1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

"Potheads are losers - We're doing you a favor"

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Dank, Jun 30, 2001.

  1. St0rmcaller

    St0rmcaller [AFA]'s unoffical godfather

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,690
    Likes Received:
    0
    I got to give Rogue credit. He just made me feel completely illiterate. Just reading that dropped my IQ by about 40.:)
     
  2. Elite_Soldier

    Elite_Soldier -Malice-

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    0
    True...

    It is not only our right, but it is our <b>duty</b> to oppose and reform a corrupt government. It hasn't reached a point yet that it is neccessary for armed rebellion, but it is getting dangerously close. Too many people are ignorant about what is going on "behind the scenes". History has taught a thousand times that government dictatorship isn't a thing that happens overnight.
     
  3. RuX

    RuX New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    no actually, i got it from the FBI crimes report...
    give me.. oh i dont know, how about 5 examples of how the US is becoming a dictatorship.
    no, owning a firearm is dangerous, lets face it, should we just let anyone and everyone own a fir earm who isnt properly trained and licensed? Its like putting drivers on the road who cant drive, its asking for trouble. Right or not.. accidents happen, the majority of deaths due to firearms are accidents or non criminal actions... meaning somthing needs to be done to protect these citizens. Gun control may or may not be a right.. but it CAN infringe on peoples rights to the pursuit of happiness, and that would make that right null.

    unless you have possesion to sell (over a 2 pounds) its not a felony. I really doubt that criminals would elect to have gun control since the majority of them buy their guys thru legal means, mostly from gun shows.
    Well.. i dont mean perfect 20/20 vision, but i dont think that you would be able to "defend yourself against the facist government pigdogs trying to take over america" if you cant see past the end of your nose.
    yes it would... if it goes to court... and they didnt have a written warrent for your arrest its out of there, no questions, because all the evidence against you is put before you, the jury and the judge...
     
  4. RogueLeader

    RogueLeader Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    1) Gun control
    2) War on Drugs
    3) Militarization of Police Forces
    4) Overwhelming Tax Burden
    5) Consolidation of Power in the Federal Government

    No owning a firearm makes you less likely to be a victim of a violent crime. Shall issue concealed carry laws reduce rape 8%. Yes someone not trained can use a gun, a gun isn't a space shuttle, you point and pull the trigger. A dog could do it if it had an opposable thumb. And licensing? Licensing is responsible for the deaths of over 50 million people this century.
    http://www.jpfo.org/L-laws.htm
    I wouldn't want to be supporting genocide like that. Natural rights don't come from a paper. They are natural. Hence the term natural rights.

    No gun control is a basic human right, whether the government likes it or not.

    Nope. Over half of gun deaths are suicides. Most of the rest are criminal actions related to gangs or the war on drugs. Accidents are not very common, and the only reason they occur is because people keep their children away from guns, and they become forbidden fruit.

    Matches can infringe on other people's rights too, via arson, should be ban matches? Of course not, because they offer more benefits than problems. Same with guns. You are less likely to be a victim of a violent crime if you own a gun, and your family is less likely to be hurt. And "pursuit of happiness" isn't a right, it was put in the declaration of independence in the place of locke's third basic right, property, because the U.S. does not recognize property ownership as a right. And owning a gun benefits pursuit of happiness more, because you are safer with one.

    You really need to get your facts straight. Just a couple of days ago, we had the stats posted. It was something like 5% of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. Most are bought illegally from friends or family, or from other criminals.

    Courts find after the fact warrants legally admissable such as in the case in this article in which the man was searched with IR from a copter and only afterwards got the warrent. So they can search BEFORE getting a warrent, and if they find something get a retroactive warrent afterwards. A complete abuse of constututional law and human rights, but the government doesn't mind as long as it helps attack the right to drugs.
     
  5. Dank

    Dank Mac Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2000
    Messages:
    1,647
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wanna know what f<b></b>ucking state your living in that anything under two pounds is not a felony !!?

    Hell, if that were true most pot busts would result in a fine not prison time.
     
