Cold Medicine Registry

since9 · Oct 18, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
So Since? If heroin were to become legal tomorrow are you going to run out and buy some?

Nope.

And the laws we have now don't stop people who want to use it from using it.

Nothing will stop it. The laws we have do curb it. As seen on the news last night, the bigger problem these days are pill mills, where legal medical professionals write scripts or hand out meds like candy. HUGE problem in Florida.

drug control is socialism, you are trying to force people to conform...

That has nothing to do with socialism. That has everything to do with the antithesis of anarchy.

and massive amount of death and mayhem in the streets and borders costing human lives in the violence created by prohibition.

You rather have massive amount of death and mayhem in living rooms, bedrooms, on the highways and in the ER because dangerous drugs were easy to obtain? They controlled because they're dangerous. If you want the truth about how and why they're dangerous, ask a recovering (they're always in recovery) heroin addict.

Even if everything you say is absolutely true, I would rather live with the problem of dealing with free people than not live in a free society.

The difference between guns and drugs is that those of us who exercise our 2A rights aren't creating danger and mayhem in the streets.

Every year gravity kills many people, more people in my job construction die from it than LEO's in their job, should we outlaw gravity?

Knock yourself out, particularly if you seem to enjoy using logical fallacy.

No, because doing so would not negate the effects of the natural law of gravity, and it will continue to hurt people.

Incorrect. The correct answer is "no, because one cannot outlaw gravity." More appropriately, however, one can mitigate it's effects. Children with hemophilia often were padded clothing designed to minimize bruising and take k-factor to improve clotting. Businesses working with handicapped and the elderly use ramps and handrails. When my Mom rolls out of the bed in the morning, it's onto a 1' thick gymnastics safety pad... Just kidding about the last. My point remains: You can't repeal the law of gravity, but you can mitigate it's effects. Corrollary: You can't change people with genetic or psychological addictions, but you can help them avoid becoming hooked in the first place.

Outlawing drugs (and many other ridiculous laws) does not negate peoples natural desire to choose what they want to do for themselves.

(sigh), you have apparently not had much experience with addicts. I have. The vast majority of the ones who're in recovery will tell you over and over that they wish they'd never taken that first drink, hit, line, or needle. Most did so because it was available.

Let's learn to live with the dangers of being free without trying to control every little thing someone does.

I wish there were tests for addictiveness. If you're not an addictive person, then you're given carte blanch access to drugs, provided:

1. You agree to never drive while under the immediate or extended influence of any substance. Should you violate that, your license will be revoked. Forever.

2. You waive your right to normal insurance rates and accept rates more appropriate for the seriously increased risks accuaries have calculated for drug users. This includes both vehicle and medical. Should you not wish you pay additional rates, your coverage will be reduced accordingly. Should you decline coverage, you will also decline free medical care paid for by taxpayers.

Sound ok to you? No? Then quit trying to have your druggie-filled cake and eat it too, particularly on our dime.

Now this doesn't mean you don't have recourse if damaged by someone who abuses mind altering substances. That's what the courts are for.

Courts cannot replace loved ones damaged or lost at the hands of those who used or abused alcohol and drugs. Even tertiary effects of drug use are serious and tear families apart.

Metalhead47 · Oct 18, 2011

Must pick at this:

since9 said:
That has nothing to do with socialism. That has everything to do with the antithesis of anarchy.

Socialism/Statism IS the antithesis of anarchy. Anarchy is absolute liberty, without stability.

You rather have massive amount of death and mayhem in living rooms, bedrooms, on the highways and in the ER because dangerous drugs were easy to obtain? They controlled because they're dangerous.

The anti's make exactly the same (baseless) claims about our guns...

The difference between guns and drugs is that those of us who exercise our 2A rights aren't creating danger and mayhem in the streets.

Anti logic again.

(sigh), you have apparently not had much experience with addicts. I have. The vast majority of the ones who're in recovery will tell you over and over that they wish they'd never taken that first drink, hit, line, or needle. Most did so because it was available.

