Featured "Libertarians were the voice of reason" ???

I don't follow what is going on in Nashville. But we cant really say that LEAP is a totally objective group now can we? You say the DEA has an agenda? So does LEAP.

I certainly don't think every cop in the US is on the up and up. I'm fairly well informed. But my opinion is that the war on drugs needs to be fought. Yes, some methods might need to be changed, but giving up is not an option.

 

I was in Nashville last April for the National Convention of the Constitutional Party. I went away totally disillusioned.

 

Show me a totally objective group Dennis. Is there such a thing? I doubt it. Who would know more about the drug war than those that have been on the front lines as long as these guys have been?

Agenda? What is LEAP's agenda? You say they have one so what is it? It sounds to me like they have a common sense approach to a problem they have been very intimate with. I thought you were in favor of common sense? Or is it only common sense when it's done your way? The people who tried to force their morals on others during the prohibition of alcohol learned that it only caused a violent interstate crime wave and rampant government corruption. Same thing is happening with the prohibition of drugs. But now after forty years it's become institutionalized. Imagine that.

Who said anything about giving up? I didn't. LEAP isn't saying that.

What I'm saying is we've been fighting this war on drugs for forty years now and we still have a drug problem and it's gotten worse not better. It's easier for a kid to get a bag of heroin than it is to get a beer or a pack of cigarettes.

Is that what you want? That's not what I want. But that's what we got. Why? Because when we prohibit something we lose control of it.

If the government isn't in control of drugs the drug dealers are. The government can put restrictions on legal drugs because it can control them. Not so with illegal drugs. You have to be 21 to purchase alcohol and tobacco what age do you have to be to purchase heroin? Or meth?

Am I saying it's right for people to use drugs? No. Not at all. But I am saying that if we think we can stop people from using them we're kidding ourselves. And as long as people still want to use them there is always going to be someone willing to supply them.

Legally or otherwise.

Might as well be legally at least that way we have some kind of control over them. That's just common sense.

Because of the convention or because of Nashville?

 

Don't come in here with that man. You said yourself that

. Now you want to act all offended about my comments on LEAP, when you questioned the DEA's motives yourself? There's an unkind word for that. But anyway, for the others who may be reading, LEAP stands for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. There's your agenda right in their name. Their definition is: international, educational organization comprising former and current police officers, government agents and other law enforcement agents who oppose the current war on drugs. Well gee, sounds like an agenda right there.

Really, why do I bother?

See I think that's a misrepresentation of the current situation. In the first place a glass of beer isn't very dangerous in most cases (unless maybe you are driving) and if not abused, can actually be healthy. A joint (meaning 1 tiny joint) can include decrease in short-term memory, impaired motor skills, and feelings of paranoia or anxiety.Its actually worse than a cigarette and (I'm not crazy about them either). Also a 35-year cohort study published August 2012 by the National Institute on Health found that the persistent, dependent use of marijuana before age 18 was associated with lasting harm to a person's intelligence, attention and memory, and were suggestive of neurological harm from cannabis. Quitting cannabis did not appear to reverse the loss. And you know that if kids can go to the store and get beer and cigarettes now, they'll certainly get pot.

Harder drugs can kill and often gets the user hooked after 1 hit. Now we have to spend a fortune on hospital fees and treatments for those who cant afford their own insurance. Not so with 1 glass of beer, or maybe 1 glass of wine. So that old argument about prohibition (this aint my first rodeo on this topic btw), just doesn't fly.

So your answer is to just legalize it??? That's about as smart as passing out guns to students at school to keep someone from going in and shooting up the place. Look, rehab clinics are already making a fortune from people who are desperately trying to get off drugs. Families are ripped apart and their bank accounts are often being sucked dry because they are trying to help their loved ones get off of meth or whatever. What sort of control would the govt have to do to make meth as safe as a glass of beer? Do you honestly think if the govt actually could weaken meth to where it was no worse than alcohol, that people wouldn't try to buy the 'real stuff' illegally? Are you kidding me? :laugh:

To the rest of you guys: See folks, this is the sort of illogical thinking of many leftist libertarians. They see this as a logical solution. Thankfully not all Libertarians think this way. Some are pretty cool. But the 'legalize it' crowd want to lean on the Constitution somehow to get their drugs try to use this logic and they think it makes sense somehow. This is Ron Paul thinking.

 

Gee whiz Dennis there's no need to get all smart alecky. We can disagree without being rude to each other.

http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/19/study-marijuana-not-linked-with-long-term-cognitive-impairment/

Oh and before I forget libertarians are further to the RIGHT than the typical "hardcore Christian conservative". The political spectrum runs from left to right with totalitarianism on the extreme left and anarchy on the extreme right. Hard to believe I have to explain this basic political theory to a "fairly well informed" person such as yourself. No offense meant. ; )

 

I have another question for you Dennis. Can you tell us why marijuana and cocaine are illegal?

Hint; it has nothing to do with the harmful effects of either drug.

Again I am not trying to offend you by asking. I just want to see if you know the answer. : )

 

I didn't realize I was offended Dennis. Thanks for pointing it out I appreciate it.

