RobertNashville

Ahh...I see.

Since my original reply was apparently misunderstood or not clear, I’ll try again… No - driving a car at all or of any specific quality is not a right. Since, in my opinion, it is not a right the cost of stolen vehicles or what would happen if the commies took over (actually, they already have with Obama being the chief one) is moot. I absolutely agree; the idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs IS ludicrous which is why I never said it. Insinuating that I did say it is disingenuous. One could argue that but I don't think the argument has merit. ----------------------------- I'm not sure why you keep posting to me about this issue - I don't know if the issue is really important to you or if you just don't have a lot to do this afternoon or if you think I'm a lost sole that you need to bring to the right position. Anyway, I think the U.S. legalizing narcotics would be a terribly stupid and destructive thing to do and I doubt anyone is going offer enough evidence here to change my mind about that. Now, some may think I'm stupid or uninformed or don't understand State's rights or whatever but I'm okay with that. Have a nice day...I've go to go vote now.

Maybe your experience was and would be typical but I think you are still making a lot of assumptions on a small amount of experience. Assuming for the sake of argument, that the price of the previously illegal now illegal narcotics would fall to negligible amounts, is price the only thing (or the most important thing) we should consider when suggesting that these narcotics should be legal?

No, I don't believe driving a car, nice or junker, is a right at all. One could argue anything; it doesn't mean the argument has any merit. The idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs most certainly IS ludicrous which is why I've never said or even hinted otherwise...which makes me wonder why you feel the need to ascribing such a ridiculous statement to me.

I think all this talk of cheep prices is just not based in reality...at the very least, it's not based on evidence. Without evidence, what you are suggesting is conjecture. It may prove to be correct but I'm not willing to suggest or support the idea of legalization of narcotics without a lot more than conjecture.

My rights come from God (or for those that don't believe in God, from simply being a sentient being). However, not everything I might want to do or chose to do is a "right" just because I or someone claims it to be. There is a significant percentage of people sitting in jails and prisons right now who committed their crimes because they were on narcotics when they committed their crimes or they committed their crimes to obtain money to obtain the narcotics their bodies were driving them to have; not Big Macks...not rims...narcotics. If people want to ignore that information or if people accept the information but chose to believe that the crimes will end with legalization/um-regulation of narcotics use they can but I'm not going to ignore the data nor do I believe that legalization/um-regulating narcotics will make the crime go away.

Is there something wrong with being rich? Is there something wrong with being richer? I'd like to be rich...to most of the population of the world any person currently standing in the United States is rich...should we be sorry??? Maybe I just don't understand but I sort of think that, as long as someone doesn't do something illegal or immoral to get it, being rich is a good thing and something to be admired and emulated. Also, what yesterday really did was show just how stupid and how bigoted and how reprehensible some of the left-wing wack-jobs really are and it brought a huge number of like-minded people together to offset a wrong being committed.

I don't mind if you want to have a discussion about legalizing/regulating narcotics as it relates to states vs federal abilities to legalize/regulate but you really should do so with someone else because I'm not interested in that discussion - I'm interested in a discussion about whether narcotics use should or shouldn't be regulated; if that's not what you want to discuss that's okay. I see nothing in this thread that gives me reason to think that the use of narcotics is a "right" and if it isn't a right (stated or unstated) then it can be regulated without violating a right. I've seen opinion but no evidence to support the idea that making narcotics use legal/unregulated would be prudent or that it would be good for society or that it wouldn't cause far, far more problems than we already have. Therefore I see no reason why narcotics should be legal and/or unregulated because I see unregulated narcotics use as a clear danger to me personally and to society at large.

Very true.Just yesterday (early evening) I was sitting in my vehicle in a Starbucks parking lot on West End (waiting for a fellow TGO member as a matter of fact) when a fellow approached me and asked me for a handout...he was almost "on me" before I realized he was there. I did, however, have time to reach for and have my hand on (but not expose) the G21 I had with me before he actually reached the window...I simply said I couldn't help him and he moved on. After it was over, I realized that I simply wasn't paying enough attention to what was going on around me and I had to acknowledge that had his intention been hostile, I could have been in a very bad situation. I guess we just have to keep practicing.