Right here you admit (bold mine) that alcohol is the true gateway drug...

I wish there were tests for addictiveness. If you're not an addictive person, then you're given carte blanch access to drugs, provided:

There are actually. So you're suggesting the need for another gov't permission slip to exercise a right?

1. You agree to never drive while under the immediate or extended influence of any substance. Should you violate that, your license will be revoked. Forever.

2. You waive your right to normal insurance rates and accept rates more appropriate for the seriously increased risks accuaries have calculated for drug users. This includes both vehicle and medical. Should you not wish you pay additional rates, your coverage will be reduced accordingly.

So someone who smokes a bowl or snorts a line by them selves on the weekends to relax, and harms absolutely no one, should be subjected this financial discrimination for what is entirely their own business? While everyone else is free to drink till they puke out their nose and pickle their livers.

Should you decline coverage, you will also decline free medical care paid for by taxpayers.

This should not exist in the first place, in any way, shape, or form, and has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You're the only one who keeps trying to bring Obamacare into an otherwise entirely theoretical discussion...

Sound ok to you? No? Then quit trying to have your druggie-filled cake and eat it too, particularly on our dime.

Who said it's on "your" dime? SVG is not a druggie in the first place, and no where at all did he imply that doing drugs is actually a good idea, merely that people in a free society must have the right to make stupid choices, which may include drug use. And he certainly did not imply that you, or the gov't, should pay for anyone's drugs, or their healthcare. And what is a "druggie" any way? Someone who does drugs in any amount at any time? Is a person who goes out with his buddies and has a few beers, harming or endangering no one, a "drunk?"

Courts cannot replace loved ones damaged or lost at the hands of those who used or abused alcohol and drugs. Even tertiary effects of drug use are serious and tear families apart.

Anti logic again.

Change a few words and statistics around and you're singing right from the anti's hymnal.

sudden valley gunner · Oct 18, 2011

Well said Metal.

Anarchy in the true definition isn't bad. It simply means no government. Me I like very very limited government. So did the founders.

It blows me away the phobia and scare tactics people will use.

I like how some will becomes mass death.....funny.

Metalhead47 · Oct 18, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
Well said Metal.

Anarchy in the true definition isn't bad. It simply means no government. Me I like very very limited government. So did the founders.

It blows me away the phobia and scare tactics people will use.

I like how some will becomes mass death.....funny.

True, not bad so much as inherently unstable and untenable. The most ethical government is the minimum necessary for stable function of society.

But that last line um... Wtf?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sudden valley gunner · Oct 18, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
True, not bad so much as inherently unstable and untenable. The most ethical government is the minimum necessary for stable function of society.

But that last line um... Wtf?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh in Since's post he wouldn't try Heroin but some would or that the laws prevent a few and then later talked about mass death.... was funny.

I also don't understand how people can say "I won't" but then worry that everyone else will.

To me this country needs to get back to it's Blackstone legal foundation, where laws apply mostly to the government and we are free. Drug laws, Jaywalking, taxes, on and on and on, we are socialist. Some would say fascist.(If most politicians would be honest they would admit this, hence instead they use terms like "leader" (vomit))

People who rally for laws and covenants and control don't understand the founding principals at all and that includes the majority of judges and those in government from LEO's to the president who take an oath to uphold those principals.

Metalhead47 · Oct 19, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
Oh in Since's post he wouldn't try Heroin but some would or that the laws prevent a few and then later talked about mass death.... was funny.

I also don't understand how people can say "I won't" but then worry that everyone else will.

To me this country needs to get back to it's Blackstone legal foundation, where laws apply mostly to the government and we are free. Drug laws, Jaywalking, taxes, on and on and on, we are socialist. Some would say fascist.(If most politicians would be honest they would admit this, hence instead they use terms like "leader" (vomit))

People who rally for laws and covenants and control don't understand the founding principals at all and that includes the majority of judges and those in government from LEO's to the president who take an oath to uphold those principals.

