Skip to main content

59 replies

The "war on drugs" is not working and Mexican cartels are getting more dangerous

ButtercupButtercupPost Master
http://www.time.com/time/world...8599,2005135,00.html

People are going to use drugs recreationally no matter what - as long as they can get their hands on them. The so-called "war on drugs" has been a waste of tax dollars for years and the black market this has created has caused a massive spike in violent crime for the drug money (described in the article).

The act of using drugs should be decriminalized because it is counter-productive to keep going after drug users. Who are they hurting? Not me. We don't have the resources or room to continue to lock these people up. Having said that, if a user does hurt others or their property while high, then and only then should he be punished.

With the exception of marijuana, every available tax dollar should be used to go after the producer/seller to stop the flow at its source. As for marijuana, allow people to grow and sell it in this country. Since Mexico is the main foreign supplier of marijuana to the U.S., this will shut down the violent cartels who kill for the profits and keep the drug dollars within our own borders.
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

leoleoHall of Famer
Most people i've talked to feel the same way about marijuana. Why won't our elected officials see it our way? Personally, I think alcohol is by far more dangerous and destructive than marijuana. Use the money wasted on marijuana eradication(an impossible task)to eliminate crack and meth and the other destructive drugs. A significant number of law enforcement people don't have any problem with weed other than it is illegal. They don't make the laws but they do have to enforce them.
D dntblnkEverybody Knows My Name
Ever notice how people's lawns keep growing grass but yet people brave the heat every Saturday and cut it anyway just to have it start growing back the next day? Wish someone would tell me it's ok not to cut my yard like some of the people on here want LEO's to quit working dope...for real, because I sure hate cutting grass. But then my neighbors would complain about my yard, then I would get a citation from the city and when I don't pay that I would go to jail. All for not cutting my grass. I mean who is it really hurting...grass grows back anyway! It's like peeing in the wind!

Geez, quit whining about the War on Drugs! It's a failure, we get it already. Unless the job directly involves changing people's lives for the better, aren't they all failures? Get over it already.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by dntblnk:
Ever notice how people's lawns keep growing grass but yet people brave the heat every Saturday and cut it anyway just to have it start growing back the next day? Wish someone would tell me it's ok not to cut my yard like some of the people on here want LEO's to quit working dope...for real, because I sure hate cutting grass. But then my neighbors would complain about my yard, then I would get a citation from the city and when I don't pay that I would go to jail. All for not cutting my grass. I mean who is it really hurting...grass grows back anyway! It's like peeing in the wind!

Geez, quit whining about the War on Drugs! It's a failure, we get it already. Unless the job directly involves changing people's lives for the better, aren't they all failures? Get over it already.


I'll stop "whining" when we stop blowing resources on convicting users.

And allowing your grass to grow does impact your neighbors because it hides critters and snakes, and lowers property values.

But if you are sitting inside your home smoking pot, you are not harming your neighbor. That is your business only.
rramlimnnrramlimnnPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Most people i've talked to feel the same way about marijuana. Why won't our elected officials see it our way? Personally, I think alcohol is by far more dangerous and destructive than marijuana. Use the money wasted on marijuana eradication(an impossible task)to eliminate crack and meth and the other destructive drugs. A significant number of law enforcement people don't have any problem with weed other than it is illegal. They don't make the laws but they do have to enforce them.


HAHA Leo,

Stay on a permanent high.

The rational majority will chisel you out of yo stuff wils‘t you grinning.

Don’t pass the word. lol
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
While they're at it why not legalize prostitution and tax it too. The same rationale works there too. Strip clubs? Who are they hurting? Gambling? The list goes on. If we could just abolish all laws there would be no more criminals.


I'm not sure any of these things merit special taxation, but as they are all victimless "crimes," they should be de-criminalized. And yes, fewer laws giving us fewer "criminals" would be a good thing. We would reduce our judicial/law enforcement/prison costs. We would have fewer innocent people in jails. We would have more liberty.
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
While they're at it why not legalize prostitution and tax it too. The same rationale works there too. Strip clubs? Who are they hurting? Gambling? The list goes on. If we could just abolish all laws there would be no more criminals.


I'm not sure any of these things merit special taxation, but as they are all victimless "crimes," they should be de-criminalized. And yes, fewer laws giving us fewer "criminals" would be a good thing. We would reduce our judicial/law enforcement/prison costs. We would have fewer innocent people in jails. We would have more liberty.


