What would be ideal act of civil dis in NH?

[Caleb]

Luke, I'm down here near the border. I haven't seen any Mexican military, but I have no problem believing that it happens. I'm more concerned about the Mexican military's incursion into Fort Benning, Georgia than I am with their drug running. From what I've seen of Central/South American mafias, they are all knee deep in drugs.

I think you ask a good question. Why don't US federales do something about the known drug smuggling? Is it possible that Bush doesn't know? That hardly seems likely that MSNBC knows something that he doesn't know, because MSNBC only learned about it by seeing DEA reports. Presumably the DEA would report to Bush, no? And that guy in the video says he wrote the White House about it and got back a form letter. So we know that at least one person wrote Bush about it, and presumably someone in his White House watches MSNBC, so even if all other efforts failed, at least he could learn about it when you did. So no, he must know about it.

My belief is that he lets it happen because he wants it to happen.  Drug running is a time honored CIA pastime too. I'd wager his boys are getting a sizeable cut. If you've got another theory to explain his negligence and incompetence, I'd love to hear it.

[Luke S]

Luke, I'm down here near the border. I haven't seen any Mexican military, but I have no problem believing that it happens. I'm more concerned about the Mexican military's incursion into Fort Benning, Georgia than I am with their drug running. From what I've seen of Central/South American mafias, they are all knee deep in drugs.

I think you ask a good question. Why don't US federales do something about the known drug smuggling? Is it possible that Bush doesn't know? That hardly seems likely that MSNBC knows something that he doesn't know, because MSNBC only learned about it by seeing DEA reports. Presumably the DEA would report to Bush, no? And that guy in the video says he wrote the White House about it and got back a form letter. So we know that at least one person wrote Bush about it, and presumably someone in his White House watches MSNBC, so even if all other efforts failed, at least he could learn about it when you did. So no, he must know about it.

My belief is that he lets it happen because he wants it to happen.  Drug running is a time honored CIA pastime too. I'd wager his boys are getting a sizeable cut. If you've got another theory to explain his negligence and incompetence, I'd love to hear it.

Yes as a matter of fact I do have another theory, Caleb. I have often heard that with the Iraq and Afganistan wars going on, we are literally only one conflict away from a draft. Bush and Cheney probably fear that if they did send the US Military out to fight the Mexican Military when the Mexican Military invades the US, it could be seen by Mexico City as the commencement of a formal war between the US and Mexico, so they would send even more troops, and before you know it, the US and Mexico are at war. And at that point we would have to have a draft, because the all-volunteer military simply could not handle Afganistan, Iraq, and Mexico all at the same time. But the problem is that at this point, with all this leftist antiwar propaganda floating around, for the government to reinstate the draft would be political suicide for them. So we're stuck, and Mexico knows this, and are taking advantage of it.

Now that aside for a moment, my dad is sitting here and my dad said that he didn't know about the Mexican Military stuff, but he knows that all these other presidents and government officials knew about the drug smuggling, and it's been happening for decades, and nobody has ever done anything about it. And my dad said that he doesn't doubt that this stuff about the Mexican Military going back and forth across the border to assist drug smugglers is true.

There are some people who believe that the War on Terror is somehow "Bush's War" or "The Neocons' War. Well I think that's an absolute falsehood. I think that the duty to defend the USA is a duty that each and every person living in the USA has (except children and those too old to fight, of course), and if all the government does is send a form letter when Border Patrol is being shot at by the Mexican Military, then it becomes the duty of the citizens of the USA to defend the USA and to defend Border Patrol the next time the Mexican Military comes in here and does that.

So even though this news is true about all these presidents not doing anything about the border situation, and the government military doing nothing about the border situation and the Mexican Military, then that doesn't mean that now I'm going to be a liberal, a libertarian, an anarchist, or anything like that. It means that I'm going to be the same red blooded conservative that I have always been, and in fact even more so.  What it means is that each and every American has even more of a duty to defend that border against the Mexican Military than ever before.

[Free libertarian]

 Luke, you speak of "duty". Doesn't the President swear to uphold the Constitution? Isn't that his sworn "duty"?

