Drugs and guns should be legal

[SenseiBear]

Originally posted by MisterMike
I am. Pres. Bush didn't kill anyone driving drunk.

Actually, I think he did... I don't have hard info on it though - but didn't he get arrested in the 70's because he hit and killed someone with his car while drunk? Then the record got expunged... (thanks dad, if true)..

I could be wrong (once in a psych class I referenced some study I'd read... then years later re-read Stephen King's The Dead Zone, and realized THAT was my source... oops ), so I'll have to go see what I can find...

 

[MisterMike]

Originally posted by SenseiBear
Actually, I think he did... I don't have hard info on it though - but didn't he get arrested in the 70's because he hit and killed someone with his car while drunk? Then the record got expunged... (thanks dad, if true)..

I could be wrong (once in a psych class I referenced some study I'd read... then years later re-read Stephen King's The Dead Zone, and realized THAT was my source... oops ), so I'll have to go see what I can find...

Hehe..quite possible. Or maybe you've watched the Toxic Avenger one too many times?

 

[bug]

We have many rights that are balanced against others, and against the rights of the community as a whole

Yes, our rights are balanced against the rights of others. "the community" in its self does not have rights, It is merely the amalgamation of many individuals. That's why I always cringe when I hear politicians say something is for "the common good" or "the good of society" when they are advocating something that will erode individual liberties.
Sensei Bear has got it right on, a true democracy does indeed make our rights beholden to the whim of the majority. Unfortunately this "war on drugs" has been popular, so lawmakers jump on the band wagon and you get compliant courts and suddenly, what every happened to the 4th ammendment?

And mabey libertarianism is "nutbar" but some called our founding fathers nutty too.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by MisterMike
I am. Pres. Bush didn't kill anyone driving drunk.

...that you are sure about...

The Bushes are very good at covering up their pasts. For instance when they had certain parts of National Archives burned to "save room."

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by bug
And mabey libertarianism is "nutbar" but some called our founding fathers nutty too.

I don't think that libertarianism is nutbar. I wouldn't implement all of that philosophy, but some of it makes sense. For instance, have the smallest government possible in order to cut big money and corruption out of the picture. If you look at a grand majority of what our government does, its nothing but give away after give away to the rich. I'd rather keep my tax money then see it go to them.

With that being said, the "War on Drugs" is totally corrupt. Follow the money to the source and take a look at side businesses that our brutal corporate dicator friends in third world countries are running. Drug money is pouring into the country all of the time and it ends up in surprising pockets. I think we need to stop this "war on drugs" and kill the cash cow. Only education and opportunity will keep our citizens on drugs and out of the trade. Most of the ex-dealers (locked up) that I've dealt with at my job, none of them wanted to sell drugs. They did it because there was no other way for them to get ahead.

This may be an urban legend, but I heard that every 100 dollar bill has traces of cocaine on it.

 

[bug]

Upnorthkyosa,

I strongly agree with you about having the smallest govt possible. I would take issue with the assertion that all govt does is give away to the rich. If you mean that the govt gives subsidies to special interest groups and corporations also pork barrel spending for rich interests. I agee and you are correct. But most of the give away is the redistribution of wealth from "the rich" to everyone else. Remember for gov't to give it must first take. Just look at the progressive tax code and and the huge entitlement bureracracy we have (talk about corruption) But again another topic for another thread.

I am with you 100% about the war on drugs. Just think of the waste of your money and mine, also all the lives ruined from it, not to mention how it is used to usurp our liberties. Drugs are a symptom of underlying socio/economic issues, we treat them as a root cause. This is a good topic for liberals, libertarians and conservatives (at least the ones who want govt out of our private lives) to find some common ground. kind of nice for a change.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by bug
Upnorthkyosa,

I strongly agree with you about having the smallest govt possible. I would take issue with the assertion that all govt does is give away to the rich. If you mean that the govt gives subsidies to special interest groups and corporations also pork barrel spending for rich interests. I agee and you are correct. But most of the give away is the redistribution of wealth from "the rich" to everyone else. Remember for gov't to give it must first take. Just look at the progressive tax code and and the huge entitlement bureracracy we have (talk about corruption) But again another topic for another thread.

Have you look at the latest appropriations bill? Have you read about corporate welfare?

 

[bug]

Have you look at the latest appropriations bill? Have you read about corporate welfare?

Absolutely, I have no argument with you there at all. The subsidies and corporate wellfare is shameful. But entitlements and social programs as a percentage of gov't expedatures are larger than corporate wellfare. It is all just wealth redistribution and I oppose it either way. The bottom line is the federal government is getting into all these different areas for which it has no constitutional mandate.
To try to stay on topic though, shouldnt drug laws be up to the states and not the federal govt? Should the DEA even exist?

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by bug
But entitlements and social programs as a percentage of gov't expedatures are larger than corporate wellfare.

I think this discussion is on topic. It's tangental, but related. Entitlements and social programs include a lot of things that have nothing to do "wellfare" for instance many conservative pundits consider the EPA to be a "social program." As far as corporate welfare is defined, many give aways are not included under that lable. Spin spin spin. I hate politics.

 

[bug]

I have heard many conservatives bash many agencies and bueracracies like the EPA but never have heard them refer to them as entitlements That's a stretch dont' you think.? But you are right, politics is all about mis labeling and spin.And I do agree about corp wellfare, it takes many sneaky forms not always called corporate wellfare. But to my earilier point, as a % of total govt expendatures, real entitlements (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Wellfare, etc...) are a much greater percentage than corporate wellfare of any description. But that aside they are both big problems. I hate politics too! I like an open honest discussion of the issues but politics intentionally clouds or spins the issues and facts to comply with a certan agenda. The're all bums vote em out!