I take reports every day of theft, assaults and robberies fueled by drug abuse. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.
onepatriot7onepatriot7Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
While they're at it why not legalize prostitution and tax it too. The same rationale works there too. Strip clubs? Who are they hurting? Gambling? The list goes on. If we could just abolish all laws there would be no more criminals.


I'm not sure any of these things merit special taxation, but as they are all victimless "crimes," they should be de-criminalized. And yes, fewer laws giving us fewer "criminals" would be a good thing. We would reduce our judicial/law enforcement/prison costs. We would have fewer innocent people in jails. We would have more liberty.


I take reports every day of theft, assaults and robberies fueled by drug abuse. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.


your right sassy, but, pot smokers are not your thieves, robbers, or assaulter's, it's the crack and meth heads doing all that business, what'd ya say we discuss it over a big o fat blunt?
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
While they're at it why not legalize prostitution and tax it too. The same rationale works there too. Strip clubs? Who are they hurting? Gambling? The list goes on. If we could just abolish all laws there would be no more criminals.


I'm not sure any of these things merit special taxation, but as they are all victimless "crimes," they should be de-criminalized. And yes, fewer laws giving us fewer "criminals" would be a good thing. We would reduce our judicial/law enforcement/prison costs. We would have fewer innocent people in jails. We would have more liberty.


I take reports every day of theft, assaults and robberies fueled by drug abuse. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.


your right sassy, but, pot smokers are not your thieves, robbers, or assaulter's, it's the crack and meth heads doing all that business, what'd ya say we discuss it over a big o fat blunt?


Big Grin Let's not Big Grin That crap stinks. Wink

Your assertion that pot smokers don't commit other crimes isn't valid, though, nor is it confirmed by statistics.
onepatriot7onepatriot7Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
While they're at it why not legalize prostitution and tax it too. The same rationale works there too. Strip clubs? Who are they hurting? Gambling? The list goes on. If we could just abolish all laws there would be no more criminals.


I'm not sure any of these things merit special taxation, but as they are all victimless "crimes," they should be de-criminalized. And yes, fewer laws giving us fewer "criminals" would be a good thing. We would reduce our judicial/law enforcement/prison costs. We would have fewer innocent people in jails. We would have more liberty.


I take reports every day of theft, assaults and robberies fueled by drug abuse. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.


your right sassy, but, pot smokers are not your thieves, robbers, or assaulter's, it's the crack and meth heads doing all that business, what'd ya say we discuss it over a big o fat blunt?


Big Grin Let's not Big Grin That crap stinks. Wink

Your assertion that pot smokers don't commit other crimes isn't valid, though, nor is it confirmed by statistics.


your right again, the junk weed most folks burn around here does stink, but, this is top shelf product i'm talking about, it has a much "sweeter" aroma! Cool anyway, i'm not gonna argue with you, the offer stands, then let's see if we feel compelled to go assault or rob someone. guarantee we won't, oh yea, you buy the cheetos ok Razzer

and as far as statistics go, you are a law enforcement officer, of course you will say that. the exec's at coca-cola will tell you that their product tastes better than pepsi, it's called job security, folks will always support what fill's their wallet's, i don't fault you for that, i'd probably say the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. Peace!
Last edited by onepatriot7
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
I take reports every day of theft, assaults and robberies fueled by drug abuse. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.


There are a few things to point out here.

First, by your own admission, you take reports every day. If criminalizing drugs reduced drug users committing other crimes, you wouldn't be taking reports every day.

Second, the fact that some of the people who commit real crime are also drug users does not justify criminal treatment of drug users who don't commit violent crimes. I fully support any effort to target violent offenders. I don't support targeting non-violent actions.
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
I take reports every day of theft, assaults and robberies fueled by drug abuse. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.


There are a few things to point out here.

First, by your own admission, you take reports every day. If criminalizing drugs reduced drug users committing other crimes, you wouldn't be taking reports every day.

Second, the fact that some of the people who commit real crime are also drug users does not justify criminal treatment of drug users who don't commit violent crimes. I fully support any effort to target violent offenders. I don't support targeting non-violent actions.


Re-read my statement. The reports I was talking about are the result of drug abuse. Yes, there are reports that have no connection to drug abuse, but they are a small minority of the reports we take.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
Re-read my statement. The reports I was talking about are the result of drug abuse. Yes, there are reports that have no connection to drug abuse, but they are a small minority of the reports we take.


