What I have to say to them: If your life is really that shitty that you need to escape like that, then find someone to die for, you lil' git.
Oh, and whoever called these kids "Heroic", I sure hope that was sarcasm.

-Danny

Late night, Brakes lock,
Hear the tires squeal,
Red light, can't stop, so I spin the wheel,
My world goes Black before I
Feel an Angel lift me up,
And I open Bloodshot eyes,
Into fluorescent White,
Flip the Siren, Hit the Lights,
Close the doors and I am Gone
The Band of the week is... Thrice

Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein.
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 4:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Of course not, the guns were just decorations
Very possibly planted & laid out carefully by the authorities...?

Why? Because drug dealers never use guns?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 4:53 PM

KIRKULES

I'm a total Libertarian when it comes to drugs. If people want to commit suicide and they don't hurt others in the process, I don't have a problem with it. I can drive down to the store and buy the most dangerous drug(alcohol)in any quantity or potency I want. I can even drive under the influence of it if I don't pass the legal threshold. People that think alcohol is OK, but other drugs should be illegal are hypocrites. Heroin is no more destructive to the human body than alcohol. When addictive personalities get a taste of either there's a good chance they will end up dieing from abuse, but that's just one of the prices you pay to live in a free society. I don't believe legalization would reduce drug use, but it would definitely reduce drug crime. Prohibition of drugs has resulted in the creation of a world wide criminal network that could be destroyed over night by legalization. It will never happen though because I'm sure the drug lords would just pour money into anti-drug campaigns and politicians pockets if they thought there was any chance of legalization.

As far as why the students had guns, it's the same reason the rest of us do, self protection. Selling drugs is an dangerous business and if rival dealers or violent criminals find out were your stash is, they'll kill you to steal it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 4:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...So as far as I’m concerned there is no responsible prohibition argument to be made here.
Well, a closed mind is a closed mind.
Well that’s asinine.

How so? It's certainly not a baseless accusation. You refuse to address, or even listen to, arguments against prohibition because you've already decided there aren't any. That's the very definition of a closed mind. Yet you continue to spout off in the thread, all the while with your fingers planted firmly in your ears. Now that's asinine.

Quote:
Of course not, the guns were just decorations

Yeah. Some gun stash. I don't know about your neighborhood, but where I live (middle-class, whitebread, suburbia) if you arrest 96 people at random and search their houses, you'll come up with a lot more than a shotgun and three pistols. And you know the cops were looking. By any accounting this was a remarkably unarmed gang of dangerous criminals.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
...So as far as I’m concerned there is no responsible prohibition argument to be made here.
Well, a closed mind is a closed mind.
Well that’s asinine.
How so? It's certainly not a baseless accusation. You refuse to address, or even listen to, arguments against prohibition because you've already decided there aren't any. That's the very definition of a closed mind. Yet you continue to spout off in the thread, all the while with your fingers planted firmly in your ears. Now that's asinine.

It’s a baseless accusation. It’s basically just you justifying your fanaticism, because you certainly can’t use any sort reasonable arguments to do so. Sometimes, bullshit is just bullshit.

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Yeah. Some gun stash. I don't know about your neighborhood, but where I live (middle-class, whitebread, suburbia) if you arrest 96 people at random and search their houses, you'll come up with a lot more than a shotgun and three pistols. And you know the cops were looking. By any accounting this was a remarkably unarmed gang of dangerous criminals.

It wouldn’t make any difference whether it was only one gun. These weren’t middle class home owners protecting themselves. These were drug dealers. There nothing unarmed about a drug dealer with a gun.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s a baseless accusation. It’s basically just you justifying your fanaticism, because you certainly can’t use any sort reasonable arguments to do so.

Heh.. right. It's fanatical to reconsider failing government policy. Really whacky stuff.

You sit here and stubbornly claim, that no matter how much evidence is provided to show that prohibition causes more suffering than the drug abuse it claims to prevent, you'll not consider that it might be bad law. Uh huh.. I'm the fanatic. I see.

