Quote from: Sam A. Robrin on December 30, 2009, 11:02 PM NHFT
While riding up here (a year ago this week), I got to reminiscing about the old Burma Shave signs, which I'm just old enough to remember. This article
http://burma-shave.org/jingles/ (http://burma-shave.org/jingles/)
tells about them. They were brief poems posted one line at a time on small signboards about a hundred feet apart. It occurred to me that a similar format for liberty messages would be ideal. When I passed the Free State Project "Adopt a Highway" segment on 101, it seemed a perfect stretch to put the idea into practice. But I was told that the signs would be removed by the highway department, so gave up on my plan for spending a bit of cash to make them look really good. (I've since redirected both poetry and signs into other areas, but I still think the original idea was a good one.)
Here are some of my
LIBERTARIAN BURMA SHAVE SIGNS
This we say
To our last breath:
Give us liberty
Or give us death.
For those who have
Secured election:
Who protects us
From your protection?
Be nice to
Us porcupines:
We're gentle, tame--
But watch those spines!
[H]*: The major cause
Of violent thugs
Is all the laws
Forbidding drugs
This we say
(And even wail out):
We won't pay
For your damn bailout!
[H]: States forge chains
That free men must sever.
Liberty
Is now or never.
No modern bureaucrat
Ever bothers
With the intent
Of the founding fathers.
We want you free
And not a slave.
(Thanx for this format,
Burma Shave!)
_____________________
*Indicates a candidate for another poetic form I've been developing: the rhyming haiku.
I'm good with that, except the drug part. As a former EMT I have seen to many kids OD on heavy drugs and have friends who have OD'd on drugs and are no longer the person they once were. One guy I went to school with that was an honors student now has the mental capacity of a 5 year old because of an OD. Don't get me wrong, although I've never tried any type of illegal drugs, I don't have a problem with people lighting up a joint if it is not impacting others. I believe that the reason Ron Paul wasn't considered a likely candidate by the news outlets is because so many people have seen the adverse affects of drug use and think that suggesting legalizing everything is an insane proposal.
I split this off from the freeway signs thread... (obviously)
Two thoughts on your comments, Heatman.
Forbidden fruit is far more seductive than that which is unrestricted.
The "War on Some Drugs" is the result of an exercise in control via Hegelian dialectics.
A major tenet of freedom is the idea that each individual "owns" his/her/neuter/hermaphrodite/other body exclusively. The notion that a group of people can dictate to the individual what can or cannot be ingested strikes at the heart of freedom.
Big Pharma, Law Enforcement, and the Intel community are the benefactors of the war. The popularity of a forbidden substance drops when it becomes un- or less- regulated. Black tar heroin probably wouldn't be as prevalent if opium hadn't been outlawed. Crack probably wouldn't have hit the streets as hard as it did if coca leaves had been commonly available all along.
The rapid expansion of a monolithic superstate at the expense of individual civil freedoms has been enabled by this so-called war.
It's time for armistice.
----------
I, too, have seen the ravages of substance abuse; I've lost 3 friends to death by heroin overdose, and seen far more than I care to mention here. The only way to win this thing is to take away the means of coercion on both sides of the equation.
Oh, and btw, great stuff Sam!
How can people OD on drugs when they are illegal? If drugs are illegal no one can buy them or use them.
Are people "caught" with drugs better off spending their life locked in a cage involuntarily? Is it okay to force other people to pay hitmen to kidnap and cage them? Is it okay to kill people that have not hurt anyone for trying to resist being kidnapped or trying to escape from the cage they are being held in?
I can see drunk people at the bar any night, most of them are addicted. We tried prohibition with it and pushed people to harder alcohol and brought violence in the streets with gangsters to defend a "black" market. What makes prohibition of alcohol wrong and the prohibition of other drugs okay?
Have you ever seen someone all torn to pieces after a car wreck? Maybe we should ban people from driving cars, too, so they won't hurt themselves. Maybe we should wrap them all up in a protective layer for life so they never do anything dumb to themselves. Maybe we should lock everyone up in a little cage for life so they can never be harmed.
how do you think we should stop these people from ODing?
There is tons of stuff about consuming Alcohol safely. Legal drugs would be more pure and uniform than those made underground and instructions would be available for safe dosage.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 01, 2010, 06:46 AM NHFT
how do you think we should stop these people from ODing?
Legalize drugs. Let the open market regulate them for quality.... and encourage parents to responsibly teach their children the real truth about drug use/abuse :)
People OD on water.
Quote from: JJ on January 01, 2010, 10:03 AM NHFT
People OD on water.
That's absolutely correct.
Water in reality is more dangerous than Marijuana.
Quote from: highline on January 01, 2010, 10:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: JJ on January 01, 2010, 10:03 AM NHFT
People OD on water.
That's absolutely correct.
Water in reality is more dangerous than Marijuana.
In reality cops kill more people than marijuana every year. We should outlaw the police.
I have seen the damage they have done, making it so children can't see their dying parents (those that have MS and cancer) that use and grow marijuana to ease their pain while they die, sometimes marijuana can save people's lives so they don't have to die, but the police don't care about that either.
Marijuana does not force itself on people it's an inanimate plant. Cops force other people to do things against their will every day, it's their "job" to hurt people. You can see the cops committing violent acts on youtube, if you want there are 1000's of examples there.
My solution to the drug problem is to stop supporting the people committing violent acts over inanimate objects that don't even belong to them, it's too bad I will be thrown in jail by the police, if I stop paying them to kidnap people and kill people (for resisting them or trying to escape) for using and/or growing a medicinal plant.
Most cops believe violence can be used to get what they want. Most importantly a pay check from corrupt politicians. They have no problem kicking people out of their homes for refusing to pay extortion. They sell other people's property at "auction" year after year.
