Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: CA residents keep a look out.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558

    Post imported post

    Fed judges order California to devise plan to slash prison population by 25%

    SACRAMENTO — In a decision that could dramatically reshape California's criminal justice system, a panel of federal judges Tuesday ordered Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state legislators to find ways to cut the prison population by 40,000, or about one-quarter of all inmates.
    The ruling was a stark milestone in the years-long saga of two lawsuits charging that California allows inhumane conditions to fester in its prisons because of severe overcrowding. Law-and-order advocates say such cuts would result in inmates being returned to the streets early or being turned over to cash-strapped counties to jail. The Schwarzenegger administration signaled that it would likely appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    The three-judge panel gave the governor and lawmakers 45 days to present a plan to cut the inmate population from about 150,000 to 110,000 over two years. The judges delivered a stern message about conditions that are so poor in some prisons that they violate inmates' constitutional rights.
    "The medical and mental health care available to inmates in the California prison system is woefully and constitutionally inadequate, and has been for more than a decade," the judges wrote in a 184-page ruling. "Tragically, California's inmates have long been denied even (a) minimal level of medical and mental health care, with consequences that have been serious, and often fatal. ... A significant number of inmates have died as a result."The judges described some prisons operating at nearly 300 percent of capacity, with inmates housed in triple bunk beds placed in gymnasiums and day rooms.
    "In these overcrowded conditions, inmate-on-inmate violence is almost impossible to prevent, infectious diseases spread more easily, and lockdowns are sometimes the only means by which to maintain control," the judges wrote.
    In general, the 33-prison system is at nearly double its capacity. Even under the judicial order, the system would remain overcrowded, at 137.5 percent of capacity.
    Matthew Cate, secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, acknowledged that the prisons are severely overcrowded and that conditions in many facilities have been substandard. But the situation has improved dramatically in recent years, he argued, enough so that the federal courts should not be dictating how California runs its correctional system.
    "We've made enough progress to turn this back over to the state," Cate said.
    He said the administration has plans to alleviate overcrowding by building more prison facilities, arranging with other states to house more of California's inmates and changing sentences for some crimes. Schwarzenegger also recently called for deporting illegal immigrants serving time in California prisons for nonviolent crimes.
    The governor's proposal also would allow some low-level offenders to serve the last 12 months of their sentences on house arrest or, in the case of elderly, infirm inmates, in medical facilities. Others convicted of nonviolent crimes would be given credit for time served.
    But in the best case, the governor's plan would trim the prison population by about 27,000, well short of the federal judges' demand. And Republican legislators have vowed to resist cuts of even that amount.
    The three-judge panel — Stephen Reinhardt, U.S. Circuit Judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals; Lawrence Karlton, U.S. District Judge for Eastern District Court of California; and Thelton Henderson, U.S. District Judge for Northern District of California — did not directly mandate that California reduce its inmate population. But it came close, ordering that Schwarzenegger and legislators deliver a plan to do so within 45 days. If after that period the judges remain dissatisfied and order a cap on the prison population, the administration would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Cate said.
    "To the extent it requires us to open the gates (to state prisons), we're going to appeal," he said.
    As it happens, state lawmakers are expected this month to debate how to trim the state corrections budget by $1.2 billion. A cut of that size was mandated by the recently approved budget plan, but the proposal left for later details on how to realize the savings.
    While the federal judges opined that the prison population could be pared without endangering public safety — through sentencing and parole reform, among other changes — critics were not convinced.
    "I just think these judges are totally out of touch and overstepping their bounds," said state Sen. Bob Huff, R-Glendora. "Are they then going to be responsible for the increase in crime that will inevitably happen or the increased costs of apprehending and imprisoning criminals?"
    State Senate Leader Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said in a statement that lawmakers would return from their summer recess later this month "to produce reform that saves money, protects public safety, and takes back the control of our prison system."
    Dissension in the Legislature has stifled prison reform in California for years. Tuesday's ruling creates a major test for the state's political system and its ability to fix what even defenders of the prison system concede are serious shortcomings.
    "They're really under the gun now," said Don Specter, director of the Prison Law Office, which has long advocated for improved prison conditions.
    Robert Weisberg, a law professor and director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, said the governor and legislators may have to confront California's high rate of recidivism, which leads all states. Parolees, he said, are routinely sent back to prison for technical violations such as missing meetings with their parole officers.
    That drives up the prison population and unnecessarily costs the state a lot of money, said Weisberg, who served on a panel that advised a federal judge who oversaw one of the cases that resulted in Tuesday's ruling.
    "This is kind of stern reminder," Weisberg said, "that the problem has to be solved. But it gives them a fair amount of time and flexibility to reduce the (prison) number without a threat to public safety."
    Contact Mike Zapler at 916-441-4603.
    To read the full rulings online:
    www.cdcr.ca.gov/news/docs/OpinionandOrder.pdf
    www.cdcr.ca.gov/news/docs/OrderonEvidObjs.pdf