I can understand if you just disagree with the arguments presented. But at the very suggestion of an alternative approach, your brain goes into lockdown. So that's why I haven't really even tried to make the argument. If you decide to get back to thinking, we'll discuss it. Or you can go watch that vid. But I know you won't, so nevermind.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I'm a total Libertarian when it comes to drugs. If people want to commit suicide and they don't hurt others in the process, I don't have a problem with it. I can drive down to the store and buy the most dangerous drug(alcohol)in any quantity or potency I want. I can even drive under the influence of it if I don't pass the legal threshold. People that think alcohol is OK, but other drugs should be illegal are hypocrites. Heroin is no more destructive to the human body than alcohol. When addictive personalities get a taste of either there's a good chance they will end up dieing from abuse, but that's just one of the prices you pay to live in a free society. I don't believe legalization would reduce drug use, but it would definitely reduce drug crime. Prohibition of drugs has resulted in the creation of a world wide criminal network that could be destroyed over night by legalization. It will never happen though because I'm sure the drug lords would just pour money into anti-drug campaigns and politicians pockets if they thought there was any chance of legalization.

As far as why the students had guns, it's the same reason the rest of us do, self protection. Selling drugs is an dangerous business and if rival dealers or violent criminals find out were your stash is, they'll kill you to steal it.

I’m a libertarian on drugs as well, but why does that have to mean I have to accept drug dealers without restriction? Since when does legalization of drugs mean drugs are allowed on campuses? Or allowed to be sold by armed street dealers? Just because drugs are legal won’t make them good. And this is really the biggest problem with the legalization issue. Even if these drugs were legal, the nature of these kinds of drugs would dictate that they should not be allowed on campuses or sold by students on campuses and certainly not sold to high school students. There would still have to be regulation, which would still require felony charges to enforce them. And there is the nature of the drugs themselves. Heroin is far worse then alcohol, but this desire to view it as tantamount to alcohol simply because of one’s sociopolitical opinions concerning the criminal activity of drug dealing is an unreasonable position. Heroin, regardless of ones views on its legality, is a powerful drug; far more powerful then alcohol. The biggest problem with the legalization argument is the lack of maturity of that argument. Legalization proponents want to legalize drugs, but they want to ignore the danger of these drugs. I’m a proponent of legalization, but in my mind, the legalization argument cannot be decoupled from the regulation argument.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s a baseless accusation. It’s basically just you justifying your fanaticism, because you certainly can’t use any sort reasonable arguments to do so.

Heh.. right. It's fanatical to reconsider failing government policy. Really whacky stuff.

You sit here and stubbornly claim, that no matter how much evidence is provided to show that prohibition causes more suffering than the drug abuse it claims to prevent, you'll not consider that it might be bad law. Uh huh.. I'm the fanatic. I see.

You’ve not provided any such evidence. You’ve simply used baseless accusations to avoid providing that evidence. Thanks for proving my point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’ve not provided any such evidence. You’ve simply used baseless accusations to avoid providing that evidence. Thanks for proving my point.

Jesus Finn, did you even read my post? Did you understand it? Do I need to type slower? I said I wasn't going to waste time arguing the points with you when you preface your posts with claims that you won't even consider the arguments anyway, that you think they're unreasonable before you even read them. Why should I bother? If you change your mind on that, I'd love to discuss it.

Regardless, there are several well supported points in the video that I don't want to completely replicate here. If it's just too much of a burden for you to watch it, I could summarize, but not if you have no intention of even considering the points made.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:43 PM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Sarge,

I watched the video. Penn and Teller are very skillful. I remember an episode where they set out to prove that the EPA study on second hand smoke was spurrious and were very covincing. They problably could convince the general public that black was white if they set their minds to it. So while watching their show I think you have to understand that they have a goal in mind and are very good at making their point seem like it's the complete truth.

That said, they bring up a few good points. The most important is that the current state of drug use and abuse in the United States has been created entirely by the Government. They blame Nixon, I believe it started earlier than that but certainly Nixon gave the Government position its current spin.

The question is does the government have the right to do this (wage a "war on drugs")? One answer is yes. Because it's implied in the preamble of the constitution in the phrase... "to promote the general welfare"... as one of the reasons for forming the government. Certainly regulating dangerous substances from explosives and hazardous wastes to toxic chemicals and drugs is promoting the general welfare.