  6. RuX

    RuX New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    no, the number was somewhere
    around 32% for gun shows and 15% from gun stores. Drug dealers were also 15% and i forget
    the other stats.. oh wait heres a
    link...http://forums.planetunreal.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71740&pagenumber=1

    i was wrong, the number one source is family and friends which really doesnt tell you anything
    because you dont know where they are getting them..... even tho i could SWEAR it was gun
    shows...
    Theft/Burglary=9.1%
    Drug Dealer=15%
    Black Market=8.7%
    Retail Store=15%
    Pawn Shop=4.2%
    Flea market=1.7%
    Gun show=1.7%
    Family or Friend=35.4%
    Borrowed/given=3.4%
    Other(undefined)=5.9%
    as you can see... the majority of guns criminals get are thru legal means, this of course is subject to change because i could not count family or friend or other because it doesnt specify where
    THEY got their guns.. but with this information that is the conclusion you get.
    ok.. first lets define dictatorship.. dictionary.com defines it as The office or tenure of a dictator.
    A state or government under dictatorial rule.
    Absolute or despotic control or power.
    meaning ONE person controls and rules in an oppressive manner... now.. lets look at your
    arguments
    1. gun control: The supreme court ruled that we do not have the right to bear arms, yet the
    supreme court has no authority to act on its rulings. Gun control is just regulation of the sale and
    use of rifles and handguns. EVERYTHING we buy and sell is regulated, there is no product that
    comes into the united states that is not.

    2. The War on drugs... being fought this time by the FBI, DEA, ATF, local police and some
    politicians. Already this is not under the control of one man. The war on drugs, is futile, lets face
    it.. however its not a tool to control man, its a tool to get votes. True... police should have time to
    focus on real crimes.. but there is no law giving us the right to smoke marijuana, or any other illicit
    drug, so you have no legal argument saying that they are violating any law by prosecuting you.

    3. Militarization of Police Forces: Im not sure EXACTLY what you mean here, but what im
    guessing is that you object to the fact that the police forces have access to better technology. I
    have to say that the police should be able to use any means necessary to apprehend a suspect, as
    long as they have no final say on his innocence or conviction. The police forces in this nation are
    very very vast and broad and no two are controlled by the same man, and even the heads of those
    depts are not in supreme control of everything they do.

    4. Overwhelming Tax Burden: Was there not just a tax break? Even tho it was useless, stupid
    and for the wealthy, the taxes in this nation are nowhere near the taxes that nations such as France
    or Sweden have to pay. I really dont find the taxes overwhelming at all, and id like to see what
    you mean exactly by this.

    5. Consolidation of Power in the Federal Government: There IS no consolidation of power... the
    system of checks and balances that were put in place 200 some odd years ago are still working
    great today... no two branches have absolute power, no two branches can merge, and no
    branches have absolute rulers
    and more
    likely to shoot your family member, and more likely for accidental deaths, which i might add,
    according to the FBI are the leading cause of death at 64%, in fact most suicides aren't gun related
    the majority cause of death is actually overdosing on some form of medication.

    i assume you mean the right to bear arms.. and my answer is both yes and no. I do
    believe to some extent that citizens should have ready access to guns that are not in the direct
    control of the govt. But i believe that its the governments job, and the voters job to decide on how
    we should choose on who gets guns and who doesn't. I strongly belive that not everyone should
    be allowed access to a weapon designed to kill people.
     
  7. RogueLeader

    RogueLeader Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, the supreme court has ruled the right to bear arms is an individual right. The gun control movement likes to misread rulings to fool people into thinking it doesn't. I looked at the list of rulings that supposedly are for gun control at handguncontrol.org, but of course no links are there to provide the exact ruling. I found them at findlaw.com, and it turns out they were lying about every one.

    Actually, you do have the right to do drugs. The constituton says any right that doesn't go to the federal government goes to the states, and right not given to the states goes to the people. Since no part of the constitution gives the government the power to regulate drugs, federal government or those of the states, it is a right of the people. That is why an amendment was requried for the short lived ban on alchohol. But I should have been a hit more clear. I didn't really mean the limit on the rights to do drugs was the main problem. The problem is the tactics of the war on drugs. The suppression of free speech, no-knock warraneless raids, etc.