I never questioned their motives. I merely asked you where the incentive is for a government agency to put itself out of business? You never actually answered the question either.

Yes there is word for it and it's "strawman". Unkind? Not really but building them doesn't do much to lend credibility to your argument. No offense meant. Just sayin.

Well, gee whiz golly wow gosh it sure does doesn't it?

Bother to what, act all smart alecky? * See Bold Above.

I think this is leading to a strawman.

Yes that's what they found alright problem is their methodology was flawed from the start. See my link above for an explanation.

Not legally until they are 21 years old. If a 14 year old goes to the store and gets alcohol or cigarettes the store and the clerk who sold them can be held responsible.

That's the control I talked about giving up when drugs are illegal.

While it's true harder drugs can kill the idea that 1 hit can get someone hooked is patently false. You've never done drugs have you Dennis? Well I have. And I was an addict at one point in time so I am "fairly well informed" about drugs and drug use. If it weren't for my addiction I might have never come to know the Lord Jesus Christ.

And please don't try to turn what I've just said into an endorsement of drug use to find the Lord.

Not to mention having to treat all those who get caught in the middle of all the gang violence that inevitably follows prohibition.

Not sure how one follows the other Dennis but evidently you're the expert so you must know what you're talking about. Even if I don't.

No but you can try to make it sound that way if you like.

That sounds like the logic Chuck Schumer or Sarah Brady would use. I thought you claimed to be a "hardcore Christian conservative". No offense meant but it kind of surprised me to hear you use such a liberal argument.

You mean the drug war is failing these people? I agree. If the war on drugs was working we wouldn't be seeing as much suffering. That was kind of the point of the whole thing wasn't it?

As with a glass of beer the government can make it more difficult for minors to get their hands on it. What did the government do to make whiskey safer water it down? No it put it's manufacture into the hands of legal distilleries that could be regulated and with modern equipment that took the harmful impurities out that the crude home made bootleg stills left in.

Red Herring.

Nope. Here the definition.

Red Herring: something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.

Dennis is right you guys. It makes more sense to let the drug lords and dealers control such a huge market rather than the government. It's just common sense that an unregulated un-taxed illicit drug trade estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year is the only way to go. Right Dennis?

With the system we have now the government is only able to use force and incarcerate low level dealers and users (yes I realize there are a few "big busts" here and there but that's the exception not the rule and the beat goes on even when a few of the "top dogs" are taken down) for a system that profits from drug use and abuse on many levels including but not limited to, increased funding for government agencies, corruption (as in bribes, extortion and kick backs), money laundering (by big banks), increased gang violence, (hospital bills, long term care for the disabled casualties, larger more militarized police forces to combat the increase in gang activities) confiscation of money and property legally or illegally (as is the case in Nashville that Dennis chose to ignore), the reductions in our civil liberties that makes all of us more prone to unwarranted government intrusions, the increased costs of bigger government, and it contributes to the single largest prison population the world has ever seen where an estimated 60% of inmates are imprisoned on non violent drug charges. There's money to be made in the prison industry, so much so that private prisons are popping up everywhere (on the condition that local authorities promise a 90 - 98% capacity before the private prison companies will even commit to start construction) just to keep up with the ever growing incarceration rate. The private prisons even have lobbyists in Washington lobbying for longer prison sentences for non violent offenders. The longer they are incarcerated the more money they make and now with the legalization of using inmate as a labor force we are forced to compete for jobs with inmates that get paid 15 dollars a month.

That's you're money and my money. To the tune of 80 to 100 billion dollars a year not counting the costs of keeping non violent drug offenders incarcerated, competing against a cheap captive labor force not to mention the problems the "war on drugs" creates with our relationships with other countries that are taking a huge amount of casualties and over taxing their people and economies fighting in our "drug war".

Yes indeed I am guilty of "Ron Paul thinking" on this subject but it's more akin to good old fashioned common sense conservatism than libertarianism. Meaning this type of thinking is based more on the actual facts, evidence and numbers than sensationalism and scaremongering we get from "mainstream" conservatives, under informed pastors and their well intentioned followers and of course all the assorted alphabet government agencies and private corporations that have a vested interest in continuing a failed but extremely lucrative policy for as long as possible to extract maximum long term profits at not only our personal expect but also that of our society.

I rest my case. :wavey:

 

You know what? I believe you.

You made a post, then made another post 3 hours later addressing my last, then made yet ANOTHER post about 8 hours later. This is really getting to you huh? Lord forbid anyone criticize Ron Paul or Libertarians around you huh? You'll just keep ignoring their positions, implying they make no sense, (Staw horse, etc) and keep talking and talking till they move on eh? The declare victory. Yay. One thing about it, you have proven that you are a true die hard Libertarian and a Ron Paul devotee. Probably why he cant get nominated for POTUS.

The others are right. I received no less that 5 pms from people telling that there is no use in arguing with you. And now I agree with them...there's something wrong with you. (Their words). You wont see reason and when someone tries to move on, you make condescending comments about how you somehow beat their neocon pov. *Sigh*

I think in this case my best option is to take Mat 10:14) to heart.

