Ron Paul introduces bill to legalise pot,

[Junior1942]

I don't know how it is where you live, ironglow, but here in north Louisiana seemingly every little town has a prison.  From off the top of my head, see if you recognize any of these major metropolitan spots here in north Louisiana with prisons merrily consuming your tax money: Pollock, Jena (2), Winnfield (2), Urania, Rayville (2 maybe 3), etc.  There's more I'm sure.  Not included in the operating costs of all those prisons are the criminal justice costs of putting the prisoners there.  Each prisoner came from a parish or county jail and courthouse.  This is in a backwoods area of north Louisiana--not Alexandria, Monroe, Shreveport, etc. 

The day is fast approaching when every single person in Louisiana is either in the clutches of the criminal justice system or doing the clutching.  When that day comes, I have no idea of who will pay the tax bill for it all.  Everyone will either be in jail, on their way to jail, or in the employ of the jail.

[SHOOTALL]

Shootall says;
   "  But no we don't want to punish to severe since those passing laws and judgement often are doing the same crimes."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Unfortunately, I believe Shootall is completely correct here...

I'm 100% for finding a way to tax only people like you and SHOOTALL for the huge cost to society of a criminal justice system top-heavy with people who committed victimless crimes.

Why tax me I'm for making it legal.

[yellowtail3]

Hmmm... poll is 4-1 in favor of freedom, in place of state control and intimidation. Cool.

[45-70.gov]

Hmmm... poll is 4-1 in favor of freedom, in place of state control and intimidation. Cool.

''in favor  of freedom''   .....glad you worded  it that way

funny  how  so many people that never tried  it 
think they can impose their  opinion/standards  on  other people

i  must admit  that  a few months in jail....cured   the problems
that  a few people  close to me had....but that still doesnt  make it  right

just  remember  the the  DRUG  LAWS  are what  makes  drugs  so profitable
don't ask  me how  i know that

[lakota]

The government has no place in telling free people what they can and cannot ingest.

But with freedom comes responsibility. If you utilize the freedom it is your responsibility to deal with any consequences.

[beerbelly]

I myself don't do dope, but I am for making it all legal. From pot to meth! Let them put any thing they want into their body! I expect there would be many, many deaths from overdosing, but I figure good riddance!

[powderman]

I expect there would be many, many deaths from overdosing, but I figure good riddance!


The gene pool would get a rapid cleansing for a short time. POWDERMAN. 

[SHOOTALL]

Just wish they would stop tinkling in the gene pool ! 

[BUGEYE]

And those who abuse should be punished ! When we out law to make enforcement convient for police officers the rest of us lose a freedom for no good reason. Put all drunk drivers in jail for a min. of 5 years the first offence and see what happens. But no we don't want to punish to severe since those passing laws and judgement often are doing the same crimes.

bingo!!  when you belly up to the bar, "unless your a total idiot" you know that if you drink and drive, you could kill innocent people.

[yellowtail3]

The government has no place in telling free people what they can and cannot ingest.

But with freedom comes responsibility. If you utilize the freedom it is your responsibility to deal with any consequences.

That seems reasonable, so far as it goes... haven't seen an argument otherwise.  Have you seen anyone recommended otherwise, regarding personal responsibility & the bill that Dr. Ron Paul has introduced?

[ironglow]

The government has no place in telling free people what they can and cannot ingest.

But with freedom comes responsibility. If you utilize the freedom it is your responsibility to deal with any consequences.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
  Lakota;
  While I agree in principle with your first sentence, I cannot agree with the second one..
 
  A) The first sentence is the essence of freedom..  and I would support it if the user/abuser lived in isolation where he could only hurt himself.

 B) ..But then, few of us live on a private island where we can hurt nobody but ourselves.  Personal responsibility is a great concept, which I back wholeheartedly.  However, let us take those numerous situations where totally innocent victims are brutalized, due to somebody else's addiction.  I point out here, the many situations where a family is killed by a drunk driver or by the Long Island killer, seeking more dope..
     http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/06/22/2011-06-22_li_pharmacy_massacre_police_raid_home_in_connection_with_murder_of_four_at_haven.html?r=news
     
   Sure, those killers can be 'sent up' for numerous years... 
   Next question; how does that restore the lives of the innocent which were lost ? How does "paying for their irresponsibility", reinstate the lives lost or the imprisonment imposed by the crippled bodies or brains of their victims ?
 
     At the crux, are two constitutional issues;
 
  1) The right of a person to take into his body what he wants to...
                        ....OR
 2) The right of the rest of us to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

    In my humble opinion, #2 far outweighs #1...  How can anyone reach a different conclusion ?

[yellowtail3]

 
     At the crux, are two constitutional issues;
 
  1) The right of a person to take into his body what he wants to...
                        ....OR
 2) The right of the rest of us to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

    In my humble opinion, #2 far outweighs #1...  How can anyone reach a different conclusion ?

