sigmtnman

No matter how much I agree with Dr. Paul, I do not intended to write him in if he is not the nominee. Although, I am still on the fence about Gary Johnson and need to do more research before just jumping into his camp. I generally don't support folks with ties to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Thank TMF. I saw the possession part, just not the specification of simple. My google fu must be weak, because it didn't turn up anything. Is the second part a joke?

I laughed, I cried, I wish there was video. I didn't see simple possession mentioned. He could have been facing some serious charges deepening on what he had. 6mos to 15 years. Still stupid to monster truck the police cars though.

I'm with the no cellphone group. But just to clarify, I'm of the no federal school system group too. I know folks will hate on me about that, but it's my opinion that the institution that is the federal school system is setup to create obedient workers who respond to bells and fall in line without much thought. Any time you impose a rigid framework on a system, it limits the variation of the output which is not good for our society or for the kids in general.

ouch. I may lose some sleep now. Why are such an angry person? Heck, you don't hafta answer. I reckon, I'd be upset too if I were born "up there". ------ My apologies to the decent yankees. I should not have said some of those things and lumped all yall together. Though I'd still be upset if I were born up there.

Ah, so you are a Damn yankee. I was just fishin but had a pretty good idea based on the superiority complex. Hypocrite much? It's funny how given lack of argument brings out the bigot in yall.

Then why do the yankees continue to move here if it is so bad here?

I did not mean to imply a pat on the back. I meant give them their money as a lump sum and let them do with it as they please. Pensions are a way for folks to be robbed due to inflation. If the person was given the lump sum upon departure, they could invest it as they see fit, give it to whoever they want, leave it to whoever they want and not have to worry about the cost of living increases eating away at the fixed income. I would ask though, why would folks immediately chose that as an impetus to not join the military? Many folks work highly dangerous professional jobs that offer no sort of pension or support after leaving the job.

To break the argument down into pieces so as not to confuse my feeble mind. This is due to the artificially high street price. Percentage wise does occur at the same rates as with Alcohol and tobacco, which are both addictive and destructive, yet readily available? People who are in trouble will try all sorts of reason to justify or excuse their behavior when gluttony, greed, etc was the root cause. It's like the whole black out on alcohol thing. I've drank a lot of burbon and beer in my life and never once have I blacked out. If I did black out and commit a crime it would be no different than if I committed the crime stone cold sober. I'm sorry you had to deal with and notify people of deaths, but people die every day for all sorts of reasons. Was it any easier telling family members that a loved passed away in an auto accident? I know not too many folks like analogies, but I've lost more relatives to car wrecks, bad eating habits and sedentary lifestyles (diabetes, heart disease), yet since these are performed by the majority they are deemed socially acceptable activities and no one thinks twice about them. I would wager that folks on this forum have lost far more family members due to those reasons. I won't even bring up negligent discharges. Well I reckon I did, sorry. Were you called when people were on drugs and there were not problems? Do you think perhaps your view is skewed by only seeing the bad? Honest question, so please don't take it wrong. Again, with regards to needing their fix, how often did you have to deal with tobacco (which is more addictive than opium, heroin and many other hard drugs) abusers who needed their fix? The person's destructive lack of control is the root cause. Why do the perpetrators of mass shooting commit their crimes? Do we allow them excuses and point fingers at other causes? Do we accept the liberals argument that it was somehow the guns fault? These are the same claims made by the Temperance movement which was the group pushing prohibition. Records show that during prohibition, alcohol consumption swelled to all time highs, prices went through the roof for alcohol and that crime increased, whether due to gang/mob/dealer violence, consumption by children increased and alcohol related crime did not decrease. Everyone knows alcohol, moonshiners, gangs and speakeasys were everywhere, the same is true of drugs, dealers, manufacturers and consumers today. The comparison to the Noble Experiment is a very valid one. No. Liberty and self determination is the reason for justification. It is not the federal governments responsibility to play nanny or to push nanny like agendas onto the citizens of the US. Whether it's welfare, telling people what they can and cant do in the privacy of their home (provided they are not molesting sheep, raping, abusing, etc) or what they can or can't ingest or the myriad of other ways they have overstepped their limits. One final question. Do you feel drug laws have helped or hurt the perception of Police Officers in general society as well as their relationships with non officer folks?

