# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  I'm tired of pro-cannabis legalization arguments that are prefaced with stuff like

## HigherVision

"I don't use drugs or support drug use but if you want to use dope and smoke yourself to death that's your business! It's not my mind that's being destroyed!" Come the $#@! on. Get off your damn high horse (or unhigh horse as it were). How about just "It's your body, do what you want with it." Period. That's all you have to say.

Stuff like this annoys me:




Ironically she actually looks kind of glassy eyed as she says it.

----------


## Origanalist

Truth is I don't like the stuff. That said a pretty substantial amount of the people around me are regular users, so I don't use that line.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

Make the argument that will best appeal to your target group. Lots of people who think that marijuana is the devil might support ending the drug war because of its gross unconstitutionality for instance. The 'it's my body, I'll do what I want' argument might turn them off




> Truth is I don't like the stuff.


Truth is I do, very much so in fact. I highly recommend it. If you've had bad experiences, you probably haven't smoked enough.

----------


## TaftFan

> Truth is I don't like the stuff. That said a pretty substantial amount of the people around me are regular users, so I don't use that line.


I have no problem saying people are idiots for smoking, eating their way to death, or whatever. I don't go after people specifically but in general I often condemn certain practices.

I understand eating extra because of medical issues, or trying to drink away sadness. I have no sympathy for people who damage their bodies to pleasure themselves.

Now, cue some naturalnews.com article about pot benefits.

----------


## Origanalist

> Make the argument that will best appeal to your target group. Lots of people who think that marijuana is the devil might support ending the drug war because of its gross unconstitutionality for instance. The 'it's my body, I'll do what I want' argument might turn them off
> 
> 
> 
> Truth is I do, very much so in fact. I highly recommend it. If you've had bad experiences, you probably haven't smoked enough.


I think I've given it a fair shake.

----------


## Warlord

Warlord has been known to put something a little stronger in his shisha pipe from time to time but not a big fan of it. However he's surprised at how popular the bud is. You can probably make a nice side line supplying your friends and colleagues.   The profit margins are insane.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

//

----------


## TheGrinch

So would you rather that get off their high horse and not convince the people who need convincing, or stay on their high horse and appeal to them?

Why do you care what non pot smokers think of you, so long as they respect your right to do so. Youre not going to change their mind by telling them something is okay that they dont think is okay. ese arguments are meant to appeal to the biased audience, not you or me who are already convinced.

----------


## compromise

I agree to some extent with Borowski, but I'm not totally in favor of marijuana legalization (I agree mostly with Rand's stance on this issue). The whole libertine Adam Kokesh (and to a lesser extent Alex Jones) view that "drugs are good, they wake you up to the reality of the government conspiracy" comes off as pretty dumb.

----------


## tod evans

> but I'm not totally in favor of marijuana legalization


Going out on a limb here and assume that you have never tried using marijuana before choosing to condemn those who do?

----------


## Debbie Downer

I don't support or condone drug use, but if you want to do it and act in a non-violent manner I have no right to tell you not to.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't support or condone drug use, but if you want to do it and act in a non-violent manner I have no right to tell you not to.


The big question is how do you vote on the issue?

----------


## Debbie Downer

> The big question is how do you vote on the issue?


Obviously in favor of death penalty for pot smokers.

----------


## tod evans

> Obviously in favor of death penalty for pot smokers.


 _Get a rope!_

----------


## Debbie Downer

> _Get a rope!_


I got excess rope for all those $#@!ing potheads.

----------


## tod evans

> I got excess rope for all those $#@!ing potheads.


Give me a nation ruled by potheads over one ruled by warmongers any day!

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Give me a nation ruled by potheads over one ruled by warmongers any day!


I meant hemp rope to make necklaces and bracelets.

----------


## tod evans

> I meant hemp rope to make necklaces and bracelets.


Sandals and hammocks too...

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Sandals and hammocks too...


No sandals. I'm no $#@!ing hippie. And hammocks? Get a $#@!ing job instead of sleeping in trees.

----------


## tod evans

> No sandals. I'm no $#@!ing hippie.


Then shave your pits bitch..

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Then shave your pits bitch..


I wax them.

----------


## tod evans

> I wax them.


Oooo, baby.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Oooo, baby.


My armpits aren't all I wax

----------


## tod evans

I'm gonna shaddup before I'm placed under administrative review..

----------


## Debbie Downer

> I'm gonna shaddup before I'm placed under administrative review..


Well if you ever get banned you can always use the "unban" button. I believe it's labelled as "register"

----------


## Warlord

> I don't support or condone drug use, but if you want to do it and act in a non-violent manner I have no right to tell you not to.


We use violence to enforce drug rackets.  However with profits we pay for education, public service's, doctors, clothing, food and numerous other things.  

So what would you have us do ?

----------


## compromise

> Going out on a limb here and assume that you have never tried using marijuana before choosing to condemn those who do?


I did, once in high school, but didn't like it much. I'm not necessarily "condemning" pot users, I'm more condemning the libertines who encourage more people to smoke pot.

----------


## liberty2897

> Stuff like this annoys me:
> ..Ironically she actually looks kind of glassy eyed as she says it.


Yeah,  that is an annoying video with lots of annoying words.  Probably wouldn't hurt her at all to smoke a nice big bowl and take the time to enjoy life for a couple hours.

In the end, she votes correctly on the issue.  She also encourages others (presumably also naive regarding marijuana) to do so.  ..so good for her.  good for all of us.

----------


## tod evans

> but I'm not totally in favor of marijuana legalization





> I did, once in high school, but didn't like it much. I'm not necessarily "condemning" pot users, I'm more condemning the libertines who encourage more people to smoke pot.


By not being "totally in favor of marijuana legalization" you are, in effect, continuing to condemn pot users to criminal sanctions.

----------


## compromise

> By not being "totally in favor of marijuana legalization" you are, in effect, continuing to condemn pot users to criminal sanctions.


I agree with Rand's position of reducing mandatory minimum sentences and at some point decriminalizing on a federal level. I also agree with a state's right to legalize marijuana.

----------


## tod evans

Criminal sanctions are much more complex than just prison.

----------


## pcosmar

> Criminal sanctions are much more complex than just prison.


Ain't that the truth.

----------


## pcosmar

> My armpits aren't all I wax


Your back? or your chest?

----------


## donnay

> I agree to some extent with Borowski, but I'm not totally in favor of marijuana legalization (I agree mostly with Rand's stance on this issue). The whole libertine Adam Kokesh (and to a lesser extent Alex Jones) view that "drugs are good, they wake you up to the reality of the government conspiracy" comes off as pretty dumb.


You are seriously being disingenuous.  Alex Jones doesn't saying anything of the sort.





The war on drugs is all about CONTROL--nothing more.

----------


## compromise

> You are seriously being disingenuous.  Alex Jones doesn't saying anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The war on drugs is all about CONTROL--nothing more.


He did say something of that sort. He was talking about weed and how it really makes you think and wakes you up in an interview (I think it was the one with Immortal Technique).

----------


## jkr

here is my argument:

dat $#@! kills cancer, yo.

guBBamintz a bunch o fuGGin LIARS!


_the best PAID liars on the planet_

----------


## osan

> "I don't use drugs or support drug use but if you want to use dope and smoke yourself to death that's your business! It's not my mind that's being destroyed!" Come the $#@! on. Get off your damn high horse (or unhigh horse as it were). How about just "It's your body, do what you want with it." Period. That's all you have to say.


Perhaps they are tired of people telling them how they should express their opinions.

Live.

Let live.

----------


## osan

> Truth is I do, very much so in fact.


Good for you.




> I highly recommend it.


Good for you.




> If you've had bad experiences, you probably haven't smoked enough.


What the hell kind of ignorance is this?  If you believe this then you have no idea what you are talking about and I bring this to you in this way precisely because you speak as if with authority, the statement sounds suspiciously like advice, and that could get someone hurt.  For example, I had an acquaintance in college who took one miserable hit off a joint at a party when he was 16.  It was a regular joint - no lacing, no nothing - and he spent a full year in a mental hospital having his personality put back together.  Turned out he had a very rare allergy to marijuana.

In your specific ignorance, saying he _probably_ had not smoked enough is the sort of opinion that, were it to prevail, would likely destroy someone's life or at least take a goodly chunk out of it.

You like dope.  Good.  Smoke it until you're satisfied.  I have no problem with it at all, but before you open your yap in an attempt to convince people who have had bad experiences that they should perhaps keep smoking until they have good ones, which is a loose implication of your statement, methinks you should consider the remote possibility that you are as wrong and such advice could cause harm.  

Drug use is very personal in a way similar to that of sex practice.  I find it to be generally ill-considered to advise people against what I might call their more reflexive instincts on such matters.  If Janey Doe wants to lie there going, "eek eek eek are you done yet eek eek eek" during coitus it is none of my business.  Similarly, it is none of anybody's how people judge their own drug experiences such as they may have been.  Seriously - on such matters one is well advised to keep his tongue behind his teeth.

----------


## Root

There is absolutely no moral reason to lock men and women in cages for having some dried flowers in their possession.  I am appalled that I live in such a society.

----------


## osan

> Obviously in favor of death penalty for pot smokers.


Thread sarcasm award winner.




> _Get a rope!_


Thread "I missed the sarcasm" award winner.

----------


## osan

> I wax them.


Fukkin' hard core

----------


## osan

> I agree with Rand's position of reducing mandatory minimum sentences and at some point decriminalizing on a federal level. I also agree with a state's right to legalize marijuana.


There should be NO sentencing.  Period.  He is wrong.

Dope should be legal.  Even meth.  But if it is and you use and you endanger me, be prepared for my response which may see you drilled a deep fathom down.

Complete decriminalization of drugs would be attended with a period of "adjustment".  I would contend that decriminalizing all drugs without respecting full human freedom would be a potentially hairy cluster copulation.  If we decriminalize, those who choose certain paths must be prepared for the potential consequences and must in no way be protected from their irresponsible actions by a mob calling itself "government".

Nonetheless, this period of adjustment would likely see a disturbing, perhaps even terrifying for some, rise in really bad things happening, especially if our right to defend against such things remained thwarted by the "justice" system.  Even so, I am sure a goodly number of these sorts would find themselves on the wrong ends of firearms and the media would go apey over it.  But assuming we got through the epoch without going all nervous nellie, turning tail and scurrying back into the shadows of prohibition and the bull$#@! illusion of safety and order that it provides for some, I do believe a new order would arise; an order closer to freedom than what we now experience.  People would alter their behaviors out of their senses of self-preservation.  Sure, there would always be those who act insanely.  Natural selection, so to speak, would take goodly care of that and in time I do believe we would witness a return to reasonable sanity in the behaviors of the average man such that the Gaussian would tighten right up and stand tall and skinny in these regards.

When nobody is out there to save you from your own stupidity, if you live long enough to witness your friends and neighbors die off as the result of their bad choices, chances are fair to middling that you will wise up and choose different modes of behavior.  "Lessee... duuuuuuuhhhhh... stay home, smoke meth, remain inside and stay alive one the one hand... smoke meth, go outside, act unwisely and get shot dead on the other... duuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh..."  All but the most intransigently stupid among us are able and willing to make the correct choice under such scenarios.

----------


## tod evans

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.


Somebody cover me please..

----------


## green73

> I'm not totally in favor of marijuana legalization


What a surprise, you're a $#@!ing authoritarian.

----------


## Root

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.
> 
> 
> Somebody cover me please..


Done.

----------


## Origanalist

> Thread sarcasm award winner.
> 
> 
> 
> Thread "I missed the sarcasm" award winner.


I think he caught on a post or two later.

----------


## tod evans

> I think he caught on a post or two later.


I was chuckling into my coffee through the entire exchange..

----------


## Origanalist

> There should be NO sentencing.  Period.  He is wrong.
> 
> Dope should be legal.  Even meth.  But if it is and you use and you endanger me, be prepared for my response which may see you drilled a deep fathom down.
> 
> Complete decriminalization of drugs would be attended with a period of "adjustment".  I would contend that decriminalizing all drugs without respecting full human freedom would be a potentially hairy cluster copulation.  If we decriminalize, those who choose certain paths must be prepared for the potential consequences and must in no way be protected from their irresponsible actions by a mob calling itself "government".
> 
> Nonetheless, this period of adjustment would likely see a disturbing, perhaps even terrifying for some, rise in really bad things happening, especially if our right to defend against such things remained thwarted by the "justice" system.  Even so, I am sure a goodly number of these sorts would find themselves on the wrong ends of firearms and the media would go apey over it.  But assuming we got through the epoch without going all nervous nellie, turning tail and scurrying back into the shadows of prohibition and the bull$#@! illusion of safety and order that it provides for some, I do believe a new order would arise; an order closer to freedom than what we now experience.  People would alter their behaviors out of their senses of self-preservation.  Sure, there would always be those who act insanely.  Natural selection, so to speak, would take goodly care of that and in time I do believe we would witness a return to reasonable sanity in the behaviors of the average man such that the Gaussian would tighten right up and stand tall and skinny in these regards.
> 
> When nobody is out there to save you from your own stupidity, if you live long enough to witness your friends and neighbors die off as the result of their bad choices, chances are fair to middling that you will wise up and choose different modes of behavior.  "Lessee... duuuuuuuhhhhh... stay home, smoke meth, remain inside and stay alive one the one hand... smoke meth, go outside, act unwisely and get shot dead on the other... duuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh..."  All but the most intransigently stupid among us are able and willing to make the correct choice under such scenarios.


I like the natural selection process, I can remember not so long ago (to me) it was used more often than not.

----------


## Origanalist

> I was chuckling into my coffee through the entire exchange..


I haven't even made mine yet. Better get on that.

----------


## Origanalist

> Good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell kind of ignorance is this?  If you believe this then you have no idea what you are talking about and I bring this to you in this way precisely because you speak as if with authority, the statement sounds suspiciously like advice, and that could get someone hurt.  For example, I had an acquaintance in college who took one miserable hit off a joint at a party when he was 16.  It was a regular joint - no lacing, no nothing - and he spent a full year in a mental hospital having his personality put back together.  Turned out he had a very rare allergy to marijuana.
> ...


My stepson tries this line with me. I find it more than a little amusing that he would think that I just don't know I like it because I haven't smoked enough of it, since I came to that conclusion before he was born.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> I was chuckling into my coffee through the entire exchange..


You wake up way too early!

----------


## tod evans

> You wake up way too early!


I'm old, I go to bed early too...

Ain't nuthin' but cops-n-trouble out after dark anymore......

Besides the fish start biting 'bout an hour before dawn...

----------


## Debbie Downer

> I'm old, I go to bed early too...


Dinner at 5 o'clock?





> Ain't nuthin' but cops-n-trouble out after dark anymore......


And girls in short dresses

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm old, I go to bed early too...
> 
> Ain't nuthin' but cops-n-trouble out after dark anymore......
> 
> Besides the fish start biting 'bout an hour before dawn...


so do the mosquitoes.

----------


## tod evans

> Dinner at 5 o'clock?


Maybe 6





> And girls in short dresses


 I'll talk to the ol' lady 'bout that...

----------


## Root

> I haven't even made mine yet. Better get on that.


I skipped coffee and went right to beer

----------


## torchbearer

> I skipped coffee and went right to beer


breakfast of champions.

----------


## Root

> breakfast of champions.


I love breakfast beer.

Berries are good for you. Anti-oxidants or something.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> What the hell kind of ignorance is this? If you believe this then you have no idea what you are talking about and I bring this to you in this way precisely because you speak as if with authority, the statement sounds suspiciously like advice, and that could get someone hurt. For example, I had an acquaintance in college who took one miserable hit off a joint at a party when he was 16. It was a regular joint - no lacing, no nothing - and he spent a full year in a mental hospital having his personality put back together. Turned out he had a very rare allergy to marijuana.


I'll keep recommending marijuana regardless of whatever nonsense people like you come up with. There is a zero percent chance of harm related to smoking marijuana and your dumbass friend was probably nuts to begin with and chose to blame the 'devil weed' rather than take onus of being such a mentally defective loser. Now go take your drug war hysteria and shove it up your ass.

----------


## Origanalist

> I'll keep recommending marijuana regardless of whatever nonsense people like you come up with. There is a zero percent chance of harm related to smoking marijuana and your dumbass friend was probably nuts to begin with and chose to blame the 'devil weed' rather than take onus of being such a mentally defective loser. Now go take your drug war hysteria and shove it up your ass.


There isn't a zero percent chance of harm doing anything.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> There isn't a zero percent chance of harm doing anything.


The smoke inhalation is the only harm and that can be remedied easily by vaporizing.

----------


## Brett85

She made this argument because she was trying to convince conservatives to support drug legalization.  That can't be any more obvious.  She's not going to say, "drugs are good, everyone should use them."

----------


## Brett85

> I agree to some extent with Borowski, but I'm not totally in favor of marijuana legalization (I agree mostly with Rand's stance on this issue).


I'm not in favor of having any penalty at all for using or selling any drug, although I support strict penalties for driving under the influence of drugs.  But, my point of view probably wouldn't go over very well if I were to ever run for political office.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

Play to your audience regardless of how it characterizes pot smokers. 

Once it's legal, those so opposed to it will finally learn that many people they have immense respect for actually smoke up, vaporize, or indulge in cannabis edibles or topical oils for various reasons. 

Then their worldview will have to adapt.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> I'm not in favor of having any penalty at all for using or selling any drug, although I support strict penalties for driving under the influence of drugs.  But, my point of view probably wouldn't go over very well if I were to ever run for political office.


What about selling to children?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *The smoke inhalation is the only harm* and that can be remedied easily by vaporizing.


There have studies that show otherwise.

The risk of lung cancer goes down with smoking cannabis.

----------


## Brett85

> What about selling to children?


I think that should be illegal.  I was just referring to adults over the age of 21 buying and selling to other adults.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I think that should be illegal.  I was just referring to adults over the age of 21 buying and selling to other adults.


What makes 21 the magic number?

Can you not go to war until 21?
Can you not vote until you are 21?

I've always found that very telling. Your brain is mature enough to catch a stray bullet in Iraq, yet it is not mature enough to decide whether or not you want to drink that beer, for example.

Does that not seem like flawed logic?

----------


## tod evans

> I'm not in favor of having any penalty at all for using or selling any drug, although I support strict penalties for driving under the influence of drugs.  But, my point of view probably wouldn't go over very well if I were to ever run for political office.


You're almost there....

In order to be consistent you'll need to advocate criminal sanctions for driving under the influence of _all_ drugs not just ones taken illegally. Of course you must include the angry and the depressed, the sleep impaired, people suffering from COPD and many other maladies....

Or you could come around logically and accept that there are more than enough laws on the books without sanctioning people for "impairment"...

----------


## Brett85

> What makes 21 the magic number?
> 
> Can you not go to war until 21?
> Can you not vote until you are 21?
> 
> I've always found that very telling. Your brain is mature enough to catch a stray bullet in Iraq, yet it is not mature enough to decide whether or not you want to drink that beer, for example.
> 
> Does that not seem like flawed logic?


Well, either 18 or 21.  My point in answering her question is simply that I don't believe it should be legal for children to use drugs or to sell drugs to children.

----------


## tod evans

For TC to contemplate...

I'm pretty certain you're against people driving after consuming methamphetamine, right?

Big criminal sanctions and all, speed has been demonized by the government programmers for quite a while...




What about the thousands of people who consume prescription methamphetamine?  

In all fairness the sanctions must be equivalent...

----------


## Brett85

> You're almost there....
> 
> In order to be consistent you'll need to advocate criminal sanctions for driving under the influence of _all_ drugs not just ones taken illegally. Of course you must include the angry and the depressed, the sleep impaired, people suffering from COPD and many other maladies....
> 
> Or you could come around logically and accept that there are more than enough laws on the books without sanctioning people for "impairment"...


If people take a prescription drug that causes them to be impaired behind the wheel, they should take their pill at night before bed, rather than the morning.

----------


## Brett85

> For TC to contemplate...
> 
> I'm pretty certain you're against people driving after consuming methamphetamine, right?
> 
> Big criminal sanctions and all, speed has been demonized by the government programmers for quite a while...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not the same since the prescription methamphetamine is generally only a tiny amount.  Someone who's just using Meth for recreational use is likely to have taken a large amount of it.