Some drugs can be harmful, even deadly, and using this argument, limiting their use is pretty clear cut. Besides the affects on the individual user there are other aspects to drugs and how they hurt people. In the case of marijuanna, you have to ask yourself, "How many people were beat up, displaced, or even killed so I could buy a nickel bag from this polite mild mannered University of San Diego student?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
So while watching their show I think you have to understand that they have a goal in mind and are very good at making their point seem like it's the complete truth.

Indeed. It's very one-sided, though it's a side that rarely gets 'airplay'. But you're right, they're clearly editorializing and not doing balanced journalism.

Quote:
The question is does the government have the right to do this (wage a "war on drug's")? One answer is yes. Because it's implied in the preamble of the constitution in the phrase... "to promote the general welfare"... as one of the reasons for forming the government. Certainly regulating dangerous substances from explosives and hazardous wastes to toxic chemicals and drugs is promoting the general welfare.

I'm not even really pursuing this point. Not because I think it's a valid one - toxic waste directly harms others, personal drug use doesn't - but because it's too fundamental of an issue to find much common ground. Heinlein said something to the extent that the most important political divide is between those who want to see people controlled, and those who have no such desire. Even though I believe the government doesn't have any business making such personal decisions for people, I know I'm not going to convince those of you who think it does.

Instead, the issue I'd like to see addressed by the prohibition advocates is the complete and total failure of the policy. Even if we accept that controlling drug use is a proper government function, how is that working out?

We're spending billions of dollars on futile enforcement, yet drugs are cheaper, stronger, and more readily available than ever. We're propping up violent criminal cartels and street gangs with a highly profitable, and ultimately un regulated underground drug trade. We push the distribution of drugs outside the auspices of legitimate legal protections, causing it to be far more violent and dangerous than it needs to be. Pushing into that dark realm also makes it MORE available to children.

Regardless of the legitimacy of the intent, the whole effort is upside down and worse than pointless.

Quote:
In the case of marijuanna, you have to ask yourself, "How many people were beat up, displaced, or even killed so I could buy a nickel bag from this polite mild mannered University of San Diego student?

Honestly, that's exactly my point. I'm not exactly sure if it was the point you were making, but prohibition causes these kinds of consequences rather than prevents them. If it was legal, we'd just be bitching about the taxes, not shooting each other up.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:23 PM

FLETCH2

Would you want your air traffic controller on drugs, or your pilot, or your surgeon or your pediatrician?

I'm just wondering because whenever these personal liberty questions come up there always seems to be an overdose of rose coloured spectacles and very little thought as to the ongoing consequences.

What do you do when legal outlets for legal drugs start turning a blind eye to sales to minors -- which already happens with cigarettes and alcohol? Do you blame the parents for not manning up and taking responsibility for policing their children? Do you fine the retailer? Do you send him to jail?

I'm interested. Convince me that just this one time vast numbers of people wont suffer just to give you an arbitrary sense of freedom?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You’ve not provided any such evidence. You’ve simply used baseless accusations to avoid providing that evidence. Thanks for proving my point.
Jesus Finn, did you even read my post? Did you understand it? Do I need to type slower? I said I wasn't going to waste time arguing the points with you when you preface your posts with claims that you won't even consider the arguments anyway, that you think they're unreasonable before you even read them. Why should I bother? If you change your mind on that, I'd love to discuss it.

You don’t want to discuss anything. What you want is to accuse me of baseless accusations. You make a lot of claims, but so far you have no substance behind them. So stop telling me that I’m ignoring your imaginary evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Sarge,

I watched the video. Penn and Teller are very skillful. I remember an episode where they set out to prove that the EPA study on second hand smoke was spurrious and were very covincing. They problably could convince the general public that black was white if they set their minds to it. So while watching their show I think you have to understand that they have a goal in mind and are very good at making their point seem like it's the complete truth.

Do you have a link for this video?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 6:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Would you want your air traffic controller on drugs, or your pilot, or your surgeon or your pediatrician?

