Posted on 12/08/2013 10:58:56 AM PST by Libloather
A Southern California truck driver who called police fearing hijackers unwittingly led officers to a 12-ton haul of pot in his own trailer.
Tustin police tell City News Service that the driver didn't know an estimated $7 million worth of marijuana was hidden in the cargo of electronics he was taking from San Diego into Orange County.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Legality is a funny issue. Some things that most would consider “right” are illegal; somethings that most would consider “wrong” are legal.
For example, during Prohibition, all alcohol consumption was illegal, but a large segment of society ignored the law and consumed. Today, you can go from one state to another, and crossing the state line subjects you to all sorts of restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Some of these laws —witness recent arrests of innocent people who were transporting sealed firearms via established airline rules — strike many on FR as absurd. But it’s the law.
So, I wouldn’t use legality as an absolute in a discussion, although you are free to use it as a guide to your own conduct. Myself, I tend to go along with the principle that pretty much anything that doesn’t harm others should be allowed. You’ll probably argue along the lines of we have to prevent people from harming themselves in ways that they don’t understand, so we’ll never convince each other.
As to civility... why not?
My goodness, a moral relativist right here on the FR. As I live in breathe.
The Panzer Pope considered moral relativism one of the worst mad-made evils around in this modern era. It sounds like an old Texan used to say: "Whatever blows your skirt up."
No absolutes, eh???
Two responses: 1) There's plenty of them, if you pick the right issue, especially about obedience to absurd laws, and 2) let's keep it civil--you're starting to skirt the borders here.
Have you never heard of delirium tremens? Alcohol is physically addictive and when alcoholics quit drinking they not only get sick, they can die from the withdrawal.
It was pretty sad.
The "D.T.s" are well-known. That is why there are plenty of A.A. groups around. It doesn't have the fatality rate that narcotics have.
ADDICTION is when a person's single dose isn't enough. Said addict needs TWO doses for the same high, then three, then four and so on. Eventually HUGE amounts are needed to get the same high they had with the FIRST heroin shot. Eventually HUGE amounts of heroin needed just to NOT be sick.
Alcoholism isn't addictive because that need of more and more alcohol to get drunk doesn't happen. Some people are so sensitive to alcohol that two drinks will make them drunk. That doesn't change over the years. All the booze may kill them but the increase of dosage ISN'T necessary...thus no addiction.
That's the difference with REAL addiction. Eventually the overdose occurs with heroin because the MEGA amounts will eventually not cause the good ole high but will KILL the moron host.
How is number one an absolute? Just curious.
How am I being uncivil? I think that you are VERY civil but I am asking about your absolutes, if you have any or if "if it doesn't hurt anyone else, its' ok" is your version of an absolute.
Since you are a poster/reader on this wonderful site, I am POSITIVE that you are a smart, educated (formally or informally) man who is a clear thinker. I just wonder ... if you have any absolutes, besides not arguing with your mother-in-law.
Side note: my brother-in-law's way of dealing with in-laws: they are always right. :o) I love him dearly.
What I said was the mere fact that something is legal or illegal isn’t the only factor in deciding whether it is right or wrong for a person. You accused me of moral relativism—which is a mildly personal comment at me, rather than the issues. Hence my comment on civility.
With respect to examples of FR: First, it is true that some people are rather absolute about some issues, but not everyone is. I doubt you’d find many Freepers who would have abstained during Prohibition if it wasn’t their prior practice, the law withstanding. They’d say that the law violated their independence. Pot arguments are supported on both sides. Gun laws bring out the most rebellious instincts of many here.
So, with regards to marijuana, which is how this started: Is it an absolute or a relative principle to object to laws concerning control of your personal behavior? I get that you don’t like marijuana, which is your privilege; I think its less harmful than many of the evils that have occurred in what is called the War on Drugs—for example, civil asset forfeiture, the rise of criminal drug gangs to supply it, and the corruption of the police involved with them. Like I said, I have my opinion, and you have yours. Just as you may think I’m unprincipled (”moral relativist”) because my opinion doesn’t change with the legal winds, I think your attitude is rather narrow-minded. You may be using the issue of legality to buttress your argument. Would you feel any differently if you lived in Colorado? I’d hope not. If you don’t approve, the fact that the law has changed recently shouldn’t be the deciding factor for you.
And that’s about all I have to say on the subject for now.
The problem always arises when those fools crash and need fixing, at MY expense because they NATURALLY don't have the where-with-all to keep their drug use so they can continue to WORK and pay their way.
Oh no, they get addicted ... then lie out on the streets like a new-born who wet his diapers, WAITING for the world to take him in, fix him and get him ready for his new high...which he will return to because that, apparently, is the only reality he cares for.
I am tired of paying for others' whining, crashing, crying, getting wasted and then WAITING for OTHERS to pick up the pieces.
It really gets old.
“There will be NO equilibrium for illegal drugs”.
Liberals always deny and defy reality.
For me, liberals are just annoying. They pick and choose what they are liberal about. They ARE conservative about some things...closet conservative. You KNOW that's true.
They are so arrogant that THEY want to decide the parameters of what qualifies as their blessing for liberal or conservative.
DAMNED annoying.
You can evade reality all you want. But you can’t evade the consequences of evading reality.
I understand your frustrations.
But, I’ve known a number of people with dependencies, on drugs and other things. For almost all of them, if it wasn’t one thing, it would have been another. Sometimes it was things that were illegal and then legal, in succession. As Gilda Radner used to say, “It’s always something.”
My reality: Life is GOOD. I am blessed, truly blessed.
Gilda passed away too young. What happened to her?
Ovarian cancer. I seem to remember she was 43. Very sad.
Yes, cancer is a killer. My husband died of lung cancer. He stopped smoking in 1991 but it was too late—passed in 2010.
I also hold no animosity toward Patty Hearst, and her life seems pretty normal for many years now.
That's nice.
Good for her. She had way enough bad in her life already.
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.