Which doesn’t change the simple fact that narcotics use is not a “right†protected by the Constitution. Moreover, I see nothing to make me believe that the use of narcotics is a “right†at all. I’ve read the constitution many times…maybe I’ve just missed it but I never seen narcotics mentioned. Anyway, where in this thread, other than your own posts, did you even get the idea that this thread had anything to with state’s rights? I don’t think the thread goes there at all. Even if it did it would be a strange direction to take… the use of certain narcotic drugs is illegal under STATE law, I think in every state in the U.S. as well as illegal under Federal law so it seems to me the more beneficial discussion should be wehther they should or shouldn’t be legal/unregulated; not what government entity should or shouldn’t do the regulating. I don't really think we have a lot of crime happening because of the abuse of sugar or caffeine...do you have any stats on that? If we make the possession of any firearm and the possession of any drug completely legal and unregulated and we’ll only lock up those who abuse/misuse firearms or drugs would that be okay with you? I have a feeling our prisons will have a lot more drug abusers in them than they will those who misuse their firearms but in any case, it's what the abusers do before the get to prison that is really the problem. So, if the use/abuse of narcotics is not a "right" (which I think it is not) and if the use/abuse of narcotics caused harm to others (which I contend it does) then I believe that society has both the authority and the duty to act to mitigate that harm. As I said, alcohol abuse and addiction is pretty damn bad. On the other hand, I haven’t found any stats to show that we have a lot of alcoholics victimizing innocent people to support their habit so no, I don't think that's because alcohol is a cheap fix that can be purchased legally with ease in most locations. I reckon it’s because alcohol is less addictive to most people than are narcotics. I reckon that for those who are addicted to alcohol, the absence of an alcohol “fix†is less likely to drive someone to crime to obtain money to buy their “fix†to avoid the significant mental and physical drive for the person addicted to a narcotic. I don’t put a lot of stock in anecdotal stories...I suppose because a story can be found that will support whatever position a person wants to support...I suppose I've also had too many statistics classes to trust a single (or even a few) individual stories. However, putting that aside for the moment, have you actually followed all these CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, ADAs, LEOs, other people that you once observed using illicit “hard†drugs to know what direction their lives took? Have you looked at the effect of their drug use on their families/those close to them?I’ve seen people use LSD...I’ve seen people use cocaine…is assuming they didn’t have a problem after that one time I saw them using a reasonable basis to reach a decision about the effects of long-term use of narcotics? It’s not unfounded but I’m not sure what makes you believe that drugs becoming suddenly legal would become less expensive; the free market will charge the highest price the market will bear. Moreover, those who abuse drugs tend to have little money because they tend to not have or can’t keep a job so whether their hit costs $5 or $5,000; if the user doesn’t have the $5 what difference does the price make? I could just as easily say that but I wouldn’t believe it…I didn’t say people are “waiting on the sidelinesâ€, however, if you want to contend that making something as significantly, albeit momentarily pleasurable and addictive as a narcotic easily available to anyone who wants them would it would not foster greater use by larger numbers you can contend that but I find little logic in the contention. I’m not confused at all, you are simply arguing something I’m not.If narcotics should be legal/unregulated then they should be legal/unregulated...if they shouldn't be then they shouldn't be; I don't give a rat's a** what government entity does or doesn't do the regulating and I’ve seen not reason presented to support the idea that they should be legalized

I agree and I didn't say otherwise...I was just making an observation about how rapidly things have changed.

Tread carefully...you are dangerously close to presenting so many facts that you are going to make some folks feel uncomfortable.

It was homosexual radicals, the press and government leaders who brought politics into the "business"; this event was to support the innocent party who was being harmed by those acts.

I don't think there is a single major religion in the world that accepts marriage between two homosexuals as morally acceptable so I guess in your opinion, only those who have no religions convictions at all is not a bigot???If my religion teaches that the color of the sky is green and I fervently believe that the color of the sky is green; does it actually hurt anyone at all?

Exactly who's rights were infringed? How does an opinion held by one person infringe on the rights of anyone else to do whatever the hell they want to do? If I think people should do or not do "X", does the simple fact that I think that in any way prevent someone from doing it?

I've herd that statement many times but while it sounds good it has some problems. When you say we might as well legalize it because what we are doing it isn't working, it suggests stopping what we are doing will have an insignificant impact to society. While that could be true, I don't know of any evidence to show that it might be true. I would say it's as lest as likely that legalizing drugs will result in a large negative impact to society...more drug use...more drug addicts...more crime to support the increased addictions. Also, when you say it isn't working what is the definition of "working"? If by working you mean that all illicit drugs haven't been kept out of the country or that all ancillary crime hasn't stopped then, I agree, it isn't working. On the other hand, you could say the very same thing about any law you care to look at. Murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, embezzlement...we have laws against all of them but we still have all those crimes being committed...should we just legalize all those crimes too? Laws do not and cannot stop or prevent crime...we have laws to define what is a crime...to set boundaries so that society can function. If murder is so dangerous to society that it needs to be considered an illegal act then it needs to be an illegal act...If use of narcotics is so dangerous to society that it needs to be an illegal act then it needs to be an illegal act. How successful we are at stopping the crimes is irrelevant to the issue of whether it should or shouldn't be a crime. Or put another way, you fight wars the need to be fought...you fight them to win but you don't only fight the ones you can win.