It's disgusting.
Had the conversation about owning my body at physical therapy again this week . I just do not understand how anyone disagrees with this concept. The topic this time was suicide , not a spirit lifting topic i know , but I did not bring it up . Of course the Chicago liberal / socialist lost their minds and I believe they wanted to physically hurt me when I said again " it's a privacy issue , just like a woman's reproductive rights ". They could not continue their argument , but that never stops them from telling me I am wrong .. i want to bang my head on the table .
I may not like what some of the people in my life do with / put into their bodies ... but it is none of my biz until it starts to have a negative effect on those around me ... how can people not see this ? Are they brain dead or just so conceited that they think their way is so much better they feel justified in forcing their will on every one else ?
It's the tyranny of good intentions, with the premise that "they" know better than "us" and are justified in using an armed gang to impose their way on all.
Quote from: CJS on January 01, 2010, 12:11 PM NHFT
Had the conversation about owning my body at physical therapy again this week . I just do not understand how anyone disagrees with this concept. The topic this time was suicide , not a spirit lifting topic i know , but I did not bring it up . Of course the Chicago liberal / socialist lost their minds and I believe they wanted to physically hurt me when I said again " it's a privacy issue , just like a woman's reproductive rights ". They could not continue their argument , but that never stops them from telling me I am wrong .. i want to bang my head on the table .
I may not like what some of the people in my life do with / put into their bodies ... but it is none of my biz until it starts to have a negative effect on those around me ... how can people not see this ? Are they brain dead or just so conceited that they think their way is so much better they feel justified in forcing their will on every one else ?
I just tried to explain this idea to a group of Canadian law enforcement people.... And their lashing of me as a result is quite intense.
If you have a few minutes, check out this thread:
http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20524&p=425425 (http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20524&p=425425)
I would welcome any criticism of my attempt to be persuasive. Unfortunately, someone brought up child pornography, and I gave my honest opinion that I believed mere possession is a victimless offense. This collapsed my efforts to change opinions on drug rules.
My apologies for the bad link:
Here is the discussion I referenced: http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20524 (http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20524)
Apparently, I'm not so good at explaining libertarian ideals :(
Quote from: highline
I just tried to explain this idea to a group of Canadian law enforcement people.... And their lashing of me as a result is quite intense.
If you have a few minutes, check out this thread:
http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20524&p=425425 (http://forums.blueline.ca/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=20524&p=425425)
I would welcome any criticism of my attempt to be persuasive. Unfortunately, someone brought up child pornography, and I gave my honest opinion that I believed mere possession is a victimless offense. This collapsed my efforts to change opinions on drug rules.
I went to that LEO forum from a link at freekeene forum already. I think you handled you self great and made excellent points , but I think you're wasting your time in LEO forums if you're spending a lot of time trying to change their minds ... better to plant a few seeds and move on instead of getting their panties in a bunch... hard to win the hearts and minds of people you spend time fighting with .. and even though you're not fighting them , they are fighting you. You message is much more powerful given to the general public IMO .
As far as your using the child porn thing as a victimless crime , the walmart example was weak in that it was not true child porn and to suggest that there is no victim for possessing the real thing it is beyond my understanding ... how does a 4 or 6 year old consent to be photographed in a sexual manner ?
And of course real LEO's will hate , disregard and disrespect liberty minded people , we are the ones who refuse top play along in the charade of doing everything they say .. how could they do their jobs if they admitted most of the time they start asking questions they are not doing it under the color of law .
I used to have a bunch of cop friends .. but that was when they were peace officers and not militarized LEO's .
Quote
I went to that LEO forum from a link at freekeene forum already. I think you handled you self great and made excellent points , but I think you're wasting your time in LEO forums if you're spending a lot of time trying to change their minds ... better to plant a few seeds and move on instead of getting their panties in a bunch... hard to win the hearts and minds of people you spend time fighting with .. and even though you're not fighting them , they are fighting you. You message is much more powerful given to the general public IMO .
I think you are absolutely right. Thanks for the criticism.
Quote
I used to have a bunch of cop friends ..
Me too.
Quote from: Heatman on December 31, 2009, 05:31 AM NHFT
I'm good with that, except the drug part. As a former EMT I have seen to many kids OD on heavy drugs and have friends who have OD'd on drugs and are no longer the person they once were. One guy I went to school with that was an honors student now has the mental capacity of a 5 year old because of an OD. Don't get me wrong, although I've never tried any type of illegal drugs, I don't have a problem with people lighting up a joint if it is not impacting others. I believe that the reason Ron Paul wasn't considered a likely candidate by the news outlets is because so many people have seen the adverse affects of drug use and think that suggesting legalizing everything is an insane proposal.
"legalize everything" IS an insane proposal, politically. Even Ron Paul tried in the debates to shy away from any notion of "lemme show you how crazy I can sound" when he kept his point on to legalizing pot first. I'm not sure that this is why the news outlets specifically ignored him, but tomato, potato. It is and would be intellectually dishonest of anyone to imply that legalizing drugs would remove the negative consequences of use and abuse itself. How much less dead is a kid who OD'd if the drugs are legal? Not enough to count, really.
The problem as I've seen it and when I've talked to people about it, is that I end up along the lines of "No, I don't think a someone should throw their lives away to crack/meth/heroin, but if they want to, then that's their choice." This isn't a problem because it's wrong but because it sounds horrible like the typical heartless libertarian and does nothing to address a big concern in regards to legalization. Perhaps an overblown one for all the reasons that are obvious on this forum, but still a genuine concern with some people.
I don't think the end of prohibition would also coincide with the end of any marketing campaigns designed to address what people should and should not put into their body for a price. There'll still be "don't do drugs, kids" type of programs, I'm sure.
