Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mexican Drug Cartels Use The United States As Global Distribution Hub
Friends of Ours ^ | 11/12/12 | Friends of Ours

Posted on 11/12/2012 5:16:33 AM PST by AtlasStalled

With little pushback from law enforcement within its borders the United States increasingly is serving as a global distribution hub for the Mexican drug cartels.

Last week police in Melbourne, Australia busted two suspects including a reputed "high ranking member of the Comanchero Motorcycle Club" for their alleged roles in receiving cocaine shipments from an unidentified Mexican drug cartel in the United States as reported by Andrew O'Reilly for Fox News: "while it is unclear which cartel the outlaw motorcycle club members were working with, it is well known that Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán's Sinaloa cartel has a major stake in Australia's burgeoning cocaine market."

Earlier this month Quebec police charged more than 100 individuals for their alleged roles in a drug conspiracy which used a trucking firm to bring cocaine into Canada from the United States, and the arrested include those with suspected ties to the Italian Mafia, the Irish West End Gang and Hells Angels motorcycle club as reported by The Canadian Press.

The 'Ndrangheta or Calabrian Mafia also has developled a partnership with the Mexican cartels in the United States for moving cocaine from New York City into Italy. Nicola Gratteri, a top anti-Mafia prosecutor in Italy warns that "this mafia is quickly spreading in the United States, particularly in Florida and New York" as reported by Beatrice Borromeo for The Daily Beast: "Gratteri's latest operations . . . uncovered a new route in the mafia's international drug trade, centered in New York City, where the crime syndicates can secure easy access to cocaine shipped in by Mexican cartels."

Security analysts are at a loss to explain why law enforcment has failed to break the distribution infrastructure which the Mexican drug cartels have established within the United States as reported by Sari Horwitz for The Washington Post:

"The success of the Mexican cartels in building their massive drug distribution and marketing networks across the county is a reflection of the U.S. government's intelligence and operational failure in the war on drugs, said Fulton T. Armstrong, a former national intelligence officer for Latin America and ex-CIA officer. 'We pretend that the cartels don't have an infrastructure in the U.S.,' said Armstrong, also a former staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and now a senior fellow at American University's Center for Latin American and Latino Studies. 'But you don't do a $20 billion a year business . . . with ad-hoc, part-time volunteers. You use an established infrastructure to support the markets. How come we're not attacking that infrastructure?'"

Let's face it: the U.S. is just a druggie nation.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Travel
KEYWORDS: cartels; drugs; drugwar; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

1 posted on 11/12/2012 5:16:40 AM PST by AtlasStalled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

obama at the hub


2 posted on 11/12/2012 5:50:58 AM PST by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

“Let’s face it: the U.S. is just a druggie nation”

Not possible without large measure of official corruption.

When the keyboard libertarians argue for drug legalization they are willfully blind to the results of a self indulgent society that will not curb its appetites for its own good and that of the next generation.


3 posted on 11/12/2012 6:56:51 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
When the keyboard libertarians argue for drug legalization they are willfully blind to the results of a self indulgent society that will not curb its appetites for its own good and that of the next generation.

The War On Drugs has not demonstrably curbed any appetites - but it has hyperinflated drug profits and channeled those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.

4 posted on 11/12/2012 8:51:12 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
The same could be said of the laws against child pornography, etc.

During my life time I've watched American society deteriorate at an increasing pace and the willing of a large segment of the population to drug themselves endlessly and the willingness of others to defend it is but one example of a widespread moral decline.

The so-called War on Drugs was/is an attempt to curb supply not appetites.

5 posted on 11/12/2012 9:16:51 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled

No fence no poor congressman.


6 posted on 11/12/2012 9:50:45 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
When the keyboard libertarians argue for drug legalization they are willfully blind to the results of a self indulgent society that will not curb its appetites for its own good and that of the next generation.

The War On Drugs has not demonstrably curbed any appetites - but it has hyperinflated drug profits and channeled those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.

The same could be said of the laws against child pornography, etc.

I'd be interested to know what your "etc." is. As a rule, laws against real crimes with actual victims are far more successful than laws against victimless "crimes" - because victims and their loved ones avoid or resist the crime beforehand, and cooperate with law enforcement and prosecution afterward.

Lamentably, this is less true of crimes against children - but despite the difficulties, in those cases there remain real unwilling victims that must be protected ... whereas the only "victim" of drug buying/using is the willing buyer/user.

The so-called War on Drugs was/is an attempt to curb supply not appetites.

It has not demonstrably curbed supply either - but, again, it has hyperinflated drug profits and channeled those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.

7 posted on 11/12/2012 10:10:05 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Of course the “real crimes” are those someone else is committing.
Your claim that the only victims are users and buyers of drugs is ludicrous on its face. How much damage has been done to families, how much of a burden on the rest of society is imposed by an underclass of impaired unemployables.

What has equally hyperinflated drug prices is the willingness of the criminals who buy and use drugs to pay any price to feed their own desires.

A lack of restraint in the personal lives of the population has always been the mark of decay and there is no reason to think widespread drug use today is not part of that decay.

8 posted on 11/12/2012 12:38:11 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Of course the “real crimes” are those someone else is committing.

Are you implying I break any drug laws? You're mistaken.

Your claim that the only victims are users and buyers of drugs is ludicrous on its face. How much damage has been done to families,

SOME drug users - inlcuing users of the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol - victimize their spouses and children by rendering themselves unable to meet their responsibilities. Why should ALL users - including those with no spouses or children - be punished?

how much of a burden on the rest of society is imposed by an underclass of impaired unemployables.

Society has accepted that burden (through its elected representatives); I recommend society reverse that decision.

What has equally hyperinflated drug prices is the willingness of the criminals who buy and use drugs to pay any price to feed their own desires.

Yes, it takes both users and laws against sale. We've seen for alcohol and other drugs that such users can't be eliminated - the living-in-reality choice is to eliminate the laws.

A lack of restraint in the personal lives of the population has always been the mark of decay and there is no reason to think widespread drug use today is not part of that decay.

Nor is there any reason to think that banning drugs has done anything to arrest that decay, or done anything but hyperinflate drug profits and channel those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.

9 posted on 11/12/2012 12:56:20 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
By now there should be no profit in pot for California producers since it is readily available to anyone who wants it.

“Are you implying I break any drug laws? You're mistaken”

I'm implying no such thing. If you took it that way, I'm sorry.

“Yes, it takes both users and laws against sale. We've seen for alcohol and other drugs that such users can't be eliminated - the living-in-reality choice is to eliminate the laws”

Given abuse of alcohol is a problem why on earth add fuel to the fire?

“SOME drug users - inlcuing users of the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol - victimize their spouses and children by rendering themselves unable to meet their responsibilities. Why should ALL users - including those with no spouses or children - be punished?”

Why punish speeders who have never had a wreck?

10 posted on 11/12/2012 1:50:28 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
By now there should be no profit in pot for California producers since it is readily available to anyone who wants it.

I don't know what that has to do with anything - but it's obviously wrong: pot is readily available to anyone who wants it AND is willing to pay the drug-war-hyperinflated price.

Of course the “real crimes” are those someone else is committing.

Are you implying I break any drug laws? You're mistaken.

I'm implying no such thing.

Good to know. What did you mean by that statement about "someone else"?

Yes, it takes both users and laws against sale. We've seen for alcohol and other drugs that such users can't be eliminated - the living-in-reality choice is to eliminate the laws.

Given abuse of alcohol is a problem why on earth add fuel to the fire?

Because continuing the War On Drugs fuels a different, bigger fire.

Do you support removing fuel from the substance-use fire by re-banning alcohol?

SOME drug users - inlcuding users of the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol - victimize their spouses and children by rendering themselves unable to meet their responsibilities. Why should ALL users - including those with no spouses or children - be punished?

Why punish speeders who have never had a wreck?

Speeders pose a clear and present danger to others; this is not the case for users of alcohol or other drugs. Also, speed laws apply only on public roads whereas drug use takes place in private bloodstreams.

11 posted on 11/12/2012 2:10:11 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Legalize drugs and take the profit and crime out it, right?

California has legalized pot and the profit and crime are still there.

If you’re going argue privacy for drug use then it should be private and in private. No drug shops or hidden plots in the national forests with guards willing to shoot the wandering hiker.