See, now I'll butt heads without about the jaywalking thing. Providing roads is a legitimate & constitutionally authorized role of government. As such, the gov't is also responsible for the smooth, orderly, and above all, safe flow of traffic along those roads. The jaywalker is endangering not only himself, but anyone who may come across him and be forced to react quickly. Jaywalking ordinances not only give the police legitimate grounds to issue a civil infraction, they establish legal precedent as to who's at fault in the much-more-likely situation that someone comes to real harm as a result of the jaywalker's actions when there's no cop around.

But yeah I pretty much agree with the rest

Brass Magnet · Oct 19, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
See, now I'll butt heads without about the jaywalking thing. Providing roads is a legitimate & constitutionally authorized role of government. As such, the gov't is also responsible for the smooth, orderly, and above all, safe flow of traffic along those roads. The jaywalker is endangering not only himself, but anyone who may come across him and be forced to react quickly. Jaywalking ordinances not only give the police legitimate grounds to issue a civil infraction, they establish legal precedent as to who's at fault in the much-more-likely situation that someone comes to real harm as a result of the jaywalker's actions when there's no cop around.

But yeah I pretty much agree with the rest

We don't need the government to actively monitor jaywalking. We only need them to provide for arbitration through the courts. As long as there is no injured party it doesn't matter. If there is an injured party either criminal law, tort law, or both will take care of it. A law that makes clear the jay walker is to be held responsible if there is an injured party is probably reasonable though.

Metalhead47 · Oct 19, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
We don't need the government to actively monitor jaywalking. We only need them to provide for arbitration through the courts. As long as there is no injured party it doesn't matter. If there is an injured party either criminal law, tort law, or both will take care of it. A law that makes clear the jay walker is to be held responsible if there is an injured party is probably reasonable though.

I disagree. I don't see jaywalking laws as different from any other rules of the road. They are there for everyone's safety, and to ensure the smooth flow of traffic.

Now, should a dude get a ticket for jaywalking across a deserted street at two am? Probably not, but that's where discretion should come in, and I see that as a police reform issue, not a law one. OTOH, are you really telling me that if the police see someone running across hwy 99 in the middle of rush hour (say, to catch a bus

) with a cascade of squealing brakes behind them, they should just dismiss it as "oh well, no one got hurt THIS time so nevermind."?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brass Magnet · Oct 19, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
I disagree. I don't see jaywalking laws as different from any other rules of the road. They are there for everyone's safety, and to ensure the smooth flow of traffic.

There are a lot of laws that are there supposedly for everyone's safety; the problem is when they are arbitrary. What happens if I drive 5mph over the speed limit anyway? What if i don't want to wear my seat belt? For the second question they are actually telling me that if people suffer more serious injury because of not wearing their seat belts it puts a drain on the welfare system. In that case any stupid law or regulation can be justified.

Metalhead47 said:
Now, should a dude get a ticket for jaywalking across a deserted street at two am? Probably not, but that's where discretion should come in, and I see that as a police reform issue, not a law one.

We all know what the government does with discretion. And what about revenue generation and quotas? We should work hard to make things as black and white as possible and not allow them as much discretion. We shouldn't allow the arbitrary exercise of power which is the very definition of tyranny. There is no injured party here obviously, so it's an easy one if you do it the way I'm talking about. No need for discretion.

Metalhead47 said:
OTOH, are you really telling me that if the police see someone running across hwy 99 in the middle of rush hour (say, to catch a bus ) with a cascade of squealing brakes behind them, they should just dismiss it as "oh well, no one got hurt THIS time so nevermind."?

First, I think the brown stuff in his pants should be enough for him to never do this again but I have no problem with an officer making contact with him and reaming him for it. Hey, it's a free country; and after all, there may actually be an injured party. I'd say RAS for an ID anyway because those drivers should be able to sue the guy if they suffered any bodily harm or harm to property by judicious usage of the break pedal and it would help to know who he is.