  "We don't do things that way anymore" (declaring war by Congress)...YEAH no kidding!  Poor excuse.
   Shouldn't somebody at least amend the "g-damn" piece of paper if  "we don't do things that way anymore"?   What about warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act, prohibition, airport gestapo, etc. aren't those things unconstitutional ....doesn't any of that concern you? Can the president pick and choose which laws he'll follow? Is he special or "more equal" than you and I ?

Concerning a duty to defend this country. When was this country ever under attack by another nation?
A bunch of Saudi's crashed some planes into buildings and we have virtual lock down in this country
and an excuse for endless war.   Don't think the U.S. is into world domination? Then explain why we have the Monroe doctrine in this hemisphere yet we maintain 700 bases overseas...slight contradiction? Do as we say not as we do?  How many people have died in Iraq Luke? How many Iraqi's who had nothing to do with 9/11...doesn't that matter?   You want to know the meaning of "terror"? Watching bombs drop from the sky on your house and being considered collateral damage as a piece of burned flesh in a war over money. That's terror.  We don't belong in foreign countries, never did. You talk of the Mexican Military border jumping in Texas...how many borders does the U.S. military cross Luke? Isn't that a contradiction?   
   
  Druggies? You've been brain washed. Legal drugs kill far more people than illegal plants. In fact I defy you to produce statistics otherwise.  I see you have not researched the economic reasons for Marijuana / Hemp prohibition. They were made illegal because Hemp represented a very real economic threat to entrenched powers, cotton, timber etc.  Marijuana is pretty benign yet we've built a prison industry around it in this "free" country.  I encourage you to do unbiased research you may learn something...You should google hemp prohibition and do some reading, seriously. 

If birthday cake was suddenly made illegal Luke, would you agree with that?  Hey why not ? You know damn well it's fattening, the frosting rots your teeth and all those candles create  a fire hazard.  I defy you to say birthday cake is good for anybody. Quick outlaw birthday cake. Or at least make it a misdemeanor to posess it without a permit.  Heck tax it . Think of the tax revenue we could buy more bombs with...every year we all have a b-day with the obligatory cake, a never ending stream of revenue . Tax the cake, fuel the war machine and U.S. imperialism...brilliant.  Plus birthday cake is a gateway food to ice cream too and some ice cream is made with unpasteurized milk. Criminal.  Throw the offending cows in jail for producing unpasteurized milk. Besides cows eat plants, pot is a plant.  It's a vicious circle Luke. Okay all kidding aside, if birthday cake were illegal would you still eat it? (serious question you'll learn why later)   
           
Nobody is telling you to smoke pot. I'll even say it may NOT be good for you. Nobody is telling you to drink alcohol either. In a free country those are decisions individuals make for themselves.  You continue to fall back on a propaganda term "druggie".  Open your eyes.  Prozac, Ritalin, Viagara and countless other drugs are "normalized" and sold for big profit.  Are people who take prescription drugs "druggies" in your book Luke? Alcohol is the most abused drug in our society and responsible for many deaths.  Are people who are addicted to caffeine "druggies"? Ever talk to anybody about caffeine withdrawal symptoms? They are real, caffeine is a drug isn't it? Is Dunkin Donuts a "caffeine dealer"?  You can overdose on caffeine... why haven't we outlawed coffee?  Because it's none of the gooferments business how much coffee you drink that's why!           

Luke do you believe you own your body or does your gooferment own it? I'd like to think I own mine and I believe my "duty" is to leave others alone, ie not try to exert my influence over somebody who's leaving me alone.  It's a simple concept, both for individuals and as a national foreign policy.  What if that concept became a bit more popular, wouldn't the world be a better place?
  So again, Luke, who owns your body?  Can one country own the right to tell another country what to do?

 



     

[Luke S]

Luke, you speak of "duty". Doesn't the President swear to uphold the piece of paper? Isn't that his sworn "duty"?

Yes it is. And I will admit that Bush has not been perfect at it, but perfection cannot be expected from any human being.

"We don't do things that way anymore" (declaring war by Congress)...YEAH no kidding!  Poor excuse.
   Shouldn't somebody at least amend the "g-damn" piece of paper if  "we don't do things that way anymore"?

Once again, we have Senatorial Approval now in the place of written declarations of war. It works procedurally in the exact same way as the formal declarations of war did. The Senate takes a vote, and if the ayes have it, then the president can go to war, and if the nays have it, then the President cannot go to war. (Unless he is using the 60 Day War Powers Act, which was a necessary piece of legislation given the fact that we are no longer living in the 18th Century, and the nature of war is different now.) Same procedure, minus the written piece of paper.

