What would be ideal act of civil dis in NH?

[Atlas]

Depends on the department.

They certainly face retaliation.

Midnight shift and not much room for promotion... Especially if the chief is a dick

[Luke S]

[C]ommunity service is not slavery, nor are fines robbery. That fact is made clear in the famed 14th "Anti-Slavery" Amendment. Although slavery was abolished, they made sure to write the Amendment to make it very clear that involuntary servitude could still be used as a punishment for a crime.

(Oops, I meant 13th amendment, not 14th. Oh well.)

Actually that proves the point that it is slavery. If it weren't they would not have had to make an exception to provide for it in an anti-slavery amendment. Just because it is "legal" Luke, doesn't make it any less slavery. It just means you get to call it "involuntary servitude" and feel better about yourself. It is still slavery as those who crafted the amendment clearly realized.

No, it's because it isn't slavery, and so that activist judges couldn't use the 13th amendment to falsely claim that it is slavery and then act like a superlegislature and proscribe it against the wills of the Legislature and the People, like they've done with Roe v. Wade and the 14th amendment and abortion.

[A]ll marijuana user offenders who do not live in a border state, will for their community service be assigned to special factories that will be built throughout the US (paid for by marijuana fines), in which the individual sections of the fence will be pre-made by the offenders.

Didn't see that one, though you are going to have to raise the fines through the roof for that to work.

Fine by me.

Question Luke, do you have nutmeg in your pantry?

George

Is that some sort of New Hampshirism or New Jerseyism? Because I've never heard it before.

It is actually just a question of whether or not you are in possession of a known hallucinogenic drug, which also has some rather harmless and tasty uses. If you do and it were arbitrarily made illegal next week should I have you arrested and banished to your concentration camps for illegal drug possession?

The point is Luke that there are a lot of natural drugs in the world. The fact that the feds in this country have arbitrarily decided that some of them are illegal does not suddenly make the people who use them bad people anymore than it makes the plants themselves bad plants. If the feds next week added nutmeg to their list of banned substances and you continued to eat apple pie you wouldn't be a bad person, nor would you be a bad person if you took it further and made nutmeg shakes from it and used it as a hallucinogen. You would still be Luke. The same thing applies if they ever prohibited alcohol again. Those who continued to drink wouldn't all of a sudden be any different than they were the day before. They would just be newly minted criminals according to an arbitrary system.

I ask you Luke, if you lived in the 1800's when all of these drugs were legal, would you have have still wanted to punish your neighbors for doing the drugs?

George

George, I checked, and it turns out I don't have nutmeg in my pantry. If I did have nutmeg in my pantry now, and it were made illegal next week, I could not be taken to jail for the nutmeg I had in my pantry now, thanks to the Constitutional protection against ex post facto laws. I could only be taken to jail if I failed to get rid of it when it was made illegal (i.e., next week).

As for your comment about the 1800's, even though the use of these drugs were legal in the 1800's, drug use didn't become popularized until the mid-to-late 1900's (specifically the 1960's). So because there were so few people using drugs during the 1800's, it was pretty much impossible for the government (,or anyone else, including an 1800's version of myself,) to pick up on the fact that use of certain drugs leads to crime. However, by the time the 1960's rolled around, there were so many people using drugs that it became apparent that certain drugs (e.g. heroin, marijuana, cocaine) caused a significant portion of the people who used them to do illegal things while they were on the drug. Therefore it was necessary to make possession of those drugs illegal, and to rid those drugs from America.

[Luke S]

LEOs in LEAP are courageous and heroic for opposing bad law.

I disagree. There is nothing heroic about becoming a police officer, and then joining a group of officers that don't want to enforce the laws that they have been called upon by their communities to enforce, especially drug laws, which are very important to enforce.

In my opinion, a police officer who joins an organization of officers that says "We don't want to enforce drug laws" is only one step above an officer who joins and organization of officers that says "We don't want to enforce laws against stealing". Both officers in my opinion are unworthy of their jobs, and the community should not allow them to continue to hold those jobs because how is the community supposed to know that they are still enforcing the laws that they have been called upon to enforce. How does the community know that they aren't taking their organizations' messages one step further and not enforcing those laws.

[highline]

i must confess... i did shine a laser pointer at myself once whilst on-duty.

Wait a minute, you're a cop?

Yes Luke.  And I can tell you that you are severely misguided on your stance on drug laws.

[highline]

Oh, and once again for the record, it's not slave labor, it's community service.

He is against drug prohibition.

LEAP

Oh, so he is, is he?

Officers who are part of LEAP are officers who are basically making the statement that they don't want to do their jobs, and that their jobs should be given to other people who are willing to enforce the laws and protect the community.