Adios.

 

What an articulate and well reasoned rebuttal Dennis! :applause:

I presented my case (complete with links to a load of information to back up my assertions) and you come back with . . .

Poncho,

You you you you you you you you you you you you and YOU!

Well done! I'm like totally in awe of your debating skills now.

I'd like to thank you for your time and showing me the error of my ways Dennis. You see I was always under the impression that the key to winning debates was information, information, information.

But you have shown me that all one needs to do to win a debate these days is to slap a label on your opponent and call his character into question! It was as if I was watching the last presidential debates all over again!

You have the makings of a fine republican politician! Have you ever considered running for office? The democrat party needs more good people like you . . . in the republican party. So long and thanks again for the lesson it was very informative. And good luck to you and your five person support base in 2014 and 2016. :thumbsup:

 

The Ponch thinks you and Dennis prove what I've been saying all along. You guys are afraid to look at ond address all the evidence. If it doesn't line up with your preconcieved notions and personal bias then it doesn't matter. You think drugs should be illegal. Because they cause harm to people and society okay. I get that what I don't get is how you can claim to care so much about other people's suffering but refuse to even consider the idea that the prohibition of drugs has caused more harm and suffering than the drugs themselves even though we have a complete historical record of prohibition causing more harm to both people and society than the drug (alcohol) itself.

Oh now we can't compare alcohol to meth because meth causes more harm to people and their families. Tell that to the offspring of alcoholic parents.

You say I won't listen to reason and try to make it look like you all are the ones being reasonable when you won't even look at all the evidence and call those do "nuts" or "crazy" or your specialty Salty, "un-Christian" for not wanting to live in a make believe world that denies every shred of evidence that threatens it. Thankfully people like you and Dennis are now in the minority when it comes to the mainstream consesus. People are waking up and refuse to live in denial anymore. We see where the real harm is taking place any why. You are no longer the "voices of reason" and you're fear based arguments and false concern for other's suffering has been well documented and is being soundly rejected by the masses. It makes no difference how many of you band together here to protect your false paradigm because every where else it's being shattered to pieces by the real voices of reason. You guys are just a small remnant of our past and your skewed biased opinions are irrelevent in the public domain of thought. You'd do well to join us in seeking the truth and discussing real solutions rather than huddling together pretending your fantasy world of denial isn't crumbling around you.

 

Eh, you cant reason with some people. You provide a fair rebuttal and they call it a red herring because they cant defend their own position. At some point you simply have to give up.

I've found the same to be true when witnessing to athiests. You can put the info out there for them to see, but at some point, you might have to just walk away and leave it to God.

 

I've noticed that the people who claim to be the "voices of reason" the loudest are more often than not the same ones who end up trying desperately to transfer their own attitudes and actions onto their opponents in order to make them look like the one being "unreasonable".

You ignored the information I posted and supplied one, maybe two pieces of information without links of course to back up your own position and I showed one to be from a flawed study. The other had to do with reduced use of marijuana. Again based on one study, maybe. I can't know for sure because you failed to provide a link.

All you did was show us that your position is based on your own personal preferences, assumptions and biases.

You refused to address the information I provided then tried to make it look as if I were acting like you.

That isn't logical reasoning. I don't know what it is but I know it isn't logical reasoning.

This is logical reasoning . . .

Anything logical must line up with what is correct and can be proven to be so. Reasoning is coming to a conclusion based on what is true. So, logical reasoning would be looking at all of the facts and lining up those facts in such a way that you come to a documented conclusion.

You have not even attempted to use logical reasoning so far Dennis. Jumping up and down yelling "I'm right you're wrong" over and over isn't a very convincing argument imho. Maybe it is to your vast five person support group but I don't see how.

If you actually used logical reasoning (such as providing us with documented evidence the "war on drugs" is succeeding) instead of throwing invectives around to defend your stated position I might be more persuaded to take you serious.

 

The Convention...........

 

I was a county rep for the constitution party for awhile. I left it for the same reason.

 

Because it was incredibly biased and ridiculous. LEAP? You use LEAP to justify your position. A group who's stated goal is to legalize drugs??? That's your justification?

That's like using Planned Parenthood to justify abortion on demand. Man, if you are gonna throw your weight around in here and try to browbeat anyone who disagrees with you, you gotta do much much better that that.

So I just give up. Your position is dangerous for Americans, for children, and incredibly short-sighted. There is nothing Conservative about your positions. And I suspect those drugs you said you used back when, have damaged your thinking.

 

You'd do well to give up when your whole argument consists of jumping up and down yelling "I'm right you're wrong" then tossing in a few invectives for effect. You don't even realize you just proved what I said in post #133 to be true, do you?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2010966&postcount=133

Note: See my first, third and fifth sentences in post #133.

 

No offense Dennis but you could definately use some practice improving on your logical reasoning skills so I am including a link with some elementary excercises in problem solving using logical reasoning that you (and others) may find useful in future debates.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J002327F/logic.htm

Thanks again for your time and effort and better luck next time. No hard feelings eh? ; )