RobertNashville

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.

Does anyone know specifically what "private property rights" a person has in the airspace over his/her property?   I know, for example, that it is illegal for me to discharge a firearm from my home because I live in a "city" and it's prohibited. But assuming I could and/or lived out in the county where it was legal; what are my rights with regards to someone "spying" on me with a "drone" like this?   EDIT: I guess there is no answer, yet, to my question above and this is something that will likely just have to be worked out in the courts. I do understand the concept that no one has an expectation of privacy when out "in public" but I don't consider standing in my back yard or hunting in my own woods/field (if I had one) to be "out in public"; especially if it takes extraordinary measure like an aerial drone to observe me! http://www.volokh.com/2012/02/19/drones-privacy-and-air-rights/

I have a Citori XS Pro Comp Skeet that I really have only for skeet shooting and it's a hell of a shotgun (mine is a 12ga)...if you can pick up a Citori at a good price that is how I would go. After that I would tip my hat to the Benelli.   In truth, you can't go wrong with any of these three and with a 20ga I truly don't think recoil is a factor...I've shot many, many rounds of skeet with my 12ga citori and don't really have any problems with recoil (and bear in mind you aren't shooting HD loads!).

So if some innocent person is killed in a vehicle accident because some other person was texting while driving, is that really "worse" than the exact same situation except that the person was messing with their radio?  Their GPS?  Talking with a passenger or just plain not actually DRIVING their vehicle?   It's only my opinion but I don't believe the problem is "TEXTING"l texting is just the symptom...the problem is STUPID IDIOT INCOMPETENT DRIVERS and until you get them off the road these people will continue to cause accidents and kill innocent people. You can throw all the $60 tickets at people you want but I can tell you now, if I want to do something that's against the rules, no $60 ticket is going to stop me and i don't think it will stop anyone else either.   A couple of pages back (post 9) bersaguy mentioned that his grandson has already had two and perhaps three accidents that were the results of texting and/or listening to his GPS while driving...if the grandson hasn't come to grips with how stupid it is to do this after two or three vehicle accidents does anyone really think a $60 ticket will make a difference???   I'm not against enforcing the law...I'm not saying people should be allowed to text while driving (and frankly, the whole "hands free" bs is just that...you are STILL distracted while listening to/replying to a text or a phone call while driving)...I'm not discounting the pain or the loss of a loved one killed in a car wreck because of the actions of another driver. However, this "big rig" and $60 ticket garbage is just that - garbage...window dressing rather than having the guts to do what needs to be done. Okay...soap box put away...everyone have a nice Friday.  

If we really want to address avoidable traffic accidents and deaths then how about...   1. Requiring demonstrated competency behind the wheel of a vehicle at speed and in various emergency situations rather than just demonstrating that you can park and can memorize the basic rules for a multiple choice test?  Perhaps graduation from a major performance driving course could be used as proof of competency.  Tie insurance rates and/or allowed speed limits based on age and proven competency.  I don't know if it's still true but it used to be true that teenage drivers in Europe had more stringent speed limits (designated by a badge on the vehicle(s)) than adults and insurance companies gave favorable premium treatment to those who had passed driving courses that required real driving competency.   2.  Require refresher driving courses every few yeas...again, not just can I park and make a right turn but a course that actually requires demonstrated competency in an emergency situation.   3. Couple that with significant punishment for people who break major rules and especially those who cause accidents...if "texting" is really that dangerous, rather than a $60 fine how about a significant license suspension and a $1,000 fine?  How about a significant license suspension for anyone who causes an accident for ANY reason?  This past April I had a stupid woman turn left in front of me which totaled her POS Mercury as well as my $50K sports car; she spent three weeks in intensive care and I walked away with a couple of scratches but I could just as easily have been killed - I'm sure she is back on the road now and doing things just as stupid as what she did to me that day while in my opinion, she probably shouldn't be allowed to drive again for at least a year or more.   I know...I know...none of the above will ever happen...too many people would cry about the cost or about losing their "right to drive" if they actually had to prove competency in handling a vehicle at speed or in am emergency; that's why we have THPs dress up a big rig to give $60 to to people who text and drive because that's easier to deal with.

No I'm not. They are still law enforcement officers. That aside, your statement totally misses the point I was making.   "Texting" is a problem as are MANY OTHER things people do that are illegal including illegal things that THP is responsible for addressing. There a PLENTY of other things that the state/THP could do to address accidents and deaths than worrying about "texting" (both doing so would require political balls which few politicians at any level have today).

Maybe not worse...eventually the idiots who text while driving will likely remove themselves from the gene pool; the only problem is how many others they take with them before they are a victim of their own idiocy.