Nope. Wouldn't want them drunk either. But we deal with that.

Quote:
What do you do when legal outlets for legal drugs start turning a blind eye to sales to minors -- which already happens with cigarettes and alcohol? Do you blame the parents for not manning up and taking responsibility for policing their children? Do you fine the retailer? Do you send him to jail?

Some of each, I suppose. But the thing is, in that situation we'd at least have have a shot at controlling the distribution. A legitimately retailer has a vested interest in keeping his business on the right side of the law. An illegal dealer, on the other hand, has already crossed that bridge. They have very little incentive (outside their own moral misgivings) to limit sales to adults.

What we're doing now is turning a blind eye to the fact that drugs are out there. We pretend that because we've made them illegal, we've made them go away.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 7:31 PM

I love how they say the girl died of "cocaine and ethanol intoxication". WTF? Don't try and tell me that the Cocaine made her trip balls so hard she thought she was E85 compliant, cause I've done coke before, on more than one occasion in my youth, and that shit just don't happen. That bitch died because they ran out of beer at the party and somebody thought it would be a good idea to syphon the gastank of one of them rich uppity prick kids green vehicles.

Beer before liquor, you've never been sicker. Beer before ethanol, they'll blame your dumbass death on the 8-ball.

I for one am quite pleased that there are ways to acquire this stuff in suburbia and college campuses. They're going to get the stuff one way or another, and likely having this stuff readily available on campus, and sold by people who attended the school, the goods weren't tainted or cut with dangerous chemicals that they oftentimes are in the ghettos. Not to mention, that having to drive to the ghettos as a teenager, or even worse, the trailer parks with only one way out is pretty scary and reckless.

If it were legalized there would be millions of government employees out of jobs as the cheif reason for the existance of those jobs and the funding necessary to keep them afloat would be up in smoke. Don't be too hard on Hero there. He's only thinking about his own self preservation, because if the wacky tobaccy were legalized as it should be, he'd have a much lighter workload.

Plus... Pfizer might have a hard time selling all those happy pills if in an America where people are paying over $4.00 per gallon We, the People decide that we'll just go the cheaper route and grow our own happy drugs for nothing more then the cost of sunlight, a bottle of Miracle Grow and a little TLC...

They'd still sell plenty of the blue pill though...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 7, 2008 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
Some drugs can be harmful, even deadly, and using this argument, limiting their use is pretty clear cut. Besides the affects on the individual user there are other aspects to drugs and how they hurt people. In the case of marijuanna, you have to ask yourself, "How many people were beat up, displaced, or even killed so I could buy a nickel bag from this polite mild mannered University of San Diego student?

Take that line of questioning one step further and ask yourself, why am I even buying these nickel bags from thugs and cop-killers when I could just grow it in my back yard right next to the tomatoes?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Why? Because drug dealers never use guns?

In my experiance drug dealers often have guns around. Turns out there was money involved to...these poor heroes serving a lifestyle choice of their fellow students (and making a nice profit).

I note for the record that NEVER have I come across a drug dealer that sold his product for cost. Never.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
A legitimately retailer has a vested interest in keeping his business on the right side of the law. An illegal dealer, on the other hand, has already crossed that bridge. They have very little incentive (outside their own moral misgivings) to limit sales to adults.

You make a good point. Although I would point out that your comment would include these frat fellas (who fall into that "illegal dealer" catagory).

And guys like this are not the least bit dangerous: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/07/tulane.hazing/?iref=hpmostpop

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 3:19 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Which one Finn?

Here's the War on Drugs...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3025396475247394113

And here's second hand smoke

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sitesearch=&q=Penn+and+Teller+seco
nd+hand+smoke

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 3:24 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-drugbust7-2008may
07,0,1445478.story

Protecting us from dangerous criminals.

They were drug dealers.

I think they'll do well in prison...its just like being in a frat (only with fewer women).

H

Thanks Hero. That really underlines the idiocy of the whole thing. You obviously assume that because they were dealing drugs, they were dangerous criminals.