“Speeders pose a clear and present danger to others; this is not the case for users of alcohol or other drugs”

Really? I guess some naked guy trying to break into a school was just there for sex ed.


12 posted on 11/12/2012 3:42:03 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Given abuse of alcohol is a problem why on earth add fuel to the fire?

Because continuing the War On Drugs fuels a different, bigger fire.

Do you support removing fuel from the substance-use fire by re-banning alcohol?

No answer to the question?

Legalize drugs and take the profit and crime out it, right?

California has legalized pot

Only for medicinal use with a doctor's recommendation - a mini-"legalization" that nobody has ever claimed would take the profit and crime out of pot. Greatly reduced prices, profits, and crime can be expected when and only when drugs are available to any adult who has the money (as is currently the case for the mind-altering drug alcohol).

and the profit and crime are still there.

If you’re going argue privacy for drug use then it should be private and in private.

I'm A-OK with laws against public use and public intoxication such as apply to the mind-altering drug alcohol.

No drug shops

Does that include the mind-altering drug alcohol?

or hidden plots in the national forests with guards willing to shoot the wandering hiker.

Those are creations of the War On Drugs; legalize, and they'll be as common as hidden alcohol stills.

Speeders pose a clear and present danger to others; this is not the case for users of alcohol or other drugs.

Really? I guess some naked guy trying to break into a school was just there for sex ed.

15% of Americans used illicit drugs last year - how many of them got naked and tried to break into a school? The standard for "clear and present danger" is not it-happens-once-in-a-blue-moon.

Also, speed laws apply only on public roads whereas drug use takes place in private bloodstreams.

13 posted on 11/13/2012 7:15:58 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“Those are creations of the War On Drugs; legalize, and they'll be as common as hidden alcohol stills”

So you say. That would be “mind altering drug alcohol”, right?

The advocates of drug legalization trot out the “mind altering drug alcohol” is equal to pot argument time after time yet alcohol can be used without impairment of mental ability and judgment while such impairment is the whole purpose of drug use.

So no I don't favor returning to the Prohibition Era.

“Only for medicinal use with a doctor's recommendation - a mini-”legalization” that nobody has ever claimed would take the profit and crime out of pot. Greatly reduced prices, profits, and crime can be expected when and only when drugs are available to any adult who has the money (as is currently the case for the mind-altering drug alcohol).”

The “Only for medicinal use with a doctor's recommendation” rule has in fact made pot available to anyone who wants it and has the price. This de facto legalization has not taken crime out of the equation.
And the forest plots are still there.

I have no doubt that legalization of pot will continue with other drugs to follow.

I see it simply as part of the rot of a society that is becoming more accepting of every kind of vice, homosexual “marriage”, pornography, prostitution.

14 posted on 11/13/2012 8:44:06 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Those are creations of the War On Drugs; legalize, and they'll be as common as hidden alcohol stills.

So you say.

So history says - stills were common when the mind-altering drug alcohol was illegal and became rare when it was legalized. Conservatives learn from history ... liberals cling to utopian fantasies (like a drug-free society).

alcohol can be used without impairment of mental ability and judgment

But is very often used otherwise.

while such impairment is the whole purpose of drug use.

Such impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal. (Or do you think many patrons of illegal speakeasies were there only to drink ceremonial toasts?)

So no I don't favor returning to the Prohibition Era.

Nor should you favor our current drug prohibition, which is having all the negative effects that alcohol Prohibition did.

The “Only for medicinal use with a doctor's recommendation” rule has in fact made pot available to anyone who wants it and has the price.

So long as suppliers don't have to compete in an open legal market - as they still don't in California - prices will remain hyperinflated and profits restricted to criminal hands, fueling crime by both sellers and addicted users.

15 posted on 11/13/2012 8:56:45 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Legalization didn't end bootlegging since the heavy tax on booze made the legal alcohol far more expensive than the boot leg kind. What killed most stills was a superior commercial product since many of the stills were just making sugar whiskey contaminated with wood alcohol and fusal oil. That plus the tax man.

Most illegal alcohol during prohibition came from Canada and what didn't was garbage and poisonous.

“Conservatives learn from history ... liberals cling to utopian fantasies (like a drug-free society).”

Then you think it is the moral conservatives that want relaxation of drug laws and the liberals oppose drug use?

16 posted on 11/13/2012 9:42:54 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Legalization didn't end bootlegging since the heavy tax on booze made the legal alcohol far more expensive than the boot leg kind.

Evidence?

What killed most stills was a superior commercial product

And there could be a commercial product only because of legalization. I don't know what you think your hairsplitting proves.

since many of the stills were just making sugar whiskey contaminated with wood alcohol and fusal oil.

Illegal pot is not infrequently laced or contaminated; thanks for another parallel between Prohibition and the War On Drugs.

That plus the tax man.

He'll be around when pot is legalized; thanks for another parallel between Prohibition and the War On Drugs.

Most illegal alcohol during prohibition came from Canada

A lot of illegal drugs come across the border; thanks for another parallel between Prohibition and the War On Drugs.

and what didn't was garbage and poisonous.

Conservatives learn from history ... liberals cling to utopian fantasies (like a drug-free society).

Then you think it is the moral conservatives that want relaxation of drug laws

Conservatives learn from history - whether "moral conservatives" learn from history or cling to utopian fantasies remains to be seen.

17 posted on 11/13/2012 1:18:58 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
Let's suppose pot becomes legal to the same extent a cigar is. Taxed, restricted in some ways but easily available.

What's the next drug(s) that should be legalized? Coke? Meth? Barbiturates? Which ones?

18 posted on 11/13/2012 3:23:21 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Let's suppose pot becomes legal to the same extent a cigar is. Taxed, restricted in some ways but easily available.

What's the next drug(s) that should be legalized? Coke? Meth? Barbiturates? Which ones?

Whichever ones are still enriching criminals after pot has been removed from that equation for a few years.

19 posted on 11/14/2012 9:18:36 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

There will always something that is claimed criminals are making money from so any law that restricts them must be removed, right?

I don’t choose to join the libertines the in downward spiraling parade.


20 posted on 11/14/2012 11:26:40 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
There will always something that is claimed criminals are making money from

So if somebody claims it, it must be accepted as true?

And the issue is not making ANY money, but making the kind of profit margins that magnify the ability to commit real rights-violating crimes. As a rule, such profit margins are provided only by laws against victimless "crimes" - because victims and their loved ones avoid or resist the crime beforehand, and cooperate with law enforcement and prosecution afterward.

so any law that restricts them must be removed, right?

If the act violates no unwilling individuals' rights, and the law channels into criminal hands the kind of profit margins that magnify their ability to commit real rights-violating crimes, then the law should be removed.

21 posted on 11/14/2012 12:11:59 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I left out some important text:

As a rule, such profit margins are provided only by laws against victimless "crimes" - because for real crimes with actual victims, victims and their loved ones avoid or resist the crime beforehand, and cooperate with law enforcement and prosecution afterward.

22 posted on 11/14/2012 12:14:45 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

As a rule...Lowering the norms for personal behavior takes away freedom for all. The libertines blab about rights but never obligations.

As part of that percentage that does not use drugs I have rights too so while I can see prosecuting a war on drug use and would certainly fight it differently I’m not the least inclined to surrender.


23 posted on 11/15/2012 6:55:30 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
As a rule...Lowering the norms for personal behavior takes away freedom for all.

Yet you refuse to support raising the norms for personal behavior by banning the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol, which is very often used to impair mental ability and judgment.

The libertines blab about rights but never obligations.

I don't know about libertines - libertarians recognize the obligation to respect the individual rights of others. What other obligations do you claim that free men have?

As part of that percentage that does not use drugs I have rights too

Which "rights" do you claim would be violated by legality of currently illegal drugs? And how are those "rights" not violated by legality of the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol?

so while I can see prosecuting a war on drug use and would certainly fight it differently I’m not the least inclined to surrender.

Yet you support our surrender in the war on the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol, which is very often used to impair mental ability and judgment.

24 posted on 11/15/2012 7:45:56 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
You're attempting to equate alcohol with pot or other drugs by attaching the phrase “mind altering drug” to it. A simple hot meal can be “mind altering”, a needle of insulin can be “mind altering”.