    What I mean is giving cops assault rifles, black copters with IR for searching for people, etc. If we people can't have them, why should cops. If a cop isnt doing something wrong, he doesn't need to be his own fortress. Cops are the real armies of one.

    At the founding of the United States, the states had most of the power. The federal government only managed things that related to all states. Now, the government has taken over things like education (a local issue), blood-alchohol limits, and intrastate commerce. The federal government only became prominent in the later half of the 1800's, and that is what caused the civil war. The South didn't want the feds taking over control.

    Of course, if you don't have a gun, its impossible to shoot a family member. But your family member is less likely to be shot by someone else. Overall, that family member is less likely to be shot if you have that gun. Most suicides arn't gun related, but that is a totally different issue than most gun deaths being suicides. There was a mere 1500 accidental gun deaths in 2000. 120000 people were accidentally killed in hospitals that same year.
     
  8. Ballistophobia

    Ballistophobia Hedonistic Forum Panacea

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2000
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah, and they cause 97% of it. People don't like "big brother" harassing them and watching everything they do in their holier-than-thou attitude. This is why I detest cops.

    Oh and NRA1, I guess you don't know what a " :D " means, huh? :)
     
  9. Elite_Soldier

    Elite_Soldier -Malice-

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    0
    <i>Militarization of Police Forces: Im not sure EXACTLY what you mean here, but what im guessing is that you object to the fact that the police forces have access to better technology. I have to say that the police should be able to use any means necessary to apprehend a suspect, as long as they have no final say on his innocence or conviction. The police forces in this nation are
    very very vast and broad and no two are controlled by the same man, and even the heads of those depts are not in supreme control of everything they do.</i>

    Personally, I object to the police forces being just as well armed as the military. THink about it, they have tactical body armor, Mp5 submachineguns, M4 assault rifles, their own tank (minus artillery rounds, they'll soon get them anyways), IR helicopters, and all kinds of **** you'd expect to see in any decent action movie. Now you would think, nay, you would <b>expect</b> them to be fighting some serious opposition here, with all that kind of hightech gear. Are they? HELL NO. They are literally going up against the people themselves. Glorified rent-a-cops. At most, they are going up against a few criminals with 35' specials, no body armor, and no high tech gear. Seems like someone is a little overpowered, eh? Than cops can still barge into houses, wth no warrant, threaten people, and act high and mighty. "Yes, we have the guns and the helicopters, while you are just a stupid pothead. We control all." Hell alot of cops are purely cops because they couldn't cut it in the military. And juding that these idiots shoot 11% of the people they are supposed to <b>protect</b>, who's the real hazard to society? And accidental shootings contribute far less to deaths in the United States than by "accidental" police shootings. Yet cops are allowed access to high powered assault rifles (capable of shooting <b>many</b> innocents in a shorter timeperiod, as well as criminals), and body armor. The people see none of this. Why? Because there is no ****ing way the cops are going to let even an innocent civilian have an equal chance against a cop doing an illegal search of your house. And by the rights of the constitution, you have every right to put a bullet into the head of some guy breaking into your house (literally what these guys do). Now truthfully criminals might have the same chance to achieve assault rifles and the like to go against cops as well. But they already do, regardless of the laws imposed against gun control. Look at our neighboring drug lords to the south (THEY are the real enemy of the cops, not some guy smoking half a kilo of pot in his house). They have way too many AK-47s as it is, and they are the major contributors to drug related crimes in the United States. Measures against them? Nothing. What exactly is taking all our cops time? Hell, what is our entire government doing against them? Nothing. So lets take the easy way out of punishing everyone who uses drugs. We'll even get these cops to go terrorize people and make them think drugs are bad. All the while druglords down south can laugh their asses of, and quite justifiably, as nothing is being done against them, that is causing htem any major loss of profit.