Quote from: CJS on January 01, 2010, 05:00 PM NHFT
As far as your using the child porn thing as a victimless crime , the walmart example was weak in that it was not true child porn and to suggest that there is no victim for possessing the real thing it is beyond my understanding ... how does a 4 or 6 year old consent to be photographed in a sexual manner ?
Ah, but there's the problem: what is "true child porn" and what is "a sexual manner"?
As I said on that freekeene thread, people
have been prosecuted and put through CPS hell trying to keep their kids or get their kids back, over things like the Wal-Mart bathtub pics. Much child "porn" doesn't involve any sexual activity or suggestiveness, merely nudity. If a perv wanks off over the Sunday advertising that shows kids in their underwear, is that child a victim?
Quote from: KBCraig on January 01, 2010, 09:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: CJS on January 01, 2010, 05:00 PM NHFT
As far as your using the child porn thing as a victimless crime , the walmart example was weak in that it was not true child porn and to suggest that there is no victim for possessing the real thing it is beyond my understanding ... how does a 4 or 6 year old consent to be photographed in a sexual manner ?
Ah, but there's the problem: what is "true child porn" and what is "a sexual manner"?
As I said on that freekeene thread, people have been prosecuted and put through CPS hell trying to keep their kids or get their kids back, over things like the Wal-Mart bathtub pics. Much child "porn" doesn't involve any sexual activity or suggestiveness, merely nudity. If a perv wanks off over the Sunday advertising that shows kids in their underwear, is that child a victim?
First . I hope I did't come off like a troll with that post , I was asking a fair question IMO . I don't always come across well in cyberland.
I agree you about the abuse by CPS all over the country , I have know too many women / couples who have had their lives destroyed by overzealous bureaucrats.Those agencies have way to much power and get away with murder ..... almost no oversight for them here in Socialist Illinois ..I mean it's for the children right ? I am scared to start a family in this place.
I asked Brad a pretty specific question , I tried to take grandma's bathtub pics out of the equation . Again I hope Brad did not feel like i was attacking him , he stands up for what he believes in at personal risk have real respect for that.
As far as what is porn ... we probably feel the print ad pics in the Sunday paper are innocuous , but my convicted child rapist neighbor finds them very stimulating .. so there is great big can of worms there . I was curious how possessing child porn is a victimless crime .
KBCraig I have read enough of your posts / threads to know you would not support some one walking around with a photo album of abused kids.
I hate when I hijack a good thread.
CJS, you're quite right when it comes to an identifiable victim. But to be honest, on a philosophical level, I understand what highline was saying: someone possessing child abuse porn isn't automatically guilty of child sexual abuse, any more than someone possessing a snuff film is automatically guilty of murder.
Both are disgusting and worthy of societal condemnation, but possessing pictures of something is not the same as committing the actual act. Thank goodness, because I'm pretty sure the statute of limitations hasn't passed on those Faces Of Death videos we watched in college back in the '80s.
QuoteI asked Brad a pretty specific question , I tried to take grandma's bathtub pics out of the equation . Again I hope Brad did not feel like i was attacking him , he stands up for what he believes in at personal risk have real respect for that.
No, not at all. It was a fair question and I did ask for critique :)
And thanks. It is hard to stand up for principle when principle appears to support disgusting behavior.
Quote from: highlineAnd thanks. It is hard to stand up for principle when principle appears to support disgusting behavior.
Brad I have been outspoken about issues of personal freedom in Illinois most my life , so I know what it is to be ostracized by my peers . Love to buy you a beer when I make it to HN.
I meant what I said about respecting the risks you are taking with your career to speak out against the disgusting W/O/D .. which is nothing more than babysitting adults who should be free to live their own lives .
Quote from: KBCraig
........someone possessing child abuse porn isn't automatically guilty of child sexual abuse, any more than someone possessing a snuff film is automatically guilty of murder.
Great analogy . I said it's a huge can of worms ... but still feel actual photo's of children being raped hold no artist value and if me wanting that to be prohibited some how makes me evil I can live with that . I wonder how this kind of thing would be dealt with in a volunteer society.
I can't believe how many things I have had a change of heart over because of this forum. To be able to actually discuss hot topics in a civil manner is not readily available to me where I live. While I am still on the fence about some a few ideas most of those here hold, I am more free in my heart and mind than ever and it feels great .
Quote from: KBCraigI'm pretty sure the statute of limitations hasn't passed on those Faces Of Death videos we watched in college back in the '80s.
A lot of those films were set up , think about it .If you and I were near a pond , both with video equipment .. why would one of us film the other camera man during an alligator attack instead of filming the attack .. but again .. a very good point .
Quote
Brad I have been outspoken about issues of personal freedom in Illinois most my life , so I know what it is to be ostracized by my peers . Love to buy you a beer when I make it to HN.
I stopped drinking almost a half year ago........... But I love cranberry juice.
Quote
I meant what I said about respecting the risks you are taking with your career to speak out against the disgusting W/O/D .. which is nothing more than babysitting adults who should be free to live their own lives .
Thanks. As much as this whole ordeal stinks, I don't doubt that a large amount of people are hearing about LEAP for the first time because of it.
We all that believe in liberty have to suffer for proposing change. My punishment is professionally.
Quote
Great analogy . I said it's a huge can of worms ... but still feel actual photo's of children being raped hold no artist value and if me wanting that to be prohibited some how makes me evil I can live with that . I wonder how this kind of thing would be dealt with in a volunteer society.
You see I think the can of worms is on the opposite end..... where the government is allowed the imprison people for simply holding an object.
Child pornography is indeed disgusting.
I would prefer to continue to be able to consider whatever it is that draws my eye and makes me think to continue to remain art.