Alcohol can and has been used for centuries as a food without being used to impair judgment and ability even if often abused.

Illicit drugs have no appeal unless they are used to impair judgment and ability. Some of these drugs can be used for medical reasons, cocaine, barbiturates, meth, opium, perhaps even pot but no heroine user would shoot up without experiencing the “mind altering” effects except to prevent withdrawal.

No, I don't favor a Prohibition Era style ban on alcohol for the reasons above but I have no trouble at all with tightening restrictions on it far more than what exists.

“Yet you support our surrender in the war on the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol, which is very often used to impair mental ability and judgment”

I support no such surrender at all. Getting high, getting drunk, getting “buzzed”, whatever term is used, is manifestly a lack of self control and an unwillingness to adhere to accepted social norms in all areas of life.

The so-called libertarians are mostly just libertines under the skin.

My rights? I have a right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight, I have a right to use the city park I've paid for without having to step around used needles and condoms. I have a right not to have my neighborhood turned into a cesspool like parts of San Francisco is.

And I also have a right to expect my fellow citizens to obey even unpopular laws even those that appear “victimless” on the surface.

“What other obligations do you claim that free men have?”

Only two very broad obligations: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

25 posted on 11/15/2012 11:38:09 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
You're attempting to equate alcohol with pot or other drugs by attaching the phrase “mind altering drug” to it. A simple hot meal can be “mind altering”, a needle of insulin can be “mind altering”.

If you want to claim that the mind-altering properties of alcohol are closer to those of a hot meal than of illegal drugs, you go ahead and look silly; any reader who's ever drunk enough alcohol to impair judgment and ability knows how presposterous your claim is.

Alcohol can and has been used for centuries as a food without being used to impair judgment and ability even if often abused.

Alcohol can and has been used for centuries without being used to impair judgment and ability, sure - but as a food?! Please provide evidence for a tradition of using alcohol to meet dietary caloric requirements.

And the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal. (Or do you think many patrons of illegal speakeasies were there only to drink ceremonial toasts?)

No, I don't favor a Prohibition Era style ban on alcohol for the reasons above but I have no trouble at all with tightening restrictions on it far more than what exists.

What further restrictions do you support?

I have a right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight,

You fabricate "rights" as well as any liberal - your employer may hire whoever they choose, and you have the right to work beside them or quit, period.

I have a right to use the city park I've paid for without having to step around used needles and condoms.

It'll be much easier to eliminate drug use in parks if users have someplace legal to use.

I have a right not to have my neighborhood turned into a cesspool like parts of San Francisco is.

Depends what you mean by "cesspool" - I support local ordinances against public intoxication, loitering, and eyesore properties.

What other obligations do you claim that free men have?

Only two very broad obligations: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Government may require citizens to love God?!

26 posted on 11/15/2012 11:52:48 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“If you want to claim that the mind-altering properties of alcohol are closer to those of a hot meal than of illegal drugs...”

I made no such claim and it's obvious that I didn't. Why claim that I did?

“Government may require citizens to love God?!”

No. But a moral and self regulating populace is the only way a society can prosper. That lack is destroying this one.

The question was not about governments nor was my answer so why are you saying that?

“Alcohol can and has been used for centuries without being used to impair judgment and ability, sure - but as a food?! Please provide evidence for a tradition of using alcohol to meet dietary caloric requirements.”

It's taken as part of the meal, it's being used as a food. It might be mixed into food or drank but it's part of the meal, being used as food.

“Please provide evidence for a tradition of using alcohol to meet dietary caloric requirements.”

That's silly! Who has ever sat down to eat with the thought of: “I must meet my dietary caloric requirements.”

Devotees of Weight Watchers...maybe.

“You fabricate “rights” as well as any liberal - your employer may hire whoever they choose, and you have the right to work beside them or quit, period”

No they may not hire whomever they choose as they have a responsibility not to allow impaired workers on the job. Companies don't do drug testing just to annoy workers, they have both moral and legal obligations. And no one has the right to expect me to give up my livelihood so they can indulge their dangerous habits.

The invention of rights is the business of so-called libertarians not me. Killing infants before birth, bimbos taking their clothes off as free speech, advocating child rape, pornography, homosexual displaying their vile practices in public parades...”victimless’ crimes.

“It'll be much easier to eliminate drug use in parks if users have someplace legal to use”

What? Restrict someone’s right to use drugs in a public park? If drug use is a legal right and victimless why not in public parks?

“And the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal”

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition. Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

27 posted on 11/15/2012 1:47:03 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“What further restrictions do you support?”

On alcohol. I haven't anything specific in mind, any regime has strengths and weaknesses. And in any case self regulation born of recognition of our obligations to our fellows to not degrade the society they must share is at the heart of all law.

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.”
(Thomas Jefferson 1816)

28 posted on 11/15/2012 3:34:19 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
You're attempting to equate alcohol with pot or other drugs by attaching the phrase “mind altering drug” to it. A simple hot meal can be “mind altering”, a needle of insulin can be “mind altering”.

If you want to claim that the mind-altering properties of alcohol are closer to those of a hot meal than of illegal drugs

I made no such claim and it's obvious that I didn't.

No, that's NOT "obvious" - I could see no other reason why you'd bring up the “mind altering” properties of a hot meal. Feel free to explain your reason.

Why claim that I did?

I didn't - notice that I said "If".

so any law that restricts them [criminals who are making money] must be removed, right?

If the act violates no unwilling individuals' rights, and the law channels into criminal hands the kind of profit margins that magnify their ability to commit real rights-violating crimes, then the law should be removed.

The libertines blab about rights but never obligations.

I don't know about libertines - libertarians recognize the obligation to respect the individual rights of others. What other obligations do you claim that free men have?

Only two very broad obligations: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

Government may require citizens to love God?!

No. But a moral and self regulating populace is the only way a society can prosper. That lack is destroying this one.

Do we agree that laws cannot create a moral and self regulating populace?

The question was not about governments nor was my answer

It seems you've lost the thread of the conversation. As the text I've included above shows, your statement about obligations stemmed from your question about which laws must be removed.

Alcohol can and has been used for centuries as a food without being used to impair judgment and ability even if often abused.

Alcohol can and has been used for centuries without being used to impair judgment and ability, sure - but as a food?! Please provide evidence for a tradition of using alcohol to meet dietary caloric requirements.

It's taken as part of the meal, it's being used as a food.

That's a broader definition of "food" than the dictionary's:

food
noun
1. any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.
2. more or less solid nourishment, as distinguished from liquids.
3. a particular kind of solid nourishment: a breakfast food; dog food.
4. whatever supplies nourishment to organisms: plant food.

But accepting your definition for the purpose of this discussion: so what if it's taken as part of the meal? Does this mean you accept the legality of marijuana brownies - or any orally ingestible recreational drug, any of which can be taken as part of the meal?

“You fabricate “rights” as well as any liberal - your employer may hire whoever they choose, and you have the right to work beside them or quit, period”

No they may not hire whomever they choose as they have a responsibility not to allow impaired workers on the job. Companies don't do drug testing just to annoy workers, they have both moral and legal obligations.

Employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.”

And no one has the right to expect me to give up my livelihood so they can indulge their dangerous habits.

Again, it's the employer's rights at issue - and if there's no realistic potential to injure they can hire who they want.

The invention of rights is the business of so-called libertarians not me. Killing infants before birth,

That violates the rights of the unborn person - as Libertarians For Life recognizes (http://www.l4l.org).

bimbos taking their clothes off as free speech,

I agree that calling it "speech" is nonsense. Bimbos have the right to take their clothes off in front of strangers for money for the simple reason that this act violates no individual's rights - no invention involved, just a recongition of the proper limits of government.

advocating child rape,

Please quote any libertarian as speaking in advocacy of child rape.

pornography,

The making and viewing of pornography is a right because it violates no individual's rights - no invention involved, just a recongition of the proper limits of government.

homosexual displaying their vile practices in public parades...”victimless’ crimes.

One may not behave however one wishes in public - I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who is willing to defend the "right" to public defacation (even if that individual brings along a scooper). In such prudential matters, I agree that majority sentiment is what establishes the line - "in public" being the key phrase.

It'll be much easier to eliminate drug use in parks if users have someplace legal to use.