    <i>the majority of guns criminals get are thru legal means, this of course is subject to change because i could not count family or friend or other because it doesnt specify where</i>

    You are absolutely correct. So how do I not know that those family members and friends achieved their weapons through illegal means? Doesn't count that either.

    <i>EVERYTHING we buy and sell is regulated, there is no product that
    comes into the united states that is not.</i>

    Not true. Countless amounts of drugs pour into this country, regardless of the measures taken to stop it. Just legalize it, simple as that. Than drugs can be regulated. Also, a hell of alot of weapons get into this country illegally. People can still buy them. Not <b>everything</b> we buy is regulated by the government. And in some ways not everything should be.

    <i>but there is no law giving us the right to smoke marijuana, or any other illicit drug, so you have no legal argument saying that they are violating any law by prosecuting you.</i>

    It was illegal to make drugs illegal in the first place. The United Nations states that everyone has the right to pursue happiness. Some people find happiness in drugs. By banning these people from legally attaining drugs, you are raising crime by forcing these people to get drugs illegally. Furthermore, you are breaking a basic human right. So there is a legal argument saying that they violate our laws by prosecuting us. And you can't respond with something that states "what if a person enjoys murdering someone?", because that in itself is a another human right

    "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

    <i> I have to say that the police should be able to use any means necessary to apprehend a suspect, as long as they have no final say on his innocence or conviction.</i>

    There are so many things wrong with this I shouldn't even begin. So it is perfectly legal for police to torture the "suspects" family members in order to catch him/her? So they can illegally interrogate the "suspect"? They can drive a ****ing tank through the wall, grab him by his hair in the middle of the night, because he is a "suspect"? Remember Stalin? Giving the police, or <b>anyone</b> for that matter, the right to do this creates a police state. Constant fear. It doesn't matter if they have no final say. Letting them use any means necessary to apprehend a "suspect" is bad enough. They already have to much power to do so already? Letting them use "any means necessary" is overkill. And do keep in mind that these are "suspects".

    <i>I really dont find the taxes overwhelming at all, and id like to see what
    you mean exactly by this.</i>

    I wasn't here for this, so I can't respond. Taxes are pretty much for making the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful, though.

    <i>the system of checks and balances that were put in place 200 some odd years ago are still working great today</i>

    No one can speak for them, but I am guessing that if our founding fathers were here today, they would be sickened to see how politics run in the United States. Lets all face it, they <b>aren't</b> working as well today as they used to. Times change, people change. Those in power wish to stay with power. They may <b>interpret</b> things differently than the founding fathers did. Hell, they may deliberately interpret things differently. Just because you can't see the bad things in society doesn't mean they don't exist. Plenty of things in the government work subtly in the background, like the banning of hemp. Research it some day. Some of the results are quite suprising :)

    <i>and more likely to shoot your family member, and more likely for accidental deaths, which i might add, according to the FBI are the leading cause of death at 64%, in fact most suicides aren't gun related the majority cause of death is actually overdosing on some form of medication.</i>

    I don't think I fully understand this statistic. Are you saying that the leading cause of death in the United States is gun related accidents? 64% of the deaths in the United States are accidents? Please elaborate, because I am 100% sure I am not reading this correctly, and equally sure that more gun deaths in the United States are for self-defense, and not accidental shootings.

    <i>I strongly belive that not everyone should
    be allowed access to a weapon designed to kill people.</i>

    I agree. Not everyone should be allowed to own a weapon. However, any decent citizen should have nothing, and I mean <b>nothing</b> barring his way from achieving whatever kind of conventional small arms weapon he/she desires. If I want an AK-47, I can have one. Why do I have to give up my rights to have one because of some knucklehead criminal? Why can the cops have one, when the most they take down are a few criminals with 35 specials?
     
  10. DeadeyeDan[ToA]

    DeadeyeDan[ToA] de oppresso liber

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2000
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I'd trust the BATF's survey (what Rogue was thinking of) more:

    "The BATF surveyed 471 career criminals in its (1992) "Protecting America, Yes" study and found that only 7% of guns used in
    violent crimes are purchased from retail dealers. The study found that criminals get 37% of their guns on the street, 34% through criminal acts, 8% from family members and 6% at gun shows and flea markets."

