To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3,826
#3,826
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Why is there always a perceived danger in doing nothing? Is this simply the fear tactics used by those in power to justify the rising prison population? Or, is it just the gravy train of revenue rolling along? Meanwhile, the taxpayer suffers and pays for it all.
Click to expand...

You dont even preach "doing nothing" in your Sovereign Utopia.... Why "do nothing" in our current situation?
 
#3,827
#3,827
tim said:
You dont even preach "doing nothing" in your Sovereign Utopia.... Why "do nothing" in our current situation?
Click to expand...

The utopian is the one who thinks they can rid the world of all the bad and evil things.
You can also include the limited government types in there if you want as well.

For the 100010101091919 time on this board. Anarchy simply means no rulers, it does not mean no rules.

To me, a crime is when property or person is injured. For instance, a drunk/high driver driving along, he's fine as long as he's doesn't create injury to property or persons. When the accident occurs, his crime will be the injury to persons and property, not because he was high or drunk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,828
#3,828
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
To me, a crime is when property or person is injured. For instance, a drunk/high driver driving along, he's fine as long as he's doesn't create injury to property or persons. When the accident occurs, his crime will be the injury to persons and property, not because he was high or drunk.
Click to expand...

Makes too much sense...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,829
#3,829
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The utopian is the one who thinks they can rid the world of all the bad and evil things.
You can also include the limited government types in there if you want as well.

For the 100010101091919 time on this board. Anarchy simply means no rulers, it does not mean no rules.

To me, a crime is when property or person is injured. For instance, a drunk/high driver driving along, he's fine as long as he's doesn't create injury to property or persons. When the accident occurs, his crime will be the injury to persons and property, not because he was high or drunk.
Click to expand...

I know what you say, but please explain the value of a rule with none to enforce same? Nevermind, I do not want to go through the whole Eric Garner example/discussion again.
 
#3,831
#3,831
tim said:
Patently false information. The prisons ARE full of drug abusers, but not imprisoned for the reasons you espouse. Their drug usage, which probably will result in arrest, is not a leading cause of their sentence. Drug abusers generally conduct more personal and property crimes to support their behavior which leads to their incarceration. In most cases probation is violated because of drug usage which was the root cause of them being on probation to begin with. We've had this difference before and apparently I fail in explaining it.
Click to expand...

1. I said "user", not "abuser". There's a difference.

2. Feel free to provide the stats that show that a drug user is likely to commit harm (that means that for a drug user, statistically speaking it is more than 50% likely that they will harm themselves or others).

Good luck trying to dig this up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,832
#3,832
tim said:
Go to any LE agency, ask any officer what crime they see most (not drug) and ask why the person did what they did. Without wasting your time I'll tell you what they'll say.

Burglary/theft because they need drugs. Not because my baby was hungry.

What value can I put on your home and property?
Click to expand...

You cannot see the logical flaw here? Is this for real?

Imagine that every single person that robbed, killed, assaulted, etc., was addicted to x. Would you say that we ought to make using x a crime and that we ought to arrest those who use x, even if they have not conducted other crimes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,833
#3,833
therealUT said:
1. I said "user", not "abuser". There's a difference.

2. Feel free to provide the stats that show that a drug user is likely to commit harm (that means that for a drug user, statistically speaking it is more than 50% likely that they will harm themselves or others).

Good luck trying to dig this up.
Click to expand...

Then why ask the impossible? How is one, without previous knowledge, to discern the two? Only until they have committed grievous offense, that we agree, does one begin to identify. The abuser casts light on the user and causes them to be identified as the same in circumstances which bring them into the presence of LE.
 
#3,834
#3,834
therealUT said:
You cannot see the logical flaw here? Is this for real?

Imagine that every single person that robbed, killed, assaulted, etc., was addicted to x. Would you say that we ought to make using x a crime and that we ought to arrest those who use x, even if they have not conducted other crimes?
Click to expand...

Its not a logical argument to use "x" if its potential leads someone to kill, assault, and rob. No, its not logical, but the opposite is equally illogical.
 
#3,835
#3,835
tim said:
I know what you say, but please explain the value of a rule with none to enforce same? Nevermind, I do not want to go through the whole Eric Garner example/discussion again.
Click to expand...

Rules will be enforced, they just won't be the myriad of arbitrary edicts that are on the books now. To sum it up, NO MORE VICTIMLESS CRIMES.

Please explain to me why someone deserves to have their entire life ruined because they have a plant in their pocket. They've hurt no one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,836
#3,836
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Rules will be enforced, they just won't be the myriad of arbitrary edicts that are on the books now. To sum it up, NO MORE VICTIMLESS CRIMES.

Please explain to me why someone deserves to have their entire life ruined because they have a plant in their pocket. They've hurt no one.
Click to expand...

The name of the organic substance does not concern me as much as the destruction it causes. You may be unaware of my stance on mj, but it probably aligns with yours. Our differences mostly (probably) exist with harsher drugs, which are (mostly) organic.
 
#3,837
#3,837
tim said:
Then why ask the impossible? How is one, without previous knowledge, to discern the two? Only until they have committed grievous offense, that we agree, does one begin to identify. The abuser casts light on the user and causes them to be identified as the same in circumstances which bring them into the presence of LE.
Click to expand...

So, instead, we arrest and incarcerate without knowing the consequences. Glorious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,838
#3,838
tim said:
The name of the organic substance does not concern me as much as the destruction it causes. You may be unaware of my stance on mj, but it probably aligns with yours. Our differences mostly (probably) exist with harsher drugs, which are (mostly) organic.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter, I assume you still have no problem banging down doors and seizing property.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,839
#3,839
tim said:
The name of the organic substance does not concern me as much as the destruction it causes. You may be unaware of my stance on mj, but it probably aligns with yours. Our differences mostly (probably) exist with harsher drugs, which are (mostly) organic.
Click to expand...

Why pick and choose? Why shouldn't all drugs be legal? Where does personal responsibility come in here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,840
#3,840
tim said:
Its not a logical argument to use "x" if its potential leads someone to kill, assault, and rob. No, its not logical, but the opposite is equally illogical.
Click to expand...

I don't understand any of this. Can you rephrase? If not, I'll assume you also don't understand what you wrote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,841
#3,841
tim said:
The name of the organic substance does not concern me as much as the destruction it causes. You may be unaware of my stance on mj, but it probably aligns with yours. Our differences mostly (probably) exist with harsher drugs, which are (mostly) organic.
Click to expand...

Drugs don't cause the destruction. Persons do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,844
#3,844
therealUT said:
I don't understand any of this. Can you rephrase? If not, I'll assume you also don't understand what you wrote.
Click to expand...

Nothing about using drugs includes logic. Why, knowing its potential to cause an individual to kill, rob, etc would someone partake in the first place?
 
#3,845
#3,845
tim said:
Nothing about using drugs includes logic. Why, knowing its potential to cause an individual to kill, rob, etc would someone partake in the first place?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be those actions, kill, rob, etc. be the ones to prosecute and not the substance itself? Isn't this the leftist tactic of blaming the substance, much like gun control?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#3,846
#3,846
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Why pick and choose? Why shouldn't all drugs be legal? Where does personal responsibility come in here?
Click to expand...

Hard to tell. I'd say that not all humans have the will to injure their neighbor. But, until there is a better option I prefer to live where rules exist.
 
#3,847
#3,847
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Wouldn't it be those actions, kill, rob, etc. be the ones to prosecute and not the substance itself? Isn't this the leftist tactic of blaming the substance, much like gun control?
Click to expand...

The argument is there for the comparison. However, our constitution does not mention drugs.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top