Felon shot by police in Children's Hospital Nov. 14

Interceptor_Knight said:

I don't believe drug dealers to be harmless individuals.... Nobody forced him to use and sell illicit drugs... He is reaping what he has sown..

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Dealing drugs is not an inherently harmful act.

MKEgal said:

1/06/2009 Possess w/Intent-Designer Drug (>3-10g) / Felony E / Read In
3/25/2009 Possess w/Intent-Cocaine (<1-5g) / Felony E / Guilty Plea
3/25/2009 Bail Jumping-Felony / Felony H / Guilty Plea
12/05/2009 Possession of THC (2nd+ Offense) / Felony I / Guilty Plea
11/12/2011 Possession of THC (2nd+ Offense) / Felony I / Guilty Plea
11/12/2011 Possession of Controlled Substances / Misd. U / Read in
12/03/2012 Vehicle Operator Flee/Elude Officer, Repeater / Felony I / Read In
12/03/2012 Felon Possess Firearm / Felony G / Guilty Plea
12/03/2012 Possession of THC (2nd+ Offense), repeater / Felony I / Read In

Which of those did the state do to him?

Click to expand...

Again, as none of those are acts of aggression, all of them.

He possessed the drugs, he ignored the terms of his bail, he tried to out-drive police, he possessed a firearm.

Click to expand...

Big whoop. Trying to flee assailants is hardly aggressive. Fleeing bail is only reasonably wrong when the charges are justifiable. These were not.

I'm sorry. Do you suddenly not possess a firearm? What do you imagine the difference is? It is somehow aggressive to possess a firearm when someone you don't like does it?

The only one it doesn't specifically say he pled guilty to is the fleeing, and that's a read-in so he agreed with the charge.

Click to expand...

Again, fleeing assailants. A form of self-defense.

Crimes are still crimes even if they're not violent.

Click to expand...

How can you possibly have a crime without a victim?

And you're calling me the apologist? That's rich.

And I wouldn't call someone who points a gun at innocent people 'harmless', nor would I apply that to someone who possesses illegal and dangerous drugs with intent to sell them.

Click to expand...

I missed him point a gun at anybody (except the police, who are aggressors, rendering that self-defense).




I am beyond sick of this ineffective, counter-productive, socially-conservative prohibitionist crap. Y'all create the system, establish the incentives, then whine and point the finger when people quite reasonably avail themselves of them. Your fault, and no amount of choir-preaching or righteous talk will change that.

marshaul said:

I am beyond sick of this ineffective, counter-productive, socially-conservative prohibitionist crap. .

Click to expand...

I am beyond sick of this coddling of weak individuals. These dealers are predators. They support a violent system which has no rights affirmed by the US Constitution which would justify their felonies. Dealing drugs is inherently harmful. The dollars spent from the growing of the plants to end user purchasing supports violence against innocent people. Nobody is forcing these felons to do what they do. They have nobody to blame but themselves and they deserve when someone takes them out of the gene pool..
Trying to claim self defense against the Police is ridiculous... worthy of ridicule... The charges ad subsequent convictions were justified and righteous.

Portugal voided all their gun laws .... seems as if it has not had a negative affect.

Interceptor_Knight said:

I am beyond sick of this coddling of weak individuals.

Click to expand...

I fail to see the relevance of this statement.

If anything, as drug dealing is only possibly harmful to those weak and unable to exercise self-control, the prohibitionist policies you espouse actually coddle the weak.

Meanwhile, the individual in question is demonstrating the entrepreneurial spirit (and boldly, in a risky market), and the beneficent government is stamping it out, because God forbid we "coddle weak individuals".

These dealers are predators. They support a violent system which has no rights affirmed by the US Constitution which would justify their felonies. Dealing drugs is inherently harmful. The dollars spent from the growing of the plants to end user purchasing supports violence against innocent people. Nobody is forcing these felons to do what they do. They have nobody to blame but themselves and they deserve when someone takes them out of the gene pool..
Trying to claim self defense against the Police is ridiculous... worthy of ridicule... The charges ad subsequent convictions were justified and righteous.

Click to expand...