    And I concur with ES's questions about your statistics... I'd also like to see a quote from or a link to the FBI report about armed citizens killing family members... I'd wager it included friends and associates; and to the FBI, gang members that know eachother by name are considered associates.

    In addition to the fact that "the pursuit of happiness" was supposed to be "property", I'd like to point out that the Declaration of Independance has absolutely no legal authority. The constitution, however, has legal authority over everything else.

    1: Even if the supreme court did say gun control is illegal, we the people would still have the right (/duty) to oppose it; the 2nd amendment is not a riddle, it's not some timeless enigma that nobody will ever figure out, and it's not debatable or negotiable. It's a clear-cut, simple declaration, that even includes a reason for making the declaration... yet because of 200 years change in our language... and I'd guess a lack of good public schools, some people just don't seem to get it. /me shrugs

    2: Rogue has that covered IMHO.

    3: I would have chosen something else for this... how about the results of studies done on the effects of nuclear testing (on US soil) being covered up by the government? (I guess you could include theft/destruction of farmers' property, and mutilation of helpless animals in this one, too.) By examining the facts one can ascertain that vehicles that can fly, and most likely hover (such as helicopters) are involved in the re-location of cows that had been eating plant life around nuclear test sites, and the removal of parts of the cow's flesh that are very sensitive to the effects of said testing (the cheeks, groin, and anus, mostly) are removed with something capable of making completely even, sugical cuts, and cautorizing the wound (such as the new laser scalpel the military is developing for field medics), the cows were exposed to fierce blunt trauma, that often snapped thick leg bones like twigs, and usually broke most of the ribs on one side of the sternum, but none on the other (such as being dropped from high up). I'll let you make your own conclusions about those strange happenings... FYI, the government's official stance is that wolves or other wild predators did it. Yeah, that makes sense... goddamn flying, laser-toothed, anus-eating wolves!

    4: I think I would have chosen something else for this one, mainly because I'm not quite up to speed on the facts, but I have heard the government wastes 50-70% of our tax money, and from a reputable source- the O'Reilly factor. (BTW, The new tax cut is the same % for everybody, the only reason you see stats that say most of it goes to the richest 2% of people, is because the richest 2% pay most of our taxes.) Didn't you do a report on tests the CIA has done on people, Rogue? Anywho, the best I can come up with involves nuclear weapons again; the purposeful destruction of civilian targets (or as I like to call it, terrorism) in Japan during world war 2.

    5: Lets not forget that 200 new pages of federal laws and regulations go into effect every day; much of that text involves power and freedoms of the states and people being taken away by the federal government. Every day we take another step toward totalitarianism.
     
  11. Ballistophobia

    Ballistophobia Hedonistic Forum Panacea

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2000
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Godamn, you f<b></b>uckin f<b></b>uckers type too f<b></b>uckin much, go do something useful and hit the bong. :)
     
  12. Eyes-Only

    Eyes-Only New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2001
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    0
    /me sighs


    /sarcasm

    Yes lets make legal..... drugs...... because hell its your right to be happy even though while on PCP you decided that it would be fun to take your shotgun (which by the way is your right too) and blow Williams head off......cause hey that would be trippy. Wait that would not make Williams mom, bro, sis, cousin, etc happy....hmmmm......well lets say you can be on drugs just dont leave your house while on them...........wait thats not going to work to well......at least the USA will be rich off drug sales even if everyone is dying off and killing one another more so than now. Why we are at it lets fire all law enforcement officers because hell you just can do what makes you happy........John could beat his wife because he will be happy and mike can rape sussy because he wants to be happy. /sarcasm off
     
  13. RogueLeader

    RogueLeader Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eyes-Only: I am not sure about PCP, but I know that were 0 deaths shown to be related to Marijuana in the last decade.