I didn’t say it was exhaustive but there is still, at the moment, noting in it about narcotics use being a right. Yuup....that's what it says...did this thread turn into a State’s rights issue and I missed it? I thought we were just discussing the overall concept of whether drug use should or shouldn't be legal/regulated, not the specifics of who has/should/has the right to issue regulations. We are wrong to have most regulations on arms; that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have regulations on narcotics. Alcohol abuse and addiction is pretty damn bad. On the other hand, I haven’t found any stats to show that we have a lot of alcoholics victimizing innocent people to support their habit. In 2002 in the U.S. about a quarter of convicted property offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs…among State prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) offenders committing their crimes for drug money. In Federal prisons property offenders (11%) were less than half as likely as drug offenders (25%) to report drug money as a motive in their offenses. In 2004, 17% of U.S. State prisoners and 18% of Federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. There is little that is similar about occasional long-term use of liquor and long-term use of narcotics because it is possible and most people do drink alcohol and aren't alcoholics. While I don't have time to look up the stats, if memory serves, narcotic users are fare more likely to become addicted and addiction is where most of the problems really begin. The part about the free market coming into play is nice but all conjecture...I could just as easily say that wilder availability of narcotics will lead to fare more addicts...addicts have a difficult time keeping a job and tend to not have a lot of money so even if drugs become less expensive it doesn't mena they'll have the money to pay for them which means they'll find other ways to get it...other ways that usually hurt other people. Yes there is, one is a protected right; the other isn't. if it is always and only "private" they don't...the infringement happens when it doesn't stay "private" and it happens enough that for the benefit of society I believe narcotics must and shoudl be illegal whether it's the Stat or the Fed or both who does it.My freedom is impacted when drug users commit more crime to get money to feed their habit...or because they can't hold a job and take my taxes in the form of welfare or cause my health insurance rates to go up because they need more medical care and can't pay for it or because my taxes have to go to pay for the prisons that house them after they've committed their crimes to obtain money for their drugs.

In the post I replied to, you had indicated that there were a lot of people incarcerated for "minor" drug charges..."minor" usually indicates a misdemeanor and people generally don't spend a lot of time incarcerated for a misdemeanor...your friend's experience sort of bears that out. Also, a traffic ticket can easily land you in jail for a few hours (just like your friend) and easily cost you more than a couple grand (just like your friend) and I KNOW that to be true (and that's as much as I'm going to say about that here). I appreciate your service and I'm sorry about your injury.I've hear various and contradictory things about marijuana's medicinal value...I don't know who is right and who is wrong but if it were completely legalized tomorrow (treated the same as alcohol) or could be distributed as a prescription it would be fine with me.

I thought I was pretty clear that I'm talking about narcotics...I've said at least once in this thread that I don't care about marijuana

The right to keep and bear arms is a right recognized by and plainly stated in the Constitution that specifically says it shall not be infringed; I don't see anything like that with regard to narcotics. On a perhaps more practical/societal level; one can own and/or use firearms without ever harming himself or anyone else around him and in fact, they can and often are used for very positive purposes (protection, hunting, sport/enjoyment, etc). I suspect that you would be very hard pressed to cite many examples where long-term use of narcotics had anything close to a positive impact on the user. However, if that was as far as it went (i.e. only impacting the user) I'd probably be okay with people destroying their minds with whatever drug they wanted....the problem is, it doesn't stop there. Show me a long-term user and you'll almost always find that the person didn't just destroy his own life but severely negatively impacted those around him as well as society as the addict victimizes others to support his addiction. People should be free to do pretty much anything they want to do but when their freedoms starts impacting/infringing on the freedoms of others, it is reasonable for the state to inject itself into the issue...some might even say the state has a duty to do so.

Nothing I suppose; is that a problem? I frequently see posts from members who basically quote another member's post in total and gives a thumbs up or something to show agreement. That's pretty much what I did there...I suppose one of the reasons I did was because I don't agree with DaveTN very often.

I doubt that is accuarte...in most (and maybe all) states, simple possession of marijuana is no more serious than a speeding ticket. I've no problem with marijuana being legal to distribute as a prescription drug to be used for medical purposes; other than that I don't see a rational for change.

A little while ago I almost posted something very similar to these thoughts...I had even written it out but decided that I didn't need the headache it would likely cause me coming from all those who would think that I wasn't enlightened enough to understand why legalizing drugs would be a good thing.

When I was in school, the only "cell phones" we knew about was Dick Tracy's wrist watch and Captain Kirk's communicator...now our kids have them 24/7. Overall, I think being able to instantly communicate to you child or he with you is a good thing; I just have to sit back and reflect sometimes.

I'm going to be there today for dinner (as I don't have time to wait in lines for breakfast or lunch). The restaurant near me is a bit out of the way so I don't eat there very often but I'm going to change that.