    http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/...nclick_check=1
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    End the War on Drugs, and we'll eliminate the need to imprison more than 30,000 people.

    In 2007, the California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) reported that of the 170,129 felons imprisoned throughout the state, 33,738 were convicted on drug charges.

    Another victimless crime - "weapons possession" - accounted for another 6,530 inmates. (Had to throw this so my post is related to open carry.)

    That's a total of 40,268 people who were stripped of their liberty for possession of substances or objects that 'big brother' doesn't approve of. People who probably did no harm to anybody other than themselves. *

    So why are we, the taxpayers, forking over an average yearly cost of $49,000 PER INMATE**... to violate the liberty of others?


    Before I catch heat... let me clarify my position on drug abuse:

    Drug addiction is usually harmful to the individual. This includes licit and illicit drugs (cocaine, meth, alcohol, tobacco, etc.) However, this is a medical problem. The logic used by tyrants is that, "we have the right to stop people from hurting themselves." If you agree, ask yourself if you would support a ban on everything else that is unhealthy. Alcohol, tobacco, caffiene, sugar, fatty foods, (hell anything other than bread, water, and salad)?

    Is it really fair to jail someone for smoking marijuana when 140,000 people per year die from smoking tobacco?

    Further, drug abuse and addiction are MEDICAL problems. These people need doctors, not prison. Recidivism is rampant in our system. Why? Because dugeons don't cure drug addiction! The real catch to the system is that when you're on parole, any new violation carries a heftier penalty.

    The fact is that a lot of government employees enjoy excellent salaries, benefits, and retirements. Right now, business is GOOD. 1 in every 220 Californians was imprisoned on felony charges in 2007; up from 1 in every 377 in 1988***. Are that many more people turning to crime? Or are they simply passing laws that create more criminals?


    * Source: CDCR "California Prisoners and Parolees - Table 8
    ** Source: CDCR 4th Quarter 2008 Facts and Figures
    *** Source: CDCR "California Prisoners and Parolees - Table 3
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  3. #3
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    End the War on Drugs, and we'll eliminate the need to imprison more than 30,000 people.
    <SNIP>
    So why are we, the taxpayers, forking over an average yearly cost of $49,000 PER INMATE**... to violate the liberty of others?
    +1. Just to do the math, that's 8.3 BILLION dollars a year, or roughly 225 dollars out of each person, or roughly 430 dollars out of each worker. Of course, we're paying a lot more for schools, even if you don't have kids or if your kids go to private schools. Basically we're running one big school/prison/hospital, great.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Folsom, , USA
    Posts
    389

    Post imported post

    How do you end the war on drugs without arrests? Furthermore, I have to disagree when you say victimless crime. Drug abuse affects everyone around that person. My mom was hooked on drugs and it destroyed our family and we lost millions. Most people in prison for "Drug charges" as you say are in prison for SELLING drugs or they have enough for intent to sell, notjust doing them. So your argument is flawed, but I have no solution either I'm sorry. I think we should cut some liberal ass programs though if the state wants more money. As for legalizing marijuana, could be a good idea.. I have no idea.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    I dare any inmate to come commit a crime against me or my family.

    I know one thing for sure, instead of having the state spending $40,000+ on him per year, ill have only spent .35 cents on him heheheh!