First thing: all of the harms you list here and ascribe to drug dealing are not inherent to drug dealing, but are actually caused by prohibition (see the alcohol market, during and after prohibition). So, really, the cops who enforce it are just as much to blame, and therefore "predators" and "supporting a violent system" etc, at least by your logic.

As to the affirmation by the US Constitution, that's putting you on incredibly shaky ground.

The Constitution itself says:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Click to expand...

And we know, thanks to Thomas Jefferson,

Thomas Jefferson said:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

Click to expand...

So, it's my opinion that y'all need to do a lot better than "it isn't mentioned in the Constitution!" as a justification, and you'll need to find harm not caused by the very prohibition itself. Otherwise, my analysis stands.

I highly doubt you'd feel the same way about the state's treatment of a similar individual were guns banned, and were the contraband in question guns. And, let's be clear, the sole difference (as far as government ought to concern itself) between guns and drugs is the constitutional enumeration, which ought to be of no relevance. Both are inanimate objects, which can be used for good, or for evil, and most of the time are used for neither. Both are scary to the ignorant, and both can be possessed and used safely by responsible individuals.

marshaul said:

I fail to see the relevance of this statement.

If anything, as drug dealing is only possibly harmful to those weak and unable to exercise self-control, the prohibitionist policies you espouse actually coddle the weak.

Meanwhile, the individual in question is demonstrating the entrepreneurial spirit (and boldly, in a risky market), and the beneficent government is stamping it out, because God forbid we "coddle weak individuals".




First thing: all of the harms you list here and ascribe to drug dealing are not inherent to drug dealing, but are actually caused by prohibition (see the alcohol market, during and after prohibition). So, really, the cops who enforce it are just as much to blame, and therefore "predators" and "supporting a violent system" etc, at least by your logic.

As to the affirmation by the US Constitution, that's putting you on incredibly shaky ground.

The Constitution itself says:



And we know, thanks to Thomas Jefferson,



So, it's my opinion that y'all need to do a lot better than "it isn't mentioned in the Constitution!" as a justification, and you'll need to find harm not caused by the very prohibition itself. Otherwise, my analysis stands.

I highly doubt you'd feel the same way about the state's treatment of a similar individual were guns banned, and were the contraband in question guns. And, let's be clear, the sole difference (as far as government ought to concern itself) between guns and drugs is the constitutional enumeration, which ought to be of no relevance. Both are inanimate objects, which can be used for good, or for evil, and most of the time are used for neither. Both are scary to the ignorant, and both can be possessed and used safely by responsible individuals.

Click to expand...

Just one quick one... how can crack or heroin be used for good? Specifically the stuff from dealers not the doctor.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Also, upon further thinking, to blame the .gov for behavior because they made it illegal is preposterous. Murder is illegal. When hit men make money off of it (because it illegal) is it the .govs fault? Your supposition is akin to saying "I told my kid he can't drive the car but he did anyways and got in to a car accident so its my fault even though I told him not to since by telling him no he wanted to more" . I get your premise that certain drugs are more expensive and more profitable because they are illegal.


Marijuana is already LEGAL in many states and readily available. By your premise it should mean there is zero dealing of marijuana in the locations other then the store and zero crime that is a result or zero gang involvement since its legal and less profitable. I challenge you or any pro drug/anti gov guy to show it. Not less.... NONE.

Finally, I believe someone had a thread about illegal trafficking of cigarettes that had violent results (murder) and ties to organized crime. Cigarette s are legal just have a tax. This very concept has been offered towards drugs, legalize and tax. Well they still find a away to tie it to crime.

Again the idea that the .gov tells u not to do something so u do it, then its their fault is insane.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Just one quick one... how can crack or heroin be used for good? Specifically the stuff from dealers not the doctor.

Click to expand...

Ok, well, due to your qualification, I'm going to assume you're aware that crack is, from a medical perspective, little different from ordinary cocaine (the alleged differences in harmfulness are byproducts of use methods/patterns and other social factors). I also assume you're aware that cocaine still has medical uses, and that heroin is an opioid very similar to morphine (which is still used medically), and which was in the past used for medical purposes in a manner identical to morphine.