The point is that I see nothing here that can't be taken care of in the courts if need be. We don't need laws against every little thing that could possibly cause specific injury. We just need the laws to state which party would be in the right and to be able to obtain justice in the court when it's required.

Metalhead47 · Oct 19, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
There are a lot of laws that are there supposedly for everyone's safety; the problem is when they are arbitrary. What happens if I drive 5mph over the speed limit anyway? What if i don't want to wear my seat belt? For the second question they are actually telling me that if people suffer more serious injury because of not wearing their seat belts it puts a drain on the welfare system. In that case any stupid law or regulation can be justified.

We all know what the government does with discretion. And what about revenue generation and quotas? We should work hard to make things as black and white as possible and not allow them as much discretion. We shouldn't allow the arbitrary exercise of power which is the very definition of tyranny. There is no injured party here obviously, so it's an easy one if you do it the way I'm talking about. No need for discretion.

First, I think the brown stuff in his pants should be enough for him to never do this again but I have no problem with an officer making contact with him and reaming him for it. Hey, it's a free country; and after all, there may actually be an injured party. I'd say RAS for an ID anyway because those drivers should be able to sue the guy if they suffered any bodily harm or harm to property by judicious usage of the break pedal and it would help to know who he is.

The point is that I see nothing here that can't be taken care of in the courts if need be. We don't need laws against every little thing that could possibly cause specific injury. We just need the laws to state which party would be in the right and to be able to obtain justice in the court when it's required.

Dude you're making this very hard from an iPhone

1st paragraph: if you choose not to wear your seat belt, you are only endangering yourself. Not the same thing. Speed limit? There needs to be some empirical standard. Is 5 miles dangerous? Probably not. Is 130? Of course. That is a real danger to others. Let's not get too far off here, I'm not arguing seatbelts, I'm talking jaywalking laws.

Para2: overall I agree, but a free for all on the roads won't work either. As I said before, an ethical govt is the minimum necessary for society to function. Trying to navigate the roads with no traffic laws and everyone doing their own thing is not a functioning society. Perhaps the law could feature an affirmative defense of not actually endangering anyone in the specific circumstance, to eliminate discretion.

Para3: trust me, there is no brown stuff in his pants, just a brown stuff eating grin completely oblivious to the accidents he nearly caused. He only cares about catching the bus. Hopefully that ticket will teach him a lesson. If not, then it makes prosecuting when he does cause real harm that much easier, with more severe consequences for a history of incidents.

Para4: I'm not talking about laws for every little thing, I'm talking about a very specific behavior with immediately observable consequences.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Daylen · Oct 19, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
We don't need the government to actively monitor jaywalking. We only need them to provide for arbitration through the courts. As long as there is no injured party it doesn't matter. If there is an injured party either criminal law, tort law, or both will take care of it. A law that makes clear the jay walker is to be held responsible if there is an injured party is probably reasonable though.

I thought I was the only person who thought like this! Jaywalking along with ALL traffic issues are Right of Way issues, not a crime in itself. Of course most people outside of racing sailors don't seem to understand Right of Way very well...

Daylen · Oct 19, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
Dude you're making this very hard from an iPhone

1st paragraph: if you choose not to wear your seat belt, you are only endangering yourself. Not the same thing. Speed limit? There needs to be some empirical standard. Is 5 miles dangerous? Probably not. Is 130? Of course. That is a real danger to others. Let's not get too far off here, I'm not arguing seatbelts, I'm talking jaywalking laws.

Para2: overall I agree, but a free for all on the roads won't work either. As I said before, an ethical govt is the minimum necessary for society to function. Trying to navigate the roads with no traffic laws and everyone doing their own thing is not a functioning society. Perhaps the law could feature an affirmative defense of not actually endangering anyone in the specific circumstance, to eliminate discretion.