----------


## osan

> I'll keep recommending marijuana regardless of whatever nonsense people like you come up with. There is a zero percent chance of harm related to smoking marijuana and your dumbass friend was probably nuts to begin with and chose to blame the 'devil weed' rather than take onus of being such a mentally defective loser. Now go take your drug war hysteria and shove it up your ass.


Self assassination in the credibility department is your right.  Want to make it personal?  That, too, is your right.  Tells me all I need to know.

Do as you want, but if one day a pissed off parent puts you on the wrong end of their .45 because you ran your mouth to their child and they did as you suggested, you will not be able to say you were not given a friendly, courteous, and respectful warning.

Have a very nice day.

----------


## tod evans

> If people take a prescription drug that causes them to be impaired behind the wheel, they should take their pill at night before bed, rather than the morning.





> It's not the same since the prescription methamphetamine is generally only a tiny amount.  Someone who's just using Meth for recreational use is likely to have taken a large amount of it.


You're living in a fantasy world, neither of these statements are representative of reality..

And neither addresses the logic flaws associated with penalizing one person but not another for the exact same behavior..

----------


## osan

> I support strict penalties for driving under the influence of drugs.


Why?  I have known people who functioned normally while stoned.  A college room mate was so accustomed to being high that he actually could not function well when he wasn't.  I once worked in a cabinet shop in Long Island City and I was the ONLY person who did not drink beer all day.  Nobody was drunk, but certainly buzzed.  One day one of the guys, a supremely skilled cabinet maker, decided to forgo drinking on the job.  He ran a veneer saw up the dead center of his right index finger.  The cut was so perfect the docs literally taped his finger together, splinted it and said "let it heal".  Six months of PT later, he was almost back to normal and he was taking his usual beer.

I like being sober.  It's my thing, but I do not mandate it for everyone.  I've done the shaman thing, learned what it had to teach me, and set it aside.  I will not stand here after that fact and shake my finger at others who wish to tread the same path.  And if you operate a car stoned and bring nobody to harm, then you have not committed a crime.  That being the case, you cannot be rightly called to account for having driven "under the influence".  It is a bull$#@! charge.  It is a crime against human rights.

Now, that said, I might accept being under the influence as an aggravating factor in the event that you drove stoned and injured or killed someone.  MIGHT.  It depends on a litany of factors.  Such circumstances are often not easy to judge.  The law as it stands is akin to "zero tolerance", which is Newspeak for zero accountability and zero requirement to think for oneself.  That, my friend, makes it pure shyte.

----------


## Brett85

> You're living in a fantasy world, neither of these statements are representative of reality..
> 
> And neither addresses the logic flaws associated with penalizing one person but not another for the exact same behavior..


It's not the exact same behavior.  One person is taking the drug for a medical reason when they basically have no other option.  The other one is simply taking it for fun, for recreational reasons.  If someone is taking it for recreational reasons they should be responsible enough to not be under the influence of a particular drug when they get behind the wheel of a car.

----------


## tod evans

> It's not the exact same behavior.  One person is taking the drug for a medical reason when they basically have no other option.  The other one is simply taking it for fun, for recreational reasons.  If someone is taking it for recreational reasons they should be responsible enough to not be under the influence of a particular drug when they get behind the wheel of a car.


Please evaluate your position and the statements you make, you might choose to amend them with some reflection...

----------


## Brett85

And that's not an issue that's ever going to be up for debate in American politics.  Even most people who call themselves libertarians realize that the government has a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of people out on the road.  The most that we'll likely get accomplished in my lifetime is to get marijuana legalized in most states, and even if that happens there won't be a single state crazy enough to actually allow people to drive under the influence of marijuana with no penalty.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> It's not the exact same behavior.  One person is taking the drug for a medical reason when they basically have no other option.  The other one is simply taking it for fun, for recreational reasons.  If someone is taking it for recreational reasons they should be responsible enough to not be under the influence of a particular drug when they get behind the wheel of a car.


But, is it supposed to be about whether its fun or not?

It's either safe, or it isn't right? 

How do you know a "legit" user isn't "abusing" his prescription?

----------


## Brett85

> Please evaluate your position and the statements you make, you might choose to amend them with some reflection...


No, my position is a mainstream libertarian position that people should have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies, but shouldn't have the right to threaten someone elses life and liberty by driving high, stoned, or drunk out on the road.

----------


## Brett85

> But, is it supposed to be about whether its fun or not?
> 
> It's either safe, or it isn't right? 
> 
> How do you know a "legit" user isn't "abusing" his prescription?


If they abuse their prescriptions and drive then they should get punished as well.  An actual prescription from a doctor for an amphetamine is a small enough amount that a driver of a vehicle wouldn't have a high enough amount in their bloodstream to get charged with driving under the influence.

----------


## tod evans

> And that's not an issue that's ever going to be up for debate in American politics.  Even most people who call themselves libertarians realize that the government has a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of people out on the road.  The most that we'll likely get accomplished in my lifetime is to get marijuana legalized in most states, and even if that happens there won't be a single state crazy enough to actually allow people to drive under the influence of marijuana with no penalty.


Every state permits driving under the influence of morphine,codeine, barbiturates,dexedrine,methamphetimine, SSRI's and tons of others right now!

This simple _FACT_ isn't being portrayed to the public by the indoctrination centers...

----------


## Brett85

> Every state permits driving under the influence of morphine,codeine, barbiturates,dexedrine,methamphetimine, SSRI's and tons of others right now!
> 
> This simple _FACT_ isn't being portrayed to the public by the indoctrination centers...


Provide evidence that doctors actually provide massive amounts of these drugs that cause people to be high out on the road.  Whenever I've taken a prescription drug like you're talking about, it's always been a small amount and never affected my driving in any way whatsoever.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It's not the same since the prescription methamphetamine is generally only a tiny amount.  Someone who's just using Meth for recreational use is likely to have taken a large amount of it.


You have no idea what you are talking about.

Not trying to be rude but this statement is ridiculous.

----------


## osan

> It's not the exact same behavior.  One person is taking the drug for a medical reason when they basically have no other option.  The other one is simply taking it for fun, for recreational reasons.  If someone is taking it for recreational reasons they should be responsible enough to not be under the influence of a particular drug when they get behind the wheel of a car.



HooBOY did you miss that boat.

First of all, people can react VERY differently to the same dosages of a given drug.  One guy will notice nothing and another is incapable of functioning.  "Medical reason" is no mitigation when someone takes a prescribed drug, becomes wildly inebriated, and kills someone whether because they drove or operated machinery or stumbled over their own two feet, pushing another over the railing on the bridge to their death on the interstate below.

The factors to be weighed when considering these sorts of situations are manifold, highly enmeshed, and not at all crystal clear.  The reason a person takes a drug is completely irrelevant, unless you can get them to admit that it was their explicit intention to get blasted and kill someone.  In that case, having been high at the time really makes no difference at all, given the presence of premeditation.  Therefore, no matter how you slice the pie you come up bupkis on this point insofar as your position is concerned.

That said, if I spied a person driving in a manifestly dangerous manner I might see it as justifiable to remove the keys from his possession until such time as he demonstrates and ability or a WILL to drive in a nominally safe manner.  In such cases I submit that the reason such a person drives dangerously is utterly irrelevant, again with the one exception where it can be demonstrated that he is doing so for the explicit purpose of harming others.  If someone kills or injures another, whether he was high begins to pale in significance to the fact that someone is hurt or dead.

The ONLY way a crime can be said to have been committed is if there is a victim.  No victim, no crime.  But pulling a dangerously drunk driver over and taking away his keys for 8 hours until he sobers up is not the same as charging him with a crime. I have no problem with this being done.  I have a BIG problem with charging such people criminally when they have harmed no person or property.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Well, either 18 or 21.  My point in answering her question is simply that I don't believe it should be legal for children to use drugs or to sell drugs to children.


Gotcha. Are you in favor of lowering the legal drinking age to 18?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If people take a prescription drug that causes them to be impaired behind the wheel, they should take their pill at night before bed, rather than the morning.


Pain doesn't abide by schedules.

----------


## green73

> No, my position is a mainstream libertarian position that people should have the right to put whatever they want into their own bodies, but shouldn't have the right to threaten someone elses life and liberty by driving high, stoned, or drunk out on the road.


Mainstream, like Cato? Who's the victim in this "crime"?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> And that's not an issue that's ever going to be up for debate in American politics.  Even most people who call themselves libertarians realize that the government has a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of people out on the road.  The most that we'll likely get accomplished in my lifetime is to get marijuana legalized in most states, and even if that happens there won't be a single state *crazy enough* to actually allow people to drive under the influence of marijuana with no penalty.


It isn't because of the fact that driving while smoking marijuana is dangerous, it is because of the lucrative profits they make impounding people's cars, sending them to jail, making them hire a lawyer, driving classes, and drug classes. It is a racket.

How do you not see this?

I drove high every day of the week for years. I was smoking at least a quarter ounce a day. Ten to twenty blunts daily. This while drinking and taking more xanax than a person should be able to consume. I'm telling you, I've avoided accidents that other drivers have almost caused. I've driven in complete white out conditions where you could not even see the road. I've matched speeds with the police off of a fifth of liquor. Because some $#@! who couldn't drive in the first place or has a low tolerance gets into a wreck ought not affect me. You would not believe how A LOT of people drive. (basically everyone I knew) My cooler was never empty. This was the daily for years.

You have a warped view of how things really are. They showed you too many accident scenes as a child or something. I wish I could take three-five bars, smoke a blunt to myself, drink a 12 pack and drive their course. And when I did so flawlessly they could label me superhuman and not try to $#@! with me simply because my eyes are red or because my car smells of marijuana.

----------


## tod evans

> Whenever I've taken a prescription drug like you're talking about, it's always been a small amount and _never affected my driving in any way whatsoever._


Oooookay. 

Ask any cop/judge/addiction counselor how often they've heard these words...

By your own admission you should wear the felon label you would ascribe to others...

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Oooookay. 
> 
> Ask any cop/judge/addiction counselor how often they've heard these words...
> 
> By your own admission you should wear the felon label you would ascribe to others...


License suspension, drug classes, driving school, reporting probation, breathalyzer to start the car, higher insurance, yellow plates, thousands in fines, court costs, lawyer fees, a few days in the county, community slavery service, ankle bracelet that detects drugs or alcohol, impounded car fees..

That seems like a fair punishment to me.

A crime as egregious as that? Hell, chain gang is where they ought put him.

ETA: And I almost forgot NA classes.

----------


## tod evans

> License suspension, drug classes, driving school, reporting probation, breathalyzer to start the car, higher insurance, yellow plates, thousands in fines, court costs, lawyer fees, a few days in the county, community slavery service, ankle bracelet that detects drugs or alcohol, impounded car fees..
> 
> That seems like a fair punishment to me.
> 
> A crime as egregious as that? Hell, chain gang is where they ought put him.
> 
> ETA: And I almost forgot NA classes.


Nah, I just hope he's got the ability and desire to modify his _state-sponsored_ stance.

----------


## Root

> And that's not an issue that's ever going to be up for debate in American politics.  Even most people who call themselves libertarians realize that the government has a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of people out on the road.  The most that we'll likely get accomplished in my lifetime is to get marijuana legalized in most states, and even if that happens there won't be a single state crazy enough to actually allow people to drive under the influence of marijuana with no penalty.


Moar gobernment!

The government couldn't give a $#@! about protecting you. Also, driving stoned is not the same as driving drunk or on prescribed drugs.

----------


## Root

> Provide evidence that doctors actually provide massive amounts of these drugs that cause people to be high out on the road.  Whenever I've taken a prescription drug like you're talking about, it's always been a small amount and never affected my driving in any way whatsoever.


Please provide evidence everybody takes medication EXACTLY as prescribed.

----------


## Brett85

> Gotcha. Are you in favor of lowering the legal drinking age to 18?


Yeah, I don't have a problem with that.

----------


## Brett85

> The ONLY way a crime can be said to have been committed is if there is a victim.  No victim, no crime.


I don't agree with you that it's a victimless crime.  When someone is inebriated behind the wheel they threaten the lives of others who are driving.

----------


## Brett85

> You have a warped view of how things really are. They showed you too many accident scenes as a child or something.


You should get real if you think that I'm some kind of a radical statist for saying that there should be laws against driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.  I've already said that all drugs should be legal, which is a position that's more "radical" than 99% of the American people would take.  But, good luck trying to convince someone that any drug should be legalized and that people should then be allowed to drive after taking drugs.

----------


## bolil

How can any government claim the right to outlaw a voluntary, victimless, behavior?

The argument I hate most is legalize it for tax revenue...  that one burns my ass.

----------


## bolil

> I don't agree with you that it's a victimless crime.  When someone is inebriated behind the wheel they threaten the lives of others who are driving.


The same could be said of any person that drives a vehicle.  If that is your ace you must really want to lock up sleepy people (they might drive tired) and people with cell phones (they might text and drive).  Depressed people might have a suicidal episode behind the wheel, LOCK EM UP!  $#@! it, why not just lock up drivers in general for endangering their fellow drivers and pedestrians by piloting a several ton missile through the public.

----------


## Brett85

> The same could be said of any person that drives a vehicle.  If that is your ace you must really want to lock up sleepy people (they might drive tired) and people with cell phones (they might text and drive).  Depressed people might have a suicidal episode behind the wheel, LOCK EM UP!  $#@! it, why not just lock up drivers in general for endangering their fellow drivers and pedestrians by piloting a several ton missile through the public.


If someone is sleepy or using a cell phone and is swerving all over the road and endangering others on the road, they should get pulled over and go to jail for a night and have to pay a big fine.

----------


## bolil

> If someone is sleepy or using a cell phone and is swerving all over the road and endangering others on the road, they should get pulled over and go to jail for a night and have to pay a big fine.



Ohhh, but you miss the point.  Someone that IS tired MIGHT drive, so clearly tired people should be jailed to prevent their getting behind the wheel.  Someone that uses a phone MIGHT text and drive, so phone users should be jailed before they have a chance to endanger the public.

Being tired isn't victimless.  Their could be a victim ergo tired people belong in prison... you know, for the kids.

Unless, of course, the direct result should be the sole determinate in any criminal proceedings.

I will tell you I've driven tens of thousands of miles high, never once hit anyone or anything.  Reefer madness, indeed.

----------


## otherone

I'm not a marijuana user. 
Contraband does not exist in a Free Society.
When you give the State the power to criminalize something, you've given them the power to criminalize anything.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

What would be the point of legalizing marijuana if days after you smoked you could be thrown in jail for a DUI?

----------


## tod evans

> What would be the point of legalizing marijuana if days after you smoked you could be thrown in jail for a DUI?


People who smoke weed haven't earned the right to travel on the same roads as TC..........They might endanger him..

----------


## bolil

> What would be the point of legalizing marijuana if days after you smoked you could be thrown in jail for a DUI?


three syllables that burn my ass: re-ven-ue.

----------


## Brett85

> What would be the point of legalizing marijuana if days after you smoked you could be thrown in jail for a DUI?


I think they should try to fix that and make it to where someone has to have a high amount of marijuana in their system before they get charged with a DUI.  With our current system you can drink a beer or two and drive and not be over the legal limit.  They should make the same kind of policy with marijuana.

----------


## Brett85

> I will tell you I've driven tens of thousands of miles high, never once hit anyone or anything.


If that's the case then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.  You won't get pulled over unless you draw attention to yourself.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I think they should try to fix that and make it to where someone has to have a high amount of marijuana in their system before they get charged with a DUI.  With our current system you can drink a beer or two and drive and not be over the legal limit.  They should make the same kind of policy with marijuana.


It doesn't work like that.

THC metabolites stay in your system for a very long time. Even with the blood test you will be found to be under the influence up to 36 hours after you smoked. If they went by urine it could be weeks, even upwards of a month.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If that's the case then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.  You won't get pulled over unless you draw attention to yourself.


You are so naive TC.

Things such as a burnt out tail light or license plate light will get you pulled over. That is no fault of the driver. Not to mention they are stopping every car on the road in snare-all DUI checkpoints.

To help make your point, it is hard to tell if someone has been smoking marijuana. They will begin shining lights into the eyes of anyone they pull over considering a person who smoked marijuana is not going to slur their words or act differently than a driver who had not. Many people are going to be unjustly thrown in jail and put into the system. It is insane.

----------


## Origanalist

> If that's the case then you shouldn't have anything to worry about.  You won't get pulled over unless you draw attention to yourself.


Lol, it's the old "you shouldn't have anything to worry about" line.

----------


## osan

> I don't agree with you that it's a victimless crime.  When someone is inebriated behind the wheel they threaten the lives of others who are driving.


Demonstrably false in some cases.  Therefore, it is not the condition of "inebriation" per se that constitutes the threat.

Example: a man with a BAC of .078 is not legally drunk.  Is he a threat?  How does one magically become a threat between that value and 0.08?

And to be precise, I did not call it a "victimless crime".  I wrote that it is no crime at all and I stand by it.  If you cannot demonstrate the existence of a victim, you cannot demonstrate the commission of a crime.  Period.  If making someone "feel" threatened is a crime, then God help us all because we are then in far worse $#@! than you could imagine in a year of Sundays.  By that token, "Oooo... his rippling muscles make me uncomfortable" becomes a criminal charge as does, "his coke bottle glasses and nerdy looks".  By your implied standard, ANYTHING becomes a crime including breathing.

There is drunk driving that poses little to no threat.  There is that which poses substantial threat.  Treating them as the same is the method of the coward, the idiot, the lazy, and the corrupt.  When a drunk behind a wheel in fact poses a threat it is not unreasonable to prevent him from driving further until he sobers up.  But unless he has already damaged another's property or injured or killed them, no crime has been committed and therefore no criminal sanction is justified.

As much as I find cops disagreeable, if we insist on having them I would not be opposed to them holding the authority to pull apparently impaired drivers over, test them, and if found to be drunk to impound the vehicle if no other driver is available until such time that the driver in question sobers up.  No fines.  No charges.  No trials. No jail.  No loss of rights.  Just a BIG pain in the ass of having to get home without your car and then having to get it back.  That is the price one might pay for being too far gone to drive in reasonable safety.  It is sure as hell better than ten thousand dollar fines, lawyer's fees, possible jail time, and so on.  It gets the job done without violating one's rights.

Freedom has its prices and one of them is risk.  Freedom is fraught with risk.  If you don't like risk, go live in Communist China.  It takes balls to live freely - more than most people today can demonstrate, that is for triple-certain.

----------


## osan

> If someone is sleepy or using a cell phone and is swerving all over the road and endangering others on the road, they should get pulled over and go to jail for a night and have to pay a big fine.


Statists the world over applaud your position and your thinking.

Do you not see what is so catastrophically amiss here?

----------


## Brett85

Lol.  So I should go live in "Communist China" because I support drunk driving laws.  Ok.  Maybe Ron Paul and every other reasonable libertarian should move there as well.

----------


## Brett85

It's pretty hilarious that I'm basically being labeled as some "radical statist" who should move to China, when I've said that all drugs should be legal for people to use.  I would be the most radical libertarian in the entire U.S Congress if I were there.  But, this forum has some of the most radical people in all of U.S politics, which actually makes someone like me look moderate.

----------


## osan

> Well, either 18 or 21.  My point in answering her question is simply that I don't believe it should be legal for children to use drugs or to sell drugs to children.


That's your opinion.  You have failed to justify such a prohibition with reason and fact.  "Just because I think it is wrong" does not cut the mustard.

People are either free or they are something else.  I strongly suspect that any reason you could dream up to justify your support of state-applied force in such matters can be readily dismissed as arbitrary and without the least merit, all appeals to emotion notwithstanding.

Care to try?  I am not attempting to be confrontational in any malicious vein, but only to get you to examine your position with some care.  I believe that if you do so with honesty you will have no choice but to abandon your standpoint in favor of liberty.  You may not like what other people do, but so long as they are not committing crimes, and here I mean actual crimes and not phony baloney statutory crime mala prohibita, neither you nor anyone else holds any authority to interfere with their activities.

Either you believe in liberty or you do not.  Which is it?

----------


## Brett85

> Either you believe in liberty or you do not.  Which is it?


I believe in liberty, just not anarchy.  My guess from everything you've said is that you're an anarchist.  The ideology and philosophy you have isn't even remotely similar to the principles of orderly liberty that Ron Paul believes in and advocates.  If believing in "liberty" means that it should be legal for a parent to give Meth or Cocain to their three year old kid, you can count me out.

----------


## osan

> Lol.  So I should go live in "Communist China" because I support drunk driving laws.