  6. #6
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    Streetbikerr6 wrote:
    How do you end the war on drugs without arrests? Furthermore, I have to disagree when you say victimless crime. Drug abuse affects everyone around that person. My mom was hooked on drugs and it destroyed our family and we lost millions. Most people in prison for "Drug charges" as you say are in prison for SELLING drugs or they have enough for intent to sell, notjust doing them. So your argument is flawed, but I have no solution either I'm sorry. I think we should cut some liberal ass programs though if the state wants more money. As for legalizing marijuana, could be a good idea.. I have no idea.
    I think the concept is called surrender.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    Decoligny wrote:
    Streetbikerr6 wrote:
    How do you end the war on drugs without arrests?
    I think the concept is called surrender.
    Or you can apply my idea.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Streetbikerr6 wrote:
    How do you end the war on drugs without arrests? Furthermore, I have to disagree when you say victimless crime. Drug abuse affects everyone around that person. My mom was hooked on drugs and it destroyed our family and we lost millions. Most people in prison for "Drug charges" as you say are in prison for SELLING drugs or they have enough for intent to sell, notjust doing them. So your argument is flawed, but I have no solution either I'm sorry. I think we should cut some liberal ass programs though if the state wants more money. As for legalizing marijuana, could be a good idea.. I have no idea.
    I think you are flawed. Back when I used to do drugs it was not uncommon for us as a group to have three quarter pounds.

    Not for sale, but if we have been caught I believe that is enough to be classed as "for sale" even though we never sold it. . . we just smoked a lot.

    I equate it to people that don't own guns thinking that 10 guns is a lot.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Streetbikerr6 wrote:
    My mom was hooked on drugs and it destroyed our family and we lost millions.
    The drugs didn't do that, your mom did it.

    And selling drugs is a commercial transaction between two consenting adults. Any crimes associated with such an act are a product of prohibition, not something for which prohibition is a potential fix.

    Edit: Oh, and +100 to CA_Libertarian, as usual.

    -1000 to those who support government-initiated aggression.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elk Grove, California, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    poothrowingape wrote:
    I dare any inmate to come commit a crime against me or my family.

    I know one thing for sure, instead of having the state spending $40,000+ on him per year, ill have only spent .35 cents on him heheheh!
    You spenda little more than a third of a penny for a round of ammunition? That's 17 1/2 cents for a box of 50! What caliber is that and where can I get some? :what:

    Oh, wait, you meant .35 of a dollar ($0.35) or simply 35 cents; not .35 cents, correct? :P

    Those pesky decimal points... silly me! <cheesy grin>

    Carry on!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    i dont agree with drug abuse is a victimless crime... if it was, there would be drug cartel voilence in mexico right now.. there would be law enforcement officers being killed by drug smugglers, there wouldnt be junkies o.d.ing,there wouldnt be junkies commiting street crimes to score drugs. there wouldnt be gang members killing people over drug turf. i really enjoy how their actions are because of a "disease"

    what ever happened to personal responsibility??

    the funniest one is what i hear from what i call "the marijuana scholars"...

    no one has ever died of cancer from smoking marijuana...

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    fresno, California, USA
    Posts
    210

    Post imported post

    nukechaser wrote:
    You spenda little more than a third of a penny for a round of ammunition? That's 17 1/2 cents for a box of 50! What caliber is that and where can I get some? :what:

    Oh, wait, you meant .35 of a dollar ($0.35) or simply 35 cents; not .35 cents, correct? :P

    Those pesky decimal points... silly me! <cheesy grin>

    Carry on!
    lol i would have used the sign for cents but i didnt feel like opening tha charmap on my computer and finding it. ¢35 lol

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Hiredgun30 wrote:
    i dont agree with drug abuse is a victimless crime... if it was,* there would be drug cartel voilence in mexico right now.. there would be law enforcement officers being killed by drug smugglers, there wouldnt be junkies o.d.ing,there wouldnt be junkies commiting street crimes to score drugs. there wouldnt be gang members killing people over drug turf. i really enjoy how their actions are because of a "disease"

    what ever happened to personal responsibility??

    the funniest one is what i hear from what i call "the marijuana scholars"...

    no one has ever died of cancer from smoking marijuana...
    If drugs were legalized, there wouldn't be drug cartel violence in mexico right now... there wouldn't be law enforcement officers being killed by drug smugglers, there wouldn't be junkies o.d.ing (as frequently), there wouldn't be junkies committing street crimes to score drugs (this is a myth anyway; thieves steal, to pay for drugs or just new clothes, and non-thieves don't steal, whether they are addicted to drugs or not. Studies back this up.), and there wouldn't be gang members killing each other over drug turf.