Para3: trust me, there is no brown stuff in his pants, just a brown stuff eating grin completely oblivious to the accidents he nearly caused. He only cares about catching the bus. Hopefully that ticket will teach him a lesson. If not, then it makes prosecuting when he does cause real harm that much easier, with more severe consequences for a history of incidents.

Para4: I'm not talking about laws for every little thing, I'm talking about a very specific behavior with immediately observable consequences.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No need for an empirical standard. Speeding should simply yield ones Right of Way, thus if there is an accident it is the speeders fault or possibly both if the other driver(s) did something to yield theirs. If a person taking the bus knows that the only thing a driver will have to worry about in a collision because of jay walking is body repair, the jay walker will worry a bit more; no need for tickets if no one has been wronged.

Metalhead47 · Oct 19, 2011

Daylen said:
I thought I was the only person who thought like this! Jaywalking along with ALL traffic issues are Right of Way issues, not a crime in itself. Of course most people outside of racing sailors don't seem to understand Right of Way very well...

"right of way" quickly reached unrealistic when you have hundreds or thousands of vehicles in a very small space, going very fast, very close to each other. Might work for sail boats, won't work in the real world. Traffic issues are neither crimes nor "right of way" issues, they are moving violations. A very specific and limited legal category.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Metalhead47 · Oct 19, 2011

Daylen said:
No need for an empirical standard. Speeding should simply yield ones Right of Way, thus if there is an accident it is the speeders fault or possibly both if the other driver(s) did something to yield theirs. If a person taking the bus knows that the only thing a driver will have to worry about in a collision because of jay walking is body repair, the jay walker will worry a bit more; no need for tickets if no one has been wronged.

Yes, there is. As I said right of way may work with sailboats going less than 20 or 25 knots, it simply won't work on a busy multimodal highway. The speeder and jaywalker are directly endangering other people in an area in which government has legitimate authority to regulate. The governments create and administrate the roads, therefore they are responsible for at least trying to maintain safe and orderly traffic flow, and therefore have authority to make reasonable traffic regulations.

You guys drive the same roads I do, how is it you do not see this for what it is?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Daylen · Oct 19, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
Yes, there is. As I said right of way may work with sailboats going less than 20 or 25 knots, it simply won't work on a busy multimodal highway. The speeder and jaywalker are directly endangering other people in an area in which government has legitimate authority to regulate. The governments create and administrate the roads, therefore they are responsible for at least trying to maintain safe and orderly traffic flow, and therefore have authority to make reasonable traffic regulations.

You guys drive the same roads I do, how is it you do not see this for what it is?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right of way is not a sailing thing its a moving/traveling thing, I was simply noting that most people seem to lack understanding of the rules of the road. When it is crowded I rarely see police looking for violators and many places police do no interfere because it would be dangerous to try and pull people over. So such violations end up being enforced when they do not pose a danger thus there is no victim thus no crime and no wrongdoing. Moving violation has no basis in natural law and as such is not something we should have.

Metalhead47 · Oct 19, 2011

Daylen said:
Right of way is not a sailing thing its a moving/traveling thing, I was simply noting that most people seem to lack understanding of the rules of the road. When it is crowded I rarely see police looking for violators and many places police do no interfere because it would be dangerous to try and pull people over. So such violations end up being enforced when they do not pose a danger thus there is no victim thus no crime and no wrongdoing. Moving violation has no basis in natural law and as such is not something we should have.

Not as I see it. You were the one who used right of way in a sailing context first. Either way, it's still not realistic to apply to modern road use, although that IS the basis of traffic laws. If that is what you have noticed from local LEO, then again that is a police reform issue not traffic one. There needs to be an empirical standard for traffic laws and the only logical, realistic way to do so is with the moving violation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Morbidph8 · Oct 19, 2011

since9 said:
You're trusting one study, against thousands of others which dispute it, from an advisor that was fired for incompetence, and done by a fly-by-night and unapproved group.... No the advisor was fired because he viewed Cannabis as safe. That and drugs should be decriminalized. The UK Gov didn't like that. Which reminds me... Oh snap a new board of advisors had said the same thing! And the UK Gov wants no part of it again. http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/oct/19/uk_government_rejects_advisors_d

Hmm. Next you'll be arguing that because we can't fight it, the government should not only legalize all drugs, but should supply all citizens whatever they want for free because it would be less expensive than fighting it.