Actually you know what Free Libertarian, now that I think about it, you might be right. Because a formal declaration of war will help everybody to be on the same page as to who exactly the enemy is, and what the enemy did to deserve war. It would be the icing on the cake if a couple sentences were added in about the objectives of the war, too. Clarity about who the enemy is, and what needs to be done to defeat that enemy is the first step to winning a war. And that needs to start right with the declaration. One of the things that has always frustrated me about the War on Terror is the lack of clarity on who exactly the enemy is, and the lack of clarity on what needs to be done to defeat that enemy. It's worrysome, too, because lack of clarity on those two things can cause a war to be lost. I know that one of our enemies is Al Qaeda. There are many smaller CIA operative groups that are our enemies that I don't know the names of off the top of my head. Point being, this all needs to be put in a format where each and every citizen can pull it up on the internet, or get a hard copy, and know exactly who the enemy is, what the enemy did to deserve war, and what we are planning to do to defeat that enemy. And that is what a declaration of war is. And that is what we need.

So you're right on this one, Free Libertarian. You're right. And I'll leave it on that good note, since I'm getting really tired and need to go to sleep. I'll get to the rest of what you wrote tomorrow.

[Luke S]

Ok Free Libertarian, I'm ready to address the rest of what you said.

What about warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act, prohibition, airport gestapo, etc. aren't those things unpiece of paperal ....doesn't any of that concern you? Can the president pick and choose which laws he'll follow? Is he special or "more equal" than you and I ?

Warrentless wiretaps are a tough issue. While technically unconstitutional, it can be hard to doubt the benefit of being able to listen to terrorists when terrorists are making phone calls. It might even save us from the next Sept 11. Given the stakes involved here, frankly there's no time for a constitutional amendment right now. This has to be done immediately.

As for the Patriot Act, some provisions of the Patriot Act are Unconstitutional, whereas others are not. The part of the Patriot Act that allows "sneak and peek", where the police can search people's houses without notifying the people that they were there, is blatantly unconstitutional, and I can't really see how it will help against terrorists. Same thing with the provision which allows the government to look at your credit card payments. Terrorists can just pay cash when they find out that the government is tracking credit card payments. So that will be an ineffective measure against terrorists.

Concerning a duty to defend this country. When was this country ever under attack by another nation?

It's under attack right now by the Mexican Military who are going back and forth across the border and are shooting at Border Patrol.

A bunch of Saudi's crashed some planes into buildings and we have virtual lock down in this country

Which was the appropriate response to having planes crashed into the WTC and knocking down the WTC and killing 3,000 people.

and an excuse for endless war.

Baloney. There's no such thing as an "endless war". That's leftist propaganda. The war will end soon enough.

Don't think the U.S. is into world domination? Then explain why we have the Monroe doctrine in this hemisphere yet we maintain 700 bases overseas...slight contradiction? Do as we say not as we do?

The Monroe Doctrine forbade European colonization in the Americas. The military bases we have are military bases, not colonization bases. Our overseas military bases are not going to magically "expand" into colonies. So no, it's not a contradiction at all.

How many people have died in Iraq Luke? How many Iraqi's who had nothing to do with 9/11...doesn't that matter?   You want to know the meaning of "terror"? Watching bombs drop from the sky on your house and being considered collateral damage as a piece of burned flesh in a war over money. That's terror.

The verdict is still out whether this war is "over money". Caleb claims it is. But even if Bush sent the military to war over money, it is still possible for the military to "make lemonade out of a lemon", and get rid of as many Al Qaeda in Iraq as they can.

We don't belong in foreign countries, never did. You talk of the Mexican Military border jumping in Texas...how many borders does the U.S. military cross Luke? Isn't that a contradiction?

Well if it is a contradiction, then too bad.
   

Druggies? You've been brain washed. Legal drugs kill far more people than illegal plants. In fact I defy you to produce statistics otherwise.

Why? You haven't produced any statistics in favor.

I see you have not researched the economic reasons for Marijuana / Hemp prohibition. They were made illegal because Hemp represented a very real economic threat to entrenched powers, cotton, timber etc.  Marijuana is pretty benign yet we've built a prison industry around it in this "free" country.  I encourage you to do unbiased research you may learn something...You should google hemp prohibition and do some reading, seriously.