That being the case, it would seem that you're implicitly aware that an inability for these drugs to possibly be good (if, indeed, such an inability exists) is not inherent to them. Such an inability for these drugs to be good must, therefore, be a product of prohibition, which takes them entirely out of a medical context.

In this regard, prohibition is a self-fulfilling prophecy of the harmfulness of drugs, very much in the manner as is the prohibition of guns. Consider: if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws own guns. If outlaws are predisposed to behavior which society finds objectionable (say, violence or drug abuse), then it should be no surprise that outlawed guns (or drugs) are used overwhelmingly for socially-objectionable purposes.

Primus said:

Also, upon further thinking, to blame the .gov for behavior because they made it illegal is preposterous. Murder is illegal. When hit men make money off of it (because it illegal) is it the .govs fault? Your supposition is akin to saying "I told my kid he can't drive the car but he did anyways and got in to a car accident so its my fault even though I told him not to since by telling him no he wanted to more" . I get your premise that certain drugs are more expensive and more profitable because they are illegal.


Marijuana is already LEGAL in many states and readily available. By your premise it should mean there is zero dealing of marijuana in the locations other then the store and zero crime that is a result or zero gang involvement since its legal and less profitable. I challenge you or any pro drug/anti gov guy to show it. Not less.... NONE.

Finally, I believe someone had a thread about illegal trafficking of cigarettes that had violent results (murder) and ties to organized crime. Cigarette s are legal just have a tax. This very concept has been offered towards drugs, legalize and tax. Well they still find a away to tie it to crime.

Again the idea that the .gov tells u not to do something so u do it, then its their fault is insane.

Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not blaming the government for causing him to commit this behavior, I'm blaming them for the negative repercussions resulting from their enforcement of the prohibition of it. Big difference. I'm also saying that most of his "criminal record" reflects wrongs on the part of government, not himself.

Furthermore, in a more general sense, you're missing the critical component: human morality.

It is in the nature of people (who aren't sociopaths, anyway) to be uncomfortable causing harm to others. Laws against murder are nearly universal because healthy people agree that murder hurts people and that fact is unconscionable.

In short, murder doesn't harm people because it's against the law. Instead, murder is against the law because it harms people.

Unfortunately for arbitrary lawmakers, people have an innate ability to discern acts which harm others (say, stealing from them) from acts which don't (say, smoking a joint at home, or selling a joint to your buddy).

This fact has led to the legal classifications of malum prohibitum and malum in se offenses. It's a well-established sociologically truth that people do not tend to respect (or obey, if they would otherwise violate) laws of the former variety.

It is, although statists love to deny this fact, in the American tradition to completely forego (and oppose) the implementation of malum prohibitum offenses.

For example,

Thomas Jefferson said:

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

Click to expand...

Is it the position of such folks as myself (and Thomas Jefferson), that laws in violation of this principle are inherently ineffective, tend to destroy respect for the law (and thus the government you love so much), and fundamentally aggressive, and therefore immoral.

marshaul said:

First thing: all of the harms you list here and ascribe to drug dealing are not inherent to drug dealing, but are actually caused by prohibition (see the alcohol market, during and after prohibition).

Click to expand...

You are quite the drug dealer apologist aren't you? It is a conscious choice by the dealers to use violence in order to support their business. Nobody is forcing them to do what they do. They are Felons just as thieves, etc were felons in the era of our founding fathers. What is wrong with our enforcement is a lack of capital punishment for the violent dealers. For those who are violent felons, it certainly would be a deterrent if we brought back gallows and public hangings.
Be careful who you use as an example to support your premise. Jefferson supported the castration of homosexuals. Find justification for that in the Constitution. You bring up guns which is ridiculous as the Constitution affirms our inherent Right to Bear Arms.

marshaul said:

Unfortunately for arbitrary lawmakers, people have an innate ability to discern acts which harm others (say, stealing from them) from acts which don't (say, smoking a joint at home, or selling a joint to your buddy).

Click to expand...