Well your half right. Yes decriminalize all drugs. People will do drugs no matter what. Making them illegal does NOTHING!. Kinda like gun control huh? Ok the whole give them away free, well that would be something a liberal would do so no. You still gotta earn your poison. If there was no war on drugs, they would be very cheap, safe, and regulated. So people wouldn't need to rob and steal to afford their cheap drugs. Tell me how many people rob others for cigarettes? Prohibition didn't work for alcohol and it sooo not working now.

Edit: I felt I need to add something.

Professor David Nutt who wrote the paper on Alcohol being more dangerous then heroin. He wrote it when he was head of Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This was not a no-name institution. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) is a statutory and non-executive non-departmental British public body, which was established under the UK's Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Council_on_the_Misuse_of_Drugs He was not fired but he stepped down, because the Gov in UK hated his message. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8334948.stm

The article I posted above. Is another call for reclassification, and decriminalization of drug users. By the same ACMD.

So kinda off the topic but I had to provide some info....

Daylen · Oct 19, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
Not as I see it. You were the one who used right of way in a sailing context first. Either way, it's still not realistic to apply to modern road use, although that IS the basis of traffic laws. If that is what you have noticed from local LEO, then again that is a police reform issue not traffic one. There needs to be an empirical standard for traffic laws and the only logical, realistic way to do so is with the moving violation.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Without a basis in natural law it has no real validity. As an example, what does it matter if I jay walk on an empty road? or travel at 140mph down the interstate in rural Nevada where there are no fellow motorists? Who is being wronged? who is even being endangered? Unless someone is harmed the government has no just power to punish a person. Such laws are on the level with sodomy laws, and laws against selling liquor on certain days. There is no victim yet there is a person deserving of punishment? Your arguments smack of progressivism, which seeks to go around the constitution and eliminate liberty.

Brass Magnet · Oct 19, 2011

Metalhead,
My turn for the cell phone... LOL

To reiterate a bit. I have no problem with a law that may clarify who shall yield the right of way or what have you as a firm guide. If there is no one to yield to though, no harm, no foul. What I take issue with is having the law "enforced" instead of what we used to have in the peace officer days. There's no reason the government needs to be involved if no one has been wronged.

The burden of being responsible should be on the individual citizens. Having "Law enforcement" write out tickets to someone that's done no harm is like San Francisco forcing McDonalds to remove toys from their happy meals instead of parents just telling their kids no.

A better response probably could be had from my computer of course..

Metalhead47 · Oct 19, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
Metalhead,
My turn for the cell phone... LOL

To reiterate a bit. I have no problem with a law that may clarify who shall yield the right of way or what have you as a firm guide. If there is no one to yield to though, no harm, no foul. What I take issue with is having the law "enforced" instead of what we used to have in the peace officer days. There's no reason the government needs to be involved if no one has been wronged.

The burden of being responsible should be on the individual citizens. Having "Law enforcement" write out tickets to someone that's done no harm is like San Francisco forcing McDonalds to remove toys from their happy meals instead of parents just telling their kids no.

A better response probably could be had from my computer of course..

Will respond more when get home too, but both of you guys: SHOW ME HOW THIS CAN WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.

Not just the middle of the night, or 140 on a deserted rural interstate.

Maybe it worked a hundred years agowhen cars were few and slow. Maybe it would work in a small isolated community. Maybe it works in this grand libertarian utopia you and some others here are so fond of (I wish it existed, I'd love to emigrate there), but show me how this free for all could work in downtown NYC, or i5 at rush hour. Without carnage ensuing and the people demanding more laws from it

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cold Medicine Registry

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member