    And, the best of all, people wouldn't be able to blame inanimate objects for their own failings and utter lack of control.

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

    (BTW, I love how people talk about "personal responsibility" in the context of using the state to make responsibility irrelevant. All you prohibitionists want to turn this into a nation of children, and you're succeeding far faster than the leftists could ever dream. :quirky)

    Edit: semicolon

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    so legal drug trade reduces crime.. then why are the LEGAL pot farms being robbed by criminals.. legalizing drugs wont make any difference. i find it funny that someone would actually believe that the drug problem would just go away.. junkies would still lie/cheat/steal/rob/murder/assault anyone they had to get a quick fix.I cansee why a state like california would want to tax junkies to help balance the budget..
    i bet the cartel members would just pack their bags and file chapter 11..




    There are great risks in smoking cannabis, a new report has revealed

    A single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent, a disturbing study warns.

    The Government-commissioned report has also found that taking the drug regularly more than doubles the risk of serious mental illness.

    Overall, cannabis could be to blame for one in seven cases of schizophrenia and other life-shattering mental illness, the Lancet reports.

    The grim statistics - the latest to link teenage cannabis use with mental illness in later life - come only days after Gordon Brown ordered a review of the decision to downgrade cannabis to class C, the least serious category.

    The Prime Minister is said to have a 'personal instinct' that the change should be reversed, with more arrests and stiffer penalties for users.

    Cannabis has been implicated in a string of vicious killings, including the recent stabbing of fashion designer Lucy Braham.

    The authors of the latest study, the most comprehensive of its kind and commissioned by the Department of Health, said: 'Policymakers need to provide the public with advice about this widely-used drug.

    'We believe there is now enough evidence to inform people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life.'

    The analysis does not look at the age at which schizophrenia is likely to develop. However, previous studies have shown that smoking the drug as a teenager raises the risk of developing schizophrenia in one's twenties or thirties.

    The researchers, from four British universities, analysed the results of 35 studies into cannabis use from around the world. This suggested that trying cannabis only once was enough to raise the risk of schizophrenia by 41 per cent.

    At greatest risk, however, were heavy users, with those who took cannabis over 100 times having more than double the risk of those who never touched the drug.

    With up to 40 per cent of teenagers and young adults in the UK believed to have tried cannabis, the researchers estimate that the drug could be behind 14 per cent of cases of schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.

    'Although individual lifetime risk of chronic psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, even in people who use cannabis regularly, is likely to be low - less than three per cent - cannabis use can be expected to have a substantial effect on psychotic disorders at a population level because exposure to this drug is so common.'

    Cardiff University researcher Dr Stanley Zammit added: 'Even if cannabis does cause an increased risk of developing psychosis, most people who use cannabis will not develop such an illness.

    'Nevertheless, we would still advise people to avoid or limit their use of this drug, especially if they start to develop any mental health symptoms, or if they have relatives with psychotic illnesses.'

    In an accompanying editorial in the Lancet, Dutch psychiatrists said the focus on heroin, cocaine and other Class A drugs meant the dangers of cannabis had been overlooked.

    'In the public debate, cannabis has been considered a more or less harmless drug compared with alcohol, central stimulants and opioids.

    'However, the potential long-term hazardous effects of cannabis with regard to psychosis seem to have been overlooked, and there is a need to warn the public of these dangers, as well as to establish a treatment to help young frequent cannabis users.'

    Previous studies have shown a clear link between cannabis use in the teenage years and mental illness in later life.

    Research completed by leading psychiatrist Professor Robin Murray in 2005 showed that those who smoked the drug regularly at 18 were 1.6 times more likely to suffer serious psychiatric problems, including schizophrenia, by their mid-20s.

