Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Prison Nation

"Barak wanna be" huh? Well, I like Barak, and I agree with him quite a lot, but we've also had some pretty heated debates on his anarchism. In fact, most of our exchanges have been heated debates concerning that topic, but when I agree with him, I'm going to say so.

Ah--okay, that makes more sense.

I thought he was accusing you of being a Barack wannabe--you know, Barack Obama, with a C. Couldn't figure that one out.

Sorry for butchering your name and causing any sort of confusion.

Regardless of how lost I might think you guys are I'd never go so far as calling ANYONE an Obama......

In this case it's unfair to Obama.

I dunno, Stan, that's kinda harsh. But I'm new here, too.....

Well, I doubt we'll hear Obama give drug dealers a thumbs up if they've asked a minor's parents permission to give/sell drugs to their children....even he's not that stupid. Or, harsh.......

Where you been,Stan?

We have some good but scary thinkers here, don't we? All you need is a mom and dad and the drug scourge shoots to zero!!

Isaac, wouldn't selling drugs to kids fall under state child endangerment laws? You don't need to have Federal laws specific to drug sales, purchases, possession (all of which laws are unconstitutional), to have laws protecting kids from pushers, is my point.

Read prior posts on this subject a page or two back Hawk. It was an exchange between Terry Lee and myself. There are element of prrof issues and punishment ranges that have to be factored into the decision to criminally charge.

Our drug laws here are primarily state, sometimes federal, depending upon where the crime occurred and your comment the laws are unconstitutional is kinda silly.

I've been leaving the campfire alone....but, this topic pops up and it is incredible to read some of this drivel. Amazing that some of these dudes consider themselves deep thinkers....could it be that drug dealers got to these people early? There's some damage here.....I wonder what THEIR God would think of this thought process? (that should hijack this thread for a couple of days)

My comment was specific to Federal laws concerning the prohibition of certain drugs. When a specific mind altering substance was Federally regulated in the past (alcohol), a Constitutional Amendment was first required, which was later repealed. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that any further efforts on the part of the Federal Government to regulate the possession, sale, use, purchase of another mind altering substance would require yet another amendment. We have had no such amendment of the Constitution since the repeal of Prohibition. Therefore, any Federal laws which presume to outlaw or regulate such substances are without Constitutional authorization, making them "unconstitutional." Please explain what part of this is "silly."

Match Point-- Hawkeye!!!!

"When a specific mind altering substance was Federally regulated in the past (alcohol), a Constitutional Amendment was first required, which was later repealed. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that any further efforts on the part of the Federal Government to regulate the possession, sale, use, purchase of another mind altering substance would require yet another amendment. We have had no such amendment of the Constitution since the repeal of Prohibition."

+1

Obviously, if drugs weere legalized it'd be just like alcoholic beverages, no sales to minors allowed and MIP would still be illegal. I see no reason for this continous harping on "save the children". It's a distraction to conversation.


To understand the number one reason people resist change in current drug laws, all one need do is follow the money. Other than the fear-factor planted in the 70's, nurished relentlessly, and held mostly by the elderly the main reason people don't want drugs legalized is money. The street vendor wants them illegal or he looses his profit. The big time dealers (often business men whom you'd never suspect) want them kept illegal or they loose their profits. The importers want them illegal or they loose their profits. Manufacturers of domestic product want them illegal or they loose their profits. The prison systems want them illegal or they loose profits. The government wants them illegal or they loose profits. The handmaidens to the government (lawyers) want them illegal or they loose profits. To me this alls eems pretty simple, actually...

On the othere side the people who want drugs legalized fall into 2 basic catagories. 1. Casual drug users who don't like the high price of black market products nor the chance of jailtime/fines (non-criminal types living and working among you) and 2. those who see the drug war as the hoax that it is and have learned the lesson history taught with prohibition, those true conservatives who prefer liberty over yet another facade of gov't-mandated "security". The biggest reason the streets and alleyways of America are dangerous is because drugs are illegal. Take away the profit and we'll all be far more secure.

History's lesson seems to have eluded many. On second thought, it eluded none. They decided not to learn. And probably for reasons of profit....

I'm not surprised that the people that think children becoming pregant in a cult is OK and no one else's business, are the same people that think it's OK for children to use drugs. I'm wondering if there's not something deep seated against children at work here....or controlling.

Well, thanks. We appreciate that.

When you come right down to it, though, it's not that big a butcher job. The word that means "lightning" in Hebrew is actually spelled "ברק" and "Barak" is merely a transliteration of it. Any English spelling that stimulates the proper noises when read is theoretically just as valid as any other, and "Barack" certainly does that.

Looks weird to me though.

Jacques...certainly you jest!It was an amusing gesture of solidarity on your part though, just premature. Hawkeye, you're trained in law, right? Familiarize yourself with the history before and after and the aftermath relating to the Harrison Act of 1914 and then the SC case of "Whipple v Martinson.

You guys crack me up who just grab some simple minded thought and then run with it as though it were gospel. Federal drug laws unconstitutional....LMAO!! All those thousands of actual legal scholars, including SC Justices, that have addressed this issue, have nothing on your thorough research, I guess Hawkeye!

Of course it's not victimless. Neither is alcohol abuse or even eating fatty foods. But the victim is the person themselves. Freedom means being free to make bad choices. When should the state intervene. Should suicide be illegal? Alcohol abuse? Smoking?

We know from scientific studies that certain foods leads to poor heath, disease and death. Should the state control what you can eat?

It is all the same. There is just an arbitrary line drawn in the sad, and one that can be moved at any time. And it is always in the name of protecting the individual from themselves. This country survived from 150 years with virtually no drug laws at all.

The difference is that in the past people were more inclined to 'mind there own business'. The idea that the state should control your personal behavior because it is self destructive is the 'nanny state', the ultimate expression of democratic ideology - 'we know what is best for you'.

If someone is over 18 and isn't hurting anyone else, why is it my business? Isn't it their life and their decision?

Bite me!!!!

You'll never get it.


I need to go find something else to do today!!!!!

Stay off those boards if your asparagus hunting, Jacques!

You should change to the democratic party, the way you sling that argument.

"It's for the children"

The point is that throwing lots of people in jail for drug violations hasn't fixed the problem. Drugs are still available, drug use is still much higher than any other modern industrialized nation. 25 after Nixon's declaration and the war on drugs has accomplished nothing. It has been and abject failure.

Regardless of your personal philosophy about drugs and drug laws, we have achieved nothing. As Steve_NO points out, a few minutes drive will show anyone how unsuccessful the war on drugs is.

Some of you (Isaac, Steve_NO, StanV) like to argue that you are realists, and live in the real world.

The war on drugs has failed in the real world.