If you have not gathered it by now, I don't believe the federal government should be in the business of doing much of anything. I don't believe in Social Security. I'm not sure what benefits from military you are referring to but I'd assume it's pension and if so, I don't believe the pension should transition to anyone after death and really don't believe there should be a pension. If the man did a bang up job, pay him when he departs and let him do what he wants with the money. As far as inheritance, I was under the impression someone could leave their stuff to anyone, though I've never inherited or left anything (thank goodness) so I'm ignorant to that. If it's about taxes on the inheritance, then I feel there really should be no federal taxes on income, capital gains or personal property. If it collects those taxes, it will want to get bigger and tax more and get bigger and, well you get the idea. Life Insurance, I'm guessing you are referring to taxes as well? Again, I'm not a believer in taxing; see above. I know I can make anyone I want a beneficiary without the feds consent.

Thanks strickj. Your link didn't work for me, but I was able to find it by googling the quote. The drugabuse.gov website actually includes alcohol as a drug that affect behavior control, judgment and memory. Similar blame that we hear now for "hard" drugs was the impetus for prohibition. The Temperance movement blamed alcohol for many of society's ills, including theft, rape and murder. The "Noble Experiment" is a very interesting subject and there are volumes of information on it including prison and crime stats as well as the documented increase in consumption during prohibition. I do understand that drugs alter ones perception and motor skills, but I don't believe that they cause people to do something that they were not predisposed to do anyway. Regardless, there are too many substances out there that can and will take the latest criminalized drugs place, not even to mention that all illegal drugs can be bought with ease if a person were to want them and seek them out. We need to address the root crime: theft, murder, rape, etc and not allow the criminal to blame his or her actions on something else. Bad things will happen regardless of how much the government uses a heavy hand to protect us.

1. The government has no business being in the business of licensing marriage or providing monetary benefits to anyone. 2. Two adults regardless of gender should be able to enter into whatever sort of contract they want as long as it is not under duress and does not infringe on other's rights. 3. No religion should be forced to perform a marriage for anyone they choose not to. 4. Mr. Cathy has a right to free speech and private property rights. He should be allowed to file tresspassing charges on people who choose to protest on his property. The same is true for the owners of his franchises. 5. Gays have the right to free speech. They have the right to assembly on public property but not on other's private property. 6. I don't have to accept gays if I chose not to. 7. Politicians should not be allowed to make political statements using official letterhead, during official work time or while acting as an elected official. 8. The Chick fil in cleveland was still packed yesterday (Thursday the 2nd) and sold out of chicken sandwiches before closing and was out of ketchup.

Would you mind directing me to a more complete list of figures that include seized property? I'm curious about the numbers. Seizure brings in a whole additional discussion as, for the most part, property can be seized regardless of actual guilt and is damn near impossible to get back. I compare the drugs to inanimate objects because they are inanimate. Sure they may be mind altering but so are many other inanimate objects that are legal. Ultimately it displaces accountability from individuals to the inanimate object. The excuse that drugs cause people to steal, rob, rape and murder is just that. I'd posit that the individuals who do those were already predisposed to the activity, perhaps because they are already functioning outside the law, but who knows why. Most criminals do those things without being under the influence, but rather because of lust, gluttony, greed, wrath, envy, sloth and pride. Curious question. Do you support a return to alcohol prohibition? Alcohol is a mind altering drug and allegedly causes all of the the things you point out according to some folks.

I continued to post to you because you continued to post back to me. Generally in a discussion when someone addresses you, it is common to respond. Yes, I take this issue and all other issues of personal liberty seriously because I am rather sick of moral busy bodies deciding what is best for others. Discussions usually help me to better understand other peoples perspectives, but I've gathered that you feel your opinion is de facto and you really don't want stats or to understand others perspectives. That's cool, everyone is entitled to opinions and no I don't think you are a lost sole. Just free to believe as you wish, or at least until the moral busy bodies crack down on that. Yes, I did have a bit of free time waiting for some long running jobs to complete and figured I'd have a discussion, but I reckon that's not really what you are after.

