RobertNashville

That's what happens when you have idiot legislators with an agenda who write a "comprehensive" piece of legislation that's supposed to "fix" and problem that probably affects less than 5% of the population and what you end up with is that the 5% who had the problem still have it and you've screwed the other 95%.   So far; I've been lucky - my health care is provided as a retirement benefit and there has been no signs of "change" yet but I won't be surprised if it does change.

I cant' say I quite understand what the problem is.   I had an LCR (38 SPL) for quite a while and it never gave me an issue (can't say it was very much fun to shoot though!). :)

That is a good case...I hope that it reaches SCOTUS before Obama has a chance to replace a justice or two with ones that may be less concerned with constitutionality and more with their agenda (not that anything is predictable with the current court).

Good points, Lester as usual.   I'm pretty much on the fence about the whole "legalize" thing...certainly the "war on drugs" has been a colossal failure but I'm not sure that automatically means these drugs should be legal for anyone to buy anytime.  Then again, it's difficult for me to really care about the whole mess anyway.  For one thing, I think it's highly unlikely that anything is going to change (certainly not within my lifetime) and secondly, well...I guess I think there are more important things to address than whether we change the drug laws. ;)

Okay...thanks for clearing that up...I guess it's just with intent to sell (or actually selling) where the law steps in.   With this technology on the horizon which will likely only get less and less expensive; I'd bet real money that the fed govt will be looking at some new laws (after all; it will be to protect the children)!

Yeah - this could get real interesting. Maybe I'm wrong but isn't it currently "illegal" under fed law for anyone to make a firearm without a license, etc? Not sure about that. Anyway, this technology has to be frightening to the BATF and gun control nuts since this takes so much control out of their hands.

Okay now Lester, I'm not saying that legalizing all drugs/drug use is crazy; I'm saying that the political position is considered "crazy"...there is a difference. ;)   I'm suggesting that most people think that lifting the laws regarding drugs/drug use is a crazy idea (I'm not saying it is crazy; just that it's perceived that way and you can blame that perception on "propagandist" or whatever; the point is that they perception is there) and when libertarians suggest such things those people think that libertarians are a bit crazy.  If memory servers if W.F. Buckley argued for legalization and received pretty negative responses even from those who thought he was conservative's patron saint!

I'm not saying whether it should be restricted or not, I'm just saying that this belief that prices will suddenly drop or that legalizing all drugs will end criminal activity is unfounded at best...mostly based on theory and conjecture.   Legalizing drugs is also one of the issues that make people think that libertarians are just a bit off-kilter and one of the reasons why they can't get any traction in elections.  

Yeah...but I can't help but wonder how many innocent people they'll take with them because of their individual acts.   Individual accountability is great; the only problem with it is that it only works if people exercise it...most of the laws we have today are on the books precisely because people DON'T exercise personal accountability or responsibility.  That's not a should or shouldn't argument for legalizing all drugs and doing away with prescriptions, etc. but that's never going to happen anyway and these discussions are really never anything more than an interesting philosophical exercise. ;)

I'm sure everyone would indulge their addiction only in the comfort of their own home. LOL

I guess that's why all those pharmaceutical s companies charge so little for their products. ;)   I wonder too; do all these libertarians want to do away with all the regulations/restrictions on all drugs (such as those available not only by prescription) or just a select few drugs?

I've no idea what your comment hast to do with my post. People buy booze because they want it...people do/will buy drugs because they want them.   My point to Lester was that government involvement in a "legal" drug trade would not likely make the price of these drugs go down or at least not to the extent that some may think if only because of typical government inefficiency.   Medical cannabis goes for around $150/half-oz...I'm not sure what a half-oz on the street costs but I expect it's less than that. Maybe recreational cannabis will wind up being less expensive but Colorado just put a 25% tax on theirs so I don't know. I think you would see similar govt involvement and prices for any other drug...the costs for requiring specific content and manufacturing standards and monitoring, etc. will have to be passed along to the buyers.   Part of the "high cost" of street drugs is to offset the risk of selling it (since it's a criminal act) but the manufacturing/transportation costs are generally pretty low. Make these drugs legal with all the government requirements/standards and it could well be that even though the price tied to the criminal risk goes down, manufacturing/transportation/distribution could replace it and maybe more than replace it.   It's all just pointless conjecture anyway because it isn't going to happen. ;)

That may all be true but I have to ask, what product or service has the government involved itself in (ans they would involve itself in any "legal" drug trade) has the product or service be produced/provided more efficiently or less expensively?  I can't think of one...maybe someone else can???   Besides, I'm not just talking about "Meth" so whether Meth would be less or more expensive is really not the point...if we are going to legalize any drug they should all be legal; otherwise there would be no point in doing anything.

Of course the so-called Libertarian candidate is a spoiler. He was funded by an Obama organization for the sole purpose of splitting the vote and getting the Democrat low-life in office and it obviously work just like they wanted it to.   Even so, the real blame should go to the idiot/low-intelligence/ill-informed voters who voted for the Libertarian even as the facts about his funding and support were coming out.   I guess it's really true...you really can't fix stupid.