What? Restrict someone’s right to use drugs in a public park? If drug use is a legal right and victimless why not in public parks?

Same reason as "why not in JustSayNoToNannies' or count-your-change's front yard" - the property does not belong to them and they don't have the owner's permission. Very libertarian.

And the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

I have no trouble at all with tightening restrictions on it [alcohol] far more than what exists.

What further restrictions do you support?

On alcohol. I haven't anything specific in mind,

But you do know you have NO trouble AT ALL with FAR MORE tightening? Seems like a contradiction to me ...

any regime has strengths and weaknesses. And in any case self regulation born of recognition of our obligations to our fellows to not degrade the society they must share is at the heart of all law.

Wrong - when law steps in it is by definition no longer "self regulation."

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.” (Thomas Jefferson 1816)

Jefferson does seem to have become much more authoritarian in his later years; you may call it experience and wisdom, I call it being corrupted by power. That quote avoids addressing (or assumes a certain highly disputable answer to) the key question: since the individual is bound by the actions of God, how can it be that the collection is bound by the actions of men?

29 posted on 11/16/2012 11:51:45 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“No, that's NOT “obvious” - I could see no other reason why you'd bring up the “mind altering” properties of a hot meal. Feel free to explain your reason.”

I brought it up because you kept using it, I guess to equate alcohol and pot but since the term can be applied to so many other things your usage fails to make any equivalency.
Simply being “mind altering” is meaningless here as saying “derived from plants”. I'll try to explain in greater detail from now on.

“What other obligations do you claim that free men have?”

That's the the question I was asked, that is the question I answered. I didn't attempt to read more into it than was asked.
No, laws don't make people moral, laws are the stick part of carrot and stick. Laws reflect a society's opinion of the moral, or the practical and utilitarian.
All moral codes have called upon the individual to regulate himself even if punishment is not possible by society.

Jefferson and others like him recognized that society at large had to have a common morality just as much as the individual and that was his observation.

“Again, it's the employer's rights at issue - and if there's no realistic potential to injure they can hire who they want.”

“..... and if there's no realistic potential to injure they can hire who they want.”

The above wasn't part of your former comment that I responded to, his rights are thus limited by his obligations to his workforce.

I can detect no consistent “libertarian” position on abortion. Libertarian is a self defining postion so those who call themselves libertarian will land on yes, no, maybe and perhaps.

But the libertarians who defend the operation of strip clubs and publishers of pornography had to restort to calling such “freedom of expression” or “protected political” speech since no reasonable argument ccould be made for legality. Another invented right since no basis can be found for calling it a right.

Of course no libertarian wants his property values lowered by a strip club next door to his home or business.

“Please quote any libertarian as speaking in advocacy of child rape”

Please quote where I said they did.

“Same reason as “why not in JustSayNoToNannies’ or count-your-change's front yard” - the property does not belong to them and they don't have the owner's permission. Very libertarian.”

The libertarian should argue that drug users and homosexuals pay taxes and fees just the same as everyone else so they own the park as much as anyone else, and that sitting on a park bench with a needle in their arm harms no one else, violates no ones rights or ability to use the park.
That is the libertarian test isn't it?

Our front yard is owned only us not the public, I'm the only payer for my yard and hold title to it, not the public. Therefore it can't be compared to the public streets or parks.

“I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who is willing to defend the “right” to public defacation (even if that individual brings along a scooper).”

That's true but it's also true that a reason not consistent with the libertarian philosophy would be just as hard to find.

What rights would be violated? Whose rights would be infringed? Very libertarian.

“But you do know you have NO trouble AT ALL with FAR MORE tightening? Seems like a contradiction to me ...”

Not at all as I explained, “any regime has strengths and weaknesses”. So no, I don't have some specific plan.

And as I added self regulation is recognition of obligations to others. Where it exists it's not necessary for the law to step in. It is that lack of self regulation that makes laws necessary. Thus laws can be...can be moral instructors.

Jefferson's comment:

“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.” (Thomas Jefferson 1816)

isn't difficult to understand. If it's wrong for the individual to violate a moral code, it's wrong for the same reasons for a million to do so.

“Jefferson does seem to have become much more authoritarian in his later years; you may call it experience and wisdom, I call it being corrupted by power. That quote avoids addressing (or assumes a certain highly disputable answer to) the key question: since the individual is bound by the actions of God, how can it be that the collection is bound by the actions of men?”

If “the individual is bound by the actions of God,..” why would we assume the collective isn't?

It's just as wrong for the larger group to commit murder as the individual and hence Jefferson seems to be calling for a moral society and government based upon the the moral individual.

“One may not behave however one wishes in public..”

True but not for reasons the libertarian would suggest.

30 posted on 11/16/2012 6:06:28 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
No, that's NOT "obvious" - I could see no other reason why you'd bring up the “mind altering” properties of a hot meal. Feel free to explain your reason.

I brought it up because you kept using it, I guess to equate alcohol and pot

No, to point out a similarity - which is NOT to "equate."

Simply being “mind altering” is meaningless here

Nonsense - it has a clear meaning that is inconvenient to your position. Alcohol and pot readily impair mental ability and judgment (YOUR phrase) whereas a hot meal does not.

as saying “derived from plants”. I'll try to explain in greater detail from now on.

You should try to refrain from foolish word games from now on.

No, laws don't make people moral, laws are the stick part of carrot and stick.

If the stick can't achieve the desired end, what is the justification for using it?

Laws reflect a society's opinion of the moral, or the practical and utilitarian.

Society can make clear its opinions without fining or imprisoning people.

so what if it's [alcohol] taken as part of the meal? Does this mean you accept the legality of marijuana brownies - or any orally ingestible recreational drug, any of which can be taken as part of the meal?

I missed your answer to this question.

Again, it's the employer's rights at issue - and if there's no realistic potential to injure they can hire who they want.

“..... and if there's no realistic potential to injure they can hire who they want.”

The above wasn't part of your former comment that I responded to, his rights are thus limited by his obligations to his workforce.

Which, as I said and you omitted, doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.”

But the libertarians who defend the operation of strip clubs and publishers of pornography had to restort to calling such “freedom of expression” or “protected political” speech

Please quote a self-professed libertarian who says that.

since no reasonable argument ccould be made for legality. Another invented right since no basis can be found for calling it a right.

I stated the basis and you omitted it from your reply: these acts are rights because it violates no individual's rights.

Of course no libertarian wants his property values lowered by a strip club next door to his home or business.

I don't know what libertarians think about zoning laws - I support them since I think they're typically a reasonable approximation to what a free society would voluntarily accomplish through easements, covenants, and the like. And zoning strip clubs is a far cry from banning them.

Please quote any libertarian as speaking in advocacy of child rape

Please quote where I said they did.

Right here: "The invention of rights is the business of so-called libertarians not me. Killing infants before birth, bimbos taking their clothes off as free speech, advocating child rape".

Same reason as “why not in JustSayNoToNannies’ or count-your-change's front yard” - the property does not belong to them and they don't have the owner's permission. Very libertarian.

The libertarian should argue that drug users and homosexuals pay taxes and fees just the same as everyone else so they own the park as much as anyone else,

And have the same right as anyone else to vote for the officials who decide the permitted uses for the collectively owned park.

and that sitting on a park bench with a needle in their arm harms no one else, violates no ones rights or ability to use the park. That is the libertarian test isn't it?

"Ability to use" is a red herring - you need my permission to do anything in my front yard whether or not it affects my ability to use my front yard. And shooting up in a park whose owners have collectively decided not to allow that is a violation of their rights.

Our front yard is owned only us not the public, I'm the only payer for my yard and hold title to it, not the public. Therefore it can't be compared to the public streets or parks.

Wrong - each has an owner, whether you, or me, or a collective, so they can be compared.

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who is willing to defend the “right” to public defacation (even if that individual brings along a scooper).

That's true but it's also true that a reason not consistent with the libertarian philosophy would be just as hard to find.

What rights would be violated? Whose rights would be infringed? Very libertarian.

Perhaps - but it has no bearing whatsoever on private behavior. In private, one has the right to defacate, or view porn, or use drugs.

But you do know you have NO trouble AT ALL with FAR MORE tightening? Seems like a contradiction to me ...