The argument does have merit based on your implied argument that we should only be allowed access to what are rights. You are either craftily arguing a straw man or you keep changing your argument from people committing crimes because they are on drugs to people committing their crimes to get drug money. My original statement was to which you replied:

In 2005 the DEA budget was $2.142 billion, so that left about a 1.8 billion dollar shortfall. http://www.justice.gov/dea/agency/staffing.htm

Is driving a nice car a right? Would you be ok with nice cars being made illegal,if the commies are the majority, since there is nothing in the Constitution making them a right or from your Creator? The FBI estimated property losses of $4.5 billion in 2010 due to stolen vehicles. The idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs is ludicrous. Heck even the .govs bureau of Justice stats say that the minority of offenders were on drugs, committing crimes to fund drugs or perceived to be on drugs by the victims. Of note is that alcohol is included int he stats. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj...ent/dcf/duc.cfm One could argue, given an even distribution of crazies, the ones on alcohol and drugs are less likely to commit property or violent crimes.

Excellent! I'm not sure it needed to be sped up, they were moving at it was though some benny hill music would definitely add to it. Looking at the shadows, it looked like one or two may not have made into the suv before it took off.

Where do our rights come from? Do you deny the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? The converse could be said about your contention that no evidence has been presented but only opinion, with regard to decriminalization. Your argument is that drugs cause people to commit crimes, when in fact, they no more cause people to commit crimes than guns cause people to commit crimes. If a person robbed you to buy a big mac or some 24" rims, would you propose to outlaw big macs and 24" rims?

That's what I had in mind for option 2 and while it would generate bitterness to say the least, the police state is probably ramped up enough to quell any riots and of course Dancing with the Stars will still be broadcast in HiDef, so I don't expect a shooting war. Option 1 was along the kilobuck line. You could argue that we have already gone down this path with the inflation we have seen over the past hundred odd years, escalating over the last twelve, where we now have a dollar that has is only worth about 5% of it's original value. We were watching the Waltons last night and the dad was complaining about a $1.75 electric bill. Our coins have all been clipped as silver coins have no silver and pennies are now made of a zinc alloy. It will be hard to cover the exponential rise in dollars in the system since 2001 and I think there will have to be at least a truncation of zeros, though the psychological affect may be worse than option 2. Option 2 may allow for a displacement of blame, IE digital counterfeiting or some such thing. Regardless of the path the corporate sponsors of our elected officials would loose big time if institutional credit was not protected by some sentence hidden in an omnibus bill. Turkey, Romania, Argentina and Russia have all done a devaluation of sorts within the last 13 years, so it is definitely something to think about. All of that said, who the heck knows what will happen.

Ninth Amendment

The Constitution is a limit on the Federal Government. The 10th amendment makes it a protected State/personal right. Now you are taking me to task with staying strictly on what you have defined as the topic? Where in this thread was it declared that we are only talking about full legalization across the board for every state? State's rights have everything to do with everything where the federal government oversteps it's limits as spelled out in the Constitution. The largest organization specifically tasked with enforcing drug laws is the DEA which is federal. Everyone has stats, but does that make them all useful? For Ss&Gs here is something for you to chew on: http://bjp.rcpsych.o...96/3/245.1.full http://www.msnbc.msn..._and_nutrition/ http://www.addiction...sugar-and-crime http://www.usatoday....eens/50916334/1 While most studies only show association and not cause and affect, the same is true for drug stats. Correlation is not causation. Yes that would be ok with me. Your feelings and beliefs are not facts or admissible in court. I believe people should be held accountable for their actions, you obviously feel inanimate objects should be. Then using that line of thought... Repeated studies show that nicotine is more addictive than most "hard" drugs, but we don't see the victimization you suggest due to folks addiction to it do we? http://www1.umn.edu/...o/nicaddct.html That's fine how about Steve Jobs? http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all "He told a reporter that taking LSD was one of the two or three most important things he had done in his life. He said there were things about him that people who had not tried psychedelics — even people who knew him well, including his wife — could never understand" or Bill Gates? http://beginnersinve...llgatesint5.htm Your assumption that those who "use" drugs whether habitually or occasionally are all broke and that's just your assumption. Show me the stats on that. How is this idea any different than what Bloomberg wants to do with french fries and milk shakes in NY? A nice strawberry milkshake really pleases me, but I'm not going to kill a man for one. I'd argue it would not foster greater use. Again, would you start using hard drugs if they were legal? Why would you assume any less for other citizens? Do you feel you are better at controlling yourself than unenlightened folks? Then why do you continue to respond in detail? Just brush me off. Ok, so you are for all or nothing. That's fine. I am for the federal government abiding by the Constitution and allowing the states to decide what is best for it's citizens. I do give rats ass about a delineation of federal and state responsibilities.