I understand your statement, I just don't understand your point. You seem to disagree with my position that drug use should be de-criminalized. From what I can tell, this is based on your experience with violent criminals who are often drug abusers. I still don't see how this justifies full criminalization. I also don't see how we could logically arrive at the conclusion that drug criminalization prevents drug abuse, since drug abuse is still, in your opinion, a problem.
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Re-read my statement. The reports I was talking about are the result of drug abuse. Yes, there are reports that have no connection to drug abuse, but they are a small minority of the reports we take.


I understand your statement, I just don't understand your point. You seem to disagree with my position that drug use should be de-criminalized. From what I can tell, this is based on your experience with violent criminals who are often drug abusers. I still don't see how this justifies full criminalization. I also don't see how we could logically arrive at the conclusion that drug criminalization prevents drug abuse, since drug abuse is still, in your opinion, a problem.


Do you think drugs would be given away free if decriminalized?

Drug users who commit crimes to supply their habits are not going to become model citizens and obtain 40 hour a week employment just because drugs are legally accessible.

Smuggling will still occur, robberies of drug dealers, for drugs and for the money the drug dealers possess, will still happen, and thefts to obtain goods and money to buy drugs will still happen.

People who commit assaults, rapes and other violent crimes while intoxicated on drugs are going to do so whether the drugs are legally bought or not.

The reason we still have drug abuse is the penalties are not strict enough to convince the abuser to cease and desist.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
While they're at it why not legalize prostitution and tax it too. The same rationale works there too. Strip clubs? Who are they hurting? Gambling? The list goes on. If we could just abolish all laws there would be no more criminals.


I'm not sure any of these things merit special taxation, but as they are all victimless "crimes," they should be de-criminalized. And yes, fewer laws giving us fewer "criminals" would be a good thing. We would reduce our judicial/law enforcement/prison costs. We would have fewer innocent people in jails. We would have more liberty.


I take reports every day of theft, assaults and robberies fueled by drug abuse. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.


You are correct, however , I could make a case that if H or Cocaine were available with a script, and at a price appropriate to their actual cost, addicts would not have to steal or young women prostitute themselves to obtain their daily fix.
In addition, your local druggiest would not be working on his Mr T starter set getting kids hooked and continuing the cycle. Addicts could work and actually earn a living without the need for crime.
In addition, maybe we could get the local DA to actually prosecute the crimes you mention , instead of ignoring them because they are committed by "confidential informants" .
Billy Joe Bob GeneBilly Joe Bob GeneHall of Famer
Kims,

I disagree.

We don't have problems with moonshiners knocking each other off, because legal whiskey is just too easy to get. It's safer, and the state collects tax on it.

Of course drugs won't be free, but they'll be cheap. A junky can satisfy his habit for $10/day, not $400. No need to knock little old ladies in the head for the Social Security money in their purses.

Who's smuggling in liquor these days? No one, because the market was normalized by the 21st Amendment.

Legalize it all. Now.
onepatriot7onepatriot7Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Re-read my statement. The reports I was talking about are the result of drug abuse. Yes, there are reports that have no connection to drug abuse, but they are a small minority of the reports we take.


I understand your statement, I just don't understand your point. You seem to disagree with my position that drug use should be de-criminalized. From what I can tell, this is based on your experience with violent criminals who are often drug abusers. I still don't see how this justifies full criminalization. I also don't see how we could logically arrive at the conclusion that drug criminalization prevents drug abuse, since drug abuse is still, in your opinion, a problem.


Do you think drugs would be given away free if decriminalized?

Drug users who commit crimes to supply their habits are not going to become model citizens and obtain 40 hour a week employment just because drugs are legally accessible.

Smuggling will still occur, robberies of drug dealers, for drugs and for the money the drug dealers possess, will still happen, and thefts to obtain goods and money to buy drugs will still happen.

People who commit assaults, rapes and other violent crimes while intoxicated on drugs are going to do so whether the drugs are legally bought or not.

The reason we still have drug abuse is the penalties are not strict enough to convince the abuser to cease and desist.


so should we in your opinion just execute drug abusers, i mean after all we are already by far the leading country in the world per capita with prisoners, or should we just keep adding to that ridiculous burden on the tax payers to keep prison guards and police officers in a job?

btw: i just flipped off the tax payer funded drug eradication chopper circling over my house, not joking here, they are flying over north lauderdale county, greenhill as i type.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
Sassy,

I started to address each of your points individually, but it comes down to 2 main things:

1) Many of the problems you mention (smuggling, robbing dealers) are only problems because the market for drugs has been driven underground. There will always be violent crime associated with black market trade. Using that crime as a case to keep the trade illegal does not stand to reason.