Easy, Ironglow - they'd think about it, and they'd not miscast this issue as one legalizing DWI.

[lakota]

The government has no place in telling free people what they can and cannot ingest.

But with freedom comes responsibility. If you utilize the freedom it is your responsibility to deal with any consequences.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
  Lakota;
  While I agree in principle with your first sentence, I cannot agree with the second one..
 
  A) The first sentence is the essence of freedom..  and I would support it if the user/abuser lived in isolation where he could only hurt himself.

 B) ..But then, few of us live on a private island where we can hurt nobody but ourselves.  Personal responsibility is a great concept, which I back wholeheartedly.  However, let us take those numerous situations where totally innocent victims are brutalized, due to somebody else's addiction.  I point out here, the many situations where a family is killed by a drunk driver or by the Long Island killer, seeking more dope..
     http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2011/06/22/2011-06-22_li_pharmacy_massacre_police_raid_home_in_connection_with_murder_of_four_at_haven.html?r=news
     
   Sure, those killers can be 'sent up' for numerous years... 
   Next question; how does that restore the lives of the innocent which were lost ? How does "paying for their irresponsibility", reinstate the lives lost or the imprisonment imposed by the crippled bodies or brains of their victims ?
 
     At the crux, are two constitutional issues;
 
  1) The right of a person to take into his body what he wants to...
                        ....OR
 2) The right of the rest of us to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

    In my humble opinion, #2 far outweighs #1...  How can anyone reach a different conclusion ?

Its impossible to live a risk free lifestyle. There will always be those among us that will act in and use items in an irresponsible manner. After reading this article I get the feeling that the writer dislikes guns. Should we get rid of guns because this guy used one wrecklessly and without regard to human life?

I have no desire to smoke dope but I feel the government has better things to do and there are better uses for police and prison space than wasting it on some pot head who is too baked to pose a threat to anyone.

[BBF]

I myself don't do dope, but I am for making it all legal. From pot to meth! Let them put any thing they want into their body! I expect there would be many, many deaths from overdosing, but I figure good riddance!

They end up in ER at taxpayers expense. Now if you could just leave 'em in their own puke until they are dead................Yes !!

[Empty Quiver]

Removing the freedom to fail for the illusion of safety. A poor choice indeed

 I've got a couple of golfish in the kitchen living the dream, Powderman. I don't want to live that sort of life, I don't think many of us here would. Better to go to a stream and live at the risk of being eaten. If one of those goldfish dies and I'm not there to get rid of it the other will soon be dieing as well. It is far to dependant on my good nature.

None of us here are guaranteed anything but death. Living as I choose while I am alive, that is what all humans should be able to do. Our founders new that, you know that. Your ability to choose anothers pleasures should be no different than my ability to choose yours, correct? I could therefore decide that your weekly trip to the church poses an undo risk to the public. How many wars are fought over religious differences? How many people are killed in auto accidents sunday mornings? How many folks choke at the local restaurant after church? All so you can visit with friends and pray? I say we stop the carnage now.

Oh, but I'm uninformed and being intolerant. Look at all the good deeds, and such a few accidents and those wars were started by other people not me and mine. How does it go "judge not lest ye be judged?".

If you are a doper and bring ruin on someone there is a price to be paid. No different than being a crane operator and dropping a hook into the middle of an interstate through negligence. I will accept risk to reap the rewards of freedom. There are unacceptable risks, but we need to be very careful about which ones we single out, very careful.

[yellowtail3]

Removing the freedom to fail for the illusion of safety. A poor choice indeed

+1

[Pot-Bellied Stallion]

"The government has no place in telling free people what they can and cannot ingest."

This is along the same lines that the 'Pro Choice' folks said about the government no telling a woman what she can do with her body.  That, however, is another argument within itself.  If a woman has total control over what she can or cannot do with her body, then prostitution would be legal, doing coke, horse, crack, meth, etc. would be legal also.  Therefore, if a person has the freedom to do with his/her body what he/she wishes, all of the personal choices should be legal.  It's extending that freedom beyond one's own body that infringes on the freedom of other folks.

[ironglow]

  Unfortunately, here we are asking the innocent to bear trhe brunt for the irresponsibility of the guilty.

  Even though I like my guns, if my neighbor starts bouncing rounds off my back porch or arouind my grandkids, I may want to discuss the possibility that he refrain from that activity..

  I don't believe I would just shrug my shoulders and say, " there are risks in life, guess I'll have to grin & bear it".. and I don't think discussing the issue with him would be selling out for the "illusion of safety".

[Empty Quiver]

  Unfortunately, here we are asking the innocent to bear trhe brunt for the irresponsibility of the guilty.

  Even though I like my guns, if my neighbor starts bouncing rounds off my back porch or arouind my grandkids, I may want to discuss the possibility that he refrain from that activity..

  I don't believe I would just shrug my shoulders and say, " there are risks in life, guess I'll have to grin & bear it".. and I don't think discussing the issue with him would be selling out for the "illusion of safety".