I'm with you on the tax simplification, but I'd prefer to see it done away with. I know... It's a dream, but if we need to cut the funding to the drunkard .gov. BTW, we can thank Abe and his "Civil War" for the Revenue Act of 1861 creating income tax. If we went to a sales tax, I would buy everything second hand and avoid it. If there is a reset, I don't see it being a biblical jubilee. It more than likely will be a rejection of our $ for international trade due to over printing of cash, which will force either a straight devaluation of currency held within the states or the introduction of a new currency which US citizens will trade our current currency for at a much reduced rate. Savings will be wiped out overnight and I'm sure there will be prior or ex post facto legislation to protect institutional creditors. I'd imagine confiscation of certain asset classes to be an absolute in a major US currency event.

By virtue of the Bill of Rights not being exhaustive and the fact that our rights come from our creator, it is a right no matter if it is spelled out. It is a State's rights issue if you read the Constitution. That is unless one allows it to fall under the oft abused interstate commerce clause. The issue is intertwined. Take the states who have opted to allow medicinal marijuana, for the most part the Fed ignores those States rights/wishes. If the Fed acted under it's Constitutional limits, it would get out of the drug enforcement business just like it should get out of the gun regulation business. Again, this is your perspective. I happen to agree on the arms part but disagree on the narcotics part. It is the perspective of libs that guns kill and cause violence, just as it is your perspective that narcotics kill and cause violence. It is my perspective that a person kills and causes violence. Whether it was due to a sugar high, caffeine rage, pharmaceutical, coke, alcohol, desire for bling, or just plain meanness does not matter and is just a scape goat. You don't reckon that's because it's a cheap fix that can be purchased legally with ease in most locations? Do you not think that a person who is operating outside the law already has a tendency to continue to do so? When I used to travel a lot for work I've personally been to company parties/event's where I have seen people pretty high (no pun intended) in the food chain including CEOs, CFOs, CIOs, ADAs, LEOs and more occasionally use illicit "hard" drugs not to mention all of the college kids as TMF points out. Pretty sure none of those folks killed anyone for their drugs and none of the turned into raving crack addicts as "stats" suggest. Where they right to do it? I didn't agree, but then again, they didn't affect me anymore than the guy with a glass of bourbon, wine or beer. Show me an instance where the free market did not drive down prices, so while it is conjecture, it's not unfounded. You could just as easily say that "wilder" availability of narcotics will lead to more addicts, but that assumes that there are people waiting on the sidelines to get into the action, no? Are the drug laws the only thing keeping you from doing drugs? I'd think not. Drugs are readily available right now for anyone who seeks them out, regardless of what people think. Again, by the Bill of Rights not being exhaustive it is outside the realm of the federal government jurisdiction, unless you use one of the oft abused clauses. Perhaps this is the confusion. It is a State right to regulate if that is what the citizens of the state desire, but it is not the Feds place. Your freedom is impacted when your property rights are infringed upon. No matter if it is a person robbing to buy a big mack, drugs or anything else. Welfare should not exist, so that's a moot discussion and most drug users are not able to get insurance from what I understand. If not the free market should allow an insurance company to not provide insurance to drug users and you should be able to purchase from them to get lower rates. What we have is a bastardized system where folks want the .gov to meddle with some things outside their jurisdiction and don't want the .gov to meddle with other things outside their jurisdiction. In order to protect the rights that I desire it forces me to support the rights of others whether I like them or not. Otherwise it turns to mob rules and I won't always be in majority so eventually I will lose rights.

Not arguing here, but consider there is no way the $16,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion) debt will ever be paid back through budget cuts. Taxation and printing will happen. Budget cuts are less likely due to the government needing people on the dole... Whether directly employed, personal/corporate welfare or through contracts for service.