2) Your second example of violent crime revolves around those who commit violent crime to feed addiction. That is an addiction problem. It will exist whether the addiction is to something legal or illegal.

Both of these issues would be easier to address if drugs were not illegal. Neither of these issues provide justification for making non-violent drug users into criminals.
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Re-read my statement. The reports I was talking about are the result of drug abuse. Yes, there are reports that have no connection to drug abuse, but they are a small minority of the reports we take.


I understand your statement, I just don't understand your point. You seem to disagree with my position that drug use should be de-criminalized. From what I can tell, this is based on your experience with violent criminals who are often drug abusers. I still don't see how this justifies full criminalization. I also don't see how we could logically arrive at the conclusion that drug criminalization prevents drug abuse, since drug abuse is still, in your opinion, a problem.


Do you think drugs would be given away free if decriminalized?

Drug users who commit crimes to supply their habits are not going to become model citizens and obtain 40 hour a week employment just because drugs are legally accessible.

Smuggling will still occur, robberies of drug dealers, for drugs and for the money the drug dealers possess, will still happen, and thefts to obtain goods and money to buy drugs will still happen.

People who commit assaults, rapes and other violent crimes while intoxicated on drugs are going to do so whether the drugs are legally bought or not.

The reason we still have drug abuse is the penalties are not strict enough to convince the abuser to cease and desist.


so should we in your opinion just execute drug abusers, i mean after all we are already by far the leading country in the world per capita with prisoners, or should we just keep adding to that ridiculous burden on the tax payers to keep prison guards and police officers in a job?

btw: i just flipped off the tax payer funded drug eradication chopper circling over my house, not joking here, they are flying over north lauderdale county, greenhill as i type.


Execution would be a definite deterrent. I don't see it for drug abusers, but I can for dealers.

For drug abusers, I'd give a slap on the wrists for first offense. Perhaps a year sentence with mandatory probation after 30 days served. But a strict, no probation no parole minimum of 10 years for second conviction, and life without for a third.

Yeah, I saw you Wink Next time you wave, use all your fingers Big Grin
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
Execution would be a definite deterrent. I don't see it for drug abusers, but I can for dealers.

For drug abusers, I'd give a slap on the wrists for first offense. Perhaps a year sentence with mandatory probation after 30 days served. But a strict, no probation no parole minimum of 10 years for second conviction, and life without for a third.


I think this sums it up. You prefer totalitarianism. While you have the right to hold that preference, I think we would all be better off if you weren't allowed to have your way. To even suggest it is ok to murder someone for selling drugs is absurd. To suggest that getting caught with drugs three times merits a complete loss of freedom for life is almost as absurd.
onepatriot7onepatriot7Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Re-read my statement. The reports I was talking about are the result of drug abuse. Yes, there are reports that have no connection to drug abuse, but they are a small minority of the reports we take.


I understand your statement, I just don't understand your point. You seem to disagree with my position that drug use should be de-criminalized. From what I can tell, this is based on your experience with violent criminals who are often drug abusers. I still don't see how this justifies full criminalization. I also don't see how we could logically arrive at the conclusion that drug criminalization prevents drug abuse, since drug abuse is still, in your opinion, a problem.


Do you think drugs would be given away free if decriminalized?

Drug users who commit crimes to supply their habits are not going to become model citizens and obtain 40 hour a week employment just because drugs are legally accessible.

Smuggling will still occur, robberies of drug dealers, for drugs and for the money the drug dealers possess, will still happen, and thefts to obtain goods and money to buy drugs will still happen.

People who commit assaults, rapes and other violent crimes while intoxicated on drugs are going to do so whether the drugs are legally bought or not.

The reason we still have drug abuse is the penalties are not strict enough to convince the abuser to cease and desist.


so should we in your opinion just execute drug abusers, i mean after all we are already by far the leading country in the world per capita with prisoners, or should we just keep adding to that ridiculous burden on the tax payers to keep prison guards and police officers in a job?

btw: i just flipped off the tax payer funded drug eradication chopper circling over my house, not joking here, they are flying over north lauderdale county, greenhill as i type.


Execution would be a definite deterrent. I don't see it for drug abusers, but I can for dealers.