    For those who were regular users at 15, the stakes were even higher, with their risk of mental illness by the age of 26 being 4.5 times greater than normal.

    It is thought that, used during teenage years, the drug can cause permanent damage to the developing brain.

    Professor Robin Murray, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, warned yesterday that the risks were likely to be heightened by the increasing use of powerful skunk cannabis.

    'My own experience suggest to me that the risk with skunk is higher. Therefore their estimate that 14 per cent of cases of schizophrenia in the UK are due to cannabis is now probably an understatement.'

    Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity SANE, said: 'This analysis should act as a serious warning of the dangers of regular or heavy cannabis use, doubling the risk of developing schizophrenia - a condition in which a person may hear voices and experience strange thoughts and paranoid delusions.

    'The debate about classification should not founder on statistics but take into account the potential damage to hundreds of people who without cannabis would not develop mental illness.

    'While the majority can take the drug with no mind-altering effects, it is estimated that 10 per cent are at risk.

    'You only need to see one person whose mind has been altered and life irreparably damaged, or talk to their family, to realise that the headlines are not scaremongering but reflect a daily, and preventable, tragedy.'

    However, others questioned the link, pointing out there has been little change in rates of schizophrenia in recent years despite the rise in cannabis use and the increasing strength of the drug. __________________________________________________ ___________________

    Three heavy drug users and their horrific killings:



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471106/Smoking-just-cannabis-joint-raises-danger-mental-illness-40.html#ixzz0NcfDaqSl

    William Jaggs, a 23-year-old Oxford University student and prolific cannabis user, stabbed fashion designer Lucy Braham 66 times at her home near Harrow, the public school in North-West London.

    The paranoid schizophrenic was found covered in blood beside Lucy's body, having plunged the knife into his own chest last September.

    The former Harrow pupil, whose father is a teacher at the school, started using drugs when he was 14, moving on from cannabis to cocaine.

    He was sent to Broadmoor secure hospital this month for an unlimited period after admitting manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.


    Drug-crazed killer: Richard Cazaly

    Drug-crazed drifter Richard Cazaly is believed to have stabbed pregnant Abigail Witchalls in Surrey, in April 2005.

    Cazaly, 23, who killed himself five days after the stabbing, had a history of heavy drug use dating back at least four years.

    His girlfriend, Vanessa MacKenzie, told police both she and Cazaly were regular cannabis users, smoking 'a couple of joints a day'.

    Surrey police said Cazaly became psychotic and violent as a result of long-term abuse of drugs and the alcohol he had consumed on the day of the random stabbing.

    Miraculously, Mrs Witchalls and her unborn baby survived the attack. Her young son - who she was pushing in a pram when she was set upon by Cazaly - was unhurt.


    Mind warped by smoking skunk: Thomas Palmer

    Son of a nurse at Broadmoor Thomas Palmer butchered two of his friends during a woodland walk after his mind was warped by smoking skunk - a particularly potent form of cannabis.

    Then aged 18, he virtually beheaded 16-year-old Steven Bayliss and repeatedly stabbed Nuttawut Nadauld, 14, near their homes in Wokingham, Berkshire in September 2005.

    Palmer had started using the drug at 14. He told doctors he had not been smoking on the day of the killings but admitted to using skunk regularly in the weeks before the brutal attack.

    In March this year, he was given a minimum 20 years in prison for the murders



    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-471106/Smoking-just-cannabis-joint-raises-danger-mental-illness-40.html#ixzz0Ncfc0HSM


    here is a link to a "marijuana scholar"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWbw2m56_Mw

    you will notice that he cant even hold a thought.. the prison i work at is full of people like this guy..

    remember drug useage is a victimless crime...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    National City, CA, ,
    Posts
    239

    Post imported post

    Streetbikerr6 wrote:
    How do you end the war on drugs without arrests? Furthermore, I have to disagree when you say victimless crime. Drug abuse affects everyone around that person. My mom was hooked on drugs and it destroyed our family and we lost millions. Most people in prison for "Drug charges" as you say are in prison for SELLING drugs or they have enough for intent to sell, notjust doing them. So your argument is flawed, but I have no solution either I'm sorry. I think we should cut some liberal ass programs though if the state wants more money. As for legalizing marijuana, could be a good idea.. I have no idea.
    +1

  16. #16
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    That schizophrenia study addresses teenagers who are regular users of marijuana. I'm no marijuana expert or anything, but I could buy the argument that a person still growing up who experiments with drugs could impact their future health more than a fully grown adult.