Not at all as I explained, “any regime has strengths and weaknesses”. So no, I don't have some specific plan.

Do you have any trouble with far LESS tightening - since that regime, like the current one, would have strengths and weaknesses?

laws can be...can be moral instructors.

If we have any legitimate authority to morally instruct adults, it is certainly not by means of governmental force.

Jefferson does seem to have become much more authoritarian in his later years; you may call it experience and wisdom, I call it being corrupted by power. That quote avoids addressing (or assumes a certain highly disputable answer to) the key question: since the individual is bound by the actions of God, how can it be that the collection is bound by the actions of men?

If “the individual is bound by the actions of God,..” why would we assume the collective isn't?

Who assumed that? Governments are made up of men and their actions are thus the actions of men. Let God judge the collective as He judges every individual.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

I missed your response to these points.

31 posted on 11/26/2012 2:30:37 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
A few comments that I think cut to the chase. As you said,
“I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who is willing to defend the “right” to public defacation (even if that individual brings along a scooper).”

The libertarian would have no consistent reason NOT to defend such a “right”. You have offered no reason that private actions should NOT be brought into the public realm and declared “rights”.

“I missed your response to these points”

Go back and look again and if you don't find a response perhaps I felt no response was necessary to the point or the point not worthy of response.

32 posted on 11/26/2012 3:50:31 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a libertarian who is willing to defend the “right” to public defacation (even if that individual brings along a scooper).

The libertarian would have no consistent reason NOT to defend such a “right”.

You may be right - feel free to go find a libertarian with whom to argue the point.

You have offered no reason that private actions should NOT be brought into the public realm and declared “rights”.

It's clear to me that the distinction between private and public is self-evident; if you don't agree, then that distinction is certainly and immediately established by the self-evident truth that there are acts we have the right to perform in private but not in public (e.g., making love with one's spouse). If you think a libertarian can't consistently make the distinction, again, feel free to go find a libertarian with whom to argue the point.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

I missed your response to these points.

Go back and look again and if you don't find a response

I didn't.

perhaps I felt no response was necessary to the point or the point not worthy of response.

I think it more likely you have no coherent response. I'm content to let readers decide.

33 posted on 11/27/2012 7:14:19 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
What is self evident is that which society was willing to tolerate when kept private has now become a demand for toleration of being done in public.

Homosexual acts between consenting adults have always occurred in private but private toleration was never the goal but rather public acceptance and indeed approval.

Likewise drug use.

Evidently the distinction between pubic and private acts is not so self evident in the libertarian philosophy.
Nor is there any basis in the libertarian tangle for this self evidentury distinction.

“If you think a libertarian can't consistently make the distinction, again, feel free to go find a libertarian with whom to argue the point.”

Oh, I have and in the end the self destructive nature of their philosophy is obvious when examined in any depth.

34 posted on 11/27/2012 8:53:39 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
that which society was willing to tolerate when kept private has now become a demand for toleration of being done in public.

So what's the conclusion - should we ban private commission of all acts that we don't want to become public? Drunkenness? Marital sex?

Homosexual acts between consenting adults have always occurred in private but private toleration was never the goal but rather public acceptance and indeed approval.

Likewise drug use.

That's not my goal. My goal is to see respected the natural rights of adults to do in private anything that violates nobody else's rights - such as make love with their spouses, or use drugs.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

35 posted on 11/27/2012 9:03:05 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“So what's the conclusion - should we ban private commission of all acts that we don't want to become public? Drunkenness? Marital sex?”

No, what should be banned is the public commission of that which society might willingly tolerate when performed in private. Marital sex does not fall into this class. It is part of a contract between two persons that the state recognizes with certain rights and privileges attached not just something that is tolerated as a private vice.

The argument for toleration of private drug use pornography, homosexual acts, etc. was that is was private and therefore didn't involve anyone else rights.
That this was a false and deceptive argument is evident by the demands for toleration of those same acts in the public sphere as a right unto its self.

An example of this being the demand for public recognition and approval of so-called “gay marriage” and “medical” marijuana.

“That's not my goal. My goal is to see respected the natural rights of adults to do in private anything that violates nobody else’s rights - such as make love with their spouses, or use drugs”

Then public displays of these private acts might violate the “natural” of the public?

36 posted on 11/27/2012 10:45:07 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
what should be banned is the public commission

So you're OK with legality of private drug use?

The argument for toleration of private drug use pornography, homosexual acts, etc. was that is was private and therefore didn't involve anyone else rights.
That this was a false and deceptive argument is evident by the demands for toleration of those same acts in the public sphere as a right unto its self.

No, that proves only that those individuals who make both arguments are false and deceptive. Those, like me, who argue for the former and against the latter are entirely consistent.

An example of this being the demand for public recognition and approval of so-called “gay marriage” and “medical” marijuana.

Support for medical marijuana, which has well established medical usefulness, doesn't imply support for legal recreational use - any more than support for opiate painkillers by prescription implies support for legal recreational use of those substances.

My goal is to see respected the natural rights of adults to do in private anything that violates nobody else’s rights - such as make love with their spouses, or use drugs.

Then public displays of these private acts might violate the “natural” of the public?

Which is why I'm not arguing for legalizing them in public.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

37 posted on 11/27/2012 11:46:40 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“So you're OK with legality of private drug use?”

What I said was, “No, what should be banned is the public commission of that which society might willingly tolerate when performed in private”.

I assume by “drug use” you're speaking of use outside medical need. And with that I am not O.K. with legal or not.

“No, that proves only that those individuals who make both arguments are false and deceptive. Those, like me, who argue for the former and against the latter are entirely consistent.”

On what basis would you argue for differentiating the former from the latter? It is indeed the the argument that is false and deceptive as the argument for toleration or legality was privacy and the argument for not keeping private acts private was a right to recognition as a public right and legality.

“Support for medical marijuana, which has well established medical usefulness, doesn't imply support for legal recreational use - any more than support for opiate painkillers by prescription implies support for legal recreational use of those substances.”

In practice it largely does. Medical marijuana becomes legal and suddenly thousands of people have a medical condition that only marijuana will relieve.
Opiates are not treated as casually by the public as marijuana. Tell a parent their kid smoked a joint and they might be angry, tell that same parent their kid is knocking back a pint of paregoric and their reaction will almost certainly be alarm.

Then public displays of these private acts might violate the “natural rights” of the public?

“Which is why I'm not arguing for legalizing them in public”

Then by definition legalizing public displays of what is tolerated when kept private,”victimless crimes”, makes victims of the public, something I believe you called invented rights.

38 posted on 11/27/2012 1:30:50 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
No, what should be banned is the public commission of that which society might willingly tolerate when performed in private.

So you're OK with legality of private drug use?

I assume by “drug use” you're speaking of use outside medical need. And with that I am not O.K. with legal or not.

Your "legal or not" confuses me - my question was whether you're OK with legality of private drug use, not whether you're OK with private drug use itself.

No, that proves only that those individuals who make both arguments are false and deceptive. Those, like me, who argue for the former and against the latter are entirely consistent.

On what basis would you argue for differentiating the former from the latter?

Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.

It is indeed the the argument that is false and deceptive as the argument for toleration or legality was privacy and the argument for not keeping private acts private was a right to recognition as a public right and legality.

If two different people make those two different arguments, how is either of them "deceptive"?

Support for medical marijuana, which has well established medical usefulness, doesn't imply support for legal recreational use - any more than support for opiate painkillers by prescription implies support for legal recreational use of those substances.

In practice it largely does. Medical marijuana becomes legal and suddenly thousands of people have a medical condition that only marijuana will relieve.

Straw man. Who claims that ONLY marijuana relieves those conditions? That's not a requirement of any medical marijuana statute I know of.

And even those alleged "thousands" are a small fraction of the adult population, so legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization.

Opiates are not treated as casually by the public as marijuana. Tell a parent their kid smoked a joint and they might be angry, tell that same parent their kid is knocking back a pint of paregoric and their reaction will almost certainly be alarm.

And rightly so - opiates are more addictive and more dangerous. The fact remains that support for opiate painkillers by prescription doesn't imply support for legal recreational use of those substances, and by the same token support for medical marijuana doesn't imply support for legal recreational use.

Then public displays of these private acts might violate the “natural rights” of the public?

