Man aiding homeless person held by police

[TDPerk]

@Ladajo

"Make drugs available at will for everyone is an error no matter how you look at it."

No one is talking about making them available at will for everyone under any circumstances, which is what you imply, not even MSimon.

What is at issue, is the stupid, vile, unjust and tyrannous policy you are all for; which is prohibiting them to anyone without regard for the due process and personal liberty which are the only excuse for the nation existing, the only reason for the events of 1775. Until and unless an individual's use of a material is associated with a specific criminal event against persons or property, their individual possession of it should be unencumbered by effect of law. It is plausible to me that the only materials that could be an exception to that general principle, are ones which fission efficiently in the manner of a bomb.

Nothing else is either prudent or just in the abstract.

[paperburn1]

so your saying throw out Consequentialist Ethics and use only Social Contract Ethics as your guide????/? Next you will be avocating flinging our poo at each other to solve our differences.

[mvanwink5]

Next you will be avocating flinging our poo at each other to solve our differences.

You got to be kidding. Where did you get that?

[ladajo]

The grim reaper will be changing policy as long as I keep working my function as educator

The sword swings both ways old man.

[ladajo]

No one is talking about making them available at will for everyone under any circumstances, which is what you imply, not even MSimon.

Are you that niave??? Here let me refresh your short term memory for what Msimon thinks:

Pot legalization is only a first step. I want to destroy the whole prohibition infrastructure

And so?

[ladajo]

which is prohibiting them to anyone without regard for the due process and personal liberty which are the only excuse for the nation existing

And that is not what I am for. I am for personal accountability, which is entirely what the Pro-Drug culture DOES NOT WANT.

They want their cake, and they want to snort it too.

[ladajo]

I fight a police state

No, you want to destroy the state. There is a clear difference. You are an anarchist. The funny part is that if you get your wish (which sadly for you most likely won't happen), you would be one of the first the mobs would kill. You would have no utility for them. They would burn you down and not look back or even really notice it happened.

I am very much against a police state, as I have said many times. And that has nothing to do with the "Drug War". The abuses of the legal system relating to "The Drug War" are just another symptom for a wider issue wrought by pussies that want others to protect them because they can't and don't want to do it for themselves. The major irony being that those pussies are the ones who want the drugs, and thus are causing an uptick in police state tendancies by demanding protections from the production and distributino system of very poison they support. Personally, although I don't agree with current policing philosphy, I do recognize the culture of fear that grew it. A viscious circle by liberal pussy morons: "I demand we Give Them Rights to be angry and societal misfits! And I demand that the state protect me from them, while it protects them to be sociopaths! WE ARE AFRAID!" PROTECT US! PROTECT THE CRIMINALS!" For cops, it is a rock and a hard place. They firmly believe they can not win, and I am fairly certain that here and now with the norms that exist in our current society they are probably right. Group hugs don't work when you include someone with a knife that wants your stuff.

Wake up and see the real issues.

[paperburn1]

Next you will be avocating flinging our poo at each other to solve our differences.

You got to be kidding. Where did you get that?

I just quoted my 10 grade shop teacher when asking why we would have to follow a rule this inevitably ended up as his final statement
But in reality we have to understand that social actions have consequence. So this give us the right to enact laws to control behavior before that behavior happens. Punishing someone only after bad behavior happens leads to mob rule, vigilantism and all sort of over reaction. We need the rule and consequence to be in place before it becomes a outstanding problem .
Right now with current legalizing of pot there is not the infrastructure of rules to deal with usage. Almost all rules deal with illegal usage and it consequences. Federal and state law are currently at direct opposition to each other.
Personally my direct and indirect experiences with pot smokers lead me to believe we are better off without than with. Maybe one in ten experience no adverse effects on their life or lifestyle. The rest suffer some loss in potential or life quality whether they want to believe it or not.)And if your telling me it does not effect you just remember you can't truly judge the effect on the system unless you an outside observer.

[MSimon]

Please explain the difference between a drug and a medicine.

For instance how did opiates go from a drug to a medicine for people suffering from fibromyalgia?

Now suppose there are other diseases we don't understand which some people are self medicating for? How do we know it is a drug if we don't know the disease? And obviously we don't know all diseases. Thus we may very well be imprisoning people for drugs who are treating a currently unknown disease.

Why take the chance of imprisoning people unjustly?

[MSimon]

The funny part is that if you get your wish (which sadly for you most likely won't happen), you would be one of the first the mobs would kill.

The best the State can do is clean up after the mob.

OTOH no one cleans up after the police.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/21/cops- ... lly Thomas
Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... 1959.story

An Orange County jury Monday found two ... ed to do."
I believe that.

Evidently murder by police is not a serious crime. And schizophrenics are fair game. Well them and dopers. Or suspected dopers.

Police Allegedly Beat Pearl Pearson For Disobeying Orders He Could Not Hear

I guess being deaf is a crime now. But there is a mitigating circumstance. The police did what they were trained to do. They were following orders. Or protocol. Or something.