Does any of this really matter?   Let's assume for the moment that all currently "illegal" drugs are made "legal" to buy. A legitimate market is created with legitimate suppliers, taxes, everything that is necessary to bring any legal product to market.  Since drugs are, for the most part, ingested in some way, the government (state and/or federal) is going to want to have some say so in who can manufacture these drugs, safety/quality standards, etc. which will, of necessity increase the price  I suspect that by the time all that is done the price of 10 grams of cocaine will still be substantial; maybe not as much as the "illegal" kind but I suspect that the price will not decline as much as some proponents of legalizing these drugs want us to believe (prices that many say fuel much of the crime).   While some will just "use" drugs and not abuse them, I suspect that many will abuse them and become a burden on society.  That will certainly not be true of everyone but it may well be true of at least a substantial number; enough to cause a problem for everyone else since those hocked on drugs will have all the problems that come along with the abuse (criminal behavior to feed their habit, DUI, etc.).   Frankly, I don't have strong feelings about whether these drugs should or shouldn't be legal...I see rational arguments for both positions, but at the end of the day, I suspect that "legalizing" drugs/drug use may solve some problems but won't solve nearly as many/much of the problems as some like to think.  Further, I don't see wholesale legalization ever happening anyway (at least not until the ever growing monster of the federal government decides that keeping the public "medicated" will starve off outright rebellion as society continues to break down).

Ending the "war on drugs" may or may not be appropriate in terms of public policy.   However, anyone who downplays the life-destroying effects of drug use and addiction (especially rock cocaine and meth) is an idiot no matter how many letters comes after his/her name. Moreover, how addicting and/or destructive drug use/abuse is not, in my opinion, relevant to public policy discussion of whether or not it should be "illegal".

Plenty of ways for it to happen...I've got one account that has been hacked three times over the past two years even with me NEVER having used the debit card for ANYTHING.   Just last week I got a call from JPMorganChase about my company card; seems someone tried to use the card in NYC to buy some audio equipment...pretty odd seeing as how I was sitting in Manchester and have only used the card once the entire time I've had it.   The good news is that if you didn't do it you aren't responsible...the bad news is that it could turn your life into a living hell and ruin your credit rating which is one of the reasons I absolutely stopped worrying about my credit rating and also why I've had LifeLock for several years.

Even 40 years ago when I was a lowly E3 in the Navy I would have laughed at  $60; maybe not as much as today but $60 would still not have stopped me from doing something I really wanted to do.  But more than that, like hoping to denture any "crime"; for a punishment to be effective there has to be a significant possibility of arrest/conviction and punishment applied meaning that enforcement of this anti-texting while driving law is going to have to be exponentially steeped up if it's going to have any significant effect.  Just look at how much resources are thrown at drunk driving every year yet we never seem to run out of assholes who think they can drink and drive.   As I've said, I'm not actually opposed to the effort but this current level of action is pretty laughable when touted as any sort of serious effort to curb the activity.

I don't really give a #### about what they "primary responsibility" is as it had nothing to do with the point I was making; a point that you either didn't get or are choosing to ignore.

Funny, I thought the THP had self-contained/motorized mobile command centers...maybe they have both???   I know TEMA has some nice rigs for its needs. ;)

I know I haven't and I don't think anyone has said it shouldn't be illegal.    My rub with it is, as stated, 1) it address the symptom of incompetent, idiot drivers (one can't help but be incompetent and idiotic to text and drive) rather than the real problem, and 2) the $60 ticket is comical - I just can't take it as a serious effort to curb the behavior; especially since the law was passed under Berdesen with no effort since to make it more meaningful.   If folks are as concerned about texting and driving as they seem to be based on the posts in this thread, why aren't people in line at their state senator's/representative's office asking them to do something about it???

I don't think that would help...I've boiled clay pigeons for hours and they still taste like dirt. ;)

I don't disagree but a pitifully, small $60 fine...really?   If someone is stupid enough to text while driving do you really think they care that they MIGHT get a ticket with a $60 fine?  I mean come on...you can end up paying much more money out of pocket just for parking in the wrong place!  I would suggest that every single THP officer in the state could forgo all other duties and spend 100% of their time looking for for and ticketing drivers who are texting and that it wouldn't be enough to make any difference at all in terms of affect the behavior.   So...while I agree it's a problem there is no way I can take this $60 fine business or this ridiculous big rig tractor seriously because it's obvious to me that the people of Tennessee (as represented by their state legislature) doesn't take it seriously.

Actually, there are TWO laws in play...the one most are referring to here is specifically a ban on "texting" while driving; not distracted driving (I quoted the salient points of the law earlier in the thread) and is separate from "distracted driving"...more info below...     To answer your question; no, I'm just suggesting or wanting them to do nothing...as I've said several times, I'd rather they do something about the REAL PROBLEM which would be getting stupid, incompetent, idiots off the road rather going after a symptom like "texting" while driving. Since I know that our legislature doesn't have the balls to do that then what I would want is REAL PUNISHMENT; not a meaningless, $60 fine...I suggest a $1,000 fine and at least a 6 month suspension for first offense.

So I'll ask you what I've asked above...   Is loosing someone to a driver who is texting while driving more of a loss than losing someone to a drunk driver or a driver doing any other incompetent/thoughtless/idiotic thing?   And if texting while driving is such a problem/so much more prevalent/so much worse than all the other stupid incompetent drivers do, why only a $60 fine?  Does anyone here really think that the possibility of a $60 fine is going to change anyone's behavior? I'm sorry but I can't take this THP effort seriously when it's a $60 fine because with a $60 fine it's abundantly clear that the legislature doesn't take the problem seriously and shows that they are not interested in actually address the problem rather than the symptom.