Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Bath Salts, What Do You Think?????

No their isn't, that is for sure. All we can hope for is that they do themselves in and hopefully in a timely fashion without any collateral damage.

Wouldn't know, mine does neither. And I have earned exactly zip from the war on drugs. All my pay comes from a budget not funded by dope war money Some construction zone enforcement and drunk driving enforcement money but no dope money. I do that on straight time.

You sound a lot like the gun grabbers.

"A handgun has no useful purpose other than to kill people. Should we allow deadly weapons to be sold with the express purpose of killing people? I say no."

When your first impulse is to say, "Should we allow..." you're already on the side of tyranny and against the side of liberty. If you're interested in liberty, then that first impulse would be to say, "What just power has the government to..."

For example, "What just power has the government to control what individuals put into their own bodies?"

And yes, I know handguns have useful purposes other than killing people. So do most drugs, even illegal ones. But you know about the positive uses of guns, and you don't know--or perhaps don't care to know--about the positive uses of narcotics; so you're acting from emotion instead of information...which is why I compared you to the gun grabbers, since that's precisely what they do as well.

All that is beside the real point, though. Even if you were to identify a drug that truly had absolutely no possible positive purpose, "Should we allow..." would still be the response of tyranny.

Should we allow murder?
Should we allow rape?
Should we allow canabilism?
Should we allow incest?
Should we allow pedophilia?
Should we allow slavery?

I'm afraid that isn't tyranny but necessary decisions by a civilized society.

Anything else is anarchy and we both know how that works out.

Full Bore Loonie Chit there, Se�or.

Magnum Energy Level, too.

GTC

I think some drugs shouldn't be illegal,like pot I've personally known folks who like a bit of green for fun and are quite harmless.

Stuff like bath salts,LSD,crack et cetera while not illegal should be monitored more carefully and treated as a medical condition and not a crime,people CAN and DO go crazy while on some of those and although I just don't see any use in saying anything to anybody about anyone who uses it I do A not hang around them,and B make sure if they are around I have my back to a wall and easy access to my pistol!

As far the joke that is the "drug war" well....anybody still remember prohibition? worked real well didn't it?

The difference is these actions inherently violate the rights of others. Use of drugs is just destruction of self. Obviously it often ends up affecting others but at its base, is not a crime against others.

"Should we allow...?" is a tyrannical question. Let's try mine:

Does the government have the just power to prohibit murder? Yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim.

Does the government have the just power to prohibit rape? Yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim.

Does the government have the just power to prohibit cannibalism? Well, what are we talking about here? Is cannibalism a person eating a human corpse that he justly owns? If so, there's no aggression or violation of rights involved, so it cannot be justly prohibited. Did the cannibal murder the person whose body he's eating? Then the murder is actionable. Did the person die of natural causes, but the cannibal stole his corpse to eat? Then the theft is actionable. But the government does not have any place in an individual's decision about what to put into his own body.

Does the government have the just power to prohibit incest? Yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim.

Does the government have the just power to prohibit pedophilia? Well, what do you mean by pedophilia? Do you mean child molestation? Then yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim. Do you mean someone who, while perversely sexually attracted to children, never acts on that attraction? Then no, because the government does not have any place in an individual's decision about what he thinks.

Does the government have the just power to prohibit slavery? Yes, because it involves an aggressor violating the rights of a victim. Specifically, it involves an aggressor abridging the liberties of a victim in precisely the same way that a government abridges the liberties of its subjects when it prohibits behaviors that involve no aggressor and no victim, but only consensus.

Do you see how "Should we allow...?" appeals only to emotion and has no objective limits, while "Does the government have the just power to...?" leads to more sober, rational analysis of the situation?


You ain't from around here, are you?

Yep, big pharma gets a pass on drug pushing, and that's all it is. They're not happy unless everybody is on two or three life-long chronic meds.

All of those have unwilling victims. Drug use doesn't. Barak was referring to voluntary conduct only.

Ah, the old victimless crime falsehood.

You ever see the mother find her dead OD'ed son in the morning?

How about mothers pimping out their 13yr old daughter for BJs to support a dope habit?

How about someone who blew their brains out because the couldn't stand the hold drugs had on them?

Legalizing an evil will never make our society better.
Do you really believe that legalizing dope will make America a better place? Those who complain about the money spent due to illegalization will be the first to demanding tax monies spent to support these people and their habits due to this evil "disease."

You guys are trying to make a warped utopia just as those who try to create laws to restrict all behaviors, just another end of the continuium, thats all. The world you would create would be as miserable as the "tyranny" you despise.

Did society or govt. decide that drugs should be illegal?

Government er the State.

That's ridiculous. You could say the same for extreme sports, and the mother being upset that her son was killed when he attempted snowboarding off a really radical mountain side. Should we outlaw extreme sports, too? The mother of the dead extreme snowboarder is not a victim of snowboarding, however. Neither is the mother of a dead drug addict a victim of the drugs.If the mom was an alcoholic, wouldn't that be just as tragic and criminal? The only difference is that alcohol highs are cheaper, because alcohol isn't illegal, and thus doesn't provide nearly the motive for criminal activity to support the habit.

The_Real_Hawkeye's analogy is much better than mine on this one.


If pimping out minors is already a crime (with a victim), why do you need for the dope to be illegal?


First, I suspect such people are rare. I'm friends with a number of people who are drug addicts--some of whom have died of their addiction--and I've never known one to blow his or her brains out. Much easier just to get high again; then there's no bothering about the hold drugs have on them.

Secondly, people commit suicide because of screwed-up love affairs, because they're ugly and rejected by society, because they're crippled, because they're suddenly poor--for all kinds of reasons. Are you going to outlaw love or being ugly or poverty? It's not a convincing argument.


What has made our society so bad is the tyranny of government mandating and prohibiting all sorts of things it never had any business sticking its nose into in the first place. More mandates and prohibitions will only make it worse. Remove all the regulations and people will find ways to live fulfilling, productive lives--even if it's not the ways you would have chosen for them.


Absolutely. Abolish all drug laws, all legal tender laws, all capital gains taxes, and watch the whole thing take off like a rocket, sez I.


You're thinking of liberals. The vast majority of the people on this thread--including me--are emphatically not liberals. It turns out that "not conservative implies liberal" is not nearly as helpful an oversimplification as Rush and Sean think it is.


Never fear: in a free society, people like you would be free to be ruled as brutally as you liked. If that was enough to float your boat, you'd probably be happy. Of course, if you needed to rule others against their will to be happy, it wouldn't be much fun for you, no.

Matter of degree, failure to perceive distinctions. Yes it could be said about everything including the dangers of waking up of a morning and getting out of bed.

For that matter do away with all laws and let's just all go back to man in a state of nature and Hume's every man against every man because that is the ultimate liberty of the utopia you seek. Break out the bong, laugh and giggle until someone brains us with a rock and takes our stash.

Here are a couple of interesting links from twenty years ago:

Rockwell's Thirty-Day Plan

Rockwell's Next Thirty Days

Amigo, you're the one around here who's failing to perceive the distinction between mala prohibita and mala in se. And that distinction isn't even a matter of degree. Not sure I'd bring up that argument if I were you.

Touche

No need to control but despise drugs and what they do. Plus I have less faith in the thin veneer of civilization than you evidently.

Growing up I had opportunities aplenty to try a joint. Never occurred to me to do so. I don't like the idea of taking an aspirin when I have a headache.

Yep. That would do it.