    As for the tax situation, I should point out as I did in the 4th of July post that the United States is in the top 10 nations for putting the most tax burden on its people. Its rediculous that people think that because we have a tax cut we are all right now. People grew up having their asses taxed off, so they get used to it. Does anyone ever actually think of the ways your taxed? The government takes the money you earn, and thanks to the payroll deduction you never get to see that money in the first place. When the 16th amendment was passed, the government promised they would only tax the wealthy and leave the working people who needed all the moeny they could get alone. Strange, its almost as if politicians are damn dirty liars. Then there is the sales tax. Most states have a sales tax, and the government wants a federal sales tax. The sales tax is even worse than the income tax because someone with $5000000 has to pay the same tax as someone with $5. Its raping the poor. Then there is the property tax. That one we have here in Indiana. If you own something, it gets taxed. But money itself isn't taxed. So the property tax will promote saving instead of spending, which will hurt the economy, which will give people less to continue saving. Yeah, thats real ingenious. And next year the entire state has to reassess property values. With the inflation caused by our economic boom, everyone's homes will cost more. Some people's property taxes will double. But the average person is now in debt, they can't afford to borrow just to pay taxes. And the average wage has decreased in relation to inflation, so although their property taxes are going up, they are being payed less.
     
  14. The_Fur

    The_Fur Back in black

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2000
    Messages:
    6,204
    Likes Received:
    0
    X-cuse me? The US has nothing to complain when it comes to taxes, basically every european country has higher taxes.
     
  15. RogueLeader

    RogueLeader Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Japan, Germany, France, Italy, and Canada are the only countries that tax people more heavily than the United States. Even Britian, whom we sought independence from because of the tax burden, has lower taxes.
     
  16. RogueLeader

    RogueLeader Tama-chan says, "aurf aurf aurf!"

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2000
    Messages:
    5,314
    Likes Received:
    0
  17. DeadeyeDan[ToA]

    DeadeyeDan[ToA] de oppresso liber

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2000
    Messages:
    969
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eyes Only: If all drugs were made legal, would YOU immediately go get f*cked up on PCP? Maybe see what all the fuss is about regarding tar heroine and crystal meth? I didn't think so. I know people can be stupid sometimes, but I just can't see many people saying, "hey, the government reversed it's decision about making laws against things that don't directly interfere with anyone else's rights or well being... PCP must not be bad for you afterall!"

    I'd wager that the vast majority of people who want to use the more dangerous types of illegal drugs, already have. I go to a public highschool, where I have been OFFERED such things without even asking or talking about them... I think if I could get them without even trying, someone putting effort into it wouldn't be held back at all by laws.
     
  18. Elite_Soldier

    Elite_Soldier -Malice-

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2001
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    0
    Eyes-Only

    Don't be ridiculous. Even though people can be obscenely stupid at times, just because something is made into a law doesn't neccessarily mean people will start doing it. You're right, taking the shotgun and blowing William's head off will not make his family happy. But you are saying this is directly caused by drugs. Which is BS. Alcohol can do the exact same thing, if not more, than PCP. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it will be taken in dangerous dosages.

    Why would everyone all of a sudden start killing each other while the government will profit? The government will always profit off of people regardless of what happens because they regulate almost everything so incredibly strictly. If people wanted to kill each other, they would. They don't need to be under the influence of drugs to do so. Hell, alcohol works just fine, but it is totally <b>legal</b>. Strange eh? It's called "profit".

    DeadeyeDan[ToA], totally agree with you. People know very well the effects of cigarettes, even though they are legal. Yes, alot of people smoke, but at least they know what they are getting into.

    So what is the major problem with legalizing drugs? Alcohol has just as many bad effects on the body, possibly more than, some drugs. Sure, hard drugs can be extremely bad for you (cocaine, crack etc.), but think about the severe drop in crime. Most crimes are drug related, and are generally frivolous charges. Unless you can prove a valid argument for stating why drugs <b>shouldn't</b> be legalized, I don't see the point in your post arguing against it.
     