For drug abusers, I'd give a slap on the wrists for first offense. Perhaps a year sentence with mandatory probation after 30 days served. But a strict, no probation no parole minimum of 10 years for second conviction, and life without for a third.

Yeah, I saw you Wink Next time you wave, use all your fingers Big Grin


my biggest question is did the helicopter make 4 circles over my property looking for marijuanna or were you guys too busy looking at my teenage daughter and her friends at my pool? surely we're not paying a bunch of perv's to fly around in that noisy thing!!
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Execution would be a definite deterrent. I don't see it for drug abusers, but I can for dealers.

For drug abusers, I'd give a slap on the wrists for first offense. Perhaps a year sentence with mandatory probation after 30 days served. But a strict, no probation no parole minimum of 10 years for second conviction, and life without for a third.


I think this sums it up. You prefer totalitarianism. While you have the right to hold that preference, I think we would all be better off if you weren't allowed to have your way. To even suggest it is ok to murder someone for selling drugs is absurd. To suggest that getting caught with drugs three times merits a complete loss of freedom for life is almost as absurd.


You can use all the big words you want...it doesn't change the fact that my suggested method would indeed end the illegal drug sales and use that is poisoning the US today.

Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. I suggested doing it by legislation, which would make it legal. Your calling it murder does not make it so.

The only thing absurd about incarceration is the lack of using it to solve the blight of drug abuse on society.
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Re-read my statement. The reports I was talking about are the result of drug abuse. Yes, there are reports that have no connection to drug abuse, but they are a small minority of the reports we take.


I understand your statement, I just don't understand your point. You seem to disagree with my position that drug use should be de-criminalized. From what I can tell, this is based on your experience with violent criminals who are often drug abusers. I still don't see how this justifies full criminalization. I also don't see how we could logically arrive at the conclusion that drug criminalization prevents drug abuse, since drug abuse is still, in your opinion, a problem.


Do you think drugs would be given away free if decriminalized?

Drug users who commit crimes to supply their habits are not going to become model citizens and obtain 40 hour a week employment just because drugs are legally accessible.

Smuggling will still occur, robberies of drug dealers, for drugs and for the money the drug dealers possess, will still happen, and thefts to obtain goods and money to buy drugs will still happen.

People who commit assaults, rapes and other violent crimes while intoxicated on drugs are going to do so whether the drugs are legally bought or not.

The reason we still have drug abuse is the penalties are not strict enough to convince the abuser to cease and desist.


so should we in your opinion just execute drug abusers, i mean after all we are already by far the leading country in the world per capita with prisoners, or should we just keep adding to that ridiculous burden on the tax payers to keep prison guards and police officers in a job?

btw: i just flipped off the tax payer funded drug eradication chopper circling over my house, not joking here, they are flying over north lauderdale county, greenhill as i type.


Execution would be a definite deterrent. I don't see it for drug abusers, but I can for dealers.

For drug abusers, I'd give a slap on the wrists for first offense. Perhaps a year sentence with mandatory probation after 30 days served. But a strict, no probation no parole minimum of 10 years for second conviction, and life without for a third.

Yeah, I saw you Wink Next time you wave, use all your fingers Big Grin


my biggest question is did the helicopter make 4 circles over my property looking for marijuanna or were you guys too busy looking at my teenage daughter and her friends at my pool? surely we're not paying a bunch of perv's to fly around in that noisy thing!!


Naw...they're volunteers Wink
onepatriot7onepatriot7Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:


[/QUOTE]


btw: i just flipped off the tax payer funded drug eradication chopper circling over my house, not joking here, they are flying over north lauderdale county, greenhill as i type.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the warning, I'll get my potted plants indoors ASAP ! Big Grin[/QUOTE]

just doing my part to help protect your personal freedom Wink
BFred07BFred07Hall of Famer
Weed should be legalized, regulated, and taxed on a little higher level than what we currently use for tobacco and alcohol. This does two things, one it opens up another revenue stream so the democrats will have extra money to blow on useless crap. The other thing it does is to take a big portion of business from the drug cartels which leaves them with less money and manpower. Basically it weakens the cartels while sharpening our focus on the drug war and will make it easier for the cartels to be destroyed.
At the same time, I still feel that employers should be able to get rid of employees who flunk drug tests for weed and that some tougher laws should be passed to address being high while driving.
leoleoHall of Famer
Should employers be allowed to test for nicotene or alcohol in your system? Or should the test be for under the influence while on the job? Whats next? Ibuprofen, birth control pills,broccoli?