That's bogus liberaltarian propaganda. Hemp was made illegal because hemp can be smoked and is a drug which is similar to marijuana, so if people figure that it's okay to smoke hemp, then people will figure that it's okay to smoke marijuana, which it's not.

If birthday cake was suddenly made illegal Luke, would you agree with that?  Hey why not ? You know damn well it's fattening, the frosting rots your teeth and all those candles create  a fire hazard.  I defy you to say birthday cake is good for anybody. Quick outlaw birthday cake. Or at least make it a misdemeanor to posess it without a permit.  Heck tax it . Think of the tax revenue we could buy more bombs with...every year we all have a b-day with the obligatory cake, a never ending stream of revenue . Tax the cake, fuel the war machine and U.S. imperialism...brilliant.  Plus birthday cake is a gateway food to ice cream too and some ice cream is made with unpasteurized milk. Criminal.  Throw the offending cows in jail for producing unpasteurized milk. Besides cows eat plants, pot is a plant.  It's a vicious circle Luke. Okay all kidding aside, if birthday cake were illegal would you still eat it? (serious question you'll learn why later)

What I and everybody else would probably do in that case is get around the law by having the birthday celebration on the birthday except for the cake, and having the cake at some other time of year, and calling it something else besides "birthday cake".
           

Nobody is telling you to smoke pot. I'll even say it may NOT be good for you. Nobody is telling you to drink alcohol either. In a free country those are decisions individuals make for themselves.  You continue to fall back on a propaganda term "druggie".  Open your eyes.  Prozac, Ritalin, Viagara and countless other drugs are "normalized" and sold for big profit.  Are people who take prescription drugs "druggies" in your book Luke?

No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.

Alcohol is the most abused drug in our society and responsible for many deaths.  Are people who are addicted to caffeine "druggies"? Ever talk to anybody about caffeine withdrawal symptoms? They are real, caffeine is a drug isn't it? Is Dunkin Donuts a "caffeine dealer"?  You can overdose on caffeine... why haven't we outlawed coffee?  Because it's none of the gooferments business how much coffee you drink that's why!

The reason why it is none of the "gooferment's" business how much caffine people drink is because drinking caffine does not have the potential to cause people to look for harder drugs, to hurt people, or to engage in other destructive behavior.

Luke do you believe you own your body or does your gooferment own it?

Irrespective of who owns your body, you have no right to be a druggie.

I'd like to think I own mine and I believe my "duty" is to leave others alone, ie not try to exert my influence over somebody who's leaving me alone.  It's a simple concept, both for individuals and as a national foreign policy.  What if that concept became a bit more popular, wouldn't the world be a better place?

That should be the foreign policy. In fact that was the foreign policy in the early years of the USA. Yes it would make the world a better place if that was every nation's foreign policy. But there's a reason why that policy works for only nations and not for individuals. If one nation all the other way on another hemisphere of the world is doing nasty things, where everybody is doing drugs, throwing trash on the streets, even more extreme things like pedophilia and child marriage, then that doesn't impact me because I'm all the way on the other side of the world.

Now on an individual level, this policy that you just mentioned does not work.  What about politicians who accept bribes from lobbyists? That sort of thing certainly impacts me, even though I haven't directly had force used on me.

So again, Luke, who owns your body?

I actually don't know. When I was a kid my parents always tried to tell me that they owned it because I was born from my mom's egg and my dad's sperm. What I did to get around that was go to my grandparents, who are the "owners of the owners" so to speak, who happen to have a much more open outlook on life and who permit almost anything, and then got their permission to do X, when the "owners" denied me permission to do X. I have a grandmother that is so permissive she would permit basically anything but going on a murder spree, so I usually went to her. It got to be such that whenever that when my parents said that I should do something, or not do something on account of "they own me", I would call up the "owner" of my dad, my grandmother, and she would permit whatever they denied permission for, and often also say that I didn't have to do what they said I had to do. Even if she didn't, one of the other two living grandparents that I had invariably did. So pretty soon they quit saying "Do/Don't do X: We own you", because it ceased to get them any results.

Can one country own the right to tell another country what to do?