  19. Jason(Maser)

    Jason(Maser) Egoist

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2001
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not to detract from the primary argument but...Taxes: I'll put this in perspective, if the tax burden was spread evenly the average american would have a 40-50% burden. The "rich" pay 34-40% in federal income taxes alone. Who has this burden is of no signifigance though*(I'll explain this later) I hardly call that "nothing to complain" about. Here's a reminder to any one here that works for every red cent they get: As of today(July 6th) the average american will cease paying for government expenditures and work for his own living. If you were to pay these bills in one lump sum, that means from Jan. 1st to July 6th 100% of your paycheck would go directly to the government.

    To add to that there are over 1000 pages in the federal income tax laws.

    *I think the tax burden as it is, progressive or not, drastically hurts the poor and middle class. Any company out there, small or big, who wishes to survive the tax burden will do so by raising prices and lowering wages and/or cutting jobs. This is because their percentage tax burden is often times multiples higher than their profit margin. In effect, they lower their tax burden by passing it on to the consumer or worker. Effectively, progressive taxes are not progressive, it is a sham. One note, the blame should not rest on the businessman for this(especially the small business owner who is most hurt by such policies)they are merely trying to stay in business and after all, it is congress where all of these laws begin. There are exceptions though, such as Ted Turner who advocates higher taxes on himself and, knowingly or not, then will pass it on to YOU.

    Drugs SHOULD be legal because their usage does not infringe upon others. There will be cases, just like alcohol, where people will be under their influence and hurt others. This is NOT the fault of the drug, but of the person actively using them. The legalization of the sale and use of drugs has NOTHING to do with removing the responsibility that comes with drug use.
     
  20. RuX

    RuX New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2001
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    whew, looks like i have to reply to a lot here.. so ill start from the top


    no, actually, thats totally wrong, the supreme court ruled that the people do NOT have the right to possess a weapon in their homes for private use. Id like to point out that nobody really refuted my point that the government is not turning into a dictatorship... id like to see what people think.

    No.. actually you do not, because its a federal law, meaning the states cannot override it.


    actually, police officers have access to weapons that a civilian can easily get, they get AR-15s, Helicopters arent illegal for a citizen to buy (even tho few could afford one) IR isnt illegal to buy either... The reason they have all these things is because many drug cartels have millions of dollars invested in their protection. They have men armed to the teeth and compounds that would take police officers hours to get into.

    Education is still controlled by the states... BA limits are still state decided, interstate commerce isnt controlled by the Federal Government either, it is taxed. Thats true.. the south didnt want the federal government from having control, because 88% of their money was made thru slavery... and if they said "no, you cant own slaves" they would lose out big time.

    Where are you getting this information? Because if people were killed accidentally that would be malpractice, so are you saying that 120,000 doctors/nurses were fired that year as well? 1500 accidental gun deaths? are you kidding me? the lowest number of accidental gun deaths since 1977 has been 78,000 in 1982.

    uh......no..... the cause of the majority of crime in the united states is the fact that drugs are not legal.

    actually.. no.. the average police officer is not armed with any of that, he has a radio and a sidearm. Criminals can easily buy an AK-47 at a gun show and alter it to be full-auto. You make it seem like every cop in the US has an assault rifle, and a tank.. no.. not at all.
    no.. a police officer can not barge into a house unless hes under hot pursuit. If he has no warrent, he can not come in, plain and simple. Um... ive met a lot of cops, and ive never heard them say anything similar to that. In fact many cops oppose gun control, Ie the POAGC. 11%? So 11% of the population of the united states is being shot and killed by police officers? No.. accidental police shootings are less common than triples in baseball. Elite, yes cops have access to assault rifles...what is your point?

    A police officer will not search your house if he has no search warrent, if he does, he violated your rights and anything he found cannot be used as evidence against you. If you feel a police officer is violating your rights, you have every right to press charges against him. You make it seem like these cops are untouchable, and they arent.


    I resent that comment, my father was deeply envolved in stopping illegal drug trade from south america. I know for a fact that we seize over 65 million dollars in illegal drugs from central/south america every year. On top of that, do you expect us to send police officers to stop illegal traffic in a foreign country? Of course not, that is not our country, we send DEA agents there to advise their respective govts, but we do not have the right to arrest citizens not from our borders.

    ill get back to this.. i have to go out for a while
     

Share This Page