    The sketchy part about that article is that they give increased chances of suffering schizophrenia by their mid twenties. But what are the chances anyway? Is it a one in a billion chance? I'm willing to bet it's pretty damn low, because if it wasn't really absurdly low, then it'd be in the article.

    The whole thing correlating people who have committed horrible crimes with marijuana is bad science at best. You could easily claim that vegetarianism causes people to go crazy and murder people and point to various infamous vegetarians (like Hitler). Hell, there's even a website devoted to exactly that! http://www.vegetariansareevil.com/

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Hiredgun30 wrote:
    ...There are great risks in smoking cannabis, a new report has revealed

    A single joint of cannabis raises the risk of schizophrenia by more than 40 per cent, a disturbing study warns.

    The Government-commissioned report has blah blah blah blah
    Bias noted; findings invalidated. "Studies" like this are rarely, if ever, valid science, FYI. They are given due credence by those who are familiar with valid empiricism.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    It's kind of amazing how fast gun owners will refute arguments against gun control and then turn around and use the exact same arguments for drug control.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Elk Grove, California, USA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    It's kind of amazing how fast gun owners will refute arguments against gun control and then turn around and use the exact same arguments for drug control.
    Hmm...

    The right to keep and bear arms: a right granted by nature/nature's God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

    The right to use drugs: not so much.



  20. #20
    Regular Member wewd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    664

    Post imported post

    nukechaser wrote:
    FogRider wrote:
    It's kind of amazing how fast gun owners will refute arguments against gun control and then turn around and use the exact same arguments for drug control.
    Hmm...

    The right to keep and bear arms: a right granted by nature/nature's God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

    The right to use drugs: not so much.

    *
    Do you agree that you are the owner of your body? Or do you believe that the government owns your body? They certainly think they do. If you are the owner of your body then there should be no reason why you could not put any substance you choose into that body. If you do not own your body, then you are a slave and you don't even have the right to defend that body against injury or death.
    Do you want to enjoy liberty in your lifetime?

    Consider moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project.

    "Live Free or Die"

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    nukechaser wrote:
    Hmm...

    The right to keep and bear arms: a right granted by nature/nature's God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

    The right to use drugs: not so much.

    How is the cognitive dissonance not physically painful? I don't have the right to put stuff in my own body, even if it could hurt me? How far can that be taken? Should big greasy burgers be regulated?

  22. #22
    Regular Member coolusername2007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Temecula, California, USA
    Posts
    1,660

    Post imported post

    FogRider wrote:
    nukechaser wrote:
    Hmm...

    The right to keep and bear arms: a right granted by nature/nature's God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

    The right to use drugs: not so much.

    How is the cognitive dissonance not physically painful? I don't have the right to put stuff in my own body, even if it could hurt me? How far can that be taken? Should big greasy burgers be regulated?
    Absolutely! And I will personally see to it that all the burgers are confiscated and disposed of properly!

    IMHO, drugs are a victimless crime, until they aren't. Unfortunately, we don't always know when that lineis crossed. For example, see some of the videos showing parents giving their little 2-3 year olds hits on joints. That's just flat out wrong and the defenseless need defending, even in one's private residence. And I make absolutely no apologies about that. I will say that mariguana isn't that big of a deal, and can kind of see some legitimacy towards lienency, except when kids are involved, and unlike wine or alcohol, its in the air so containment is an issue.