You assassinate your credibility with nonsense such as this.  I was so very explicitly referring to one's aversion to the risks inherent in properly free living, which has NOTHING to do with drunk driving laws per se.  So either your comprehension skills require some remediation or your sincerity.  I leave it to you to determine which and whether to act.




> Ok.  Maybe Ron Paul and every other reasonable libertarian should move there as well.


If they cannot stand the heat of proper liberty, then yes, and that goes for anyone - myself included.

I wonder whether you understand the nature of actual freedom?  If you didn't it would be no sin as the confusion is deep and broad across the globe.  The sin lay in refusing to learn, see truth and accept it.  But being a true believer in liberty, I leave it to you to choose for yourself.  What you believe is really none of my business.

----------


## osan

> I believe in liberty, just not anarchy.


Please define and characterize "anarchy".  I am sorely tempted to bet money I do not have that while you may have a definition in hand, you do not begin to understand the character of anarchy.  Because of what you write and how I am tempted to deduce that you conflate anarchy with chaos, and that is simply not the case.  I have coined the term "autodiathesis" as a replacement for "anarchy" precisely because the latter term has become the object of such vast and blinding ignorance.

But please, tell me your take of what anarchy is and how it operates in the real world and I will be more than happy to let you know whether you are on or off mark.  If you want to discuss it I will be glad to give you a proper lesson in the operational reality of actual anarchic living.




> My guess from everything you've said is that you're an anarchist.


Actually no.  I am an autodiathist.  Autodiathesis = self-determination in accord with the Canon of Individual Sovereignty which, based on the Cardinal Postulate, gives rise to the fundamental principles of proper human relations.  These principles are readily derivable in about five minutes' time or less and I heartily recommend everyone derive them for themselves given ONLY the Cardinal Postulate as a starting point.  It is what I did for myself years ago and it has benefited me greatly.  You can read about it here: http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com...ee-living.html  It is not quite perfectly written but it is close enough.  Perhaps you could improve upon it.




> The ideology and philosophy you have isn't even remotely similar to the principles of orderly liberty that Ron Paul believes in and advocates.


This based on a "guess" about my standpoint?  You might wish to reconsider that. 

The biggest difference between my position and that of Ron Paul is that he believes the Constitution is a sound AND sufficient document to the purpose to which it has been set, that is sufficiently embodies the principles of liberty to which he and I both subscribe.  This is demonstrably incorrect in the context of a very long history of human political proclivity under conditions of empire and I have smartly demolished that sufficiency on multiple occasions in these forums.  Beyond that, I would say that Ron and I share strong commonalities.  We have echoed each other's positions in the particulars more times than I can recall.  He regularly repeats his belief, for example, that you are entitled to act in ways I do not like so long as you cause me no direct harm and that this is part of the definition of freedom: tolerance.




> If believing in "liberty" means that it should be legal for a parent to give Meth or Cocain to their three year old kid, you can count me out.


Show me ONE INSTANCE of where I wrote such a thing.  If we are prohibited from bringing harm to another I do believe that it would preclude parents from bringing obvious harm to their children just as they are from harming their neighbors and other fellows.  But what of the shamanistic cultures where drug use was part and parcel of daily life?  Are you so filled with hubris that you deem yourself the arbiter of what people shall believe and how they shall practice those beliefs?  Once again, either you believe in liberty or you believe in something else.  Living freely among your brethren can be VERY challenging at times because you are going to occasionally witness things you deem to be wrong.  Well, TOUGH $#@!.

My first year in college (76) I went home at Christmas and met up with some old friends.  One was going to cop some weed so I tagged along.  We went to this young couple's house in Farmingdale NJ.  By that time I'd given that $#@! up and after the sale was made a joint was rolled and passed around.  To my utter horror, the couple passed the joint to their 6 or 7 year old child, a boy.  I was so horrified by it I almost had to leave the house for the urge to cry.  I simply could not believe they would do that to their own child.  But I also knew it was none of my business and that I was unaware of the whole story, which may have been sordid or may have been otherwise.  To this day I remember that night and it still raises within me the same feelings, if now greatly muted with the years, but more than ever I know that it was not my place to interfere because there may have been no harm being committed.  My gut reaction was formed by all the "education" I'd received about the evils of marijuana and I was just barely smart enough to dope that much out for myself.  I was still uncomfortable as hell about it and still am, but that is on me - it is MY problem and I must be a man about it and deal with those feelings properly by not letting myself run away with them like some candy-assed progressive liberal who gets all weepy and blindly vicious at the same time.

Being a properly free man means keeping one's tongue when witnessing that which is merely objectionable regardless of degree.  That is a tough row to hoe and that is yet another reason why so many people are in no way interested in freedom, but rather in their pretty slavery.

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> Do as you want, but if one day a pissed off parent puts you on the wrong end of their .45 because you ran your mouth to their child and they did as you suggested, you will not be able to say you were not given a friendly, courteous, and respectful warning.
> 
> Have a very nice day.


More likely the parent will come and kiss my ass for introducing their son or daughter to a wonderful medicine that is God's gift to this Earth. But in your world where you actually believe that people take one hit of a doobie and then 'reefer madness' sets in, I guess such an absurd scenario seems plausible.

----------


## HigherVision

> I believe in liberty, just not anarchy.  My guess from everything you've said is that you're an anarchist.  The ideology and philosophy you have isn't even remotely similar to the principles of orderly liberty that Ron Paul believes in and advocates.  If believing in "liberty" means that it should be legal for a parent to give Meth or Cocain to their three year old kid, you can count me out.


That's not true, Ron does agree with anarchy as far as voluntarism/anarcho-capitalism. He's said so before. He's also spoken in support of limited government but I suspect that's more a pragmatic strategy on his part. As far as giving hard drugs to a 3 year old that would violate the non-aggression principle in my opinion so it's actually not consistent with anarchism. Libertarian anarchism doesn't mean an absence of rules but an absence on anyone having a monopoly over the enforcement of them.

And I would also argue that many of the drugs that are legally given to kids are almost as bad.

The point of my initial point was that if you don't consume cannabis I respect your right not to but there's no reason to talk about those that do like we're self-destructive moralless scumbags.

----------


## Origanalist

> More likely the parent will come and kiss my ass for introducing their son or daughter to a wonderful medicine that is God's gift to this Earth. But in your world where you actually believe that people take one hit of a doobie and then 'reefer madness' sets in, I guess such an absurd scenario seems plausible.


You get my vote for the Mark Twain quote internet award of the day.

----------


## HigherVision

> I'll keep recommending marijuana regardless of whatever nonsense people like you come up with. There is a zero percent chance of harm related to smoking marijuana and your dumbass friend was probably nuts to begin with and chose to blame the 'devil weed' rather than take onus of being such a mentally defective loser. Now go take your drug war hysteria and shove it up your ass.


I remember the first time I ever smoked sinsemilla I was really freaked out for the first few minutes. It was not cool, I was like Neo in the Matrix movie when he got unplugged from it and freaked the $#@! out. It really is something. And people I was with made fun of me a little but then I calmed down pretty quickly. That's why I think people should be careful their first time and only take maybe one inhale just to get used to it. If you smoke a whole bowl with someone you're going to get overwhelmed, it's something you have to build up to. But because it's illegal there are no user guides or any information out there really about doing it.

----------


## HigherVision

> I think they should try to fix that and make it to where someone has to have a high amount of marijuana in their system before they get charged with a DUI.  With our current system you can drink a beer or two and drive and not be over the legal limit.  They should make the same kind of policy with marijuana.


Well the sobriety test they give other than the breathalizer is walking a straight line one foot after the other. It's actually somewhat challenging when you're sober even so I think it's sufficient. But in a free market system private road owners would have their own policies and then there'd be penalties for violating those policies. It's hard to come up with a perfectly libertarian solution for DUIs since the roads are run by government. In fact just the fact that the roads are designed through central planning and not market forces is probably responsible for a lot more deaths than DUIs themselves.

----------


## Origanalist

> Well the sobriety test they give other than the breathalizer is walking a straight line one foot after the other. It's actually somewhat challenging when you're sober even so I think it's sufficient. But in a free market system private road owners would have their own policies and then there'd be penalties for violating those policies. It's hard to come up with a perfectly libertarian solution for DUIs since the roads are run by government. In fact just the fact that the roads are designed through central planning and not market forces is probably responsible for a lot more deaths than DUIs themselves.


Those stupid tests are worthless, I won't do them. I did one back in the eighties and aced it and the cop still made me blow a breathalyzer.

----------


## Brett85

> My first year in college (76) I went home at Christmas and met up with some old friends.  One was going to cop some weed so I tagged along.  We went to this young couple's house in Farmingdale NJ.  By that time I'd given that $#@! up and after the sale was made a joint was rolled and passed around.  To my utter horror, the couple passed the joint to their 6 or 7 year old child, a boy.  I was so horrified by it I almost had to leave the house for the urge to cry.  I simply could not believe they would do that to their own child.  But I also knew it was none of my business and that I was unaware of the whole story, which may have been sordid or may have been otherwise.  To this day I remember that night and it still raises within me the same feelings, if now greatly muted with the years, but more than ever I know that it was not my place to interfere because there may have been no harm being committed.  My gut reaction was formed by all the "education" I'd received about the evils of marijuana and I was just barely smart enough to dope that much out for myself.  I was still uncomfortable as hell about it and still am, but that is on me - it is MY problem and I must be a man about it and deal with those feelings properly by not letting myself run away with them like some candy-assed progressive liberal who gets all weepy and blindly vicious at the same time.


It is your business and the government's business if a parent gives a joint of marijuana to their six year old kid.  For goodness sake, children are not going to have the same level of freedom in a civilized society that adults have.  They haven't developed the maturity and mental capacity to make these kind of decisions for themselves.  This is what Ron said in an interview with John Stossel, that the law isn't going to apply to children in the same way that it applies to adults, because the levels of maturity and mental capacity are completely different.  Giving a joint to a six year old is an act of aggression against that child and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

----------


## Debbie Downer

> Giving a joint to a six year old is an act of aggression against that child and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.


I completely agree.

----------


## Czolgosz

The only problem w/ the cannabis talk is, there's too much of it.  

Hell, I hear it so often that I'm wondering if many of you don't want "freedumb" just for the ability to smoke weed.  Give it a rest.

No wonder "libertarians" are constantly associated w/ drugs.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I completely agree.


Depends the case.

There are children, the youngest I've seen being 7, who take marijuana medicinally usually in the form of edible chocolates. One child I've read about was going through chemotherapy because of leukemia. There is nothing wrong with that.

To give a young child marijuana recreationally is not something I'd agree with. That being said I started smoking marijuana at 13 and smoked everyday until I was around 19 with no adverse side effects at all. I received straight A's without trying or studying and learned many new hobbies stoned. Your "brain on drugs" commercials are propaganda which source the ridiculously biased and flawed study of Dr. Robert Heath, who himself was a racist that conducted many unethical experiments on "nig-gers" at the Louisiana State Prison and many other unethical experiments for the CIA. Experiments related to implanting brain electrodes and mind control. Some very sick $#@!. The prisoners were either mislead as to what the experiments were if told at all. Many were permanently injured and IIRC a few died. With regards to his study that showed brain damage from marijuana use, besides having an extremely low sample (6 or 7 monkeys total) they were asphyxiated in marijuana smoke. It was condemned in medical journals for its flaws and no study has reproduced the results. That doesn't stop NIDA from flaunting that bull$#@! every chance they get.

Smoking marijuana in and of itself is not harmful. There are studies that have shown that even the most harmful of its effects, the smoke, somehow _reduces_ the risk for lung cancer. Researchers were as baffled by this as I was when I read about it. Parents ought to be able to medicate their child as they see fit. No matter what their choice.

People who give children hard drugs - cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and many of the other drugs - prescribed should be prosecuted. Smoking cannabis in the home is the safest place for them to do it at. I knew many parents who smoked cannabis with their child. (they were about 14-16) Their thoughts on it were that they'd rather have their child smoking in the safety of their home than risking arrest or whatever smoking outside of their home. Not to mention you can ensure the quality. (make sure it is mold free and unlaced) If your child is going to find a way to do it anyways, which I know for certain they would, it would probably be a better idea to teach them to be responsible with it as well as ensure quality. Some of the 'weed' floating around is blacker than black with spider mite eggs and everything else in it. Either that or it has come in contact with other substances that make it highly addictive. This would probably end once the black market for it ended, though.

As to someone marketing hard drugs to children, turning them out for prostitution or whatever their reason, I would support very harsh punishments. But again if the black market was reduced people probably could afford the drug without prostituting themselves. Those participating in prostitution would be willingly participating instead of often times turned into addicts at a young age and abused by a pimp. I support parents having the right to medicate their child how they see fit and fully support the rights of adults to medicate themselves as they see fit. Cocaine elixirs should be brought back and opiates should be available without prescription. I wouldn't mind them being behind the counter as long as no database or limits were placed on who could buy them (adults) or how much you could buy. (as they try with Sudafed now)

The Prison Industrial Complex would be crippled, property crimes would be drastically down, and addicts could become more normalized in that they could work or hold a job instead of leeching off society. The prices of the drugs themselves would drop so the tragedy of what people will do for the drugs becomes less and less. Narcan being openly available as well. The society I envision would rely on the parents explaining to their children the uses and harmful consequences of these drugs. The violence here by the street gangs would be vastly reduced as well as the violence in other countries. (namely Colombia and Mexico) Aside from the fact that farmers in Colombia would finally be able to support their families without relying on petty US subsidies.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> The only problem w/ the cannabis talk is, there's too much of it.  
> 
> Hell, I hear it so often that I'm wondering if many of you don't want "freedumb" just for the ability to smoke weed.  Give it a rest.
> 
> No wonder "libertarians" are constantly associated w/ drugs.


I less refer to cannabis legalization and more to the war on drugs which is a very costly, out of control issue.

It is the reason why you have no Fourth Amendment. It is the reason for militarized police and the mentality that this is the battlefield. It causes suffering that many couldn't even imagine.

Indeed, the War on Drugs is one of the biggest issues facing this country today. Modern day slavery.. literally. Whether you are a slave for crack cocaine or are a literal slave making missile parts in a state prison. You are perpetuating a myth that all those against it simply wish to get high. I don't smoke cannabis, or any other drug for that matter, yet I see the intrusions further perpetrated because of the WOD. It needs to end.

----------


## dannno

> Giving a joint to a six year old is an act of aggression against that child and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.


A joint? Maybe. A cupcake with appropriate medicinal amounts? That has turned around the lives of many problem children who would have otherwise been put on amphetamines by the medical industrial complex.

----------


## dannno

> The only problem w/ the cannabis talk is, there's too much of it.  
> 
> Hell, I hear it so often that I'm wondering if many of you don't want "freedumb" just for the ability to smoke weed.  Give it a rest.
> 
> No wonder "libertarians" are constantly associated w/ drugs.


You should try learning about cannabinoids, they regulate countless bodily functions including inflammation. Inflammation is the cause of a hell of a lot of medical problems. People who are naturally low on cannabinoids benefit tremendously from consuming additional cannabinoids which help to regulate inflammation as well as other hormonal and bodily functions so it doesn't get out of control. The more cannabinoids you have in your system, the better you can control hunger, blood sugar, inflammation, almost everything related to health. In other words, cannabis actually makes us healthier people. There is an ancient connection between this plant and our bodies, there is literally no other plant that does anything like what cannabis does on this entire earth. There should be MORE talk about cannabis, not less. If you don't know why, then you need to do more research. If someone named Jesus or similar DID exist and he DID go around healing the sick and blind, whether he was the son of God or not, we know exactly what he did it with.

----------


## Czolgosz

Pros/cons, that's all good.  I dig and concur.

If you're trying to market to *them*, and they think you're all a bunch of drug lovers, and I can somewhat see why.

Strike at the root is all I'm sayin'.

----------


## Root

> Strike at the root is all I'm sayin'.


No need to strike out at me.  Just pass the joint/bowl/vape

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Pros/cons, that's all good.  I dig and concur.
> 
> If you're trying to market to *them*, and they think you're all a bunch of drug lovers, and I can somewhat see why.
> 
> Strike at the root is all I'm sayin'.


I think the issue should be the entire war on drugs, not just the persecution of cannabis smokers. Cannabis use and medicinal marijuana would cut down on the size and scope of the war on drugs therefore I support it.

The reason why people are against driving after smoking marijuana or are against marijuana in general is because they have never tried it.

At the end of the day the drug war ranks right up there with foreign policy and economic policy. It is the reason freedoms are eroding and we have a police force of incompetent wannabe soldiers. I understand how hard it is politically to explain to people the problem with the war on drugs with regards to legalizing heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and the drugs they manufacture legally. (though the CIA is involved in the heroin and cocaine trade, but that's neither here nor there) People have the urge to have their head up their neighbors ass so ingrained in them that not only do they wish to dictate what substances you use, but what you should eat, drink, etc. Our society has a whole has lost its way. The war on drugs is a big example of this.

Another reason I personally dislike Reagan though the policies were implemented long before his presidency and declaration of war. (on an inanimate object, no less)

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Post number 129 is also a response to you, TC with regards to your feeling on parents giving their children marijuana.

----------


## tod evans

> It is your business _and the government's business_ if a parent gives a joint of marijuana to their six year old kid.


This statement revolts me!

It, to me, is far more horrendous than a parent giving their kid weed.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

----------


## Czolgosz

> No need to strike out at me.  Just pass the joint/bowl/vape

----------


## Czolgosz

> I think the issue should be the entire war on drugs, not just the persecution of cannabis smokers. Cannabis use and medicinal marijuana would cut down on the size and scope of the war on drugs therefore I support it.
> 
> The reason why people are against driving after smoking marijuana or are against marijuana in general is because they have never tried it.
> 
> At the end of the day the drug war ranks right up there with foreign policy and economic policy. It is the reason freedoms are eroding and we have a police force of incompetent wannabe soldiers. I understand how hard it is politically to explain to people the problem with the war on drugs with regards to legalizing heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and the drugs they manufacture legally. (though the CIA is involved in the heroin and cocaine trade, but that's neither here nor there) People have the urge to have their head up their neighbors ass so ingrained in them that not only do they wish to dictate what substances you use, but what you should eat, drink, etc. Our society has a whole has lost its way. The war on drugs is a big example of this.
> 
> Another reason I personally dislike Reagan though the policies were implemented long before his presidency and declaration of war. (on an inanimate object, no less)



Absolutely, my main man.

----------


## tod evans

> It is your business _and the government's business_ if a parent gives a joint of marijuana to their six year old kid.


I tried going out to the shop I've got several jobs that need done, but this flat pisses me off!

A *man* never rats out his friends or neighbors, *NEVER!*

What kind of environment were you raised in where this type of behavior is acceptable?

Do you work for the federal government in some capacity? 

I spit at your feet!

----------


## mczerone

> I agree to some extent with Borowski, but I'm not totally in favor of marijuana legalization (I agree mostly with Rand's stance on this issue). The whole libertine Adam Kokesh (and to a lesser extent Alex Jones) view that "drugs are good, they wake you up to the reality of the government conspiracy" comes off as pretty dumb.


You're hearing what you want to hear. Kokesh never said what you pin on him. The most I can imagine that he said was that "If you look at the benefits and risks of _cannabis_, and compare that to the NDEA and other govt agencies' stances on cannabis, you can see that the war on drugs is just a single symptom of the propaganda-laden scam that is the "govt conspiracy."

It's not "take drugs and you'll see the answer" - it's "objectively look at drugs, and you can see that every word that they say about them is a lie or distortion to push an agenda."

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You're hearing what you want to hear. Kokesh never said what you pin on him. The most I can imagine that he said was that "If you look at the benefits and risks of _cannabis_, and compare that to the NDEA and other govt agencies' stances on cannabis, you can see that the war on drugs is just a single symptom of the propaganda-laden scam that is the "govt conspiracy."
> 
> It's not "take drugs and you'll see the answer" - it's "objectively look at drugs, and you can see that every word that they say about them is a lie or distortion to push an agenda."


I'm not so sure about this. IIRC he was speaking on DMT and the enlightenment you may find. Many people take LSD for religious purposes and to be closer to God. In certain doses and around certain things you can definitely attain a higher level of understanding. Especially regarding the beauty of the world. Marijuana has an effect not really similar in the sense of hallucinations but in the sense of deep thinking and helping to understand the world. If someone were particularly stressed or needed time to consider alternatives to a problem that was plaguing their thoughts, I would recommend smoking a little marijuana. They've been doing so for thousands of years. 