I support the legalization of Marijuana as that would make room in our prisons for the violent offenders who are released early because of overly crowded facilities. I also believe that it is ridiculous to classify Ecstacy, psilosybin, LSD, Ketamine, and some others such that they can never be prescribed by a physician. I do not however support the legalization of crack, heroin and others for recreational use

Interceptor_Knight said:

It is a conscious choice by the dealers to use violence in order to support their business.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and doing so is quite likely aggressive and immoral (although, sometimes violence is in response to theft, and drug dealers lack the normal recourse).

The choice to commit a specific act of violence is solely on the dealers who do so.

The perversion of incentives which lead to the statistical prevalence of violence surrounding these markets (compared to legal markets) is clearly the product of prohibition, however.

So, I'm not defending drug dealers who are violent, but I am saying that justifying prohibition based on this violence is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Interceptor_Knight said:

I do not however support the legalization of crack, heroin and others for recreational use

Click to expand...

Well, I certainly don't blame you for not wanting to encourage recreational use of said substances.

The reason I oppose their prohibition regardless is that I have seen how (perhaps counter-intuitively) prohibition actually encourages their use. There are two primary mechanisms by which this occurs. While legal industries can be prevented from advertising and selling to children – vulnerable yet potential for-life customers – illicit drugs are often pushed specifically on the young and naïve, so as to create new customers. Also, since illegal drugs tend to be expensive (the risk caused by prohibition adds to the cost), addicts have a tendency to try to get their friends into their drug of choice (so they'll have a fresh, untapped source of income by which to hopefully obtain drugs for themselves), thus spreading addiction like a virus. Note legal drugs do not spread their use nearly so readily.

While I do not support the across-the-board legalization of drugs now deemed illegal; I do question why some drugs, with a proven medical use, are banned in this country.

Of all the drugs available to ease the pain of terminal cancer, heroin is one of the very few that does not reduce the patient to a mindless zombie. It is legal for a doctor to prescribe in Great Britain, but not here.

Marijuana has been proven beneficial to chemotherapy patients in suppressing the nausea associated with that treatment. It has also proven beneficial for AIDS patients by restoring their appetites (suppressed by the drugs they must take) and allowing them to gain some weight back.

But I will also tell you what I used to tell my young soldiers, "It doesn't matter whether it is good or bad for you; it is illegal. If you get caught, you will go to jail."

That said; you don't like the drug laws, work to change them. Start the same way we started with open carry: Put the facts out there and start educating people.

sorry but prohibition does not inhibit nor work for substance, tobacco, etc., use. It didn't work during the 20s-30s. it is a fools dream...

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/alcohol-prohibition-was-failure

as was stated by mcbeth:

Portugal 12 years ago decriminalized criminal penalties for drug users and put the monies from their 'war on drugs' into education, rehab, and education across their country and the results have been quite impressive.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...tion-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060.html

think of the forward thinking effort it would take to do the same in the US but it would be a fool's bet to believe the feds and their cohort group who are actively involved in the US' 'war on drugs' would be tremendously pleased if our country decriminalized drug use.

Kinda like the IRS agency supporting a flat 10% income tax for everyone across our country.

ipse

At what age would a citizen be "permitted" to by meth. I guess the penalty for underage meth use must be the same as is the underage use of smokes or booze.

Should be a 45 degree divergence. The conversation is diverging but not at such a sharp angle. There is a chance that the angle could become 90 degrees, or that the conversation may resume the intended course heading.

OC for ME said:

Should be a 45 degree divergence. The conversation is diverging but not at such a sharp angle. There is a chance that the angle could become 90 degrees, or that the conversation may resume the intended course heading.

Click to expand...

Godwin's Law would be the indicator that a 90 degree turn has occurred and no hope for the op or the OP is in sight.

OC for ME said:

At what age would a citizen be "permitted" to by meth. I guess the penalty for underage meth use must be the same as is the underage use of smokes or booze.

Click to expand...

Something like that.

I would opine that prohibition actually reduces the ability to keep drugs from kids. When I was in school, alcohol was always harder for kids to get than marijuana (or even cocaine!).

The reality of this is that with good parenting, this isn't an issue, and with bad parenting, no law on earth can prevent the harm which may ensure (as we can witness today).

Folks may be surprised to find that I really don't like drugs. The thing is, I like prohibition even less.