Let me be perfectly clear, you nor anyone have any right to harm another human being based on the possessions they have. You absolutely should be able to confront, speak out, advertise, and ostrasize those who's behavior disgusts you. Art, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. Feel free to state that the Mona Lisa, the Arch of Titus, and the video of a guy having sex with a child are not art. Feel free to cry from the rooftops about how evil and wrong those things are.
Do not put people in jail for what they consider art. I find child pornography to be the most vile and disgusting trash to ever be put to tape or print. The owners of such filth I do not do business with. If they crawled to my door looking for table scraps I'd set them in a shovel and toss them as I do snow on my stairs.
If I had friends who supported their private use of child porn, they would no longer be friends. If I had associates that did business with them, they would cease being my associates. The same would go for those that would harm a person who was merely in possession of something others found disgusting.
would it be better for a man who possesses child porn to use the morals of others to make them starve on a voluntary basis or would it be better to steal and imprison others in order for you to punish them in a jail cell?
I'd rather see them starve in the dead of cold instead of stealing from myself, my family, and friends to satisfy some bullshit bureaucracy.
Quote from: AntonLee on January 02, 2010, 04:35 PM NHFT
I would prefer to continue to be able to consider whatever it is that draws my eye and makes me think to continue to remain art.
Let me be perfectly clear, you nor anyone have any right to harm another human being based on the possessions they have. You absolutely should be able to confront, speak out, advertise, and ostrasize those who's behavior disgusts you. Art, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. Feel free to state that the Mona Lisa, the Arch of Titus, and the video of a guy having sex with a child are not art. Feel free to cry from the rooftops about how evil and wrong those things are.
Do not put people in jail for what they consider art. I find child pornography to be the most vile and disgusting trash to ever be put to tape or print. The owners of such filth I do not do business with. If they crawled to my door looking for table scraps I'd set them in a shovel and toss them as I do snow on my stairs.
If I had friends who supported their private use of child porn, they would no longer be friends. If I had associates that did business with them, they would cease being my associates. The same would go for those that would harm a person who was merely in possession of something others found disgusting.
would it be better for a man who possesses child porn to use the morals of others to make them starve on a voluntary basis or would it be better to steal and imprison others in order for you to punish them in a jail cell?
I'd rather see them starve in the dead of cold instead of stealing from myself, my family, and friends to satisfy some bullshit bureaucracy.
+1
Anton , TY for your post .. both polite and introspective .
I am on the fence about never jailing any one ever.... the concept is beyond me right now. For the record , I have been jailed in Cook County lock up .. would not wish a week there on an enemy.
I wish non violent people could made restitution instead rotting in a cage , as the thought of almost half a million non violent offenders imprisoned right now makes me ill .. then add the tax money needed to feed that monster and my head explodes.
Not wanting to start a never ending debate with any one .... is ostracism enough for a serial rapist ? What does a volunteer society do with truly violent people ? Teach me bud.
Quote from: CJS on January 02, 2010, 05:38 PM NHFT
I am on the fence about never jailing any one ever.... the concept is beyond me right now. For the record , I have been jailed in Cook County lock up .. would not wish a week there on an enemy.
There are some people who are just too dangerous to be roaming around, in my opinion. Although in a free society one would be able to use deadly force easier to defend themselves, I still believe imprisonment would be necessary.
I'd imagine that private protection services would offer this as a service if someone infringes your property, or person.
The private protection agency would have authority, or justification to act against anyone who acted against you.
Where I'd imagine it gets tricky is if someone files a complaint with their protection service and it is opposing a cross complaint from another individual and their protection service.
Wow, a lot of good arguments. I really like threads where people aren't afraid to speak their mind. I understand where you are coming from and I see your point. Believe it or not, I agree with the majority of the arguments that you have given. I guess the thing that upsets me the most is seeing people OD and once they are a vegetable, they become wards of the state and the taxpayers pay for the medical care and diaper changes for the rest of their life. I am not for excessive laws. The ones like "do not kill", "do not steal", etc... are good, but I am very opposed to gun control. I think everyone who is of sane mind should have a gun. Those that are dumb enough to try something stupid will think twice before risking being eliminated from the gene pool. On another note, if you look at a country like Yemen, where 90% of the men chew Khat, it has reduced the productivity of the country. (for more info on this, go to: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917685,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917685,00.html) ) I suppose it depends on the person. Some people will use stuff without being properly informed and end their life, and others will do their homework and use stuff in moderation. As a person who has never tried any kind of illegal drugs, I guess I don't understand why people are so eager to use them. By the way, I noticed I got a -1 karma. Was it something I said? I do agree with 98% of the stuff that is discussed in here, it is just the drug thing I am not 100% on board with....yet.
Quote from: Heatman on January 02, 2010, 09:13 PM NHFT
. By the way, I noticed I got a -1 karma. Was it something I said? I do agree with 98% of the stuff that is discussed in here, it is just the drug thing I am not 100% on board with....yet.
Some person(s) is down voting all posts. It happened over at freekeene and they turned off karma.
reddit has also recently had problems like this (see: http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/9efxf/an_explanation_of_why_the_atheism_reddit_does_not/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/9efxf/an_explanation_of_why_the_atheism_reddit_does_not/))
Don't pay attention to - karma on the internet, unless you are trolling. Then you can use it as a gauge of how many people you piss off. Some message boards have competitions on how much negative karma they can get or give by writing scripts, but some people are neurotic and will visit a web forum just to down vote posts.
Quote from: highline on January 02, 2010, 03:39 PM NHFT
I stopped drinking almost a half year ago........... But I love cranberry juice.
You quit drinking and then started hanging out with Free Staters? What the Hell kind of planning is that?
It is the other way around, for most people.
I, too, think that some people in society would need to be removed from it for the safety of others. Some may not be on a voluntary basis, but their imprisonment would be due to their aggressive acts against others.
Of course there are the truly violent, dangerous people out there. Those are the people who don't want anything but the inside of the jail to be their home. These people DO need to be locked up.
There ARE serial rapists, serial killers, etc. Those people most likely need to be either dead, incapacitated, or removed from society. I agree. Now the problem is who is going to pay for it.
Holding a human away from others doesn't seem that expensive to me, at least under what might be "necessary" to keep a human 1) alive and 2) away from others.
I hate to say it, but were I the sole propriator of a prison system meant to hold dangerous, beligerent people away from the peaceful non-violent community. .. it might just be a concrete box on a small island in the river. He might get fed once a day. He'd never be able to leave until he decided to make good on his debt to others. In some cases, this might never happen or be able to happen (too expensive, no way of earning money off of them to repay)
for people who choose to harm others and not repay for their damages, this might be a decent alternative. Perhaps if htey have money they mgiht be able to re-negotiate for some dollars. They can buy themselves a window. They can buy 3 meals a day.
God help the jailers, victims, etc if it is ever found that this person was INNOCENT. Instead of the nothing that happens now, there might be grounds for a huge case for the wrongfully accused and imprisoned person. Then again that person might negotiate a settlement. I'm also thinking that these jails would be for the worst of the worst.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on January 03, 2010, 06:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: highline on January 02, 2010, 03:39 PM NHFT
I stopped drinking almost a half year ago........... But I love cranberry juice.
You quit drinking and then started hanging out with Free Staters? What the Hell kind of planning is that?
It is the other way around, for most people.
ha I quit drinking 6 years ago and just moved to NH. Now that I'm here there are no plans to fall off the wagon. Cranberry and Club Soda A++
(and a joint)
Quote from: AntonLee on January 08, 2010, 02:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on January 03, 2010, 06:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: highline on January 02, 2010, 03:39 PM NHFT
I stopped drinking almost a half year ago........... But I love cranberry juice.
You quit drinking and then started hanging out with Free Staters? What the Hell kind of planning is that?
It is the other way around, for most people.
ha I quit drinking 6 years ago and just moved to NH. Now that I'm here there are no plans to fall off the wagon. Cranberry and Club Soda A++
(and a joint)
Good for you man. I bet you feel much healthier.
Marijuana is a far, far, far safer mind altering drug/medicine with far, far, far fewer side effects than booze. Notwithstanding bad laws, a responsible decision on your part that I wish more adults would embrace so that we can make stop making users of safer substances criminals.
Quote from: AntonLee on January 08, 2010, 02:31 PM NHFT
I, too, think that some people in society would need to be removed from it for the safety of others. Some may not be on a voluntary basis, but their imprisonment would be due to their aggressive acts against others.
Of course there are the truly violent, dangerous people out there. Those are the people who don't want anything but the inside of the jail to be their home. These people DO need to be locked up.
There ARE serial rapists, serial killers, etc. Those people most likely need to be either dead, incapacitated, or removed from society. I agree. Now the problem is who is going to pay for it.
Holding a human away from others doesn't seem that expensive to me, at least under what might be "necessary" to keep a human 1) alive and 2) away from others.
I hate to say it, but were I the sole propriator of a prison system meant to hold dangerous, beligerent people away from the peaceful non-violent community. .. it might just be a concrete box on a small island in the river. He might get fed once a day. He'd never be able to leave until he decided to make good on his debt to others. In some cases, this might never happen or be able to happen (too expensive, no way of earning money off of them to repay)
for people who choose to harm others and not repay for their damages, this might be a decent alternative. Perhaps if htey have money they mgiht be able to re-negotiate for some dollars. They can buy themselves a window. They can buy 3 meals a day.
God help the jailers, victims, etc if it is ever found that this person was INNOCENT. Instead of the nothing that happens now, there might be grounds for a huge case for the wrongfully accused and imprisoned person. Then again that person might negotiate a settlement. I'm also thinking that these jails would be for the worst of the worst.
I agree with every word you spoke :D
I envision private protection companies having contracts with private detention providers. It really doesn't seem that unrealistic to me, now. At one time it did. Lots of thought, research, reading, and FTL later...... it makes sense.
Quote from: AntonLee on January 08, 2010, 02:32 PM NHFTCranberry and Club Soda A++
That's what I usually order in bars now! I'm not a tee-totaler. Just haven't been wanting to drink very much lately. I've particularly not wanted to spend a lot of $ on drinking.
Well, it might be a surprise to a lot of folk, but the #1 senseless killer in Amerika is the donut. It shouldn't be a surprise that, fried white flour and sugar do in fact KILL and end many lives tragically early...Actually, banning donuts would save more lives than any drug ban, cigarette ban, alcohol ban and gun ban combined.
BTW, I've seen alcohol take away so very many more friends, comrades, school mates than drugs. In fact, in my nearly 30 years of living in the granite state, I've come to witness the tragic toll of alcoholism on families and often the sexual abuse of children it can cause.
I use to be a member of LEAP, but when I realized it was mostly a bunch of old retired paranoid Massachusetts cops that are just a bunch of panhandlers looking for outrageous speakers fees so they can get up and whine about how they were traumatized by all the violence they committed and family tragedies they perpetrated on the poor in the name of the state and the common good.....
In case, anyone wonders about the never ending WAR ON DRUGS, check out those pics of the hellfire drones the military has been launching over Houston... I read there were hundreds of murders there last year as the collapse of the Mexican government spills over into the US..... Great, absolutely fantastic, don't forget to tell your DRUG WARRIOR friends, that this is worse than Prohibition.... it's dozens of new G3 crime gangs (ie 3rd generation, or multi-generational mafias). And "we" didn't win in Iraq either.
Perhaps, you might wonder about the future of Afghanistan and Pushtustan (ie the name of that naughty rouge state, usually refered to as the 'lawless area') and the red red red opium poppy flower ? It will never be a democracy or a theocratic state, during your life and the lifetime of your children, the real control will be in the hands of the OCG (organized crime groups).
And this was once a free civilized society ? right ?
http://www.myspace.com/buzzkimball (http://www.myspace.com/buzzkimball)
Legalizing everything is not the answer. Someone I know recently passed away from legal prescription medications I have lost a few people I know to this kind of thing. Throwing them in jail for possession and use is of little to no effect. Parents don't know how to teach their children most of the time because these are things many of them have never dealt with. The "experts" in rehab aren't working , politicians are more interested in their own careers than really helping anything. What we need are real answers to the underlying causes. Legalizing will not solve the problems. The organized crime that controls the illegal drug trade won't go away there is too much money involved just like the government.
ps they are working on banning the donut, the french fry and the cheeseburger they call it health care.
Quote from: bouncer on January 23, 2010, 12:28 PM NHFT
Legalizing will not solve the problems. The organized crime that controls the illegal drug trade won't go away there is too much money involved just like the government.
-1
What gives you the right to hire an army with tax dollars that are stolen from me to outlaw medication and wage a "war on drugs"?
If you don't like drugs, don't use them. You don't have the right to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own body.
The organized crime that controls the illegal drug trade will have to compete legitimately when drugs are legal. Jack Daniels and Johnny Walker are not shooting each other in the street for turf, like mobsters did when whiskey was illegal during prohibition.
Legalizing freedom will solve the organized crime problem.
"CONCORD, N.H. - More people are dying of drug overdoses in New Hampshire than in car crashes, with methadone the leading cause of death in most of the cases.
"The number of overdose deaths has surpassed traffic deaths for the last two years, according to the state medical examiner..."
"The state had 129 traffic deaths and 168 overdose deaths in 2007. Methadone was to blame in 57 percent of the drug deaths. In 2006, there were 127 traffic deaths and 142 drug overdose deaths, with methadone involved in 53 percent.
Who can be in favor addiction ? Who can be for people overdosing on drugs ?
Ask an addict what's their problem, and you'll get an answer like: "I'm bored" or "my life sucks"... And therein is the answer.
The DRUG WAR has been a 75 year unmitigated disaster. And it will only get worse. I could give you a simple explanation like: "the black market is the free market re-exerting itself". Or even: people do what people do, get over it, and deal with it...
The Mafia and it's allied organized crime cartels aren't the problem, they are a symptom.
It's BIG PHARMA... frankly, their diverting half of pharmaceutical production to supplying the black market.
The FOURTH REICH in Washington, and SATAN'S EMPIRE on Wall Street don't give a shit about the lives of your children or what happens to them. It's about POWER, MONEY, and CONTROL....
Who will protect us from our protectors, when THEY are the PROBLEM.
Quote from: thinkliberty on January 23, 2010, 04:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: bouncer on January 23, 2010, 12:28 PM NHFT
Legalizing will not solve the problems. The organized crime that controls the illegal drug trade won't go away there is too much money involved just like the government.
-1
What gives you the right to hire an army with tax dollars that are stolen from me to outlaw medication and wage a "war on drugs"?
If you don't like drugs, don't use them. You don't have the right to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own body.
The organized crime that controls the illegal drug trade will have to compete legitimately when drugs are legal. Jack Daniels and Johnny Walker are not shooting each other in the street for turf, like mobsters did when whiskey was illegal during prohibition.
Legalizing freedom will solve the organized crime problem.
I didn't the war on drugs was legitimate as I believe it is a joke. As far as legalization goes alcohol is legal though go and make yourself some whiskey. The government thugs will still come and get you for it. Is the government then going to tax and regulate your new legalized drugs how is that any better? If your drugs haven't been properly labeled and taxed. Guess what they will throw you in a cage for it. are you going to trade legality for another bloated government department taxing you? And as far as organized crime and competition they will still be selling untaxed drugs so they would still be willing to do the bad things they do. the only gain and it would be a gain is the average joe smoking a joint would not go to jail for it. A small gain
Quote from: bouncer on February 02, 2010, 10:21 AM NHFT
I didn't the war on drugs was legitimate as I believe it is a joke. As far as legalization goes alcohol is legal though go and make yourself some whiskey. The government thugs will still come and get you for it. Is the government then going to tax and regulate your new legalized drugs how is that any better? If your drugs haven't been properly labeled and taxed. Guess what they will throw you in a cage for it. are you going to trade legality for another bloated government department taxing you? And as far as organized crime and competition they will still be selling untaxed drugs so they would still be willing to do the bad things they do. the only gain and it would be a gain is the average joe smoking a joint would not go to jail for it. A small gain
The war on drugs is not a joke. Ask cancer victims that have been denied medical marijuana, if they think it's a joke. Or ask the people that are in jail like Mike T. if the war on drugs is a joke.
From what you've described, the government is the problem. We should get rid of it.
That would mean legalizing freedom will solve the government problem (because it's gone.) and also the organized crime problem (there is no black market for them to buy and sell freedom in.).
I've lost a couple of friends to cirrhosis of the liver, bleeding ulcers etc. from alcohol, because it is more accepted than cannabis. My best friend, the only time we had good conversations before his death was when he was high, alcohol made him thick-headed and depressed, cannabis helped bring out the good in him. The cost of prohibition is immeasurable.
Tom, the comments I made about alcohol were made as sarcasm. I realize the dangers of alcohol are far worse than cannabis. My comments were made in the vein that alcohol is legal for consumption though the production is regulated by the government they bust small illegal distilleries every year to justify their existence. I agree just like everyone here that the government is the problem but legalizing drugs in particular hard drugs and decriminalizing possession of prescription drugs would lead to more addiction and overdose deaths. What the government is doing is not working is quite obvious, but I believe legalizing those would send the wrong message in effect endorsing their use and minimizing the dangers. Cannabis is a whole different ballgame. No one has ever died from overdosing on cannabis. Though I believe driving under the influence of cannabis is equal to driving under the influence of alcohol.
Quote from: bouncer on February 03, 2010, 10:12 AM NHFT
... but legalizing drugs in particular hard drugs and decriminalizing possession of prescription drugs would lead to more addiction and overdose deaths. ...
excuse me if I quote you out of context....
as a child, decades ago I lost several friends to drink driving accidents. it affected me severely, they were from good loving families, splashed across the windshield...
should heroin and cocaine be legal recreational drugs ? personally, i've tried both ( if you you have to do it, snort it don't shoot it) and find it a waste of time and money. why the hell should i care if people spend their beer or wine money on ethnogens and/or there's less dead babies to scrape off the dashboard.
yes, powerful chemicals sold by 'big pharma' thru the AMA stooges are a problem if they find a way into the wrong hands. where the FUCK is the sanctity of contract assholes ?
"OH !we're not responsible, it's up to the GOVERNMENT to prevent misuse...."
AMERIKA as a system OD decades ago, it can't handle the MOON FLOWER ( the false cold light of the opium poppy)... That is why the drug war has destroyed so much of the country and brought Mexico to the status of a narco-state.
GREED IS GOOD
Quote from: bouncer on January 23, 2010, 12:28 PM NHFT
Legalizing everything is not the answer
i agree
I will not vote to legalize anything this coming year.
yeap! with all the damage done by alcohol, it's time to make that illegal...
so don't forget to vote for the PROHIBITION PARTY.
http://www.prohibition.org/values.html (http://www.prohibition.org/values.html)
You guys are right. Throw out all the laws. Let six year olds have access to alcohol and drugs what the heck why not? Why don't we just throw out all laws murder, rape, theft none of it should be a crime. If someone crosses the street in front of me then there in my way I'll just run them over. It's okay to run a red light and hit another vehicle because the cops are evil tyrants and we shouldn't care what they want or anyone else for that matter.
Quote from: bouncer on February 17, 2010, 10:50 AM NHFT
You guys are right. Throw out all the laws. Let six year olds have access to alcohol and drugs what the heck why not? Why don't we just throw out all laws murder, rape, theft none of it should be a crime. If someone crosses the street in front of me then there in my way I'll just run them over. It's okay to run a red light and hit another vehicle because the cops are evil tyrants and we shouldn't care what they want or anyone else for that matter.
A Catholic might be appalled to learn that Baptists don't go to confessional for their sins. To a Catholic, that might sound like Baptists just give a pass on sin. In fact, Catholics and Baptists are largely in agreement about what are considered sins and that sin is a bad thing that must be dealt with. They just approach the perceived problem from different directions. I think you're falling for the same sort of fallacy by thinking people don't want to do anything about certain problems just because they don't believe YOUR way is the best way to deal with them. Either that or you're being willfully ignorant as a straw man tactic.
i guess if a six year old wanders into my house ... he has access to alcohol ..... doesn't seem to lead to anything
are there currently laws that keep kids from having access to alcohol? am i breaking them by having it on my kitchen shelves? what should be done with me?
You should give all the alcohol to me for safe keeping Russell.
there might be a law keeping me from giving it to you .... so you won't OD
I looked. No.
Quote from: bouncer on February 17, 2010, 10:50 AM NHFT
You guys are right. Throw out all the laws. Let six year olds have access to alcohol and drugs what the heck why not? Why don't we just throw out all laws murder, rape, theft none of it should be a crime. If someone crosses the street in front of me then there in my way I'll just run them over. It's okay to run a red light and hit another vehicle because the cops are evil tyrants and we shouldn't care what they want or anyone else for that matter.
Why do you need a law to keep alcohol and drugs away from your 6 year old? Are you incapable of raising your children yourself? How many times have you been out smarted by a scary 6 year old for drugs and alcohol? No one I know is stupid enough to give a 6 year old those things. Are you?
I think you've overdosed on the statist religion. Laws have never stopped anyone from using alcohol or drugs. They are/have been illegal and anyone that wants to can/could get them cheaply at any time. People overdosed on booze, even when it was illegal.
We can ignore your straw man comments about murder, rape, theft. The government does those things all the time even though there are "laws" against them.
Quote from: highline on January 02, 2010, 05:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: CJS on January 02, 2010, 05:38 PM NHFT
I am on the fence about never jailing any one ever.... the concept is beyond me right now. For the record , I have been jailed in Cook County lock up .. would not wish a week there on an enemy.
There are some people who are just too dangerous to be roaming around, in my opinion. Although in a free society one would be able to use deadly force easier to defend themselves, I still believe imprisonment would be necessary.
I'd imagine that private protection services would offer this as a service if someone infringes your property, or person.
The private protection agency would have authority, or justification to act against anyone who acted against you.
Where I'd imagine it gets tricky is if someone files a complaint with their protection service and it is opposing a cross complaint from another individual and their protection service.
I agree, those who are truly a continuing danger to others should be put in a secure work camp, working to pay restitution to their victim(s).
I am sure that the protection agencies operating in a particular area would have designated courts of arbitration to handle disputes between them, with alternative courts for appeal. These could be used to handle cross claims.
Quote from: bouncer on January 23, 2010, 12:28 PM NHFT
Legalizing everything is not the answer. Someone I know recently passed away from legal prescription medications I have lost a few people I know to this kind of thing. Throwing them in jail for possession and use is of little to no effect. Parents don't know how to teach their children most of the time because these are things many of them have never dealt with. The "experts" in rehab aren't working , politicians are more interested in their own careers than really helping anything. What we need are real answers to the underlying causes. Legalizing will not solve the problems. The organized crime that controls the illegal drug trade won't go away there is too much money involved just like the government.
ps they are working on banning the donut, the french fry and the cheeseburger they call it health care.
Think for a second.
How much violence is there in the alcohol distribution chain?
Do people manufacture aspirin in their basements, putting themselves and others in danger?
Does the sale of cigarettes fund gangs and terrorists?
No, because these things are legal. They are produced efficiently and safely by companies in controlled facilities, distributed by truck drivers, not gangsters, and sold in stores, not on street corners.
Quote from: bouncer on February 17, 2010, 10:50 AM NHFT
You guys are right. Throw out all the laws. Let six year olds have access to alcohol and drugs what the heck why not? Why don't we just throw out all laws murder, rape, theft none of it should be a crime. If someone crosses the street in front of me then there in my way I'll just run them over. It's okay to run a red light and hit another vehicle because the cops are evil tyrants and we shouldn't care what they want or anyone else for that matter.
Laws against harming other people are legitimate. If you harm another person you should be made to pay restitution to them, and if you are a clear continuing danger to others, some sort of work imprisonment might be appropriate.
It's not appropriate to use violence against individuals who have not harmed others or their property.
"You guys are right. Throw out all the laws. Let six year olds have access to alcohol and drugs what the heck why not?"
nah! let's make them go to school, watch the boob tube, and eat happy meals instead. much safer that way. "let them eat ritalin.."
"Does the sale of cigarettes fund gangs and terrorists?
"No, because these things are legal. They are produced efficiently and safely by companies in controlled facilities, distributed by truck drivers, not gangsters, and sold in stores, not on street corners."
Actually, the answer is YES, YES and YES. Counterfit and Black Market cigarettes are competing with the sports book, drugs and prostitution as the most profitable criminal enterprise these days. And, well back in the old days in the last city I called home, the mob boys actually controlled the majority of trucking and distribution.....
Probably, one of the biggest misconceptions concerning on how "society should deal with criminals".....
Is, FIRST... use common sense and DON'T BE THE VICTIM......
Secondly, the police or the state are not protecting YOU as an INDIVIDUAL. In fact, that's not the case. It's the 'PUBLIC SAFETY' of the collective, and it's actually a form of 'joining' a common risk pool. You are not being protected by the police from a rapist or a murderer, you are more or less being protected from a serial killer or serial rapist. In that the state is hunting down perpetrators after the fact.
There is the occasional attempt to "test" school children for 'criminal dispositions' and of course, to get them on 'medication' to 'treat them'....
Okay, let's say drugs are legalized, and people are 'concerned' kids will 'get drugs'... just like those kids over in Weare last week, sneaking out of school to score black market drugs...... But anyway, what about legal porn....?
Now porn is perfectly legal, but if I go down and start showing it to third graders, don't you think somebody is going to put a stop to it ? Hey, don't us dirty old men have rights ?
The only reason cigarettes are creeping back into the black market is because taxes are abusively high. If there were no taxes, there would be no reason for the black market.
Quote from: bouncer on January 23, 2010, 12:28 PM NHFT
Legalizing everything is not the answer
Then what the hell is the answer .. cause after thirty-five years of war on drugs I can still buy weed ... cocaine / crack .. heroin ... meth .. any kind of mind and mood altering substance I want with hardly any effort ... and I don't even get high .
Who the hell are you to tell myself or the people on either side of me what they can and cannot do to / with their own bodies and why does every single action an adult take have to be filtered through the " it may not be safe for the children " screen ? Keep an eye on your curtain climbers and they will be fine.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 17, 2010, 12:14 PM NHFT
i guess if a six year old wanders into my house ... he has access to alcohol ..... doesn't seem to lead to anything
are there currently laws that keep kids from having access to alcohol? am i breaking them by having it on my kitchen shelves? what should be done with me?
Your making the fatal mistake of using logic here ... you will never sway this guys mind ... the brainwashing has to strong a hold . How sad . He / She is just like all the gun-grabbers .. facts and logic mean nothing to them .
Quote from: ttie on February 18, 2010, 08:01 PM NHFT
The only reason cigarettes are creeping back into the black market is because taxes are abusively high. If there were no taxes, there would be no reason for the black market.
Ab-so-freggin'-lootly.
The government wants people to stop smoking because it is dangerous.......
.......but neeeeeeeds people to smoke for all the tax revenue.
The government wants people to not drink and drive because it is dangerous......
..... but it sells it to you on either the north or southbound side of the highway because liquor is their #1 revenue source.
Government is a retarded hypocritical mess. Duh.
Quote from: ttie on February 18, 2010, 06:42 PM NHFT
Does the sale of cigarettes fund gangs and terrorists?
Yes, actually. Have you seen where all those taxes go?
I threw that out there to see what kind of response I got. The problem is personal responsibility and that can't be legislated that's why prohibition doesn't work,legalizing won't solve the abuse issue. It would stop our government wasting some of the money the steal from us.
Quote from: bouncer on February 20, 2010, 06:42 PM NHFT
I threw that out there to see what kind of response I got. The problem is personal responsibility and that can't be legislated that's why prohibition doesn't work,legalizing won't solve the abuse issue. It would stop our government wasting some of the money the steal from us.
Thats because X% of humanity will consistently do stupid stuff . Why does society as a whole have to be protected from the extremely stupid behavior of the dumbest / weakest among us ? In California they are prohibiting smoking cigarettes in private homes ...whats next ? High calorie junk food ?
I have several neighbors who get high regularly and they also work .. pay bills and do all the things people who don't smoke do while they live their lives ... one neighbor gets high on crack every so often .. not my idea of a good time but it's HER deal . How is their private behavior any one else's concern ? If I am not hurting anyone .. cause property loss or damage .. why is my behavior any one else's concern ?