No one should be at work under the influence of anything but is the invasion of your privacy justified. Is that basic human right not being taken? What could be more invasive to your privacy than being forced(and I don't care how you spin it it is forced) to give up your bodily fluids on demand. I don't think our founding fathers would say the circumstance warrants that invasion.
D dolemitejbHall of Famer
quote:
Should employers be allowed to test for nicotene or alcohol in your system? Or should the test be for under the influence while on the job? Whats next? Ibuprofen, birth control pills,broccoli?

No one should be at work under the influence of anything but is the invasion of your privacy justified. Is that basic human right not being taken? What could be more invasive to your privacy than being forced(and I don't care how you spin it it is forced) to give up your bodily fluids on demand. I don't think our founding fathers would say the circumstance warrants that invasion.


I support anyone's right to get high without fear of jail. I also have to support anyone's right to hire who they choose without fear of of being found guilty of unlawful hiring practices. It might be an invasion of your privacy, but if you want to work somewhere, it's up to you whether or not to allow an employer to invade your privacy. There is no force since no one is forced to take a particular job.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
While they're at it why not legalize prostitution and tax it too. The same rationale works there too. Strip clubs? Who are they hurting? Gambling? The list goes on. If we could just abolish all laws there would be no more criminals.


I've got no problem with legalizing prostitution, strip clubs or gambling. Again, none of my business. Besides, people are partaking in each in one way or another anyway. Gambling: People from the Shoals frequently make trips to Tunica. Strip clubs: The porn industry makes tons of money.

And as for prostitution, that's already going on in many forms. Most men only ask a woman out on a date for one reason (and we know what that is) and most women want to be taken care of and have everything paid for. Most men only get married for steady, um, "love" and to have stability in their lives, and women get married because they want financial security. It's all just a form of fancy bartering that has nothing to do with love really, so what's the difference? Legalize all of it.
Sassy KimsSassy KimsOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Should employers be allowed to test for nicotene or alcohol in your system? Or should the test be for under the influence while on the job? Whats next? Ibuprofen, birth control pills,broccoli?

No one should be at work under the influence of anything but is the invasion of your privacy justified. Is that basic human right not being taken? What could be more invasive to your privacy than being forced(and I don't care how you spin it it is forced) to give up your bodily fluids on demand. I don't think our founding fathers would say the circumstance warrants that invasion.


Unless you work for the government, your argument isn't valid. The constitution only limits governmental invasion into our public lives, not that of other individuals.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
I take reports every day of theft, assaults and robberies fueled by drug abuse. Drug abuse is not a victimless crime.


There are a few things to point out here.

First, by your own admission, you take reports every day. If criminalizing drugs reduced drug users committing other crimes, you wouldn't be taking reports every day.

Second, the fact that some of the people who commit real crime are also drug users does not justify criminal treatment of drug users who don't commit violent crimes. I fully support any effort to target violent offenders. I don't support targeting non-violent actions.


Re-read my statement. The reports I was talking about are the result of drug abuse. Yes, there are reports that have no connection to drug abuse, but they are a small minority of the reports we take.


But people are going to continue to use illicit drugs anyway. The laws aren't stopping them now. So legal or not, your reports volume won't change.
ButtercupButtercupPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by BFred07:
Weed should be legalized, regulated, and taxed on a little higher level than what we currently use for tobacco and alcohol. This does two things, one it opens up another revenue stream so the democrats will have extra money to blow on useless crap. The other thing it does is to take a big portion of business from the drug cartels which leaves them with less money and manpower. Basically it weakens the cartels while sharpening our focus on the drug war and will make it easier for the cartels to be destroyed.
At the same time, I still feel that employers should be able to get rid of employees who flunk drug tests for weed and that some tougher laws should be passed to address being high while driving.


This liberal, vegetarian, maneater agrees with all of that.
leoleoHall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Should employers be allowed to test for nicotene or alcohol in your system? Or should the test be for under the influence while on the job? Whats next? Ibuprofen, birth control pills,broccoli?

No one should be at work under the influence of anything but is the invasion of your privacy justified. Is that basic human right not being taken? What could be more invasive to your privacy than being forced(and I don't care how you spin it it is forced) to give up your bodily fluids on demand. I don't think our founding fathers would say the circumstance warrants that invasion.


Unless you work for the government, your argument isn't valid. The constitution only limits governmental invasion into our public lives, not that of other individuals.


I stand corrected. But I don't have to like it. Big Grin
Next

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×