No Luke.  I am basically making the statement that enforcing drug prohibition makes our communities far less safer and turns people in to criminals for doing something arbitrary.  I simply cannot remember the last time that I was involved in looking into a major theft, robbery, or burglary and it was not related to someone needing money to get drugs.  These people become violent because the prices of drugs are artificially inflated due to prohibition.

When is the last time you heard of beer distributors shooting it out in the streets?

I am a firm believer in small government.  The only thing that I believe that the government should be doing is enforcing laws that protect people from real crimes committed by others.

[highline]

LEOs in LEAP are courageous and heroic for opposing bad law.

I disagree. There is nothing heroic about becoming a police officer, and then joining a group of officers that don't want to enforce the laws that they have been called upon by their communities to enforce, especially drug laws, which are very important to enforce.

In my opinion, a police officer who joins an organization of officers that says "We don't want to enforce drug laws" is only one step above an officer who joins and organization of officers that says "We don't want to enforce laws against stealing". Both officers in my opinion are unworthy of their jobs, and the community should not allow them to continue to hold those jobs because how is the community supposed to know that they are still enforcing the laws that they have been called upon to enforce. How does the community know that they aren't taking their organizations' messages one step further and not enforcing those laws.

Luke.  I fear your moral compass is severely skewed. 

[highline]

Depends on the department.

They certainly face retaliation.

Midnight shift and not much room for promotion... Especially if the chief is a dick

I have been working midnights for going two years.  I love working the night shift!

Luckily, I work for a police chief who is not only a good administrator...  but he is just a straight up good human being.  He opposes my views and made me aware of such, but he is very respect of my right to have my own opinion in this area.  I know in a few years he is planning on retiring and when that happens, at this point in time, I am planning on getting out.

[Free libertarian]

 I am harboring a huge stash of primo nutmeg.  When it is declared illegal, I will corner the black market.
I will push it hard on every street corner and soon it will lead our youth to experiment with harder spices such as pepper and they'll be quenching their thirst with Vanilla extract, the real stuff, not the imitation cheap stuff!  Spice cabinets will be held under lock and key at Pharmacies.

Trash will litter the streets.
But wait, Lukes "not slaves" will be there to pick it up as pennance for committing a victimless crime.
Luke, the definition of involuntary servitude doesn't change and become "not slavery" just because they
say so.  You are using the same kind of logic "they" used to declare waterboarding "enhanced interrogation". It's torture.   Oh yeah, please explain how a "crime" is committed when there is no victim?

Not to get off topic Luke but you never did explain to me how the U.S. acquired Arizona in another thread. Was that acquisition a victimless crime of manifest destiny?   

[NJLiberty]

As for your comment about the 1800's, even though the use of these drugs were legal in the 1800's, drug use didn't become popularized until the mid-to-late 1900's (specifically the 1960's). So because there were so few people using drugs during the 1800's, it was pretty much impossible for the mafia (,or anyone else, including an 1800's version of myself,) to pick up on the fact that use of certain drugs leads to crime. However, by the time the 1960's rolled around, there were so many people using drugs that it became apparent that certain drugs (e.g. heroin, marijuana, cocaine) caused a significant portion of the people who used them to do illegal things while they were on the drug. Therefore it was necessary to make possession of those drugs illegal, and to rid those drugs from America.

Actually Luke, use of those drugs was rampant in the 1800's and early 1900's. Cocaine, Laudanum (an opiate), Marijuana, etc. were frequently used and some were frequently prescribed for all manner of medicinal purposes. Not all drug laws came from the 1960's Luke. Cocaine was regulated by the Harrison Act in 1914, as were opiates, as part of the Temperance Movement that ultimately led to the prohibition of alcohol as well. Marijuana laws became popular also in the early 1900's, not from a health position, but rather as a racial issue. The laws were targeted at Mexican workers living in the United States. By the 1930's the feds got involved in regulating it. LSD is one of the few drugs that was banned in the 1960s. The increase in the number of drug laws in the 1960s and 1970s and the negative connotations associated with drug use had more to do with cracking down on people who were dissatisfied with what was going on in Washington than it did with reducing crime.

You didn't answer my question though Luke, if the drugs were legal would you still think ill of your drug using neighbors and wish to send them to work camps?

George

[Luke S]

You are using the same kind of logic "they" used to declare waterboarding "enhanced interrogation". It's torture.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but noone was waterboarded except for a few members of Al Qaeda. Just in case you've forgotten, Al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001. Thus I have no problem with Al Qaeda being made to feel the pain that they made those Americans feel on 9/11, who died terrified amongst the smoldering, twisting metal, and the blazing heat and fire of the falling towers, either being incinerated, crushed, vaporized, or falling to their death.

Oh yeah, please explain how a "crime" is committed when there is no victim?

Because there was a law on the books and the criminal broke it, and the law was not an unjust law.

Not to get off topic Luke but you never did explain to me how the U.S. acquired Arizona in another thread. Was that acquisition a victimless crime of manifest destiny?   

I explained it on a different thread:

The war was started because Mexico was being belligerent and was interfering with the U.S. annexation of Texas, which at that time was a free republic which had won its independence from Mexico and wanted to be annexed by the USA. Mexico brought the war upon themselves by interfering with that process in a belligerent manner.

It follows directly that since Mexico brought the war upon themselves, they also brought the loss of Arizona, which was a consequence of that war, upon themselves. As for the part of Arizona that they did not lose through that war, they sold it to the USA through the Gadsden purchase.

[Luke S]

As for your comment about the 1800's, even though the use of these drugs were legal in the 1800's, drug use didn't become popularized until the mid-to-late 1900's (specifically the 1960's). So because there were so few people using drugs during the 1800's, it was pretty much impossible for the mafia (,or anyone else, including an 1800's version of myself,) to pick up on the fact that use of certain drugs leads to crime. However, by the time the 1960's rolled around, there were so many people using drugs that it became apparent that certain drugs (e.g. heroin, marijuana, cocaine) caused a significant portion of the people who used them to do illegal things while they were on the drug. Therefore it was necessary to make possession of those drugs illegal, and to rid those drugs from America.

Actually Luke, use of those drugs was rampant in the 1800's and early 1900's. Cocaine, Laudanum (an opiate), Marijuana, etc. were frequently used and some were frequently prescribed for all manner of medicinal purposes. Not all drug laws came from the 1960's Luke. Cocaine was regulated by the Harrison Act in 1914, as were opiates, as part of the Temperance Movement that ultimately led to the prohibition of alcohol as well. Marijuana laws became popular also in the early 1900's, not from a health position, but rather as a racial issue. The laws were targeted at Mexican workers living in the United States. By the 1930's the feds got involved in regulating it. LSD is one of the few drugs that was banned in the 1960s.

Well George, sometimes it takes society a long time to realize that something needs to be done about a particular social problem. Apparently drug use was one of these instances. So perhaps it took them until the mid 1900's to do something about it, but the point is that at least something finally got done about it.

The increase in the number of drug laws in the 1960s and 1970s and the negative connotations associated with drug use had more to do with cracking down on people who were dissatisfied with what was going on in Washington than it did with reducing crime.

What do you mean "cracking down on people who were dissatisfied with what was going on in Washington." Please elaborate.

You didn't answer my question though Luke, if the drugs were legal would you still think ill of your drug using neighbors and wish to send them to work camps?

George

First of all, these are community service centers, not "work camps".

Secondly, George, I can't speak for what an 1800's version of myself would think. Most people in the 1800's simply did not realize what a big problem this was, or would become once it became more widespread. Perhaps an 1800's version of myself would be no exception, I don't know.

But if it were legalized now, yes I would still think ill of those who use heroin, cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs like that. But at that point, most of my anger would be focused upon the politicians who made it legal. I would thus be spending much, much more energy and time at that point trying to get the politicians who voted for legalization voted out of office, and to get new politicians put in there who would make it illegal once again than I would going around saying "shame on you, you should be in a community service center" to all the drug users.

[Becky Thatcher]

First of all, these are community service centers, not "work camps".

What a perfect example of Orwellian newspeak. 

[NJLiberty]

I suppose with the proper words you can make anything sound less vile than it is.

Luke, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject I see no point to discussing this further as it will only lead to bad blood. At the core we disagree about what freedom means, and that is fine. You don't take it as far as I do, and I'm sure there are others who take it farther than I am comfortable doing. We'll just have to work together on the things on which we agree, and the others, well, we'll part paths on those.

If you're ever in NJ look me up and I'll gladly buy you a beer.

George

[Luke S]

I suppose with the proper words you can make anything sound less vile than it is.

Luke, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree on this subject I see no point to discussing this further as it will only lead to bad blood. At the core we disagree about what freedom means, and that is fine. You don't take it as far as I do, and I'm sure there are others who take it farther than I am comfortable doing. We'll just have to work together on the things on which we agree, and the others, well, we'll part paths on those.

If you're ever in NJ look me up and I'll gladly buy you a beer.

George

Ok George, sounds like a good deal to me.

[Caleb]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but noone was waterboarded except for a few members of Al Qaeda. Just in case you've forgotten, Al Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of over 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001. Thus I have no problem with Al Qaeda being made to feel the pain that they made those Americans feel on 9/11, who died terrified amongst the smoldering, twisting metal, and the blazing heat and fire of the falling towers, either being incinerated, crushed, vaporized, or falling to their death.

Gladly.  I'll fix it for you.   "Correct me if I'm wrong, but no one was waterboarded except for a few alleged members of Al Qaeda, many of whom had been turned over by bounty hunters and were subsequently deemed harmless, some of whom were underage, and all of whom were denied any opportunity to defend themselves, face their accusers, and challenge the charges against them."