Which is why I'm not arguing for legalizing them in public.

Then by definition legalizing public displays of what is tolerated when kept private, ”victimless crimes”, makes victims of the public, something I believe you called invented rights.

Yes, the "right" to commit perverted acts in public is an invented "right" (like your invented “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight”). Do you think you're in some way contradicting me?

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

39 posted on 11/27/2012 1:53:05 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
I certainly don't want to be the source of confusion. It seems to me that only if I were a crass pragmatist would I favor legalization of something I obviously disapprove.

“Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.”

“some acts”? What might those be?

It is indeed the the argument that is false and deceptive as the argument for toleration or legality was privacy and the argument for not keeping private acts private was a right to recognition as a public right and legality.

“If two different people make those two different arguments, how is either of them “deceptive”?”

It's not two arguments but all one that tolerated private acts should become public rights and therefore protected by legality and finally acceptance as normal.

In practice it largely does. Medical marijuana becomes legal and suddenly thousands of people have a medical condition that only marijuana will relieve.

“Straw man. Who claims that ONLY marijuana relieves those conditions? That's not a requirement of any medical marijuana statute I know of.
And even those alleged “thousands” are a small fraction of the adult population, so legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization”

You have it backwards, I said after legalization claims of suffering some condition would abound not that any condition was referenced in statutes.

One can go on google and find testimony for marijuana's beneficial use for numerous conditions, fibromyalgia, loss of appetite, nausea, sleeplessness and on and on.

It's believable that marijuana might be beneficial in many of these conditions, what is not believable is that as soon as medical use legality was obtained thousands would suddenly become sufferers.

If virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer then full adult legalization is not so far away.

“Yes, the “right” to commit perverted acts in public is an invented “right”

Invented by whom? By those who claimed a “right” to perversion in private?

“... (like your invented “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight”)...”

That right to me and obligation to the employer was created by law as a matter of safety and liability in the work place both for the impaired worker and those around him.

“Do you think you're in some way contradicting me?”

You're doing that just fine without my help.

40 posted on 11/27/2012 5:09:22 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
No, what should be banned is the public commission of that which society might willingly tolerate when performed in private.

So you're OK with legality of private drug use?

I assume by “drug use” you're speaking of use outside medical need. And with that I am not O.K. with legal or not.

Your "legal or not" confuses me - my question was whether you're OK with legality of private drug use, not whether you're OK with private drug use itself.

I certainly don't want to be the source of confusion. It seems to me that only if I were a crass pragmatist would I favor legalization of something I obviously disapprove.

No, favoring legalization of something one disapproves requires only recognition of limits to governmental authority.

Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?

Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.

“some acts”? What might those be?

I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.

It is indeed the the argument that is false and deceptive as the argument for toleration or legality was privacy and the argument for not keeping private acts private was a right to recognition as a public right and legality.

If two different people make those two different arguments, how is either of them “deceptive”?

It's not two arguments but all one that tolerated private acts should become public rights and therefore protected by legality and finally acceptance as normal.

That "all one" argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the "all one" argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.

One can go on google and find testimony for marijuana's beneficial use for numerous conditions, fibromyalgia, loss of appetite, nausea, sleeplessness and on and on.

It's believable that marijuana might be beneficial in many of these conditions,

I'm glad to see you say so. You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.

what is not believable is that as soon as medical use legality was obtained thousands would suddenly become sufferers.

Where is the evidence that those thousands were not previously sufferers?

If virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer

Those alleged “thousands” are a small fraction of the adult population - so we're very far from having evidence that "virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer."

then full adult legalization is not so far away.

Yes, the “right” to commit perverted acts in public is an invented “right”

Invented by whom? By those who claimed a “right” to perversion in private?

No, by those who claimed a “right” to perversion in public. As I said, in public, some acts (such as defacation and lovemaking) can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.

(like your invented “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight”)

That right to me and obligation to the employer was created by law

BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent "rights").

as a matter of safety and liability in the work place both for the impaired worker and those around him.

As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.”

Do you think you're in some way contradicting me?

You're doing that just fine without my help.

You have yet to demonstrate any self-contradiction in my position - instead you keep arguing against positions I've never taken.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

41 posted on 11/28/2012 7:45:01 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“No, favoring legalization of something one disapproves requires only recognition of limits to governmental authority.”

Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?”

This conversation is becoming more interesting all the time!

If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
My granny aunt down in Hope, Arkansas used to say only the
Baptists and the bootleggers wanted the county dry. Same desire, different motives, with the Baptists being a tad more straight forward in the matter.

Th power to declare legal and the power to ban is an expression of the same power of government.

“That “all one” argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the “all one” argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.”

As I pointed out, what was once banned even in private in stepwise fashion became tolerated in private to legal in private to legal in public and finally demands for public acceptance and approval.

The argument for the right to do A in private because it was in private is deceptive and false. Do you have an example?

“Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.”

“some acts”? What might those be?

“I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.”

On what basis then do your examples violate these rights (I'll not ask you for a list of them) of the public, these rights being rights created by law?

“BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent “rights”).

Then where did these “rights” of the public come from if not created by the law?

The Founders drew upon men like John Locke, the history of Europe's kings with their claims, from their own religious perceptions, and so on to decide that the rights men had could not be abrogated since men were endowed by their Creator with those rights.
So any right simply recognized by the law and not created by law would predate said law with all other rights being fabricated and in reality nonexistent.

“I'm glad to see you say so.[that marijuana might have a beneficial use] You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.”

I see the problem with the user not the substance. Cocaine, opium, dextroamphetamine and chemically similar drugs, barbiturates, all have legitimate medical uses and misusers.

On the use of pot for medical needs. Colorado recently legalized, with some restrictions, recreational use of marijuana. medical use was already legal with a medical card. The number of card holders went from a high (hee, hee, hee..”high”..Rocky Mountain High in Denver?) from a high of about 128,000 to about 80,000 in a few years.

So either these 48,000 quit using or left the state or simply decided to not worry about medical cards. The latter seems more likely. Now that marijuana use outside of medical need the number of cards will likely drop over the next few years. The great increase and decrease in the legal medical cards makes one wonder just how difficult it was to obtain these cards and how much medical use really was medical.

As to the small percentage, yes the legal users were a small percentage of the five million state population. Legalization should reduce the suffering considerably.

“As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.”

What you said before was that I could quit and the employer could employ whom he wished.
An employer has no obligation or responsibility to honor a right that doesn't exist or that I invented.

42 posted on 11/28/2012 12:33:37 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
No, favoring legalization of something one disapproves requires only recognition of limits to governmental authority.

Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?

This conversation is becoming more interesting all the time!

If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.

So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?

My granny aunt down in Hope, Arkansas used to say only the Baptists and the bootleggers wanted the county dry. Same desire, different motives, with the Baptists being a tad more straight forward in the matter.

Your granny aunt was right - and I'll bet she recognized that the noble motives of the Baptists didn't change the fact that their efforts helped criminal bootleggers. Same applies to the war on drugs.

Th power to declare legal and the power to ban is an expression of the same power of government.

Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts. In a free society, everything is legal that does not violate the rights of others, and government's role is to protect rights by banning those acts and only those acts that violate rights.

That “all one” argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the “all one” argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.

As I pointed out, what was once banned even in private in stepwise fashion became tolerated in private to legal in private to legal in public and finally demands for public acceptance and approval.

That has happened in some but far from all cases - see below.

The argument for the right to do A in private because it was in private is deceptive and false. Do you have an example?

Easy: the right to be naked. Unchallenged in U.S. history as a private right, but never as a public right.

Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.

“some acts”? What might those be?

I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.

On what basis then do your examples violate these rights (I'll not ask you for a list of them) of the public, these rights being rights created by law?

The rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public. Each has the right to disallow others from defacating or lovemaking on his property, so the public has that right on public property.

That right to me and obligation to the employer was created by law

BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent “rights”).

Then where did these “rights” of the public come from if not created by the law?

Answered above.

I'm glad to see you say so.[that marijuana might have a beneficial use] You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.

I see the problem with the user not the substance. Cocaine, opium, dextroamphetamine and chemically similar drugs, barbiturates, all have legitimate medical uses and misusers.