    So here's my 3 strikessolution in lieu of jail(tied in with UOC to stay legit, guns and drugs aren't a good combination...unless it's my drug...caffeine):

    1st Offense:Mandatory10 day outpatient drug rehab,random testing for 6 months,temporary loss of OC and CCW for30days

    2nd Offense: Mandatory 30 dayresident drug rehab (cannot go home), 1 year probation with monthly random testing, temporary loss of OC and CCW for 1 year

    3rd Offense: Mandatory180 day resident drug rehab, work program, community service, then3 years probation with monthly random drug testing dates, temporary loss of UOC and CCW for 3 years

    Special Circumstances: if under the influence and injures someone and has been either 1st, 2nd, or 3rd time offender then no mercy. And by the 3rd offense, if a child is in the home then special care of the child needs to be arranged, not loss of child but maybe spouse or grandparent or something along those lines. If child is physically or emotionally harmed then again no mercy. A total loss of UOC and CCW permits.

    Note: in all instances personal protection RKBA is still intact, just not with guns, they'll have to resort to knives or clubs or something along those lines.
    "Why should judicial precedent bind the nation if the Constitution itself does not?" -- Mark Levin

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    nukechaser wrote:
    FogRider wrote:
    It's kind of amazing how fast gun owners will refute arguments against gun control and then turn around and use the exact same arguments for drug control.
    Hmm...

    The right to keep and bear arms: a right granted by nature/nature's God and guaranteed by the Constitution.

    The right to use drugs: not so much.
    The Constitution does not grant rights.... it limits what the government may do, and enumerates certain specific authorities it does possess.

    Please cite the clause where the government was granted the authority to abrogate the individual's right to medical freedom?

    And make no mistake -- that's exactly what we're talking about here. Most of the drugs which are illegal have legal medicinal analogues, and marijuana remains one of the few which -- despite being the best treatment for certain afflictions -- the government pretends has no medical value whatsoever. So, we're quite patently talking about the right to freedom of medical choice here.

    When you discount all "drugs" which may be used at medicine, what's left? LSD? MDMA? Oh noes, acid is still trendy, and it's tearing out country apart!

    Meth, cocaine, opiates, marijuana all are used medically.

    Edit: I shouldn't even malign LSD so; it's creator, a man named Albert Hofmann, was to his death convinced in the drug's utility in psychiatric treatment. He was rather upset with the Learys of the world giving what he saw as a bad name to a useful tool.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    coolusername2007 wrote:
    IMHO, drugs are a victimless crime, until they aren't.* Unfortunately, we don't always know when that line*is crossed.*
    IMHO, carrying a gun for self-defense is a victimless crime, until it isn't. Unfortunately, we don't always know when that line is crossed.

    My friend, may I politely I suggest you study the principle of non-aggression. It provides a system by which we can rationally make these determinations, and pinpoint the initiation of force.

    It isn't always easy, but with drugs it's pretty cut and dry.

    Is a minor capable of making informed decisions? Then no aggression is entailed. Is the minor incapable of such? Then pushing drugs becomes an act of aggression.

  25. #25
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Looks like I missed a lot of lively discussion on drugs being a victimless crime (or not).

    Alcohol is a drug. My father and my dad (step-father) were both alcohol addicts during my childhood. (Luckily dad got his life straightened out eventually; wish I could say the same for my 24-pack-a-day father.) I won't go into details, but let's just say that my first 16 years could have been much better.

    People will do drugs whether they are legal or not (e.g Prohibition had no deterrent effect on alcohol consumption). The problem is that most of the damage done to the person and their families is a result of the justice system. First, the justice system creates "systemic violence" (discussed further below). The other injustice created is that a medical condition is treated as a criminal activity. We're throwing people in jail when they really just need medical and psychiatric care.


    Systemic Violence:

    At one time our country made this drug illicit. What happened during "Prohibition"? Bootlegging crime rings were born - at the time they were called "the mafia" or "mobsters"; now we call them street gangs. These violent groups (past and present) rely heavily on the illicit trade of drugs, firearms, and sex. To increase business, they did and do fight for territory, committing arson, murder, and other collateral damage to innocent bystanders.

    One drug you will probably never find a gang member selling these days is alcohol. Why? There's no profit in it since Prohibition was repealed.

    The War on Drugs is directly responsible for nearly all of the adverse effects of drug abuse. It's conscionable for it to continue. We're throwing peaceful people into prison, and funding the gangs that ravage our communities. The government's solution only inflames the problem.

    Just say, "no," to the War on Drugs.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •