Denver DEA Rep: Don't Legalize It

The Daily Camera ^ | August 27, 2006

[muawiyah]

You're caving in on the debate entirely too readily. The real issue here is my right to self-protection against your interest in recreation that may be harmful to my interests and property.

Someone will use the power of the state ~ and it's either going to be me, to make life more ejoyable, or you to make life a living hell.

[tacticalogic]

Someone will use the power of the state ~ and it's either going to be me, to make life more ejoyable, or you to make life a living hell.

Do you think it might be possible to make our lives more enjoyable without involving the federal government in the internal affairs of the state of California? This is no better than Janet Reno coming to Missouri to help the campaign to defeat the CCW initiative.

[Lurker]

Not a one of you guys has ever advocated full implementation of a liberated society ~ that's where you smoke dope and I get to take action directly to make sure you cannot harm me or mine as a consequence.

Why is that?

Because we're advocating limited, constitutional government and not anarchy you dimwit.

L

[muawiyah]

THe term "the state" includes ALL government power, whether California or the US, or both working together.

No doubt there are people in California who want to have MJ (and many other drugs) decriminalized while at the same time prohibiting the people at large from exercising their right of selfprotection ~ just like the gun laws out there.

The MJ campaign is just another step in the plan to make California safe for the criminal classes of the Western hemisphere.

[muawiyah]

BTW, you are not advocating limited constitutional government. Rather, you wish to prohibit the majority from protecting themselves from the criminal class minority.

[tacticalogic]

In other words, "No, I can't make your lives more enjoyable without involving the federal government in the internal affairs of the States."

So you will subvert the division of authority and responsibility laid out in the Constitution for our own good. Again.

[muawiyah]

Hardly. We need both the states and the federales keeping back the forces of darkness.

[tacticalogic]

Hardly. We need both the states and the federales keeping back the forces of darkness.

If we needed that, it would have been specified in the Constitution, either originally or by amendment. There is no "Because muawiyah thinks we need it" clause.

[muawiyah]

Now you're getting personal. I'm gettin' a hankerin' to exercise my right to self-defense here.

'em's fightin' words!

[tacticalogic]

Figures you'd feel threatened by the truth.

What are you going to do? Type really hard?

[KeepUSfree]

Sure, anytime "a doper" wants to harm you...in my opinion you have the right to take whatever action is necessary to protect your life and property.

And, yes, Miriam Webster is part of a corporate conspiracy to make you look like a fascist.

Sure, you're rational. You might want to get some help for that problem of yours. Try here:

American Psychiatric Association

[muawiyah]

Interesting that you turn immediately to the idea of involuntary commitment being a useful servant for the "free dope" movement.

Polish your boots often?

[KeepUSfree]

Yup, I Polish my cowboy boots all the time.

You don't need bother responding to this.

You're an angry whackjob.

You need help.

HAve a nice day anyway (even though I doubt you actually will - you're probably not capable of happiness)

[tpaine]

Hey, it's not like your side of the debate wants to just keep the state out of it.

That is exactly how our country worked up until prohibitionists/socialists gained control early in the 20th century.

No, you will be the first to demand the state come and protect you from outraged citizens and those who wish to exercise their right of self-defense against any depradations, harm or threat associated with your actions.

You erroneously claim that 'substance abusers' actions are harming/threaten you, when in fact the threat/harm is the result of the 'war' that your prohibition caused.

Your claim: "---- I get to take action directly to make sure you cannot harm me or mine as a consequence. [of smoking dope] ---"; is unsupported by historical reality.
How did the 'legal] dope smokers of the 19th century threaten or harm anyone?

[muawiyah]

Let's take this debate over to the setting provided by the Duke Rape Case where the AV is a self-admitted abuser of alcohol and muscle relaxants.

She used both at the same time, had the expected hallucination, and now three guys are on hold awaiting trial for a rape they didn't commit.

There's no way the rest of us can be protected from you people unless we have a "hold harmless" clause in the deal that allows us to stomp back.

[webstersII]

"Let's take this debate over to the setting provided by the Duke Rape Case where the AV is a self-admitted abuser of alcohol and muscle relaxants."

Good point.

I think we should ban both alcohol and muscle relaxants.

[dirtboy]

So when are the Libertarians, drug addicts, drug pushers, and all like minded people going to buy some land and start your own country? You're so much smarter, and presumably wealthier than the rest of us, and think of all the money you would save on law enforcement and incarceration.

Yeah, we all know how the Republic was unable to function until pot was made illegal by the feds last century.

[dirtboy]

Without such advocacy, all you are demanding is that the jackbooted thugs and other state organs be sent out to PREVENT me from exercising my right of self protection against you.

You have no pre-emptive right of "self-protection" - if I am drinking in my house, you cannot shoot me because I might drive drunk later.

[muawiyah]

I don't?

I have a God given right of self-defense that supercedes your limited right to practice acts that can be harmful to me.

Are you denying God?

[dirtboy]

I have a God given right of self-defense that supercedes your limited right to practice acts that can be harmful to me.

Try and shoot someone who is not presenting any clear and present danger to you and get back to me. A person drinking at home is not a danger to you. A drunk driver may be. But even then, you can't shoot the drunk driver. If you try, you will be the one going to jail, because you became a greater hazard than he was.

You need to get a friggin' grip.