On the use of pot for medical needs. Colorado recently legalized, with some restrictions, recreational use of marijuana. medical use was already legal with a medical card. The number of card holders went from a high (hee, hee, hee..”high”..Rocky Mountain High in Denver?) from a high of about 128,000 to about 80,000 in a few years.

So either these 48,000 quit using or left the state or simply decided to not worry about medical cards. The latter seems more likely.

Why? Maybe they quit using because they got better, or found a better medicine.

Now that marijuana use outside of medical need the number of cards will likely drop over the next few years. The great increase and decrease in the legal medical cards makes one wonder just how difficult it was to obtain these cards and how much medical use really was medical.

I'll bet a lot more people use Tylenol - should that makes one wonder how much Tylenol use really was medical?

As to the small percentage, yes the legal users were a small percentage of the five million state population.

So as I said, we're very far from having evidence that "virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer" and it remains true that legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization.

As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.

What you said before was that I could quit and the employer could employ whom he wished.

And then I elaborated on that statement. By harping on my initial formulation, you only make yourself look childish.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

43 posted on 11/28/2012 1:30:40 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?”

Didn't say that, didn't imply it, thank you.

Tylenol isn't pot nor is it like pot.

“So as I said, we're very far from having evidence that “virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer” and it remains true that legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization.”

In both California and Colorado marijuana use with a physician’s diagnosis of anything from anxiety to PMS allows the purported sufferer to legally use marijuana. Anyone can claim insomnia or back pain and qualify, in short, virtually any adult.
You are wrong.

“Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts”

By silence on the subject it is declared legal. Or by statute if there is a legal challenge.
You're wrong again.

“The rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public”

So I own the public park. I can cut down a tree in my back yard so therefore I can cut down a tree in the public park. Somehow I don't think that will fly unless permission is given by law, ordinance, statute of local government.

No, ownership of public property is diffused among all those who comprise “the public” and usually only the majority have sufficient ownership to make decisions about its use.
My natural rights which the Founders said the Creator endowed me with plays no part in it. If it did then I should be able to practice in public what I do in private and any interference would be a denial of my rights.
But such is nonsense. Public and private are two different things.

A misunderstanding of that is why you can not make a logical argument that private acts may not be allowable in public, other than to say “it's self evident”.

“I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.”

Even these activities in private are regulated to a degree so maybe they should be stricken from your list.

44 posted on 11/28/2012 10:11:11 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
It seems to me that only if I were a crass pragmatist would I favor legalization of something I obviously disapprove.

No, favoring legalization of something one disapproves requires only recognition of limits to governmental authority.

Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?

What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.

So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?

Didn't say that, didn't imply it, thank you.

Hence the question mark. Please answer my question, thank you.

The great increase and decrease in the legal medical cards makes one wonder just how difficult it was to obtain these cards and how much medical use really was medical.

The increase was entirely predictable when starting from a base of zero - and as I said, the decrease may very well be because users got better, or found a better medicine.

So as I said, we're very far from having evidence that “virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer” and it remains true that legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization.

In both California and Colorado marijuana use with a physician’s diagnosis of anything from anxiety to PMS allows the purported sufferer to legally use marijuana. Anyone can claim insomnia or back pain and qualify, in short, virtually any adult. You are wrong.

Even supposing what you say is true (and only your say-so currently supports it), to conclude that "full adult legalization is not so far away" you would additionally need to show that doctors do no investigation to confirm these problems, and that they will at a patient's request prescribe marijuana rather than some other medication.

Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts.

By silence on the subject it is declared legal.

Wrong - a declaration is by its definition not silence.

The rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public. [OMITTED BY COUNT-YOUR-CHANGE:] Each has the right to disallow others from defacating or lovemaking on his property, so the public has that right on public property.

So I own the public park.

Not by yourself but in conjunction with the other members of the public, as is made clear by my text that you omitted from your reply.

I can cut down a tree in my back yard so therefore I can cut down a tree in the public park. Somehow I don't think that will fly unless permission is given by law, ordinance, statute of local government.

Yes, with the agreement of your co-owners, as is made clear by my text that you omitted from your reply - all fitting within natural rights.

No, ownership of public property is diffused among all those who comprise “the public” and usually only the majority have sufficient ownership to make decisions about its use.

That's been exactly my position all along, as is made clear by my text that you omitted from your reply.

My natural rights which the Founders said the Creator endowed me with plays no part in it. If it did then I should be able to practice in public what I do in private and any interference would be a denial of my rights.

Wrong again - private co-ownership is a widespread arrangement, cf. every company with stock traded in open markets.

I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.

Even these activities in private are regulated to a degree

Please provide evidence for this highly dubious claim.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

45 posted on 11/29/2012 7:38:02 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AtlasStalled
"But you don't do a $20 billion a year business . . . with ad-hoc, part-time volunteers. You use an established infrastructure to support the markets. How come we're not attacking that infrastructure?'"

By now, I think everyone knows that infrastructure is part of our government. Find the biggest blowhard politicians supporting the Drug War and you will quickly find where the most cartel money is flowing.

46 posted on 11/29/2012 7:51:30 AM PST by Mr. Jeeves (CTRL-GALT-DELETE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“Wrong - a declaration is by its definition not silence.”

I'm not going to haggle over idiomatic English given that silence on a subject does indeed speak volumes, an acceptance of the status quo with no requirement of a actual statement.

Further what I edited out is so patently wrong I saw no need to even reply to it. Public rights or ownership is not an accumulation of private ownerships.
Nor is it at all like stock shares in a company.

For example: Shares of stock in a company may be sold or otherwise transferred to others but shared ownership in public property cannot. A share of a privately owned company is an aliquot part of that company and has a definable monetary value while shared ownership of public property accrues to members of the public because the individual is part of a class....the “public” and a monetary value cannot be reasonably assigned to the individuals ownership since he lacks control over any use of public property unless, as is typical, he is in the majority. The ownership is simply too diffused to set a monetary value on.

I could add to the list but it should be abundantly clear and sufficient that public ownership and private ownership are two very distinct and different things.

I used the tree example to demonstrate that public rights are not an accumulation of private rights Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.
So as to your question of limitations on government power or authority, of course there are and should be limitations.

“Even supposing what you say is true (and only your say-so currently supports it), to conclude that “full adult legalization is not so far away” you would additionally need to show that doctors do no investigation to confirm these problems, and that they will at a patient’s request prescribe marijuana rather than some other medication.”

What supports what I said is the reality of what is happening in both California and Colorado and that can be found by a tiny amount of research if you're willing to do it.
I need show nothing else at all as it's not my task to do research for you or according to your demands, particularly research that you have not and likely will not do.

Going to your list that includes “defacating or lovemaking on his property”, in the village where I live we have running water and sewer systems and every dwelling is required to have a functioning toilet or be condemned as uninhabitable. This regulation cannot be sidestepped by an outdoor privy or something similar. Other municipalities have regulations too.

And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality? And at one time sodomy before the sodomites demanded that what they claimed was private conduct they now demand be recognized with public acceptance.

47 posted on 11/29/2012 12:42:02 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Th power to declare legal and the power to ban is an expression of the same power of government.

Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts.

By silence on the subject it is declared legal.

Wrong - a declaration is by its definition not silence.

I'm not going to haggle over idiomatic English given that silence on a subject does indeed speak volumes, an acceptance of the status quo with no requirement of a actual statement.

Exactly what I'm saying - liberty is the default assumption, or "status quo," and government does not "declare" or "state" anything to be legal, therefore legality and liberty are NOT "an expression of the power of government."

Public rights or ownership is not an accumulation of private ownerships.

"Accumulation of private ownerships" is a strange way of putting it - maybe that points to the source of your problem. I'm simply talking about mutiple persons all sharing ownership - a concept well known in the private sphere.

Nor is it at all like stock shares in a company.

For example: Shares of stock in a company may be sold or otherwise transferred to others but shared ownership in public property cannot. A share of a privately owned company is an aliquot part of that company and has a definable monetary value while shared ownership of public property accrues to members of the public because the individual is part of a class....the “public” and a monetary value cannot be reasonably assigned to the individuals ownership since he lacks control over any use of public property unless, as is typical, he is in the majority. The ownership is simply too diffused to set a monetary value on.