No it can't. Which is one of the reasons why the UN is an absolutely abhorrent organization. You think the USA wants dominance? The UN is what wants dominance. I wish so bad that I could go to Burning Porcuipine Festival and see the nightly UN flag burnings. But you probably won't let me Conservatism is all too often solely a suit-and-tie affair, and that's why the Republicans are doing so badly with young voters. The only two conservative events that I can think of right now that had any pizazz in them were the Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day at some college I can't remember, and the Anti-Feminist Bake Sale at Bowling Green U. in Ohio. And both of those happened right now in 2008. In previous years there was practically nothing but formal suit-and-tie events. Now when I saw you guys burning those Social Security cards and burning those UN flags, I thought you were far-right conservatives that had finally gotten the message that in order to fight the UN and Social Security, there needs to be some pizazz in the act. But nope you weren't, you were libertarians.

So I guess we're back to the Antifeminist Bake Sale and the Catch An Illegal Immigrant Day being the only two things with any pizazz in them that conservatives did. Oh, and me, who lit feminist logos on fire, "diversity" logos on fire, and a picture of a social security card on fire (I was inspired by Lauren Canario). And who is planning to light other leftist things on fire any minute now.

[John Edward Mercier]

First, Mexico is a supplier of oil.
Second, the US did something for the drug trade... this was the formation of Zeta teams.
Thirdly, the US Constitution has a provision for the suspension of Habeus Corpus, control of interstate commerce, and those that engage in it.
There is no... repeat no provision for privacy.

The only thing we believe the Administration may be guilty of voilating is treaty. Geneva Convention to be specific.

[NJLiberty]

No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.

Careful there Luke. There are a lot of prescription drugs that can cause you to do much worse things than you describe. Just because it is prescribed by a "professional" neither makes it safe nor appropriate for one to take. The medical profession is under tremendous pressure (and incentive) from the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the patients, to prescribe medications, whether are necessarily indicated or not. Look at the ridiculous number of children on things like Ritalin.

George

[Luke S]

No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.

Careful there Luke. There are a lot of prescription drugs that can cause you to do much worse things than you describe. Just because it is prescribed by a "professional" neither makes it safe nor appropriate for one to take. The medical profession is under tremendous pressure (and incentive) from the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the patients, to prescribe medications, whether are necessarily indicated or not. Look at the ridiculous number of children on things like Ritalin.

George

George, I'm not trying to say that the system is perfect. Your point about Ritalin is well noted, and in fact it is a point that I addressed earlier on this forum:

George, you are absolutely correct. Ritalin is essentially cocaine which they give to kids in schools to chemically force them to shut up since so many teachers nowadays have absolutely zero teaching ability. I've even heard of incidents where social workers have said to parents "If you don't give you kid ritalin, I'll have you declared a 'bad parent'", or something disgusting like that. Any social worker who does anything like that should be fired.

In fact, most social workers should be immediately fired, since most of them are nothing but a burden on society at best, and a destructive scourge at worst.

The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.

[Caleb]

The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.

In my state doctors prescribe pot for pain, and the federal government, in defiance of the 10th amendment to their god-damned piece of paper, still attacks those who have received a prescription.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Caleb said god-dam!

[NJLiberty]

No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.

Careful there Luke. There are a lot of prescription drugs that can cause you to do much worse things than you describe. Just because it is prescribed by a "professional" neither makes it safe nor appropriate for one to take. The medical profession is under tremendous pressure (and incentive) from the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the patients, to prescribe medications, whether are necessarily indicated or not. Look at the ridiculous number of children on things like Ritalin.

George

George, I'm not trying to say that the system is perfect. The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.

But what you said Luke was that prescription drugs were proven not to lead to other destructive behaviors. That is nowhere near the truth. There are many, many prescription drugs that are much worse than what the "druggies" as you call them are taking. And yes Luke, people take prescription drugs on a whim all the time. The only difference between "druggie drugs" and prescription drugs is that the gov't has officially endorsed the prescription ones, in return for millions of dollars in fees, and condemned the others. Just remember, most of your "druggie drugs" used to be prescribed by doctors for specific legitimate medical purposes at one point in time Luke. They still would be since they are very effective, except the gov't has arbitrarily decided that they shouldn't be used.

George

[Luke S]

The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.

In my state doctors prescribe pot for pain, and the federal mafia, in defiance of the 10th amendment to their god-damned piece of paper, still attacks those who have received a prescription.