Ya know ladajo, you ought to study the history of alcohol prohibition. Cops were held in very low esteem by the time that one was over. It took them 20 or 30 years to get respect back. And just about the time they did they forgot everything they learned and went on a Drug War rampage. As opposed to an Alcohol War rampage. Well the results are similar. There will be uncomplimentary cop jokes on TV for decades to come. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

There is no absolution for the crime of stupidity. And that goes for governments even more so than individuals. Well the overtime was good while it lasted.

I'm going to see if I can make "the police did what they were trained to do" a catch phrase. Similar to "we followed orders." Lucky you are no longer a cop, eh?

[MSimon]

The funny part is that if you get your wish (which sadly for you most likely won't happen), you would be one of the first the mobs would kill.

The best the State can do is clean up after the mob.

OTOH no one cleans up after the police.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/21/cops- ... lly Thomas
Police not guilty in Kelly Thomas death; DA won't try 3rd officer http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... 1959.story

An Orange County jury Monday found two former Fullerton police officers accused of killing a schizophrenic homeless man, Kelly Thomas, not guilty.

Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli were charged with striking Kelly Thomas with a baton and a stun gun in a beating that left him comatose. He died five days later.

<snip>

Ramos' attorney, John Barnett, told reporters: "These peace officers were doing their jobs...they did what they were trained to do."

I believe that.

Evidently murder by police is not a serious crime. And schizophrenics are fair game. Well them and dopers. Or suspected dopers.

Police Allegedly Beat Pearl Pearson For Disobeying Orders He Could Not Hear

I guess being deaf is a crime now. But there is a mitigating circumstance. The police did what they were trained to do. They were following orders. Or protocol. Or something.

Ya know ladajo, you ought to study the history of alcohol prohibition. Cops were held in very low esteem by the time that one was over. It took them 20 or 30 years to get respect back. And just about the time they did they forgot everything they learned and went on a Drug War rampage. As opposed to an Alcohol War rampage. Well the results are similar. There will be uncomplimentary cop jokes on TV for decades to come. Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

There is no absolution for the crime of stupidity. And that goes for governments even more so than individuals. Well the overtime was good while it lasted.

I'm going to see if I can make "the police did what they were trained to do" a catch phrase. Similar to "we followed orders." Lucky you are no longer a cop, eh?

[paperburn1]

Ok lets jump straight to the point,
Your going to say how can pot be classified as
Schedule I,
a category of drugs not considered legitimate for medical use. Among the substances so classified by the Drug Enforcement Agency are mescaline, lysergic acid diethylamide, heroin, and marijuana.
Schedule III,
a category of drugs that have less potential for abuse or addiction than Schedule I or II drugs and have a useful medical purpose. Included are short-acting barbiturates and amphetamines.
That is explained here.
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_r ... fr1105.htm
It does seem to be an oxymoron that it is both.After all pot was a type one and type two controlled substance until Marinol testing lowered it to a type three.
but in regards to finding if a drug is a medicine is something called Double-Blind Procedure (also known as Double Blind Control) This is one type of experimental procedure in which both the patient and the staff are ignorant (blind) as to the condition (or group) that the participant is in. This would make it impossible for the participant or researcher to know if the participant is receiving the treatment (for example a drug) or a placebo. This type of design is commonly used in drug evaluation studies, and is used to prevent the researchers from acting differently to people in one group, or from giving the participant any information that could make them act and/or behave unnaturally. Get you local medical establishment to preform this testing and I am sure that the rating of the drug would be lowered if it had any real value.
As perhaps a more realistic example is Heroin. It is by far the most effective pain reliever opiate both proven by medical establishments and testing around the world. It is also ban around the world because of it negative qualitys. The bad just out ways the good. That is why we do not use it for pain relief.

[ladajo]

Evidently murder by police is not a serious crime. And schizophrenics are fair game. Well them and dopers. Or suspected dopers

There you go again. Generalizing directly from a specific. That is why you are not credible. Cheesy propaganga at best.

I guess being deaf is a crime now. But there is a mitigating circumstance. The police did what they were trained to do.

And again.

It just makes you look liked some sort of over agitated rage against the system malcontent. You didn't get your ice-cream your way, so that means the whole system is broken and it is your genetic duty to jump up and down in a temper tantrum to tell everyone and reek your vengeance.

You are a very powerful man. Really.

No, really...

[TDPerk]

No one is talking about making them available at will for everyone under any circumstances, which is what you imply, not even MSimon.

Are you that niave??? Here let me refresh your short term memory for what Msimon thinks:

Pot legalization is only a first step. I want to destroy the whole prohibition infrastructure

And so?

So what? There is no intersection between "destroying the prohibition infrastructure" and "making them available at will for everyone under any circumstances".

There is nothing wrong with making it illegal after a due process finding by a jury, that an individual cannot be sold drugs. It is the a priori general prohibition which both unjust and unconstitutional.

[ladajo]

Yes, I see now. You really are niave.

So we are going to prosecuted every addict that does something stupid and then "ban" them from future drug purchases.

Right.

Sounds like a perfect plan to guarantee illegal sales. Oh wait, we already have that...