From what I can tell, they weren't accused of any violent crimes. They weren't dealing to children. They weren't robbing convenience stores to finance a habit. Just college kids entertaining themselves without government approval. Regardless they're treated as violent criminals, kicked out of school, kicked out of their homes. Many will likely end up in jail where they'll have ample opportunity to become the violent criminals the cops ought to be going after in the first place.

Some kinda backasswards society we've created, eh?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

They were criminals.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
They were criminals.

Obviously. At issue is how dangerous they were and whether pursuing drug use as a criminal activity is worthwhile in the first place. As Penn points out in the vid, when you make non-criminal activity into a crime, you still get real criminals.

In our society, whether something is a crime is, unfortunately, largely arbitrary. Not so very long ago, these guys would have been legal and their buddies down the street at the bar would have been the criminals. The question is, should they be? Does making it illegal actually do any good? In balance, I can't see how. Alcohol prohibition caused more harm than it alleviated and the Drug War is failing in exactly the same way.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 4:13 AM

CAUSAL

Interesting points, all. And interesting to use this case to surface those issues. IMHO, we ought to revisit policies about drug use (certain kinds, in any event). And while you are right to say that what constitutes "illegal" is in some sense arbitrary, the laws on the books should at least be followed until we make better ones.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I note for the record that NEVER have I come across a drug dealer that sold his product for cost. Never.

Forgive me for pointing out the fact that you are on the other side of the law Hero. In my youth, I hung with people who moved pounds and even did some moving before I was even old enough to legally drink. Truth is, most of the profits all around got smoke up at parties between friends and the girls that came around.

It's like how my retired House Rep boss used to treat his own employees. Obvioulsy somebody on the outside didn't like whatever he was doing that we weren't privy to. (See: Chicago Democrats, particularly Mayor Daley who had a hard on for George Ryan). But I thought of him as a father figure and he always called me kid and even said that he thought of me as a son.

When you're on the outside and have no doubt in your mind that what you're doing is right all of the time, it's easy to lose focus of all of the innocient lives at the sidelines that you are really phucking up.

Just sayin'
~6sJ

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 5:40 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Might I point out that during prohibition, you could buy opiates right over the counter, and we did not whatever have such problems with their use at the time ?

I've yet to hear any bitching about pot smoking from any historical documents during the formation of our country, although there were a few bitching about liquor - that was more of a religious beef than a functional one however.

Point being, twofold.

One- This shit was never EVER a problem until it was made illegal, then it became one, we're just endlessly repeating the same mistakes of prohibition, which was PROVEN TO NOT WORK.

Two- The whole concept boils down to one group in society using the law to FORCE their morality on all of us, and I find that pretty reprehensible.

It's that second part that annoys the piss outta me, but never fear, due to your own stupidity, ignorance and moral cowardice, it'll be annoying the piss out of you soon enough, cause you'll find one of YOUR bad habits vilified and taxed to death if not outlawed soon enough.

And imma be laughing at you when it does, cause you'll get no sympathy from this quarter.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 6:06 AM

When they came for me, I cried out for help but no one came, because there was no one left....

And yes. I'm talking about you, soccer moms. The ones who allow their young children to play in games where no score is taken so everybody feels so good about themselves, even if they are losers. You're the last one's they're coming for, but mark my words, they will come for you one day.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 6:27 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

Quote:
SergeantX wrote:
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 18:05

Heinlein said something to the extent that the most important political divide is between those who want to see people controlled, and those who have no such desire.

Good point. Government and legistlation is all about the power to control others. Some laws are necessary and others (like overnight parking ordinances) are a general nuisance. There has to be an ideal medium where folks aren't stepping all over each other during their pursuit of happiness.

Quote:
Even though I believe the government doesn't have any business making such personal decisions for people, I know I'm not going to convince those of you who think it does.

Ah, come on that's what internet posting is all about.

Quote:
...the issue I'd like to see addressed by the prohibition advocates is the complete and total failure of the policy...

Well the only model that is not total prohibition that I know of is the Netherlands. Unfortunatley I don't know enough to make a comparisons. I suppose we could start doing some research... I'll get back to you as it may require a field trip to Amsterdam.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:59 AM