Prostitution is still big in LV because itâs more convenient then having to go out the city. Whereâs the big underground for cigarettes? How is it conservatives â who are supposedly for less government involvement - are the ones who do not want to decriminalize drugs. I can only think its because they are rich & white and donât think drug laws apply to them. Ann Coulter said it best on Scarborough â âno I donât think drug laws should apply to my friendsâ when talking about Rush. Joe then asked to have the microphones cut at that point.
And the first time some 19 year old leaves one stoned out of his gourd and runs into tree at 80 MPH, we'll never hear the end of it. I can see the new MADD expansion plans now. Oh, and don't forget the politicians who will need to form a new oversight committee and hold hearings about the evil other party who won't have tough enough laws on the books to crack down on the illegal crimes that can be associated with this new threat. Can you say a new voter base? This sentence concerns me. With this logic, you can easily stretch it into non-lethal law breaking. If I'm sitting at a red light and I think I can dart between the cross traffic without causing an accident (the only viable test based on some slick lawyering somewhere) then I should be able to without the fear of getting a ticket from some silly cop. The red tape of a ticket should be abolished. Here's a sick thought. If some 35 year old decided to have sex with a consenting minor (non-gender specific of course) there should be no laws to prevent it as it is only more government sponsored red tape. The beginning of chaos, IMHO.
There is a MAJOR difference here. You are laboring under the assumption that the providers of the product and the organizations that fund them care to be legal, full tax reporting/paying organizations, in AMERICA. There will always be an underground. And did the crime stop or just shift to a new outlet? Did it go from the ranks of the organized crime element out to the consuming populace who needed funds to get their newfound, now legal, outlet?
Just wondering if this is High Times or ET. Reminds me of a time (all together now, "oh, hell , here he goes!).... I was set to follow Timothy Leary at an event in San Francisco, a couple of years before he webcast his death. G. Gordon Liddy and he were on the stage just before I was to demonstrate some electric cars and other environmental goodies to the Press. During the break I sat down with Leary, in front of the venue (South of Market, can't recall the name of the place), while he chain smoked cigarettes and talked about the virtues of other drugs. This one time Harvard Professor, who actually was a "tongue in cheek" attention seeker (IMO), was cracking me up while he "prepared" for his "debate" with Liddy by smoking a joint (I'm sure he thought I wouldn't notice that one of the "cigarettes" smelled unique. I was a little shocked (just a little), when Liddy came up and gave him a copy of their "script." They exchanged a few comments about when and how loud, and I just sat there, smiling to myself. So much for "Liberals vs. the Conservatives" and so much for the Hippy vs. the Watergate burglar reborn into an armchair patriot....I saw two old guys trying to make a buck in whatever way they could. When ideologies clash, food and shelter (and cash) will serve as the great equalizer. Don (the "Progressive Capitalist) maybe I'll start using an alias.. No, maybe not... Peace! Don
Drugs shouldn't be illegal, but if someone's behavior on drugs causes them to do something illegal, then they should be nailed for it. There are plenty of people who can use drugs responsibly. I smoke pot occasionally -- and no, I'm not a pothead, either. However, if I work a long and tough week and Saturday night comes along and I want to kick back, chill and light one up, that is my prerogative and nobody else's. I don't want uncle Sam in my house telling me what I can and can't do on my time when it doesn't affect anyone else. Sure, I could technically go out and drive my car into someone else's while buzzed. However, if I do that, then you have the right to nail me, but the law shouldn't "assume" I'm going to do something wrong because I have the "capability" to do it. I heard a story recently about a guy who decided to sleep it off after partying all night in his car. It was very cold outside, so the keys were in the ignition and the car was running (so he could keep warm). The police came by and arrested him for drunk driving. Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, but I always thought that drunk driving required that the car be in motion (hence the "driving" part of drunk driving). Well, apparently that isn't true. The law states in many states that if you are drunk and have the keys to your car with you and you are within X distance from your car, you can be nailed for drunk driving. How asinine is that? The law is assuming that I'm going to break the law at some future point. This guy knew he was too screwed up to drive, so he slept it off in his car. He still got busted by the police and was ticketed and convicted. What kind of message is that sending out to society? He may as well have just tried to drive home anyhow given those circumstances. I know a lot of people who do light drugs. Businessmen, doctors, lawyers, accountants, janitors, etc. It just appears to be one of those things that is slightly taboo in society, yet many people do it anyhow. However, the main point from my whole discussion earlier was that Rush not only took drugs, but he lambasted other drug addicts at the same time. That makes him scum in my book.
So let Jimmy operate legally. And it's not true that people would choose the most potent version available. Andean Indians have been chewing Coca leaves for Millenia, and still do today. Some peole drink beer, some drink whiskey, but I don't know anyone who chugs grain alcohol. Mav, Rush did not take the most potent drug available. Some snort heroin and don't shoot it. Rush consumed pills, he did not smoke opium and he did not mainline narcotics. He could have knocked himself out every day had he chosen to (but he chose to remain sober enough to knock out his lies and bullshit every day to the 20 million strong members of the Amalgamated Morons of America). And the arguments for drug decriminalization stem from pragmatism and not any sense of idealism. Mav, you have stated your beleif that labeling is rampant in our society and you have shown yourself to be a prime practitioner of false labeling. No one supporting change in drug laws here has made any Great Society arguments or called themselves liberal or leftist. That was you. You have made only personal attacks and theoretical schemes to support your positions. You have not actually made any argument grounded in fact, statistics, or morality. And for Canyonman, DUI is DUI. It's the operation und er the influence that is illegal. But by your standard, alcohol should be illegal because people drive drunk.
Silly does exist everywhere. Less government regulation does not mean a Republic not based on the rule of law. You are employing sophistry here and it won't work. It is silly indeed to extrapolate a society in the state of nature devolving from the notion that drug decriminalization may offer less harm to society than drug interdiction.