Drugs do have purposes. He wasn't advocating everyone start smoking crack, he was most probably recommending people seek a higher understanding of the world and the people around. I faintly recall watching a video of his where he said as much.

Not that smoking marijuana wouldn't help many to open their eyes.

----------


## Brett85

> This statement revolts me!
> 
> It, to me, is far more horrendous than a parent giving their kid weed.
> 
> You should be ashamed of yourself!


Ron Paul disagrees with you.  He thinks that the government should protect children and that it shouldn't be legal to give drugs to a six year old kid.  Like I said, Ron Paul believes in orderly liberty, not some perverted ideology where adults can harm children in any way they want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM

1:43 mark

----------


## dannno

> Ron Paul disagrees with you.  He thinks that the government should protect children and that it shouldn't be legal to give drugs to a six year old kid.


They give drugs to 6 year olds all the time, I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please start speaking our language?

Ron Paul has also said that as a physician, he believes cannabis has medicinal value.

----------


## Brett85

> I tried going out to the shop I've got several jobs that need done, but this flat pisses me off!
> 
> A *man* never rats out his friends or neighbors, *NEVER!*
> 
> What kind of environment were you raised in where this type of behavior is acceptable?
> 
> Do you work for the federal government in some capacity? 
> 
> I spit at your feet!


You have a sick and disgusting ideology if you think it should be completely legal for a parent to give drugs to their children.  I suppose you want to legalize murder and rape as well.  It's no wonder most normal people are so scared of libertarians.

----------


## Brett85

> They give drugs to 6 year olds all the time, I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please start speaking our language?
> 
> Ron Paul has also said that as a physician, he believes cannabis has medicinal value.


I'm talking about recreational drugs.

----------


## dannno

> You have a sick and disgusting ideology if you think it should be completely legal for a parent to give drugs to their children.  I suppose you want to legalize murder and rape as well.  It's no wonder most normal people are so scared of libertarians.


I can't count how many drugs I was given as a 6 year old child by the medical industrial complex, so I must be mis-understanding what you are trying to say. Please, speak in plain english for us.

----------


## Brett85

Ron Paul:  *I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs.*

----------


## Brett85

Apparently Ron Paul would be some kind of radical statist authoritarian if he posted on these forums.

----------


## dannno

> I'm talking about recreational drugs.


Who decides what is a recreational drug and what isn't? The person who puts me in a cage, I suppose?

BTW, do you not read any of my posts? Cannabis has cannabinoids, everybody has cannabinoids in their body and the more you are able to produce or the more you have the better your body is able to regulate all of the various hormonal and inflammatory responses your body has. You are literally much healthier if you have more cannabinoids in your system. Please read up on the scientific research that has come out regarding cannabinoids and your endocannabinoid system. It is named after the cannabis plant because cannabis is the only substance on earth that contains these substances and they are VITAL to our individual health in numerous ways. For this reason cannabis is literally the best medicine and treats more conditions than any other substance on the planet, so to say it isn't medicine and to say it is purely recreational has got to be the biggest pile of BS ever. Even Ron Paul has stated that as a physician, he believes cannabis has medicinal value. Just do 30 minutes of research on the endocannabinoid system, please. Clogging up the forum with misinformation about cannabis not being a medicine when there is plenty of information to the contrary out there is just ridiculous.

----------


## dannno

> Ron Paul:  *I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs.*


He also has no problem with a lot of stupid state laws because states are allowed to be retarded.

But the law he was referring to here are laws that prohibit the sale of drugs to minors, not ones that prohibit parents giving their children medicine. So you are really taking this quote out of context anyway. Although he would in theory be ok with just about any state law because states are allowed to make laws like that under the Constitution.

----------


## dannno

> Apparently Ron Paul would be some kind of radical statist authoritarian if he posted on these forums.


No, you just are mis-interpretating his statements.

----------


## Root

The decision to give (or not give) a child medical cannabis should rest solely between the parent(s) and the child's doctor(s).  

The State should not be involved.

----------


## tod evans

> You have a sick and disgusting ideology if you think it should be completely legal for a parent to give drugs to their children.  I suppose you want to legalize murder and rape as well.  It's no wonder most normal people are so scared of libertarians.


First of you naive little $#@!, I never suggested it should be legal for "parent to give drugs to their children".... 

I plainly said you were wrong, misguided, and of poor moral character if you would snitch on a friend or neighbor for something like letting a child smoke weed.

Secondly I'm not a libertarian, so shove that assumption up your tight little ass right beside your pointed little misguided rat-bastard head!

Third if you can somehow draw correlations between weed/murder and rape in the same sentence there really is something severely wrong with both your upbringing and your thought process.

What a sick, twisted, demented, statest drone! J. Edgar Hoover or Heinrich Himmler would have been proud to recruit you!

Grow the $#@! up!

----------


## tod evans

> Ron Paul disagrees with you.  He thinks that the government should protect children and that it shouldn't be legal to give drugs to a six year old kid.  Like I said, Ron Paul believes in orderly liberty, not some perverted ideology where adults can harm children in any way they want.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpgWAAmVwDM
> 
> 1:43 mark


I never made it to this gem before loosing my cool on your other post.

Lookie here snitch boy, just try to find anywhere that Ron Paul advocates snitching on friends and neighbors for non-violent anything........

Try!

Good God!

And here I was thinking the upcoming generation had hope.............The sheer idiocy, the refusal to respect friends and neighbors enough to talk to them instead of ratting them out...

The programming really is working.

I just hope thought process like you exhibit are a miniscule minority instead of the status-quo.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You have a sick and disgusting ideology if you think it should be completely legal for a parent to give drugs to their children.  *I suppose you want to legalize murder and rape as well*.  It's no wonder most normal people are so scared of libertarians.


Here come the extremes.

Let's ask a realistic question, say a family has a child with uncurable cancer. They have tried everything for their 7 year old and she is currently in chemotherapy. They give her morphine and it makes her sick, the chemo makes her unable to eat. What say you on their right to give their child some 'experimental' new drug in the form of a Reeses? (cannabis)

In the hypothetical above the child became elated. She smiled which she had not done in years. She had an appetite and was able to hold down food.

By now the child is probably dead. (I saw this a while ago) Are you of the belief that her medicine should have been restricted by what some bureaucrat's opinion on marijuana is? Should she only be allowed to take government approved, highly addictive, narcotics? Or should the parents have the right to treat their child as they see fit?

Now let's ask a more common hypothetical question. Say a child is hyperactive and depressed. They wish to put him on paxil for his depression, whose side effects are:


> _(unusual bone pain or tenderness, swelling or bruising; easy bruising, unusual bleeding (nose, mouth, vagina, or rectum), coughing up blood; agitation, hallucinations, fever, fast heart rate, overactive reflexes, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, feeling unsteady, loss of coordination, fainting;ery stiff (rigid) muscles, high fever, sweating, confusion, fast or uneven heartbeats, tremors, overactive reflexes, feeling like you might pass out; headache, trouble concentrating, memory problems, weakness, confusion, hallucinations, seizure, shallow breathing or breathing that stops; or severe skin reaction -- fever, sore throat, swelling in your face or tongue, burning in your eyes, skin pain, followed by a red or purple skin rash that spreads (especially in the face or upper body) and causes blistering and peeling._


 For his ADHD they wish they put him on Adderall whose side effects are 


> _Upper Abdominal Pain, Chronic Trouble Sleeping, Loss of Appetite, Feel Like Throwing Up, Throwing Up, Nervous, Easily Angered or Annoyed, False Sense of Well-Being, Feeling Restless, Urinary Tract Infection, Hives, Fever, Rash, Trouble Breathing, Allergic Reaction caused by a Drug, Anxious, Feeling Anger Toward Something, Dry Mouth, Incomplete or Infrequent Bowel Movements, Inability to have an Erection, Drowsiness, Dizzy, Low Energy, Excessive Sweating, Involuntary Quivering, Taste Problems, Weight Loss, Head Pain, Fast Heartbeat, Heart Throbbing or Pounding, Diarrhea, Feeling Weak, Sexual Problems, Altered Interest in Having Sexual Intercourse, Taking Habit Forming Drugs, Depression, Aggressive Behavior, Worsening Symptoms of Tourette's Syndrome, High Blood Pressure, Heart Attack, Abnormal Heart Rhythm, Stroke, Hepatitis caused by Drugs, Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis, Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, Mental Impairment, Hallucination, Feeling Faint, Seizures, Chest Pain, Life Threatening Allergic Reaction,Giant Hives, Reaction due to an Allergy, Mood Changes, Mental Disorder with Loss of Normal Personality & Reality, Chronic Muscle Twitches or Movements, Disturbance in the Ability of the Eye to Focus, Double Vision, Blurred Vision, Dilated Pupil, Feeling Unhappy or Unwell, Hypertalkative, Hair Loss, Voluntary Movement Difficulty, Numbness and Tingling, behaving with Excessive Cheerfulness and Activity, mild headache, drowsiness, dizziness, sleep problems (insomnia), feeling restless or nervous, mild nausea, constipation, weight changes, decreased sex drive, impotence, or difficulty having an orgasm; or dry mouth, yawning, or ringing in your ears. This is not a complete list of side effects and others may occur. Call your doctor for medical advice about side effects._


Instead of this list of side effects, which to be honest, is worse than even *I* figured, they feel more comfortable administering medicinal marijuana to their child. What say you on the rights of parents? What say you on the side effects of these drugs that are commonly given to children as young as five or six? What say you of the side effects of marijuana?

----------


## Brett85

> I plainly said you were wrong, misguided, and of poor moral character if you would snitch on a friend or neighbor for something like letting a child smoke weed.


I never said that I would snitch on a friend or a neighbor for that.  I just disagreed that it's none of the government's business if a parent gives drugs to a child.  You really are ignorant beyond all belief.  You might consider going back to Kindergarten and starting all over again.

----------


## Brett85

> Here come the extremes.
> 
> Let's ask a realistic question, say a family has a child with uncurable cancer. They have tried everything for their 7 year old and she is currently in chemotherapy. They give her morphine and it makes her sick, the chemo makes her unable to eat. What say you on their right to give their child some 'experimental' new drug in the form of a Reeses? (cannabis)


1)  In our conversation we were discussing recreational marijuana, not medical marijuana.
2)  If a child needs marijuana for medical reasons, a doctor should have to sign a prescription to give the child marijuana.  It shouldn't be legal for a parent to give marijuana to a child without a prescription from a doctor.
3)  I would think that there would be a way to give Cannabis to a child to use for medical use without having them smoke it.  I don't see why it would be justified to ever allow a child to smoke marijuana.

----------


## tod evans

> I never said that I would snitch on a friend or a neighbor for that.  I just disagreed that it's none of the government's business if a parent gives drugs to a child.





> It is your business and the government's business if a parent gives a joint of marijuana to their six year old kid. [snip]  Giving a joint to a six year old is an act of aggression against that child and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.


I'm calling bull$#@!!



Piss off rat-boy?

----------


## Brett85

> I'm calling bull$#@!!
> 
> 
> 
> Piss off rat-boy?


Where did I say that I personally would call the police and snitch on a neighbor who was giving marijuana to their kid?

Answer:  I didn't.  I think it would be my business and the government's business, but my first course of action would be to have a conversation with my neighbors and try to convince them that it's not in their best interests or their child's best interests for them to give drugs to their child.

----------


## Brett85

"Debbie Downer

Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing"

Why is it that it's only the reasonable people here who get banned?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> "Debbie Downer
> 
> Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing"
> 
> Why is it that it's only the reasonable people here who get banned?


He isn't banned yet. Apparently they have a forum where the mods discuss what should be done. Look for the thread of "Calling Debbie Downer" or something along those lines. It was in GP but may have been moved.

Kind of $#@!ty that I type a page long response to his post and his account gets restricted minutes later. Feel free to respond to it if you are up to it. At least then _one_ person would have read it.

----------


## Origanalist

> 1)  In our conversation we were discussing recreational marijuana, not medical marijuana.
> 2)  If a child needs marijuana for medical reasons, a doctor should have to sign a prescription to give the child marijuana.  It shouldn't be legal for a parent to give marijuana to a child without a prescription from a doctor.
> 3)  I would think that there would be a way to give Cannabis to a child to use for medical use without having them smoke it.  I don't see why it would be justified to ever allow a child to smoke marijuana.


You should just stop while you're behind.

----------


## Brett85

> You should just stop while you're behind.


Hmmm.  So I guess I'm talking the entirely unreasonable position that parents shouldn't be allowed to give marijuana, Cocaine, Meth, and Heroine to their children without a prescription from a doctor.

----------


## Origanalist

> Hmmm.  So I guess I'm talking the entirely unreasonable position that parents shouldn't be allowed to give marijuana, Cocaine, Meth, and Heroine to their children without a prescription from a doctor.


Derp. 

1. I didn't read anything about "Cocaine, Meth, and Heroine?" in your post.
2. It's none of the governments damn business.
3. Doctors regularly prescribe drugs just as harmful to the child as anything listed above.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> 1)  In our conversation we were discussing recreational marijuana, not medical marijuana.
> 2)  If a child needs marijuana for medical reasons, a doctor should have to sign a prescription to give the child marijuana.  It shouldn't be legal for a parent to give marijuana to a child without a prescription from a doctor.
> 3)  I would think that there would be a way to give Cannabis to a child to use for medical use without having them smoke it.  I don't see why it would be justified to ever allow a child to smoke marijuana.


1.) I wasn't really sure the entire point of this thread when I came in. The miscommunication was probably on my part and I had a few drinks in me so no doubt I was all over the place. Hell my first post in this thread was a post on what comes from the drug war. That being a Hubba Bubba paint job on a car, lmao. No joke. 

I'm talking chandeliers in cars. Gucci seats and a Gucci top. Real ridiculous $#@!. Owned by kids 15 or 16 years old. That is what comes from at the very bottom of this illegal black market they've created. (aside from murder, prostitution, and gang warfare) At the top of that market is plush Maybachs, palaces, and proxy wars. It's illegal for a reason. And it aint because of the kids.

2.) This is our major disagreement. You want it to be so that a doctor must prescribe marijuana should a child's parent deem them to need it? There are things far more worrysome than a child getting into your cannabis. (which is literally the safest substance known to man.. I'm not exaggerating that) What about childhood obesity? One in three children I think it is up to. Does the government have the right to dictate what you feed your child? You are opening a box that I don't think you really know what is inside of. That being further government intrusion, further intervention in your and your child's life. Now I am going to say this clearly and point blank, children should not be drugged. But before they are put on substances that are peddled like candy with side effects of life long twitching or death, perhaps they should see if cannabis doesn't alleviate their symptoms. I am sure it would. Now in your mind you probably have some preconceived notion of Cheech and Chong and the kid would be all loopy, "That's cool, Maaan," it's really not like that. I am not even referring to the children being 'high.'

One of my pet peeves is needing a permission slip to medicate myself. Whether that be smoking marijuana to help me go to sleep or taking a Vicodin because I sprained my ankle or my back is particularly sore after a hard day's work. I should have the option to see a doctor, not a requirement. The government regulating these drugs (coming from the poppy fields they protect) is interfering with the doctor/patient relationship. No one, and let me repeat that, no one, is going to tell me what I can or cannot give to my child. (now mind you I personally wouldn't have them on any drugs, I would try to teach them to cope with your body's natural feelings) If that did not work, or my child was seriously sick, God forbid, I would consider all options and choose the one *I* thought best. Whether the cocaine importation perpetrating, drug war declaring, proxy war funding, congress defying ex-President rose from the grave to tell me otherwise.

3.) I mentioned Reeses. They aren't that specific company but they are the same thing. They have suckers, cookies, juices, teas.. anything you could think of really. One day (if government ever gets to the size it should be) I am going to have a sub shop that spreads hash oils on the breads. We'll make canna-pizzas too. My dreams and aspirations seem blocked by big government supposed protectionism and crony capitalist interests. Not to mention a by and large ignorant populous.

----------


## Brett85

> Derp. 
> 
> 1. I didn't read anything about "Cocaine, Meth, and Heroine?" in your post.
> 2. It's none of the governments damn business.
> 3. Doctors regularly prescribe drugs just as harmful to the child as anything listed above.


It's "none of the governments damn business" if parents give hard drugs to young children to use?  Ok.  Do you ever stop and wonder why most Americans think libertarians are so crazy?  Yeah, let's live in a society where it's entirely legal for a parent to give Meth or Cocaine to their 3 year old to use.

----------


## Brett85

> 2.) This is our major disagreement. You want it to be so that a doctor must prescribe marijuana should a child's parent deem them to need it?.


Yes, because otherwise there's nothing stopping a parent from giving marijuana to their child simply for recreational use.  The only way to actually ensure that children are using it for medical reasons is for there to be a requirement that a parent go to a doctor to get a prescription for their child to use marijuana for medical purposes.

----------


## Origanalist

> It's "none of the governments damn business" if parents give hard drugs to young children to use?  Ok.  Do you ever stop and wonder why most Americans think libertarians are so crazy?  Yeah, let's live in a society where it's entirely legal for a parent to give Meth or Cocaine to their 3 year old to use.


Stop and think, when did you hear about a kid losing his cookies and slaughtering a bunch of people in a school on anything but the damn drugs that the schools and the government forced them to take?

The stuff they call meth these days is an exception as it's nothing but a toxic brew that would kill a friggin elephant. Kind of like the $#@! the gubmint pushers are *forcing* on our kids.

ETA 
So who's the crazy one?

----------


## Brett85

What drugs are the government and schools forcing children to take?  I've heard of forced vaccinations in school, but forced drug use is certainly a new one for me.

----------


## Origanalist

> What drugs are the government and schools forcing children to take?  I've heard of forced vaccinations in school, but forced drug use is certainly a new one for me.


I don't know what planet you've been on but the schools routinely threaten, harass and intimidate parents with child enforcement and law enforcement if they refuse to put their kids on the very drugs causing all these school shootings.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It's "none of the governments damn business" if parents give hard drugs to young children to use?  Ok.  Do you ever stop and wonder why most Americans think libertarians are so crazy?  Yeah, let's live in a society where it's entirely legal for a parent to give Meth or Cocaine to their 3 year old to use.


Well, cocaine has its applications. Should a child have a severe tooth ache, a cocaine elixir is the most effective method of easing the pain.

They use a lesser strength benzocaine over the counter topical ointment or at the dentist's office novacaine. Having a cocaine elixir, putting a little on the tip of your finger and dabbing the area of the mouth hurting the child until they are able to see the dentist is not child abuse and is not getting the child high. It is alleviating the pain. Years of propaganda would have 99% of Americans saying that should you do that (assuming a company was recreated to make a cocaine elixir) your child should be taken from you. (and would, in today's day and age)

Methamphetamine was prescribed to children for years. Instead of that they now have children snorting Adderall, Ritalin, Xanax, etc. etc. etc. (very dangerous substances, mind you) Bravo, Medical Industrial Complex. They market to kids better than Ronald McDonald. Or should I say market better to kid's parents.

You use extremes, don't you see that? How many parents do you think are going to be giving methamphetamine or heroin to their toddler? I have addicts in my family. You know what they said? "They said you try this $#@! here and you are going to end up like me. You'll be prancing down the road like little bo peep for dollars" (that's a paraphrase, but pretty much what it was) They showed me how to tell if someone was smoking crack cocaine. What it looked like, the method used. (chore, (copper wiring put in the pipe) and everything else.. so I'd know if my girlfriend was on it, or a friend was using) They told me to stay away from it, of the dead they knew and I saw enough zombies already. You act as if a parent's aspirations for their child are the same as their ruined life. Even in the worst of the worst circumstances, I've heard some stories, it's few and far between and there are laws to prosecute them on without an overinflated, PERPETRATED, drug war.

I don't know why everything is so black and white for you.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It's "none of the governments damn business" if parents give hard drugs to young children to use?  Ok.  Do you ever stop and wonder why most Americans think libertarians are so crazy?  Yeah, let's live in a society where it's entirely legal for a parent to give Meth or Cocaine to their 3 year old to use.


You know, ever think about family and community values?

If someone who was an addict in my family decided to give hard drugs to a child, I would break their arms. As most anyone I know would as well. *Whether they are addicts or not.* Crazy? No. A society of principle and respect. Attempting to bring a child down to their level of misery would not go unpunished.

You think that if age of consent laws were abolished there would be some old pervert having sex with every young child in the neighborhood.. you think that if drug laws were repealed that all of a sudden people would be giving their toddlers crack cocaine. It's not like that, man. FFS. Our culture wouldn't tolerate it without the need of government agents and doctor's permission slips. That is the door way they'll put their foot in. Next it will be sodas must be limited to 8 oz. or whatever. It's the principle of the matter that must be adhered to. Parents are responsible for their child. As ridiculous as I see praying for healing to be, and the children who have died because of their strict adherence to faith, I'd never think of infringing on their right to do so.

Besides the fact that the lowlife degenerate piece of $#@! who would give their child these drugs would do so with or without the law. It isn't as if their conscious is morally formed to give two $#@!s about the law anyways. You want this. He wants that. She wants that. Pretty soon everyone's views of the world and of which the law should play on morality comes into being and I'm randomly stopped on a highway asked where I am going and what my business is in being.

It's how it all started. Public safety and for the children are more than just memes here. Look through history.

You aren't an unreasonable person as most people aren't. Continue thinking your position through. You will see how authoritarians will use any excuse to usurp more power.

We aren't that different in our views, I do not believe. I dislike someone who gives their child drugs. (Paxil, included) Our solutions are different perhaps because of life experiences. You seem to have an urge to believe that laws could dictate morality or that state agents are the best way to handle situations caused mainly by a lack of morality. Perhaps not so? I apologize if I misrepresented you with my assessment, it is hard to get a feel for people through text on the internet. I am often times misrepresented as radical or unreasonable.

Ask yourself why some deadly drugs are allowed to be given to children while simultaneously police forces are kicking down doors for others? (on that same premise.. the dangerousness of the drug)

----------


## TheGrinch

> "Debbie Downer
> 
> Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing"
> 
> Why is it that it's only the reasonable people here who get banned?


Because Eduardo and itshappening cannot find a happy medium of having strong opinions without going to the extreme of trolling with their sock puppets.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Because Eduardo and itshappening cannot find a happy medium of having strong opinions without going to the extreme of trolling with their sock puppets.


Eduardo has a certain sense of humor some won't like. I get annoyed when he downplays or makes jokes about serious issues same as I did with itshappening.

I've actually come to like their posts quite a lot though. Their posting of videos and other useful information probably makes me a little biased though.

----------


## Brett85

> You think that if age of consent laws were abolished there would be some old pervert having sex with every young child in the neighborhood.. you think that if drug laws were repealed that all of a sudden people would be giving their toddlers crack cocaine. It's not like that, man. FFS.)


I said that I support repealing drug laws and allowing *adults* to use drugs.  But some people here can't come to understand the difference between adults and children and why it's necessary to treat both groups differently with our nation's laws.

----------


## osan

> Even most people who call themselves libertarians realize that the government has a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of people out on the road.


Says who?  What is "government"?  Is it separate from "us"?  If so, why and how?  If not, then either what you say is false because there _is_ no "government" or we are all "government".  In the latter case and given your stated position, we would have to conclude that each and every one of us is responsible to protect the lives and liberties of everyone else.  That cannot be credibly substantiated.  If my neighbor yells at me over the fence that he's now going to go into his basement and blow his brains out, no onus rests with me to interfere.  I hold no such responsibility as that which your position implies.  That I might insert myself between my neighbor and his pulling the trigger is indicative of naught more than either my largess or stupidity.  There is nothing of responsibility there _per se.
_
So, if "government" exists in the way your statement implies, onus rests with you to demonstrate that existence.  Don't bother trying because I already know you will fail utterly in the attempt.  That means government does not in fact exist as an entity _in se_.  Given this, there is literally nothing to bear the responsibility to which you refer.  Therefore, no such responsibility exists.

QED.




> The most that we'll likely get accomplished in my lifetime is to get marijuana legalized in most states, and even if that happens there won't be a single state crazy enough to actually allow people to drive under the influence of marijuana with no penalty.


Your use of "crazy" presumes facts not in evidence.

----------


## osan

Oh where to begin when there is so much fail to address?




> It is your business and the government's business if a parent gives a joint of marijuana to their six year old kid.


This is a very grand assertion.  It is therefore your onus to demonstrate that it is true.  Forget the nonexistent "government" for conversation's sake and demonstrate MY responsibility.  Whence does it derive?  What are the fundamental presumptions that lead you to believe that I hold such responsibility to anyone, anywhere, at any time, for any reason?  Lay it out for us because this is actually an important point.  If you can demonstrate this responsibility apodictically, I will bow to your proof.  Otherwise, I will be obliged to demolish your argument with some clinical icy coldness.




> For goodness sake, children are not going to have the same level of freedom in a civilized society that adults have.


I do not believe anyone here has argued otherwise.  The question that arises: what freedoms do they enjoy and which are beyond them?  That question in no way points to a one-size-fits-all (OSFA) answer, which your stated positions imply, however loosely.  That, of course, is pure FAIL.




> They haven't developed the maturity and mental capacity to make these kind of decisions for themselves.


Assertion failure!  Eject! Eject! Eject!

Seriously, this is impossibly devoid of anything even remotely pointing to credible.  It seems to me that at least on this topic you are an OSFA thinker.  Well, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but one size does NOT fit all.  Children vary WILDLY in their personalities and capacities to judge and choose.

Do you know what a sundance is?  It is a potentially fatal ceremony that lasts three days where one goes without food OR WATER.  I have attended several sundances and it is absolutely brutal and the dangers are ever so real.  My friend Rachel was married to a full blood Indian.  Her son was VERY interested in the red path and he did his first sundance at TWELVE.  We pierced him through the chest and he hung there for a full day in 110* heat.  Some of the people there nearly died and I wasn't in the best shape either at the end of the third day.  Most were in delirium, a few had to quit.  It was grueling.  By your apparent standard of judgment we were all guilty of endangering and abusing a 12 year old boy by letting him sundance.  But you know nothing of this boy or the man he has grown into.  I can say with some confidence that were you to meet him you would wish you were the man he is, and I say that not to insult you in any way, but to illustrate the fact that you are dead wrong in your broad brush judgments.  

There are adults who will never be prepared for sundance.  There are children who are.  One size does not fit all and judging things in life is often not straightforward.  The mode of thinking to which your words hint is strongly analogous to that of "zero-tolerance".  This is understandable because people want simple answers and formulae for handling situations and making decisions.  Just because they want it, it follows not that it shall be attainable in any sensible and well reasoned way.  Navigating life is more art and craft than it is science.  What is right for you may be shyte for another and verse vice-a.




> This is what Ron said in an interview with John Stossel, that the law isn't going to apply to children in the same way that it applies to adults, because the levels of maturity and mental capacity are completely different.


This is only partly true.  There is more to things that what you quote here.  I would also point out that Ron is just a man and as such is also prone to error as we are all.




> Giving a joint to a six year old is an act of aggression against that child and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.


I call bull$#@!.  OSFA bull$#@!.  There are many factors that play upon such decisions and none of us understand sufficiently the circumstances of others' lives.  It is precisely your brand of thinking that frightens me most because you come close to reason but never quite get there soundly.  You appeal to emotion with effect and people fall for it because they are not in the habit of pulling words apart and engaging in competent analysis.

In some cases I will agree with you, but in others you are simply as wrong as the day is long at the poles.  I was horrified that they gave their child that joint, in part due to my prejudices against such use of dope, but also in part because of the circumstance under which it was given.  It was casual and I personally do not care for casual use of such things.  That does not, however, mean I am right and empowered to impose judgment on such people.  Had the child been screaming and flailing wildly as the parents attempted to force him to get high, that would have been a wholly different kettle of fish.  THAT would have been an act of aggression.

Here you are guilty of what the so-called "liberals" do all the time: misuse words such that their definitions become altered or the circumstances under which use is considered proper are altered.  Giving someone a joint can in no credible way be viewed as _aggression_.  You are either insincere, have a hidden agenda, or are ignorant of the material facts in question.  I will assume the latter and break out the dictionary for you:

*ag·gres·sion* [_uh_-gresh-_uh_n]  Show IPA
*noun**1.*the action of a state in violating by _force_ the rights of another state, particularly its territorial rights; an unprovoked offensive,attack, invasion, or the like: _The army is prepared to stop any foreign aggression._

*2.*any *offensive* action, attack, or procedure; an inroad or _encroachment_: _an aggression upon one's rights._

*3.*the practice of making assaults or attacks; offensive action in general.




Clearly there is nothing in these definitions that fit the case of an adult giving a joint to a child, all else equal.  It may nonetheless be wrong in specific cases to do so, that I will certainly grant you.  It may be so in the vast majority of cases, in fact, but that is orthogonal to the more general discussion that it is wrong _per se_.  But please feel free to prove me wrong on this.  I will defer in that case.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I said that I support repealing drug laws and allowing *adults* to use drugs.  But some people here can't come to understand the difference between adults and children and why it's necessary to treat both groups differently with our nation's laws.


I actually agree with you, Trad (I think).  Parents do not own their children, children are not property.  A parent cannot just do anything to their child they wish.  The parents have a guardianship.  That is, they have the right to raise the child: feed him, clothe him, teach him in their values, and perhaps make use of his labor product.  Whatever raising a child in a normal healthy way would generally be considered to consist of.  I'm for a wide degree of tolerance and pluralism in defining this, but at some point the parents exit the realm of "normal healthy child-rearing" and enter unacceptability.  Dumping one's child in the dumpster.  Locking him in the basement and not feeding him.  Torture.  Stuff like that.  When they do that, they forfeit their guardianship and someone else, likely a relative, can and should take over.

Giving excessive amounts of mind-altering drugs to your children would be one way to forfeit your guardianship rights.  The justice system (in my preferred scenario, of course, it would be a competitive free-market justice system) would be right to take your children away in such a situation.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

...

----------


## dannno

> Hmmm.  So I guess I'm talking the entirely unreasonable position that parents shouldn't be allowed to give marijuana, Cocaine, Meth, and Heroine to their children without a prescription from a doctor.


Do you have any idea how many millions of children are already prescribed amphetamine by doctors? Do you have any idea what a horrible idea that is and how much damage it does to them? I don't think doctors should be prescribing children amphetamines, but I'm not going to hire armed private security to stop them from doing it. I guess my question is, why do you have such low standards for children? Why is it "ok" just because a doctor does it? Why is it not "ok" just because a doctor doesn't do it, when the REASON the doctor MIGHT NOT DO IT is because the government might come after them for doing it even though it might be in the child's best interest?

In other words, your position that a doctor must prescribe the medication is completely illogical if we are trying to discuss how to improve the health of children.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> In other words, your position that a doctor must prescribe the medication is completely illogical if we are trying to discuss how to improve the health of children.


I think he is just saying he doesn't want crazy people drugging their kids in the same way that some people get their dogs drunk. And I think that is reasonable.

The doctor's prescription thing is just shorthand for "I understand there may be situations when drugs may be beneficial to the child, not harmful."

----------


## Brett85

> I think he is just saying he doesn't want crazy people drugging their kids in the same way that some people get their dogs drunk. And I think that is reasonable.
> 
> The doctor's prescription thing is just shorthand for "I understand there may be situations when drugs may be beneficial to the child, not harmful."


Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.  Also, there are times when a doctor can face legal consequences as well if they prescribe a drug to a child that causes harm to them.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I said that I support repealing drug laws and allowing *adults* to use drugs.  But some people here can't come to understand the difference between adults and children and why it's necessary to treat both groups differently with our nation's laws.


I understand all this. I am saying that parents have the right to medicate their child as they see fit. You are advocating they get a prescription first before they can administer marijuana or any other substance they deem helpful. (I had mentioned cocaine elixir to alleviate toothaches) I have argued the point that that is antithetical to liberty. The doctor's interests aren't always in the interest of your child. They have sample packs of Seroquel, Paxil and other harmful substances that they give to young children. It is trial and error. If one doesn't work they move onto the next. It is a multi-billion dollar a year industry that has ruined many lives. Dyskinesia just being one of the many harmful effects. In fact, I know someone who as a child was subjected to dozens of different drugs. From Paxil, to Prozac, to Seroquel, to Risperdal, to Depakote, to Xanax, to Ativan, to Ritalin, to Invega, and many others with names long enough I cannot pronounce them. She is in the hospital today with involuntary muscle spasms and twitches. She has to be awkward positions or pain shoots down her arms. Top neurologists (in the country) have seen her and cannot explain it. No one can. But if you look through the side effects of the drugs I listed you will see this listed. She had an allergic reaction to Invega and will probably need permanent hospital care. Now her mother sounded a lot like you in that she trusted the advice of the doctors. No conflict of interests there, right? They have class actions suits against these drugs that were peddled freely and without hesitation to children as young as five or six. They wanted me to take their drugs but I refused. Luckily so, or I might have been the one in the hospital bed.

Now you are defending those who peddle poison to children. Literally. You are defending a system that instead of using natural and safe remedies dreams of more profits. Not to mention government intrusion that has broken any sense of the doctor/patient relationship. Government intrusion who has stymied the research of cannabis and the role cannabinoids play in our body. I am defending a parents right to medicate their child as they fit. I am advocating the by and large revamping of the entire medical industrial complex. I am wishing to bring back the doctor/patient relationship.

Now you have this misconception that if drugs were made legal that parents around the country over would be blowing crack cocaine smoke in their faces or injecting them with methamphetamine. Those cases would be few and far between. I am mentioned the benefits of cocaine, a parent administering a set dose from an elixir to stop a toothache is perfectly reasonable. If a child is terminal parents ought to be able to consider heroin to make their child's last moments as enjoyable as possible. There wouldn't be some influx of parents drugging their child simply to drug their child. Most cases in our country the child is already removed from the care of the addict and placed into a relative's home or foster care. Depending the case I may or may not agree with that. (I've heard of a baby being removed from his grandmother's home because she failed a state required urinalysis.. that is beyond $#@!ing ridiculous)

You have a flaw in your argument. That being that parents are already administering their children deadly, addictive, dangerous drugs. A few pages back I posted the side effects of two of the most commonly prescribed drugs in America. Read through the list and compare them to cannabis. Let me know who is peddling poison afterwards and if you are willing to accept the premise that parents should not be allowed to give their child those drugs if they so see fit.

When you give people choices, sometimes they make one you don't agree with. I don't believe Pfizer and Astra Zeneca ought to be allowed to market to children or to peddle their poison to the tune of billions of dollars. I wouldn't use force to stop a parent from administering Ritalin to their child no matter how appalling it is to me.

Crack cocaine or heroin is something else. I'd violate the NAP willingly and that would be the end of that. Especially if someone were to do that in my family. (Which would never happen. Most addicts don't wish to bring children into their world of misery)

----------


## kcchiefs6465

A recent blog of mine described how unethical and illegal drug company activities have driven the prescription of toxic antipsychotic drugs to children. Now the "success" of this campaign has been documented in the Archives of General Psychiatry. In a comparison between the years 1993-1998 and 2005-2009, prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs for per 100 children (0-13 years old) rose from 0.24 to 1.83. That's more than a sevenfold increase. Given that most of prescriptions are for the older children in this age range, the rate would be substantially higher among preteens and 13-year-olds. For adolescents (14-20 years old) the increase was nearly fivefold.

This report comes out at a poignant time for me.* Right now one of my patients, a 7-year-old boy I will called "Joey," has just returned from being psychiatrically hospitalized because he could not be withdrawn from the antipsychotic drug Risperdal as an outpatient. The family came to me for help in getting this child off the psychiatric drugs he'd been prescribed by another psychiatrist. A basically sweet and lovable boy, the withdrawal was such an agony for him that he became uncontrollably violent. Meanwhile, he already suffers from tardive dyskinesia, a persistent and commonly permanent movement disorder from antipsychotic drug exposure that causes abnormal movements, including deforming facial grimaces and disabling involuntary movements of the torso and limbs.*

*Joey is also a victim of precocious puberty, almost certainly caused by the Risperdal. Although largely ignored in the scientific literature, according to Philadelphia attorney Steve Sheller, many cases of Risperdal-induced premature puberty in boys are showing up as legal cases.*

My patient Joey became dangerously violent for the first time after exposure to antipsychotic medication and then became even more violent during withdrawal.* You can witness similar reactions in stunning footage from an ABC News documentary about U.S. foster children prescribed large quantities of psychiatric drugs, including Brooke, also age 7, who had been exposed to the drugs since the age of 4.*  When she was finally taken to a psychiatrist who recognized what was happening to her, the doctor observed, "The first thing we've got to think about**: Is the medicine causing this? ... There always has to be a high index of suspicion when we're using these agents."

Unlike the escalation in stimulant drugs prescribed to children for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which is led by pediatricians and family doctors, psychiatrists are doing most of the prescribing of antipsychotic drugs to children. *As reported earlier, the drugging of children with antipsychotic drugs is a direct result of off-label (unapproved) uses promoted by the drug companies in cooperation with unscrupulous psychiatrists and researchers in leadership roles in the profession. The new Archives of General Psychiatry study confirms that most of the prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs to children have indeed been off-label for disruptive behavioral disorders. Instead of helping parents and teachers to improve their methods of disciplining children, psychiatrists are suppressing the overall mental life and behavior of these youngsters with antipsychotic drugs.*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-pet...b_1771152.html



What do you propose ought to be done to those parents TC?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Paregoric and other over the counter things were normal at one time.  Lot's of cough syrups and other remedies had coke, heroin, morphine, etc...
Now you have to have a prescription (pay the doc) and lots of money and/or insurance (that you pay for) and now you get other chemicals like hydrochloric acid mixed in.

----------


## Origanalist

> Paregoric and other over the counter things were normal at one time.  Lot's of cough syrups and other remedies had coke, heroin, morphine, etc...
> Now you have to have a prescription (pay the doc) and lots of money and/or insurance (that you pay for) *and now you get other chemicals like hydrochloric acid mixed in.*


Bonus! I guess that's we pay extra for.

----------


## Brett85

> Now you have this misconception that if drugs were made legal that parents around the country over would be blowing crack cocaine smoke in their faces or injecting them with methamphetamine. Those cases would be few and far between.


If men were angels, government wouldn't be necessary.  You and a few others here seem to think that humans are inherently good while the government is inherently evil.  I disagree.  Human beings have been evil since sin entered the world.  All of us are born evil and only become somewhat civilized through guidance from our parents and life experiences.  Again, I've never made the argument that drugs shouldn't be legal, just that there should be a legal age to use drugs of either 18 or 21.  This isn't an unreasonable position.  Your position would simply allow parents to give hardcore drugs to their children even for recreational reasons, because a parent could simply claim that it was being done for medical reasons when in reality they just thought it would be fun to get their child high.  This isn't a responsible position to take.  In a civilized society, there needs to be a certain age set by law before someone can engage in adult behaviors.  Let's why beer and other drinks are called "adult beverages," because they are meant to be consumed by *adults.*

----------


## Brett85

> What do you propose ought to be done to those parents TC?


Nothing.  In certain cases where a prescription drug never should've been prescribed to a child and does great damage to a child, the person who prescribed the drug should be sued or held legally liable for what happens to the child.  If it's a situation where a certain prescription drug is basically just pure poison and causing a lot of damage to a lot of children, the drug company should be sued in court.

----------


## dannno

What are your thoughts on Native Americans sending their early to mid-teen boys into the woods after taking hallucinogens so they could learn about the universe they live in? Would you like to take a time machine back in time and build jails for them?

----------


## Origanalist

> Nothing.  In certain cases where a prescription drug never should've been prescribed to a child and does great damage to a child, the person who prescribed the drug should be sued or held legally liable for what happens to the child.  If it's a situation where a certain prescription drug is basically just pure poison and causing a lot of damage to a lot of children, the drug company should be sued in court.


You seem to have strange ability to block out reality. The drug companies are the cartels, the teachers, counselors and nurses are the pushers, and the State child "protective services", police and courts are their enforcers. They aren't against kids being drugged, quite the contrary. They just insist that it's "their" drugs.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If men were angels, government wouldn't be necessary.  You and a few others here seem to think that humans are inherently good while the government is inherently evil.  I disagree.  Human beings have been evil since sin entered the world.  All of us are born evil and only become somewhat civilized through guidance from our parents and life experiences.  Again, I've never made the argument that drugs shouldn't be legal, just that there should be a legal age to use drugs of either 18 or 21.  This isn't an unreasonable position.  Your position would simply allow parents to give hardcore drugs to their children even for recreational reasons, because a parent could simply claim that it was being done for medical reasons when in reality they just thought it would be fun to get their child high.  This isn't a responsible position to take.  In a civilized society, there needs to be a certain age set by law before someone can engage in adult behaviors.  Let's why beer and other drinks are called "adult beverages," because they are meant to be consumed by *adults.*


What do you think ought to be done to a parent who administers Risperdal, for example, to their 5 year old child? We are going by the assumption that they have a permission slip.

As to your post, a lot of problems arise from our drinking age being what it is that I really don't wish to get into here. Other countries with lower drinking ages do not have the same problems with binge drinking etc. That is for another discussion. (common sense would say it should be at the highest 18 considering you can go to war yet can't have a beer at the bar) Neither here nor there.

I see men for what they are, inherently wicked, shortsighted, greedy, selfish beings. (as a general statement, there are many good people) Your arguments are flawed and inconsistent. I have lived places you wouldn't imagine and I've known addicts of every sort, as a general rule most do not wish to bring a child down to their level. In the system we have now, the state would take the child anyways. Not because the mother is blowing crack smoke in the baby's face but because the house doesn't have electricity, is infested with roaches and bedbugs, and the cupboards were emptied to the dopeman for a 3 dollar crumb. That is the reality.

Marijuana is the safest substance known to man. If a child is depressed or suffers from anxiety cannabis would alleviate the symptoms safely and without any major side effects. I posted earlier in this thread about the study that shows marijuana causes brain damage and the bull$#@! that it was, it is a good read if you care to dispel the greatest myth of marijuana. We are talking about kids having seizures, tardive dyskenesia and permanent side effects from these legal drugs you are defending. Prescription slips and doctor visits are by and large a racket. I should have the option to see one if needed, not the requirement. The child is mine, I have responsibility over it, should I administer heroin just for the hell of it and the child dies, that is at the least a negligible homicide. We have crimes on the book for child abuse. Not to mention there wouldn't be some of mass influx of parents all of a sudden drugging their children. (no more so than there is today)

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Nothing.  In certain cases where a prescription drug never should've been prescribed to a child and does great damage to a child, the person who prescribed the drug should be sued or held legally liable for what happens to the child.  If it's a situation where a certain prescription drug is basically just pure poison and causing a lot of damage to a lot of children, the drug company should be sued in court.


You see, this is your problem. You are inconsistent.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

And when I say "children wouldn't be drugged... no more so than they are today" I am referring to the poison peddled but by these multibillion dollar a year drug companies and doctors. May they all burn in hell.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Again, I've never made the argument that drugs shouldn't be legal, just that there should be *a legal age to use drugs* of either 18 or 21.  This isn't an unreasonable position.  Your position would simply *allow parents to give hardcore drugs to their children* even for recreational reasons, because a parent could simply claim that it was being done for medical reasons when in reality they just thought it would be fun to get their child high.


These are two different things.  Thing #1: forbidding persons under age X from using drugs.  Thing #2: forbidding parents from mistreating their children by drugging them.

As I said in post #179, I agree with you that a ban on parents giving children drugs irresponsibly/abusively would be wholly legitimate and libertarian.  A libertarian society has limits on acceptable parenting behavior.

Just to review what I said in that post:

I actually agree with you, Trad (I think).  Parents do not own their children, children are not property.  A parent cannot just do anything to their child they wish.  The parents have a guardianship.  That is, they have the right to raise the child: feed him, clothe him, teach him in their values, and perhaps make use of his labor product.  Whatever raising a child in a normal healthy way would generally be considered to consist of.  I'm for a wide degree of tolerance and pluralism in defining this, but at some point the parents exit the realm of "normal healthy child-rearing" and enter unacceptability.  Dumping one's child in the dumpster.  Locking him in the basement and not feeding him.  Torture.  Stuff like that.  When they do that, they forfeit their guardianship and someone else, likely a relative, can and should take over.

Giving excessive amounts of mind-altering drugs to your children would be one way to forfeit your guardianship rights.  The justice system (in my preferred scenario, of course, it would be a competitive free-market justice system) would be right to take your children away in such a situation.
So, to enforce a ban on extremely bad parenting, such as giving your children hard-core drugs, is acceptable.  In fact I think it is _required_ under libertarianism, to protect the rights of children -- yes, they do have rights.  A ban on non-parent third parties abusing children in such a way is also just and necessary.  You can't go around giving drugs to little children (in general).  That's aggression.  *However*, it is illegitimate and tyrannical for a government to enforce any arbitrary age limit on the use of any substance.  When a child becomes an adult is different for each one.  That is up to him.  *When he becomes self-supporting and wishes to begin living as an adult, he is an adult.*  We must leave such a person free to use whatever substances he wishes, if we are believers in liberty.

----------


## Brett85

> You see, this is your problem. You are inconsistent.


No, I'm not.  The position I brought up originally was that it should be illegal for parents to give illegal drugs to their children.  You and others turned it into a debate about prescription drugs, which was not something that I ever had any intention of discussing.  You were just trying to deflect the issue since it's completely indefensible to say that it should be legal for parents to give their children drugs for recreational reasons.

----------


## Origanalist

> No, I'm not.  The position I brought up originally was that it should be illegal for parents to give illegal drugs to their children.  You and others turned it into a debate about prescription drugs, which was not something that I ever had any intention of discussing.  You were just trying to deflect the issue since it's completely indefensible to say that it should be legal for parents to give their children drugs for recreational reasons.







> The position I brought up originally was that it should be illegal for parents to give illegal drugs to their children.


Drugs should *not* be illegal, period.




> You and others turned it into a debate about prescription drugs, which was not something that I ever had any intention of discussing.


Of course not, state sanctioned drugs and the forcing of them on children seems to not bother you one bit.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No, I'm not.  The position I brought up originally was that it should be illegal for parents to give illegal drugs to their children.  You and others turned it into a debate about prescription drugs, which was not something that I ever had any intention of discussing.  You were just trying to deflect the issue since it's completely indefensible to say that it should be legal for parents to give their children drugs for recreational reasons.


You are perfectly fine with a 7 year old child being introduced to Risperdal, an addictive drug prescribed for bipolar disorder among other things with side effects including but not limited to:_ Aggressive behavior, agitation, anxiety, changes in vision, including blurred vision, decreased sexual desire or performance, difficulty concentrating, difficulty speaking or swallowing, inability to move the eyes, loss of balance control, mask-like face, memory problems, menstrual changes, muscle spasms of the face, neck, and back, problems with urination or increase in the amount of urine, restlessness or need to keep moving (severe), shuffling walk, skin rash or itching, stiffness or weakness of the arms or legs, tic-like or twitching movements, trembling and shaking of the fingers and hands, trouble sleeping, twisting body movements, Back pain, chest pain, speech or vision problems, sudden weakness or numbness in the face, arms, or legs, unusual secretion of milk, Confusion, dizziness, drowsiness, extreme thirst, fast, shallow breathing, fast, weak heartbeat, headache, increased thirst, lip smacking or puckering, loss of appetite, muscle cramps, pale clammy skin, poor coordination, prolonged, painful, inappropriate erection of the penis, puffing of the cheeks, rapid or worm-like movements of the tongue, shivering, talking, feeling, and acting with excitement and activity that cannot be controlled, uncontrolled chewing movements, uncontrolled twisting movements of neck, trunk, arms, or legs, unusual bleeding or bruising, unusual facial expressions or body positions, Constipation, cough, diarrhea, dry mouth, headache, heartburn, increased dream activity, increased length of sleep, nausea, sleepiness or unusual drowsiness, sore throat, stuffy or runny nose, unusual tiredness or weakness, weight gain, Body aches or pain, chills, dandruff, darkening of skin color, dry skin, ear congestion, fever, increase in body movements, increased watering of the mouth, joint pain, loss of voice, oily skin, pain or tenderness around the eyes and cheekbones, shortness of breath or troubled breathing, sneezing, stomach pain, tightness of the chest or wheezing, toothache, vomiting, weight loss, premature puberty, death
_

Then in that same breath you are for putting people in jail for giving their child marijuana. Not to mention advocating for the continuance of the permission slip racket to medicate oneself or one's child. The same medical racket that would prescribe your child without hesitation the above drug, with its incredibly dangerous list of side effects.

You try to justify it as you are merely talking about recreational drug use. I am talking about giving your child substances that you feel are necessary to treat his ailment. Would you be opposed to a strict religious family using only prayer and faith to treat their son? I don't think you would. Would you be opposed to a doctor prescribing a child a very dangerous substance with side effects that can be permanent? No, you aren't. But should a parent decide that instead of introducing their child to harmful chemicals with page long side effects that they'd rather use a naturally occurring medicine to try to alleviate his symptoms, you are for throwing them in jail. (or whatever form of aggression you advocate, I don't believe you made it clear) You are logically inconsistent. Because one has a note bought and paid for by big pharmaceutical companies to be given out you are content with the treatment. Alternative options be damned. I have written pages on this and all I get is sentence replies and inconsistencies. Your heart may be in the right place but you are naive and all for opening a box allowing the government to intrude on what medicine you can treat your child with or cannot. Not to mention you are perpetuating the ruining of the doctor/patient relationship and I am not even sure you realize it.

----------


## Brett85

> Drugs should *not* be illegal, period.


Recreational drugs should be illegal for children.  The fact that we're even having this debate amazes me.  If an average American came to this forum and read this stuff, they would think that you and others advocating this position are just completely out of your minds.

----------


## Brett85

@KCchiefs-I said that if a doctor prescribes a drug to a child that causes great damage to the child, the doctor can be sued for that.  But in some cases the kind of prescription drugs you referred to can help a child.  Perhaps in some cases medical marijuana can help a child as well, but it should require a prescription from a doctor before a child can use it.

----------


## Origanalist

> Recreational drugs should be illegal for children.  The fact that we're even having this debate amazes me.  If an average American came to this forum and read this stuff, they would think that you and others advocating this position are just completely out of your minds.


Lol, the "average American" is about as clueless as a box of rocks, but I digress. You still wont address the fact that the government *forces* kids to take drugs as or more dangerous than anything you've mentioned.

----------


## Brett85

No, the government does not "force" kids to use drugs.  You're just floating conspiracy theories without any substance or any type of verification.

----------


## Origanalist

> No, the government does not "force" kids to use drugs.  You're just floating conspiracy theories without any substance or any type of verification.


Er, no I'm not. This crap started years ago. We were threatened with child protective services if we didn't put my stepson on these drugs, he's over thirty now (we didn't). I'm sorry you've lived such a sheltered life.

One of my daughters has three gloriously rambunctious sons, and they have gone after her with a vengeance to get the two older ones on these damn drugs. Thankfully she has more balls than a lot of men her age. At least one member on this forum have pulled their kids out of school and homeschooled because of this $#@!.

----------


## Root

Schools promote the idea to the average American that the child isn't just fitting in or having a little bit of trouble in class.  Maybe, move him down a level if his situation doesn't improve soon.  The school psychologist recommends a talk to his doctor (who is on the payroll of the drug companies) about it. The doctor writes a prescription.

----------


## Origanalist

> Schools promote the idea to the average American that the child isn't just fitting in or having a little bit of trouble in class.  Maybe, move him down a level if his situation doesn't improve soon.  The school psychologist recommends a talk to his doctor (who is on the payroll of the drug companies) about it. The doctor writes a prescription.


And if the parent objects, they do their damndest to browbeat them into it. Including threats and accusations of child abuse. Hell, the drug dealers can't compete with these ghouls.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No, the government does not "force" kids to use drugs.  You're just floating conspiracy theories without any substance or any type of verification.


Maryanne Godboldo

----------


## Root

> And if the parent objects, they do their damndest to browbeat them into it. Including threats and accusations of child abuse. Hell, the drug dealers can't compete with these ghouls.


The average American has their wages garnished for these services.

----------


## Origanalist

> Maryanne Godboldo


Thanks for that, hundreds of thousands have been through this now but it's not real unless there's a link......(not that I had a swat team to deal with)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> No, the government does not "force" kids to use drugs.  You're just floating conspiracy theories without any substance or any type of verification.





> Er, no I'm not. [...]





> And if the parent objects, they do their damndest to browbeat them into it. Including threats and accusations of child abuse. Hell, the drug dealers can't compete with these ghouls.


Goddam straight! Some school districts get stipends of hundreds of dollars or more _per annum_ for each student "diagnosed" with ADHD. (No conflict of interest there! Oh, no!)

I can't help but wonder what TC would think if the A.M.A. came out and said that they had plans  to "change the definition" of cancer in order to "allow more people to  receive chemotherapy" (redounding greatly to the benefit of oncologists & drug companies) ... and then school administrators were given a vested interest in finding children diagnosable with cancer ...




> Nearly one in five high school age boys in the United States and 11  percent of school-age children over all have received a medical  diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, according to new  data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
> 
>  These rates reflect a marked rise over the last decade and could fuel  growing concern among many doctors that the A.D.H.D. diagnosis and its  medication are overused in American children.
> 
> The figures showed that an estimated 6.4 million children ages 4 through  17 had received an A.D.H.D. diagnosis at some point in their lives, a  16 percent increase since 2007 and a 53 percent rise in the past decade.  About two-thirds of those with a current diagnosis receive  prescriptions for stimulants like Ritalin or Adderall, which can  drastically improve the lives of those with A.D.H.D. but can also lead  to addiction, anxiety and occasionally psychosis.
> 
> “Those are astronomical numbers. I’m floored,” said Dr. William Graf, a  pediatric neurologist in New Haven and a professor at the Yale School of  Medicine. He added, “Mild symptoms are being diagnosed so readily,  which goes well beyond the disorder and beyond the zone of ambiguity to  pure enhancement of children who are otherwise healthy.”
> 
> And even more teenagers are likely to be prescribed medication in the  near future because *the American Psychiatric Association plans to change  the definition of A.D.H.D. to allow more people to receive the  diagnosis and treatment*. A.D.H.D. is described by most experts as  resulting from abnormal chemical levels in the brain that impair a  person’s impulse control and attention skills.
> ...


Got that? They want to "change the definition" of this (so-called) "disease" - specifically so that they can drug more people (especially children).

----------


## Origanalist

> Goddam straight! Some school districts get stipends of hundreds of dollars or more _per annum_ for each student "diagnosed" with ADHD. (No conflict of interest there! Oh, no!)
> 
> I can't help but wonder what TC would think if the A.M.A. came out and said that they had plans  to "change the definition" of cancer in order to "allow more people to  receive chemotherapy" (redounding greatly to the benefit of oncologists & drug companies) ... and then shool administrators were given a vested interest in finding children diagnosable with cancer ...
> 
> 
> 
> Got that? They want to "change the definition" of this (so-called) "disease" - specifically so that they can drug more people (especially children).


I salute your efforts sir.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

Also on ADHD

INVENTOR OF ADHD'S DEATHBED CONFESSION: "ADHD IS A FICTITIOUS DISEASE"

http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013...s-disease.html

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Also on ADHD
> 
> INVENTOR OF ADHD'S DEATHBED CONFESSION: "ADHD IS A FICTITIOUS DISEASE"
> 
> http://www.worldpublicunion.org/2013...s-disease.html


Everything in the DSM is a fictitious "disease."

Homosexuality used to be a "disease" according to the DSM. Now it isn't. Why? For no other reason than that the APA voted on it (which is pretty much the only reason it was even considered a "disease" in the first place). Abra-cadabra! Presto-change-o! Imagine the AMA voting on whether or not, say, cancer or diabetes is or is not a disease ...

When a genuine pathological basis is established for any of the putative "diseases" in the DSM, real doctors take over and it is essentially removed from the purview of psychiatry. This is what happened when "senile dementia" became "Alzheimer's disease."

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Recreational drugs should be illegal for children.  The fact that we're even having this debate amazes me.  If an average American came to this forum and read this stuff, they would think that you and others advocating this position are just completely out of your minds.


I have replied to you a couple times and you've never responded, Trad.  Do you think _I'm_ completely out of my mind?

----------


## Brett85

> I have replied to you a couple times and you've never responded, Trad.  Do you think _I'm_ completely out of my mind?


No.  Weren't you the one who was mostly agreeing with me?  I'm just saying that it's an absolutely crazy position to say that there should be no age limit at all for recreational drugs or alcohol.

----------


## libertyjam

> No.  Weren't you the one who was mostly agreeing with me?  I'm just saying that it's an absolutely crazy position to say that there should be no age limit at all for recreational drugs or alcohol.


Until England got really really chummy with the US justice system there was no age limit on alcohol in the UK as it had been for forever, this was up until around '79 or sometime in the 1980's.  
Children mostly learned early on not to get drunk, then the US style of prohibition in all things had to take hold and it has been downhill for the general populace there ever since.  I remember there were numerous articles written about the deleterious effects of US-UK judicial normalization partnership back in the early '80's.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No.  Weren't you the one who was mostly agreeing with me?  I'm just saying that it's an absolutely crazy position to say that there should be no age limit at all for recreational drugs or alcohol.


What are you envisioning? Children buying cocaine from the local penny store? Of course there should be age limits. Certain drugs have applications. I trust parents to make that decision. (or rather, I don't trust 'doctors' to make that decision.. precisely psychiatrists though I have met some others who were not in the interest of their patient) At the end of the day you believe adults should be able to use what substance they see fit without a doctor's approval, yes? Then it would stand to reason that you would also endorse the right for them to medicate their child as they see fit. (THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT TO GET YOUR CHILD HIGH!) It is simply asserting that the parent has the ultimate authority on  how they treat their child.

Amphetamines are deadly, they kill kids yearly when abused and often times kids kill themselves when on them simply taking them at the doctors recommendation or dosage. I don't hear you arguing against this. Benzodiazepines are highly addictive. I've heard comparisons equating withdraws from them to heroin addiction. Children are prescribed these fairly routinely. I don't hear you say anything about this. SSRIs and SSNRIs are prescribed like candy. I could go get a sample pack tomorrow for nothing. They are given to kids by the hundreds of thousands. (of pills, though kids taking them is probably around that number as well) I don't hear you speaking out against it. But if a parent decides to medicate their child with marijuana instead of these pills each of which have dozens of side effects including death, you are offended that this is the radical position. Marijuana has never killed a single person. It alleviates many of the problems these other drugs are prescribed for yet they wouldn't need a warning of might commit suicide etc.

Your position is illogical. I understand where you are coming from. We agree in part. I assert a parent's rights to medicate their child as they see fit. Whether that be with a physician's advice or not. I also assert government should be out of medicine and the doctor/patient relationship restored. You are apparently of the belief that with these assertions I am some how endorsing or even defending the parent's 'right' to smoke crack cocaine with their five year old, or some other extreme circumstance. For one, babies are born daily addicted to cocaine, methamphetamine or heroin. Probably the combined number of those three hard drugs equals the number of babies with an opioid addiction. (excluding heroin from it) I don't hear you arguing against that. Those babies are often times taken by the way. The majority of true $#@!-heads of society will never have a chance to do hard drugs with their children. The majority of addicts would never consider bringing a child down to their level of misery. I know. I was a child around these people. Some would. They should and would be punished

All that said I am telling you we aren't that far apart on position. You have extreme "what ifs" that are happening either way in society. I am an adult. I do not wish to have to get a permission slip from the doctor for whatever reason. If I had a child, I would be extremely hesitant to give them any drugs but before they ever went on these psychotropics they'd be smoking or eating or vaporizing medicinal marijuana. If they had an extreme tooth ache and it was a while before we could see a dentist, (unlikely, but possible) I'd have them gargle with a cocaine elixir or dab some of the liquid on the affected area. They did it for many, many, years.

----------


## Brett85

> What are you envisioning? Children buying cocaine from the local penny store? Of course there should be age limits. Certain drugs have applications. I trust parents to make that decision. (or rather, I don't trust 'doctors' to make that decision.. precisely psychiatrists though I have met some others who were not in the interest of their patient) At the end of the day you believe adults should be able to use what substance they see fit without a doctor's approval, yes? Then it would stand to reason that you would also endorse the right for them to medicate their child as they see fit. (THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT TO GET YOUR CHILD HIGH!) It is simply asserting that the parent has the ultimate authority on  how they treat their child.


No, a parent does not own their child and can't do anything to them that they want to do.  A parent can't abuse their children.  If they do they'll get charged with a crime and likely get their child taken away from them.  The argument that you're making is basically the same argument some make for legal abortion as well.  "It's my child and I own it, so I should have total control over what happens with it."  I disagree.  I don't believe that parents "own" their children.  I don't believe that parents should be allowed to take actions that cause great damage to their children.  I believe that the government, particularly state governments, have a role and an obligation to protect children.  Our nation's laws are never going to treat adults and children the exact same way.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> No, a parent does not own their child and can't do anything to them that they want to do.  A parent can't abuse their children.  If they do they'll get charged with a crime and likely get their child taken away from them.  The argument that you're making is basically the same argument some make for legal abortion as well.  "It's my child and I own it, so I should have total control over what happens with it."  I disagree. * I don't believe that parents "own" their children.  I don't believe that parents should be allowed to take actions that cause great damage to their children.*  I believe that the government, particularly state governments, have a role and an obligation to protect children.  Our nation's laws are never going to treat adults and children the exact same way.


A parent is the guardian of their child, NOT the government. The premise you are laying forth is the logic used behind banning large sodas and transfat. It's child abuse, you know.

It's a curious statement you are making. So, parents should not be able to give their child Paxil if the child is depressed? Or parents should only be able to give their child harmful substances when the government is successfully lobbied enough to prescribe them? I don't believe that is your belief so apparently you are just arguing against parental rights? I don't believe that is your argument. Forgive me for being so frank but do you know your argument and if so, can you please convey it clearly and consistently? I think we both agree child abuse should be illegal but I don't really understand the rest of what you are trying to say.

----------


## Brett85

> A parent is the guardian of their child, NOT the government. The premise you are laying forth is the logic used behind banning large sodas and transfat. It's child abuse, you know.
> 
> It's a curious statement you are making. So, parents should not be able to give their child Paxil if the child is depressed? Or parents should only be able to give their child harmful substances when the government is successfully lobbied enough to prescribe them? I don't believe that is your belief so apparently you are just arguing against parental rights? I don't believe that is your argument. Forgive me for being so frank but do you know your argument and if so, can you please convey it clearly and consistently? I think we both agree child abuse should be illegal but I don't really understand the rest of what you are trying to say.


I'm saying that a parent shouldn't have the right to do whatever they want to do to their children.  They don't own their child.  It would be child abuse for a parent to give Meth or Cocaine to their child.  I don't have a problem with a child getting a prescription drug from a doctor if it's something they really need.  If it's not something they really need and the drug causes damage to the child, then the doctor should be sued in court.  I'm not in favor of just allowing parents to give any drug they want to with a child without any prescription at all.  In that situation there would be nothing at all to stop them from giving drugs to their children for recreational use.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No.  Weren't you the one who was mostly agreeing with me?  I'm just saying that it's an absolutely crazy position to say that there should be no age limit at all for recreational drugs or alcohol.


 I was agreeing with your goal, and with with your sentiment.  But I do not agree that there should be any legal age limit whatsoever.  An arbitrary age limit for such things would be unlibertarian.  The same outcome can be accomplished, more effectively in fact,  in a libertarian way.  The aggression is drugging children.  The aggression should be banned.  The child is violating no one's rights by being drugged.  They are a victim.  There should be no law against being a crime victim.  That is ridiculous.

We have to think with great precision about these things.  At least, that's what I enjoy doing.  If I have erred in my reasoning, please feel free to point it out.

----------


## Brett85

> I was agreeing with your goal, and with with your sentiment.  But I do not agree that there should be any legal age limit whatsoever.  An arbitrary age limit for such things would be unlibertarian.  The same outcome can be accomplished, more effectively in fact,  in a libertarian way.  The aggression is drugging children.  The aggression should be banned.  The child is violating no one's rights by being drugged.  They are a victim.  There should be no law against being a crime victim.  That is ridiculous.
> 
> We have to think with great precision about these things.  At least, that's what I enjoy doing.  If I have erred in my reasoning, please feel free to point it out.


Well, I'm not in favor of throwing a small child in prison for being drugged by his or her parents.  But, I don't have a problem with the type of laws we have now where teenagers who go to parties and drink alcohol get a MIC and have to pay a fine.  I'm not talking about a long prison sentence or anything.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, I'm not in favor of throwing a small child in prison for being drugged by their parents.  But, I don't have a problem with the type of laws we have now where teenagers who go to parties and drink alcohol get a MIC and have to pay a fine.  I'm not talking about a long prison sentence or anything.


I honestly really think 14 or 16 year olds should be treated more like adults than they are now, or at the very least, parents should have more of a say.  I don't really know for certain where I draw the line, but I definitely see a difference between a 7 year old and a 14 year old.  In most historical cultures, the 14 year old is a man, but not a 17 year old.  I'm not sure what the age of consent should be, but 21 is definitely ridiculous and 18 may be too high.

That said, if you can't consent, you can't consent.  If you can consent, properly, you can do drugs.  If you can't, maybe someone victimized you, but you aren't responsible.  That's the bottom line.  I think the kind of law you're supporting here, with all due respect, is simultaneously saying that you can AND cannot consent at the same time  Because logically, you cannot be punished for an action to which you did not consent.

Now, as for the issue in the OP, personally, cannabis use does seem stupid to me, but not in a horrific manner.  From what I gather, cannabis is much more in the league of cigarettes, maybe even safer, than it is in the category of things like crack, meth, and LSD.  That doesn't mean I'm going to use it, but I see a difference in degree.  I'm fully pro-legalization but against use.  Ultimately, however, that we agree it should be legal is the relevant political point.

I also think some of you guys have way too high expectations when it comes to political allies.  TradCon wants to end the drug war, and allow any adults to use any drugs they want.  He wants any laws regarding children to be done by the states.  That's essentially Ron Paul's position,  and my own.  I don't expect you to build coalitions with just anyone... if they disagree with the basics, that's one thing. But I think in this case, we're arguing over details, not fundamentals.

----------


## Brett85

I'm in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18 but not any lower than that.  The age of 18 is the legal age for cigarettes, to engage in sex, and a lot of other things.  I think it would be more consistent to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  

And of course I want this to be decided by the states and not the federal government.

----------


## Brett85

> But I think in this case, we're arguing over details, not fundamentals.


Yes, exactly.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18 but not any lower than that.  The age of 18 is the legal age for cigarettes, to engage in sex, and a lot of other things.  I think it would be more consistent to lower the legal drinking age to 18.  
> 
> And of course I want this to be decided by the states and not the federal government.


I know in Italy parents allow their kids to drink wine all the time and I don't think there's a big drunkenness problem over there.

I guess the thing that's different with me for alcohol is that, while you can abuse it, some quantity of alcohol can be harmless or even healthy.  

Cigarettes are unhealthy, but do not likely cause permanent harm if quit at a young age, so I may do agree with Kinsella on this one (Legalistically speaking, that is, not on the more libertine attitude he has toward it.  My possible future kids would not be smoking even if it were legal).  I don't think every unhealthy action should be prohibited by law to children, and I'm not really sure cigarettes and alcohol are necessarily unique in this regard  (Caffeine is also "addictive" but should clearly not be a controlled substance even to the degree you'd be talking about for alcohol or nicotine).  I'd be fine with prohibiting the selling of those substances to kids if you feel the need (I'm not sure on this one either) but if a parent decides to let their kid engage, I don't really think that's the government's business.

When it comes to something like crack, heroin or meth, something where a single use could easily doom one to a lifetime of addiction and withdrawal, I feel differently about it, and I could see ANY use by children (At least under any normal circumstance) being banned for those substances.

So to me, it does depend on what it is...

I'm also not sure though.  My stance on "What do we do with children" isn't entirely developed.  I want as little government involvement as possible but I'm not sure quite how little we can get away with.

----------


## Origanalist

43 States That Allow Underage (under 21) Alcohol Consumption

http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=002591

It's interesting to read a lot of this stuff. I am reading Wisconsin's and it tells why the laws were made to conform to the federal government to get highway funds. We visited Wisconsin and you can bring your minor kid in with you and have a drink. If you go a tad over halfway down this PDF you get a summary of current laws and penalties and just a bit further down it states the laws had no effect on minor consumption, what a shocker.  

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/wb/95wb3.pdf

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Well, I'm not in favor of throwing a small child in prison for being drugged by his or her parents.


 Laws have penalties.  Do you propose passing a law with no penalty?  How preposterous.  If not, what would you have the penalty be?

Ultimately, all penalties are the death penalty in the end.  The state will brook no disobedience.  

Oh, just a small fine?

I won't pay it. 

We'll make you pay it?

Just try.  

Ok, we'll try.  Here we are at your house with guns.  

I won't come.  

Here we are kicking in your door.  

I will defend myself.  

You are now dead.

That, my fine Traditional friend, is the logic of the state.  That is the nature of the state.  That is the evil of the state.  You can't say no.  You can't politely disagree.  You can't demure.  You can't opt out.  In short, you can't be civilized.  The state is the opposite of and the refutation of all civilization.

*If you wish to make a law about XYZ, you wish to say: "do XYZ, or die."*  That's why civilized people say that XYZ better be pretty darn important and the law that you want to make better be awfully well thought-out.  None of this will happen under a monopoly state, *obviously*, but it could under a free-market competitive justice system.

In such a free-market competitive justice system, the proper rule would be that *one shall not drug people without their consent*.  As an extension, one shall not abuse non-adults by drugging them in an abusive way without their consent, a consent which they cannot fully give.  Non-adults would include children, the retarded, and invalids.




> But, I don't have a problem with the type of laws we have now where teenagers who go to parties and drink alcohol get a MIC and have to pay a fine.  I'm not talking about a long prison sentence or anything.


 Why not?  I mean, you're just making stuff up with no basis in justice whatsoever.  Why have the penalty be one thing and not another?  Why is the just punishment for a 15 year old drinking that they should "get a MIC" (whatever that is) and pay money to the state, upon ultimate penalty of death?  Why is the just punishment not that they be put in the stockades on the town square?  Or be sent to a disciplinary "reform school"?  Or have their left hand cut off?  None of this seems just in any way, so I guess we just pick one at random.

The fact is, an elderly woman with Alzheimer's disease, or autistic middle-aged man, or a teenager, or a child, or even an infant, who gets drunk, none of these people have violated the rights of anyone else simply by getting drunk.  That act by itself is not a violation of anyone else's rights.  The only person whose rights _may_ be being violated is the drunk person himself (infant, teen, autistic, whatever).  There can be no law against putting something into one's own body.

There can be laws against putting substances into other people's bodies.  There can be laws against abusing children.  These would be good laws.  These would be the kind of sensible laws which would arise on a free market justice system.

What is a child?  What is an adult?  *A man is an adult when he is supporting himself and decides he is an adult.*  This could happen at age 12, or age 15, or age 22.  Arbitrary age cut-offs are just wrong.  Becoming an adult before high school age would likely be rare nowadays.  In this day and age, there are many even in their late 20s or 30s who do not meet this standard of adulthood, and as such should really still be considered children, still subject to the rules and guardianship of their parents or whoever they are the ward of.   Do you have a better alternative definition of adulthood?  Propose away.

Please respond to this.  I would love to hear your thoughts.  And everyone else's thoughts for that matter.  But let's have our thoughts be precise, logical, sensible, and unclouded by irrational emotion.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> When it comes to something like crack, heroin or meth, something where a single use could easily doom one to a lifetime of addiction and withdrawal, I feel differently about it, and I could see ANY use by children (At least under any normal circumstance) being banned for those substances.


 So your law would say "You, child, shall not use any crack, heroin or meth.  If you do, we will impose arbitrary and capricious penalty XYZ.  If you refuse to comply and resist and defend yourself successfully enough we will, needless to say, kill you."

So the question arises, why do you want to kill kids, FreedomFanatic?  If the 5 year old is addicted to crack, doesn't he have enough problems without you trying to punish him in some inevitably stupid and evil way?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I honestly really think 14 or 16 year olds should be treated more like adults than they are now, or at the very least, parents should have more of a say.  I don't really know for certain where I draw the line, but I definitely see a difference between a 7 year old and a 14 year old.  In most historical cultures, the 14 year old is a man, but not a 17 year old.  I'm not sure what the age of consent should be, but 21 is definitely ridiculous and 18 may be too high.


 Your instinct is correct, but you have not yet broken free of the (ridiculous) idea of arbitrary age laws.  A child becomes a man when he assumes responsibility for his own life.  That is, when he goes out and gets a job, his own apartment, and declares "I am now a man."  The line between childhood and adulthood is different for each individual.  Why make an arbitrary age limit?  Well, there is no reason.  There is no benefit.  Just treat people who behave as adults as adults, and people who behave as children as children.




> That said, if you can't consent, you can't consent.  If you can consent, properly, you can do drugs.  If you can't, maybe someone victimized you, but you aren't responsible.  That's the bottom line.  I think the kind of law you're supporting here, with all due respect, is simultaneously saying that you can AND cannot consent at the same time  Because logically, you cannot be punished for an action to which you did not consent.


  Exactly!  That's some clear, incisive thinking!  Cutting to the root of the issue!

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> So your law would say "You, child, shall not use any crack, heroin or meth.  If you do, we will impose arbitrary and capricious penalty XYZ.  If you refuse to comply and resist and defend yourself successfully enough we will, needless to say, kill you."
> 
> So the question arises, why do you want to kill kids, FreedomFanatic?  If the 5 year old is addicted to crack, doesn't he have enough problems without you trying to punish him in some inevitably stupid and evil way?


Someone selling or promoting harmful drugs to children ought be punished. If it were my child, the offender would be hanging from the trees. No ifs, ands or buts, it is an offense that would be punishable by death. The drugs I am referring to specifically are crack cocaine or heroin, though giving my child any drug without my expressed permission would have serious consequences that a person would be wise not to want to face. That is also referring to the forced administration of drugs such as Adderall, Risperdal or any of them which I have personally seen the results of. I have also personally seen the results of crack cocaine usage and heroin usage. Now adults ought be able to consume what they wish without permission from another person or government. (a doctor or the like)

Children who dabble in drugs should be talked to about the dangers of the drug, they should be shown actual addicts, and the adult who gave the child the drug should be punished. In my society the cases would be few and far between though. There wouldn't be a black market encouraging the use of these dangerous, addictive drugs, and the MIC wouldn't be pimping pills to children by the tens of thousands. There would be very serious consequences for such offenses.

Cocaine does have it's uses. Topical analgesic used for treating toothaches and the like, I am fine with that. So long as the parent is fine with that. Heroin should be limited to cases of terminal or very serious pain (compound fractures and the like) to be given to a child. Intravenously should be discouraged as much as possible. Cannabis is the safest substance known to man. If a parent wants to treat their child's ailment with cannabis that would be fine. Methamphetamine has very limited applications and should not be provided to children. ADHD is a fictitious disease anyways.

That being said it would seem impossible to enforce without a massive government. If a parent simply wishes to get their child high, who is to know? Aside from family. Few and far between. Most addicts I've known do not wish to bring another down to their level. If allegations or concerns are levied from a concerned relative that the parent is neglectfully getting their child 'high', (assuming the child wasn't already taken away) they should be investigated. If found to be true (the parent simply getting high with their child) the child should be placed with a relative. It gets very tricky and I am open to considering other methods to deal with the problem.

I have seen the effects of these drugs. I was shown what some may do to you. My experiences would probably shock the mind. In limited circumstances children should be allowed to use these drugs *with* parental permission. Aside from that, no. Hell no. Bad enough we have a generation of crack babies, and now opioid babies, the last thing we need is more prevalent drug use in children. In my society it would not be. Children would know the dangers of some of these substances, they would be taught to avoid them. Overtime addiction rates would lower. Prison rates would be far lower and the police force would all but be absolved. I am open to your opinions or concerns of the points I've raised.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Someone selling or promoting harmful drugs to children ought be punished. If it were my child, the offender would be hanging from the trees. No ifs, ands or buts, it is an offense that would be punishable by death. The drugs I am referring to specifically are crack cocaine or heroin, though giving my child any drug without my expressed permission would have serious consequences that a person would be wise not to want to face. That is also referring to the forced administration of drugs such as Adderall, Risperdal or any of them which I have personally seen the results of. I have also personally seen the results of crack cocaine usage and heroin usage. Now adults ought be able to consume what they wish without permission from another person or government. (a doctor or the like)


 This all sounds more or less right to me!  With some exceptions.  

One: a punishment ought to be proportional to the crime, and I don't think the death penalty is justified in this case.  Especially considering there is a wide range of opinions even among reasonable adults about what constitutes a "harmful" drug.  Mistakes are made by all.  The drug provider may not have even been malicious.  As bad as the Ritalin pushing is (and I agree, it's a horrible travesty), I do not think it would be just to hang all doctors who have prescribed it from trees.  Now school counselors and administrators are another matter... 

Two: In a world with a just legal process, it would usually be better to go through that legal process, not to simply execute vigilante justice.




> Children who dabble in drugs should be talked to about the dangers of the drug, they should be shown actual addicts, and the adult who gave the child the drug should be punished. In my society the cases would be few and far between though. There wouldn't be a black market encouraging the use of these dangerous, addictive drugs, and the MIC wouldn't be pimping pills to children by the tens of thousands. There would be very serious consequences for such offenses.


 Right on.




> Cocaine does have it's uses. Topical analgesic used for treating toothaches and the like, I am fine with that. So long as the parent is fine with that. Heroin should be limited to cases of terminal or very serious pain (compound fractures and the like) to be given to a child. Intravenously should be discouraged as much as possible. Cannabis is the safest substance known to man. If a parent wants to treat their child's ailment with cannabis that would be fine. Methamphetamine has very limited applications and should not be provided to children. ADHD is a fictitious disease anyways.


 You know more about these things than I; I know basically nothing about drug usage.  But this all sounds reasonable.  

ADHD may not be a disease, but it can be contagious!




> That being said it would seem impossible to enforce without a massive government. If a parent simply wishes to get their child high, who is to know? Aside from family. Few and far between. Most addicts I've known do not wish to bring another down to their level. If allegations or concerns are levied from a concerned relative that the parent is neglectfully getting their child 'high', (assuming the child wasn't already taken away) they should be investigated. If found to be true (the parent simply getting high with their child) the child should be placed with a relative. It gets very tricky and I am open to considering other methods to deal with the problem.


OK, first off, we don't want a massive government.  That option is "off the table," as they say.  I would say that family problems should be dealt with in a family way.  There's not going to be brigades of Anti Children-Drugging Police peeking in every window.  We're not going to create a new department.  In fact, I would imagine we both agree that we should even eliminate the department we have now: the Child Protective Services (CPS) / Department of Family Services (DFS).  Now that doesn't mean we want to legalize spouse or child beating, it's just that clearly a centralized institutional approach does not seem to work, and causes far more problems than it solves (statistically, children removed from their homes by CPS/DFS are abused more by their foster families than they ever were by their original families).

If a parent is treating their child badly, someone will find out -- most likely the other parent or a sibling.  If both parents are treating a child badly, then probably a relative will begin to suspect it at some point.  They can then in some way take the child away from the malfeasant parents and under their own wing -- probably almost always informally, but on rare occasion it may have to go through a formal legal process.




> I have seen the effects of these drugs. I was shown what some may do to you. My experiences would probably shock the mind. In limited circumstances children should be allowed to use these drugs *with* parental permission. Aside from that, no. Hell no. Bad enough we have a generation of crack babies, and now opioid babies, the last thing we need is more prevalent drug use in children. In my society it would not be. Children would know the dangers of some of these substances, they would be taught to avoid them. Overtime addiction rates would lower. Prison rates would be far lower and the police force would all but be absolved. I am open to your opinions or concerns of the points I've raised.


 Yes, indeed.  Government doesn't work.  One of the best ways to make something really grow and spread exponentially seems to be to have the government fight a war against it.  Fight a war on fascism, what do you end up with?  Global fascism.  Fight a war an drugs, what do you end up with?  A nation of druggies.  Which is what we've got.  Prozac.  Celexa.  Effexor.  Paxil.  23% of women in their 40s and 50s are on this junk.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Helmuth, we agree on most. I have reservations of private courts considering the sort of "local politics" I was raised around.

I have reservations of whether or not a private courts could provide a truly bias free environment though admittedly courts today are influenced in many ways as well. Judges hold too much power, the police state is all encompassing, LEO words are worth more than common citizens and connections/money/power are key.

As to the dissolution of CPS and related agencies I agree in principle. It encourages further laws that eventually strangle out the relationship between the family and the child. That being said, I have met kids (mentally as you argued, though they were about or above 18) who were raised without running water or electricity. They $#@! in a bucket and their mom was a crack whore. He was raised on different values and stole from those who'd try to help him. One of those moms who had her children stealing from the Family Dollar so she could sell the $#@! half-priced for crack cocaine. The family was about the same. From what I heard his father whored his son out for crack when he was about 5-6 years old. This was the family the kid grew up in. He was very $#@!ed up in the head and hardly spoke.

This isn't exaggerated. Some parents would literally sell their children for a piece of crack or a small .01g of heroin. The cupboards are bare even with the food card the government gives. They sell it for drugs and their children eat ramen noodles and ketchup, if at all. This is a relatively normal occurrence. Some of the kids turn out fine and overcome the circumstances they faced. Many rob to have their own money, sell drugs to their own parents, and eventually stay on the corner. Young kids.. whether they are look outs or selling the $#@!, they are seeing the misery and being indoctrinated to feeling no sympathy towards misery. They don't go to school. They spit at the police who beat them up and detain them any chance they get. They have more money than I at twelve or thirteen years old. That is the reality.

Then you have the whore who has been smoking crack since she was a teen. Decades. She sucks dick for 5 dollars a piece and gives pussy for about the same. It's all negotiable. A piece of a crumb and she would do _whatever you want._ I'm not joking. Dance, sing, do your dishes, fight, whatever. You want to see slavery look at a crack fiend. I could find videos of the city I came from if you do not believe. Either way, she's $#@!ing for dollars, Mchamburgers and the like. She is pregnant, never cares to find out, and is still smoking and whoring herself out. She has more kids then you have fingers... herself being retarded. She has no idea who the fathers are, not that they'd even care if they knew.

My question is, what is to be done? I despise the police force, I despise government intervention, but what is your solution? These are the "kids" that are robbing and stealing, shooting and killing. (as you have stated, adults aren't magically adults when they turn 18) What do you do with them? The people who would literally kill you for stepping on their Jordans or for looking their way? The children who by and large encompass the "ghetto." 

These problems need addressed. The families I'm referring to *all* smoke crack. Or they *all* sell drugs. How do you change the mentality, especially considering the lucrativeness of selling .01 grams for 10 dollars a piece and getting an ounce for 900 dollars. (give or take you'll make $2,800 or triple your money) What is to stop that incentive or should it be stopped?

I understand many issues are touched. By all means answer as you see fit.

----------


## tod evans

> My question is, what is to be done? I despise the police force, I despise government intervention, but what is your solution? These are the "kids" that are robbing and stealing, shooting and killing. (as you have stated, adults aren't magically adults when they turn 18) What do you do with them? The people who would literally kill you for stepping on their Jordans or for looking their way? The children who by and large encompass the "ghetto." 
> 
> These problems need addressed. The families I'm referring to *all* smoke crack. Or they *all* sell drugs. How do you change the mentality, especially considering the lucrativeness of selling .01 grams for 10 dollars a piece and getting an ounce for 900 dollars. (give or take you'll make $2,800 or triple your money) What is to stop that incentive or should it be stopped?
> 
> I understand many issues are touched. By all means answer as you see fit.


I stepped out of this thread for a bit but I've gotta weigh in on this..

The "answer" to these problems in their entirety is to get government out of the mix.

No drug war.

No social services.

No taxpayer funded anything, no food, no housing, no schools, no medical, nothing!

All of these issues would be done with in less than a generation, people would either pull together and build communities or they'd die.

Both scenarios are acceptable to me.

Paying for what we have now is not acceptable to me.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I stepped out of this thread for a bit but I've gotta weigh in on this..
> 
> The "answer" to these problems in their entirety is to get government out of the mix.
> 
> No drug war.
> 
> No social services.
> 
> No taxpayer funded anything, no food, no housing, no schools, no medical, nothing!
> ...


I agree with a lot of this.

I would like to discuss methods to work with those who have been "disadvantaged." (as overplayed as that card has been)

I want to work to reverse this trend we have.. that dumb is "cool" or that being a "gangster" is _cool._ (kids these days wouldn't know Albert Anastasia until..) It's mainly the media. They market to the innercity youth to keep these prisons at their guaranteed 90% occupancy rates. Damientv posted a story on the conflicts of interests of those who own these records labels and those who have high stocks in the privatized prisons. True slave labor.

I'm trying to reverse this generation as I see how. They're all short attention spanned iPhone, Facebook etc. "gangsters" and need to understand that you aren't getting round two. You will be put in a cell for mandatory sentences or killed. Point blank.. end of story. I refuse to accept the elite narrative that freedom wouldn't be understood, you know? It's popular. We are speaking to those that are being beat to comas or death, shot and killed, sentenced to 10 years for a clipped finger nail worth of crack.. they see the system is biased. We have to advocate personal responsibility *WHILE* advocating the end of the drug war.

In my ideal society the problems I've mentioned would be even more miniscule. With less cops. There has to be outlets. Over-regulations strangling the market giving these children no outlet for money but selling drugs, they're gonna sell drugs.

The prison industrial complex being drastically cut by way of ending these drug laws, more fathers in the lives of their child. We need discipline. To get this under hand it is very multifaceted and complex.

I agree with you though. I just want to use those parameters to help more children see the truth of the system.

Sorry for the length. I try to keep it short so most people will read it but this is an important message.

----------


## tod evans

And I'd back your play, privately, like with no tax dollars.

I'm all for helping out kids, especially locally.

But this federal free for all isn't working for me at all.

----------


## Origanalist

> And I'd back your play, privately, like with no tax dollars.
> 
> I'm all for helping out kids, especially locally.
> 
> But this federal free for all isn't working for me at all.


Or anybody else.

----------


## tod evans

> Or anybody else.


Repless again

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So your law would say "You, child, shall not use any crack, heroin or meth.  If you do, we will impose arbitrary and capricious penalty XYZ.  If you refuse to comply and resist and defend yourself successfully enough we will, needless to say, kill you."
> 
> So the question arises, why do you want to kill kids, FreedomFanatic?  If the 5 year old is addicted to crack, doesn't he have enough problems without you trying to punish him in some inevitably stupid and evil way?


I'm not saying to punish the kid, I'm saying to  punish anyone who sells or gives such drugs to kids (And yes, I know "Kid" is still arbitrary, but we still to some extent know it when we see it.  A five year old is definitely a kid and a 25 year old definitely is not.)



> Your instinct is correct, but you have not yet broken free of the (ridiculous) idea of arbitrary age laws.  A child becomes a man when he assumes responsibility for his own life.  That is, when he goes out and gets a job, his own apartment, and declares "I am now a man."  The line between childhood and adulthood is different for each individual.  Why make an arbitrary age limit?  Well, there is no reason.  There is no benefit.  Just treat people who behave as adults as adults, and people who behave as children as children.


I'm not entirely in agreement with this, although I am in part.

I've graduated high school, and am 18 years old, but I still live with my parents and will likely do so for the next four years or possibly more solely in order to save money while going through college.

I'm still an adult though.   If I feel like walking into a store and buying alcohol, there should be no law prohibiting the seller from selling to me.  I should be able to walk into a drug store and buy crack if I want to.  Now, of course, my parents could stop me from doing those things in their house (And I wouldn't want to buy heroin anywhere anyway) but there shouldn't be a law saying I can't buy them at my age just because I happen to be choosing to live at home.  That's silly.

On the other hand, a ten year old shouldn't get a blank check just because he ran away from home.

Ultimately, we need juries with common sense, not "laws" as we traditionally  know them, but there should be guidelines that should be applied with some leeway available.  This is kind of a "You know it when you see it, with some gray area" sort of thing.  In my opinion, a ten year old cannot consent to the degree required to use mind-altering drugs in all or most cases.  A five year old certainly cannot.  A 14, 15 year old may be somewhere near the borderline.  A 20 year old certainly can consent.

Of course, there are always outliers but I don't think a ten year old who just decides to run away from home is "More of an adult" than I am, that just doesn't make sense.   ANY standard is arbitrary.  Yet we still have to have one, if possibly a generous one.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> And I'd back your play, privately, like with no tax dollars.
> 
> I'm all for helping out kids, especially locally.
> 
> But this federal free for all isn't working for me at all.


I am not suggesting people federally pay for inner-city problems. I am pointing out the inner-city problems and possible solutions. My suggestions would end most of the problems I am referring to and then at the end of the day, it* is* a local problem. I expect no one out in the country to *pay* to try and teach children hundreds of miles away morals or ethics or to try and teach that there are alternatives. Reaching out to children and showing them a thing or two about your trade is fine and encouraged. Especially when their father isn't around.

How I imagine it is much different then today. That is, a vast reduction of the police harassing and victimizing anyone in "their neighborhood", the ending of drug laws criminalizing a great deal of the neighborhood, (reminding you that a vast number of those are in prison for non-violent victimless offenses) fathers more likely to be in their child's life etc.

I have written about it in more detail.

About the over-regulation strangling jobs, the PIC locking up people for victimless crimes, the drug laws themselves, the people who aren't productive leeching money from the system to further justify more jobs (police), an end to proxy wars, an end to the fiat system which in turn is an end to the encouragement of debt instead of saving and investing capital...

This isn't a one step solution, it's many things that need done. I have lived the neighborhoods, I am relatively educated and am continuing to learn. If this country is EVER to get back on track, my plans ought be given a thought or two. I haven't suggested a tax to pay for problems that aren't yours. Charity would work. But indeed, look at who controls the media and who controls the PIC. They don't want us together, they want us divided. This IS an issue that affects us ALL whether you pay for it or not. If the mentality of the people never changes, the system will never change. Simple as that. I refuse to accept the notion that people "don't want to be free." They've never been educated on the ways to bring about freedom and are by and large ignorant of what freedom means.

True economic growth. Not building $#@! to destroy $#@! in another country to scrap the $#@! to rebuild the $#@! in our country. That is the biggest source of welfare and I hardly hear anyone talking about it. (I'm sure we both agree it needs to end) *They'll say, "Jobs this, or Jobs that" but in the end.. Is building destruction really productive? Especially when we repay to rebuild the $#@! we destroy.*

You think the food card is bad? Look into the FY of 1996. I'm talking billions upon billions of dollars in contracts. 

Not to mention a global "cabal" of banksters who have come together to rig the interest rate. We are talking the entire world, trillions. OPEC, bullying nations and dollar supremacy.. this all intertwines with the inner-city problems. A city is just a cesspool where ALL of the corruption, waste, embezzlement, fraud and FRACTIONALLY RESERVED $#@!ING takes place. It manifests in the children.

Local solutions. Mainly, a good willow branch that gives. Saved my ass a couple of years up a State road. Before I found the message of liberty as well. The country is $#@!ed enough as is, if the children aren't given alternatives to prison (assuming laws aren't repealed) where does it leave us?

----------


## osan

> If men were angels, government wouldn't be necessary.  You and a few others here seem to think that humans are inherently good while the government is inherently evil.  I disagree.  Human beings have been evil since sin entered the world.  All of us are born evil and only become somewhat civilized through guidance from our parents and life experiences.  Again, I've never made the argument that drugs shouldn't be legal, just that there should be a legal age to use drugs of either 18 or 21.  This isn't an unreasonable position.  Your position would simply allow parents to give hardcore drugs to their children even for recreational reasons, because a parent could simply claim that it was being done for medical reasons when in reality they just thought it would be fun to get their child high.  This isn't a responsible position to take.  In a civilized society, there needs to be a certain age set by law before someone can engage in adult behaviors.  Let's why beer and other drinks are called "adult beverages," because they are meant to be consumed by *adults.*


I have to chuckle as I stand, watching your credibility wing away while you assert your opinions as fact... people born evil... have to have government... there ought to be a law... your repeated references to "a civilized society"...  need government to set and age because you want everyone to live according to your notion of what is right for one and all.  I wonder how you would feel if some progressives managed to pass a law saying you had to become gay.

Believe as you please, but do not expect that the rest of us will be unanimously sipping at the kool-aid trough.  You are a statist - Your rightful choice, but do not expect us to believe you are something else.

----------


## jmdrake

> "I don't use drugs or support drug use but if you want to use dope and smoke yourself to death that's your business! It's not my mind that's being destroyed!" Come the $#@! on. Get off your damn high horse (or unhigh horse as it were). How about just "It's your body, do what you want with it." Period. That's all you have to say.
> 
> Stuff like this annoys me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically she actually looks kind of glassy eyed as she says it.


A) To me she looks hot as opposed to glassy eyed.

B) She didn't make the video for you or people like you.  She made it for people who still support the drug war.

Folks who will buy the "Drugs really aren't bad for you anyway" argument don't need to be convinced to decriminalize drugs.  They are also a small minority of the voting public.  (Largely because many people who don't think using drugs is bad have already lost their voting rights for being convicted of using drugs.)

----------


## jmdrake

> I agree to some extent with Borowski, but I'm not totally in favor of marijuana legalization (I agree mostly with Rand's stance on this issue). The whole libertine Adam Kokesh (and to a lesser extent Alex Jones) view that "drugs are good, they wake you up to the reality of the government conspiracy" comes off as pretty dumb.


For the record Alex Jones has consistently said that he believes drugs are bad for you (though he thinks the prescription ones are worse) and Adam Kokesh has never endorsed any 9/11 conspiracy theory.  (Yeah Kokesh endorses the standard Federal Reserve conspiracy theory that just about everyone here endorses.)

----------


## dannno

> A) To me she looks hot as opposed to glassy eyed.
> 
> B) She didn't make the video for you or people like you.  She made it for people who still support the drug war.
> 
> Folks who will buy the "Drugs really aren't bad for you anyway" argument don't need to be convinced to decriminalize drugs.  They are also a small minority of the voting public.  (Largely because many people who don't think using drugs is bad have already lost their voting rights for being convicted of using drugs.)



Ya it is really a statist argument.. because one has to assume that drug x is much worse than drug y, because drug x is illegal and drug y can be prescribed by doctors!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

KC, I don't think there are any easy answers.  Societies and civilizations don't crumble overnight, and they won't be rehabilitated overnight either.  These people you are talking about have major, major problems.  They are not all going to be saved.  For each individual one, certainly there is hope.  One can always use his freedom and blaze a very different path than he's been on.  But statistically, I don't think there's a lot of hope.  These people are not all going to rise up and become responsible adults.  We can just take measures to try to contain the damage, to try to limit their sphere of destruction to themselves and those very close to them, not all of society around them.

In the past ages of history, either being stupid or being lazy -- just one or the other -- was enough to kill you off.  There are very strong benefits arising from that situation for the quality of the human race.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

By the way, on the OP, I am one who takes an anti-drug position as far as my personal life.  And further, as far as what I think is right.  Not just right for myself, but right for everyone.  People ought to be using a lot less mind-altering drugs.  People should all stop smoking.  No one should be drinking alcohol.  So be annoyed at me if you want, OP.  Drugs should be totally, 100% legal, and no one should be using them (basically).  You should stop destroying yourself and your mind by trying to escape reality using these harmful mind-altering substances.  Get off the weed, man!

I totally disagree with this guy, for instance:



_There is no "libertine" in libertarianism._  Traditional values are wildly, stupendously successful, and libertinism is a dismal failure.  Morality works.  Moral relativism doesn't.

Luckily, the main strain of libertarianism has come to be led by upstanding leaders with very traditional values leading admirable lives and raising conventional families (Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, etc.).

----------


## dannno

helmuth_hubener, you really ought to learn about cannabinoids and the human endocannabinoid system.  It actually helps your body better regulate hormones, insulin, inflammation and avoid cancer, all things that I KNOW YOU KNOW make a person healthier, I KNOW YOU eat your diet so that the foods you eat help meet these very same ends and cannabis is something that pushes you in the same healthful direction. There is an intimate relationship human beings have with this plant that is like no other. So your position is really wrong that 'mind altering' drugs are necessarily harmful.

----------


## dannno

Is grass fed beef a mind altering drug? Because it gives me a lot of energy and keeps my mind awake.

Is grain fed beef and bread a mind altering drug? Because they make me tired and sleepy.

Is kale a mind altering drug? Because it gives me energy and makes me feel clean.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> helmuth_hubener, you really ought to learn about cannabinoids and the human endocannabinoid system.


 Well, maybe I ought to, but there's lots of things I ought to learn.

Here's the thing: if I could get whatever endocrine benefits or whatever there are to cannibis without any of the other effects (hallucinatory, relaxing, impaired [I'm sure you would say "improved"] perception of reality, etc.) then I might consider that.

What's very valuable to me is to have my faculties.  To experience reality through my senses and my mind, natural and unclouded.  Also, to not become dependent on habit-forming substances.  I'm sure you will retort that marijuana is not habit forming, that it's the most un-addictive substance known to man, but I do not think that is true.

I also don't drink coffee, tea, or caffeinated soda pops (of course, nowadays I don't generally drink soda pop at all, just for health).  I don't take aspirin or Tylenol.  If I'm in pain, that's my body telling me something and I want to hear it.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Is grass fed beef a mind altering drug?


 No.  It does not dramatically alter my mood, personality, feelings, judgment, or perception.  That's true for all these things you list.  

Let's give a better example with actual non-placebo effects detectable to mere mortals: running.  Any high I get from running is a natural high, completely wholesome and under control.  The same is not true for marijuana use.

----------


## dannno

> Well, maybe I ought to, but there's lots of things I ought to learn.
> 
> Here's the thing: if I could get whatever endocrine benefits or whatever there are to cannibis without any of the other effects (hallucinatory, relaxing, impaired [I'm sure you would say "improved"] perception of reality, etc.) then I might consider that.


Heating the bud of the cannabis plant activates the THC, and possibly some of the other cannabinoids at various temperatures. That is why it is commonly either smoked or baked/cooked into foods because otherwise it doesn't get you 'high' if you consume it. However I've heard that you can get some or all of the medicinal/cannabinoid benefits by consuming it without heating it up, apparently some or all of the cannabinoids are activated without the addition of heat. THC will not be activated without the addition of heat and THC is the part that causes the vast majority if not all of the hallucinatory and relaxing effects. 





> What's very valuable to me is to have my faculties.  To experience reality through my senses and my mind, natural and unclouded.  Also, to not become dependent on habit-forming substances.  I'm sure you will retort that marijuana is not habit forming, that it's the most un-addictive substance known to man, but I do not think that is true.


I wouldn't say that THC causes impairment per se, because it actually causes the opposite effect. You actually get more sensory signals. THC is not a pain releiver like other substances where the pain is masked, cannabis helps with pain in at least two different ways that don't actually mask it. One way is that its helps relieve inflammation which is generally the cause of pain. Secondly, it helps your mind focus on MANY different sensory signals instead of being focused on one. So instead of being focused on the pain in your arm, you will still feel it but you can simultaneously be experiencing and conscious of other sensations and input signals around you and your brain doesn't just hyper focus on the pain. One of the medicinal reasons I use cannabis is for tinnitus, ringing in the ear that was caused by ear surgeries when I was younger. When I'm sober, the ringing I would say is worse. This may be due to inflammation, or it may be due to the fact that I hyper focus on the ringing because when you are sober you tend to focus your consciousness more on single things whereas when you're stoned you are able to absorb your entire environment.





> I also don't drink coffee, tea, or caffeinated soda pops (of course, nowadays I don't generally drink soda pop at all, just for health).  I don't take aspirin or Tylenol.  If I'm in pain, that's my body telling me something and I want to hear it.


I drank coffee like 8 or 9 years ago for a few months and gave it up, it was too much.. but now I actually have been drinking some recently, but i usually just prepare a cup in the morning and throw a bunch of grass-fed butter in there, a little raw honey, and drink half or so, then have the other half when I get home. 

I've known some people who require 1-2 POTS of coffee to wake up in the morning. Holy moly, that can't be good.. but I've also heard there are health benefits from drinking coffee, in moderation. I know green tea has health benefits. But you also don't want to pump yourself up with way too much caffeine.

----------


## dannno

> No.  It does not dramatically alter my mood, personality, feelings, judgment, or perception.  That's true for all these things you list.  
> 
> Let's give a better example with actual non-placebo effects detectable to mere mortals: running.  Any high I get from running is a natural high, completely wholesome and under control.  The same is not true for marijuana use.


I feel a lot better if I smoke a bowl before exercising. I may be one of those people who don't produce enough cannabinoids for whatever reason.  But a cannabis 'high', to me, feels very natural, wholesome and under control, always has. I've learned more about myself, my emotions, my brain and my health while stoned because it increases perception and awareness.

----------


## KurtBoyer25L

Poor Julie. *puff*

----------