That is one of those unacceptable risks I speak of. Therefore laws cover this unacceptable behaviour. Now lets say the neighbor was a mile and a half away and shooting, by some odd coincidence he was dropping rounds on your back porch would that be the same? That does not show the same disregard for gun safety to me, and should not garner the same results.  You probably own guns and I would assume shoot them are you willing to give them up to stop either scenario from happening?

There are crap tons of dope being consumed around this country, without the "reefer madness" that so many are afraid of. Could this gateway drug mentality be a situation where a person is "in for a penny in for a pound"? Hey my dealer has a special on mescalin this weekend what do you say we try some of that? Well if you didn't frequent the local amatuar pharmacist you would never know about the special now would you? I'll bet that those who drink scotch don't know about the sale either , coincidence, I think not.

Lest I get lumped in with that reefer mad Yellowtail3 guy. I must admit I have  been high exactly once long ago in a place far away. I endure once yearly and random drug screenings as a condition to my employment. I get along fine with a few cocktails every week, and see no reason to stop someone from their chemical of choice.

[yellowtail3]

Lest I get lumped in with that reefer mad Yellowtail3 guy. I must admit I have  been high exactly once long ago in a place far away.

Perhaps you should guard your virtue & rep more closely; you've admitted more than I have!

The polls holds steady, 70-30 in favor of freedom. Must be lots of addicts here, right Ironglow?

[BUGEYE]

EQ, if a drunk or doper killed some of your family, I'm sure your outlook would change.

[Matt]

EQ, if a drunk or doper killed some of your family, I'm sure your outlook would change.

Are you speaking from experience ?

[BUGEYE]

EQ, if a drunk or doper killed some of your family, I'm sure your outlook would change.

Are you speaking from experience ?

not to me personally, but to a good friend.  it breaks your heart to see parents bury their child.
he was totally innocent.

[Matt]

I agree it truly is hard to watch.


But now my next question.
What happen to the person who caused this ?


Matt

[BUGEYE]

I agree it truly is hard to watch.


But now my next question.
What happen to the person who caused this ?


Matt

if a person knowingly gets drunk or high on drugs and kills or injures someone, the penalty should be the same as if he had used a gun.  to many habitual DWI offenders get off with a slap on the wrist.  I believe in being responsible for my actions.

[Matt]

  I believe in being responsible for my actions.

As do I, that is a pet peeve of mine. I also do not feel that I need the govt telling me what I can do to my own body. I will not budge one bit on this topic as I still believe in the principles that this country was founded on and I will lay my own life down defending them.


It is time for Americans to become responsible  for themselves and stop crying for the govt to take care of it...


Matt

[yellowtail3]

if a person knowingly gets drunk or high on drugs and kills or injures someone, the penalty should be the same as if he had used a gun.

There's an idea - would that ... negligent homicide?

Careful about DWI generalizations. There's lots of misinformation surrounding that subject. Ive heard that an accident where one of the involved parties was drinking, sometimes goes down in the stats as alcohol-related, even if the sober guy ran the light and hit the gal who'd been drinking.  And I'm not sure we should have diff penalties from one drinking, from what the sober guy gets for making the same mistake, driving-wise.

to many habitual DWI offenders get off with a slap on the wrist.  I believe in being responsible for my actions.

the rules vary by state, but I think they take the lic after DWI or two, don't they? That said... a disproportionate of the alchohol-caused accidents, are caused by repeat offenders who are waaaaaay over the limit... only rarely by the never-before-charged driving home after a couple drinks at the .08 mark, but that's who the enforcement efforts are targeted against with 'checkpoints'
[/quote]

[BUGEYE]

Matt, I too believe we have to much gov intrusion.  but in the case of things that impair ones driving ability, there has to be restrictions or we would have to resort to knuckle justice.
if a drunk killed someone in my family and there was no law to punish him, then I would go kill him myself.
the problem is, very few today want to take responsibility.

[Matt]

Matt, I too believe we have to much gov intrusion.  but in the case of things that impair ones driving ability, there has to be restrictions or we would have to resort to knuckle justice.
if a drunk killed someone in my family and there was no law to punish him, then I would go kill him myself.
the problem is, very few today want to take responsibility.

and I agree with you on that point, but we already have laws that say you can not drive while intoxicated as well as it being illegal to kill another person even  through negligence. We do not need more laws as we have all that we need and then some. What we need is people to understand "If you do something that hurts another then be ready to make amends in what ever way necessary even if it is a life for a life". I will be the first to admit that I used to like a little herb now and then and see nothing wrong with a fella sitting in his house toking on his pipe, bong or blunt what ever it may be. But if that fella jumps up and gets in the car to run to the store and kills someone because he was high then hey, you got to pay to play.

[BUGEYE]

matt, I guess there is a valid argument for legalizing it.  after all, it's illegal to possess dope but you can buy it on most street corners.
that's the argument I use when arguing with anti-gunners.