I don't think that's true, Caleb. What if those people were to take that medical marijuana in California, then get addicted to marijuana, then go to another state and because they are addicted, seek out marijuana in that other state and consequently do illegal things in that other state. The federal government would have a compelling interest covered by the Constitution in stopping that from happening, now wouldn't they. Caleb, what you view as "attacking" those with a prescription is in reality a legitimate upholding of law and order within the United States.

[Luke S]

No, because people who take prescription drugs are taking drugs which have been proven not to lead to other destructive behavior like hurting people and throwing bottles in the street, and have been prescribed by a licensed doctor, not just taken on a whim.

Careful there Luke. There are a lot of prescription drugs that can cause you to do much worse things than you describe. Just because it is prescribed by a "professional" neither makes it safe nor appropriate for one to take. The medical profession is under tremendous pressure (and incentive) from the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the patients, to prescribe medications, whether are necessarily indicated or not. Look at the ridiculous number of children on things like Ritalin.

George

George, I'm not trying to say that the system is perfect. The point though is that prescription drugs are different from druggie drugs in that they are prescribed by doctors for a specific legitimate medical purpose, and they are not taken "on a whim". In fact, in some states there are also prescription drug monitoring programs to ensure that everything runs smoothly. Ohio and Michigan are among them.

But what you said Luke was that prescription drugs were proven not to lead to other destructive behaviors. That is nowhere near the truth. There are many, many prescription drugs that are much worse than what the "druggies" as you call them are taking. And yes Luke, people take prescription drugs on a whim all the time. The only difference between "druggie drugs" and prescription drugs is that the gov't has officially endorsed the prescription ones, in return for millions of dollars in fees, and condemned the others. Just remember, most of your "druggie drugs" used to be prescribed by doctors for specific legitimate medical purposes at one point in time Luke. They still would be since they are very effective, except the gov't has arbitrarily decided that they shouldn't be used.

George

Once again George, I am by no means saying that the system is perfect. No system can possibly be perfect. Currently legal prescription drugs that you refer to as "much worse than what the 'druggies' as you call them are taking" should be made illegal. (Of course if somebody is infirm in the hospital and needs the drug to keep them alive, that is an obvious exception) That will solve any inconsistency in the law which you've highlighted regarding that matter.

Your statement about people taking prescription drugs on a whim, however, is false. In fact, it is tautologically false. Prescription drugs, by definition, require a doctor's prescription given for a legitimate medical reason for one to get ahold of them and start taking them. If they were obtained and taken on a whim, then they wouldn't be called prescription drugs. They would be called something else.

[Free libertarian]

 Luke glad we agree no country should tell another what to do. My hope is that soon you will agree that no person has the right  to tell another what to do. You weren't sure if you owned your own body.
Well YOU own your body. Just because that right has been stolen bit by bit doesn't make it any less true.

You wanted stats
 
USA Typical year
Tobacco deaths - 400,000
Alcohol deaths      80,000
Heroin                  2,000
Cocaine                2,200
Aspirin                  2,000
Cannabis                   0

Califano Report - Joseph Califano former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
President of CASA at time of stats

Hemp prohibition. I can see you haven't researched it and want  to continue to believe what
you believe.  William Randolph Hearst, Mello Bank, Dupont, Cotton Industry, Emperor Wears No Clothes
Check Hemp prohibition using wikepedia...what will it hurt?
My point about hemp is it isn't marijuana, it's a useful substance and threatens entrenched businesses, lot of them. Why is that so hard to believe. Pot is fairly benign, smoke it or don't, it's safer than alcohol but that doesn't mean it's for everybody...cool.

Concerning a base vs colonization...what's the first thing you do if you want to colonize a country? Establish a base right?

Concerning your attending Porcupine events...not my call to say whether you can or can't.
I'm a believer in freedom, come if you want to.  I can't speak for you or others.
If you do go, you might find me PICKING UP trash as I'm the kind of guy that likes to make myself useful and help out.       

[John Edward Mercier]

Good post right there.

The prohibition on some substances over others is completely societal more. The country went through Prohibition of a substance that currently ranks second on your list.

As for the bases overseas... 'projection of power'. Its less necessary at the current time than when transport was very slow and limited. Currently many of those bases are desired by the host country for different reasons... mostly economics.