I could add to the list

You should first establish how any of those differences are relevant to the point - which is simply that there is such a phenomenon as shared ownership that is not created by law (although there may be laws regarding it to assist in dispute resolution) but is an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.

I used the tree example to demonstrate that public rights are not an accumulation of private rights

You failed - you simply pretended that the rights of mutual ownership were identical to those of sole ownership.

Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.

Where exactly does the Declaration of Independence say that private rights precede public rights?

If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.

So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?

So as to your question of limitations on government power or authority, of course there are and should be limitations.

So it's possible in theory that there might be something of which you disapprove but the banning of which exceeds limitations on government authority?

Even supposing what you say is true (and only your say-so currently supports it), to conclude that “full adult legalization is not so far away” you would additionally need to show that doctors do no investigation to confirm these problems, and that they will at a patient’s request prescribe marijuana rather than some other medication.

What supports what I said is the reality of what is happening in both California and Colorado and that can be found by a tiny amount of research if you're willing to do it.
I need show nothing else at all as it's not my task to do research for you

Backward - in the forum of reasoned debate the burden of proof is on the one making the claim (else debate would degenerate into an exchange of unsupported claims).

in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.

“some acts”? What might those be?

I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defecation and lovemaking.

Going to your list that includes “defecating or lovemaking on his property”, in the village where I live we have running water and sewer systems and every dwelling is required to have a functioning toilet or be condemned as uninhabitable. This regulation cannot be sidestepped by an outdoor privy or something similar. Other municipalities have regulations too.

How is that relevant to the fact that my defecating in private infringes on nobody else's rights? Note that the right to defecate in no way implies the right to do with one's feces whatever one pleases.

And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality?

No, since "the already mentioned example of lovemaking" I cited was "make love with their spouses." Can you cite any restrictions on that private act?

And at one time sodomy before the sodomites demanded that what they claimed was private conduct

And they were right - private acts of sodomy infringe on nobody else's rights.

they now demand be recognized with public acceptance.

And in that they're wrong.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

48 posted on 11/30/2012 9:17:07 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies
“Exactly what I'm saying - liberty is the default assumption, or “status quo,” and government does not “declare” or “state” anything to be legal, therefore legality and liberty are NOT “an expression of the power of government.”

I said legality is a statement by silence of the government not liberty. Governments create laws, laws create the state of legality or its reverse and thus the legal status quo.

No government, no laws, no laws no legality or illegality and thus no legal status quo.The government creates the default position by the standard that whatever is not forbidden is permitted
“.You should first establish how any of those differences are relevant to the point - which is simply that there is such a phenomenon as shared ownership that is not created by law (although there may be laws regarding it to assist in dispute resolution) but is an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.”
You brought up stocks and I established that it was a poor comparison to public ownership because of those differences..

“”Accumulation of private ownerships” is a strange way of putting it - maybe that points to the source of your problem. I'm simply talking about mutiple persons all sharing ownership - a concept well known in the private sphere.”.

And shared ownership is the basis of public property but by using the same terms it does not follow that the two concepts are variations or extensions of one from the other. Public ownership is not “...an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.” as those differences show. The one is quite dissimilar to the other.

That there are private rights to ownership not created by law was never in question as I earlier pointed out that these private rights preceded any legal rights established by governments but as the Founders said, people are endowed by Creator.
On tree cutting in my yard of public park.
“You failed - you simply pretended that the rights of mutual ownership were identical to those of sole ownership.”

Nope. No pretending involved, just high lighting the lack of logic in some of your arguments.
Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.
“Where exactly does the Declaration of Independence say that private rights precede public rights?”
Ahhhh...you might try paragraph one and two.

As to burdens of proof and medical marijuana cards, I think what I did cite would support my conclusions so if you want more such as you suggested, yes, that research you'll have to do on your own.
Regulations on sanitation.
“How is that relevant to the fact that my defecating in private infringes on nobody else’s rights? Note that the right to defecate in no way implies the right to do with one’s feces whatever one pleases.”

Infringing on other’s rights while practicing your own rights and needs are what sanitation regulations are designed to avoid and that without such regulations some people do tend to do whatever they please, endangering all.
And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality?
“No, since “the already mentioned example of lovemaking” I cited was “make love with their spouses.” Can you cite any restrictions on that private act?”
I simply responded to the phrase you used. Not immediately but then your list of two was rather short.

Sodomy laws overturned but not allowed in public.

“And they were right - private acts of sodomy infringe on nobody else’s rights.”.

Well, we've seen where that leads.

And that brings up the question of why incest and bestiality should not be legal on the same basis..

49 posted on 11/30/2012 4:21:07 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Exactly what I'm saying - liberty is the default assumption, or “status quo,” and government does not “declare” or “state” anything to be legal, therefore legality and liberty are NOT “an expression of the power of government.

I said legality is a statement by silence of the government not liberty. Governments create laws, laws create the state of legality

That's what you're still confused about - you yourself characterized legality as the "status quo" that is "accepted" NOT created.

or its reverse and thus the legal status quo.

No government, no laws, no laws no legality

Now who's haggling over idiomatic English? No government means EVERYTHING is legal.

or illegality and thus no legal status quo.The government creates the default position by the standard that whatever is not forbidden is permitted

Show us the governmental enactment that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. If you can't then the government did NOT create that default position.

You should first establish how any of those differences are relevant to the point - which is simply that there is such a phenomenon as shared ownership that is not created by law (although there may be laws regarding it to assist in dispute resolution) but is an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.

You brought up stocks and I established that it was a poor comparison to public ownership because of those differences..

Wrong - you merely listed some differences, and have yet to establish that any of those differences are relevant to the point above.

”Accumulation of private ownerships” is a strange way of putting it - maybe that points to the source of your problem. I'm simply talking about mutiple persons all sharing ownership - a concept well known in the private sphere.

And shared ownership is the basis of public property but by using the same terms it does not follow that the two concepts are variations or extensions of one from the other. Public ownership is not “...an extension of the natural individual rights to own property and to enter into mutual agreements.” as those differences show. The one is quite dissimilar to the other.

You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Your list of differences proves only that private and public ownership are not identical (which I never said or implied they were) not that they are not variations or extensions.

You failed - you simply pretended that the rights of mutual ownership were identical to those of sole ownership.

Nope. No pretending involved, just high lighting the lack of logic in some of your arguments.

Wrong - all you highlighted was your hamhanded misrepresentation of my argument.

Private rights precede public rights according to the foundational Declaration of Independence and being Creator endowed cannot be removed.

Where exactly does the Declaration of Independence say that private rights precede public rights?

Ahhhh...you might try paragraph one and two.

Those say that anything created by law is preceded by private rights. They do not contradict the point that the rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public - that each has the right to disallow others from defacating or lovemaking on his property, so the public has that right on public property.

If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.

So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?

So as to your question of limitations on government power or authority, of course there are and should be limitations.

So it's possible in theory that there might be something of which you disapprove but the banning of which exceeds limitations on government authority?

No answer?

As to burdens of proof and medical marijuana cards, I think what I did cite

Please point out any evidence you cited - I see none, only claims by you.

How is that relevant to the fact that my defecating in private infringes on nobody else’s rights? Note that the right to defecate in no way implies the right to do with one’s feces whatever one pleases.

Infringing on other’s rights while practicing your own rights and needs are what sanitation regulations are designed to avoid and that without such regulations some people do tend to do whatever they please, endangering all.

None of that addresses my point.

And “lovemaking on his property”? Do I really need to point to laws against incest and bestiality?

No, since “the already mentioned example of lovemaking” I cited was “make love with their spouses.” Can you cite any restrictions on that private act?

I simply responded to the phrase you used.

After taking it out of context - which I have now restored. Can you cite any restrictions on the private act of making love with one's spouse?

And they were right - private acts of sodomy infringe on nobody else’s rights.

Well, we've seen where that leads.

No, we've seen you engage in the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. That one thing followed another chronologically simply does not establish a logical connection between them.

And that brings up the question of why incest and bestiality should not be legal on the same basis..

Animals have no rights, and incest as it exists in the real world is rape without the overt threat of force.

the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.

Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.

Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.

Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?

No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.

50 posted on 12/03/2012 1:24:26 PM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("mouth piece from the pit of hell" (Bellflower, 11/10/2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson