 |
| |
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
Bezerker, you make a lot of good points concerning the war on drugs. What you did not address is that some illegal drugs are highly addictive and can destroy lives, both of the victim and their families. Rush is said to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on pills. He is enormously wealthy and could afford it. But still he suffered. He lost his hearing because of the pills. But still he could not stop.
I am of two minds on this issue. I recognize that we could go a long way towards ending crime and corruption of the police by legalizing drugs. But the this is not to say that drug use should be considered legitimate.
Both my parents ended their lives as alcoholics. During their last years, I hated going home or having them over. They were not there. It was bad.
I was a juror at a trial where a father-in-law was accused of molesting. As the trial went on, it came out that both the mother and the father-in-law were heroin addicts. The amount of drug-induced abuse of the kids in that family by both the mother and father was apalling.
It is not true, therefor, that the only argument against drugs is the potential for causing harm to others. Harm is almost inevitable when drugs are involved because drugs always involve getting high. This might be acceptable only for singles in the privacy of their own home. It is not acceptable where kids are involved, or where someone has the lives of others in their charge, like doctors, pilots, train conductors, police, etc., etc., etc. Could you accept, for example, a president of the United States with a drug habit for example?
But, again, the war on drugs does involve a significant lowering our our constitutional rights, and this is wrong. It does make a lot of criminals who deal drugs. It does make illegal activity that is harmless when conducted in private by singles.
To me, the jury is still out on this issue. I really would like to hear what Rush has to say in three weeks.
Also, I do appreciate you confirming that Rush Limbaugh has not been hammering the drug issue in recent years. Obviously, he would be a hypocrite if he did. But he did not. So, when we hear from the media that he was an apostle in the war on drugs in recent years, you are hearing a false charge.
Rush is a victim, just as are all who become addicted. I agree with you that we should not punish victims, but should treat them.
Last edited by Ned on 17-10-2003 at 11:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
"The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites."
Is this a profound insight? Or is there another reason why philadering, draft dodging, lying, weasingly, appeasing liberals are not hypocrites? |
Where Coulter's right: liberals don't present themselves as priggish pillars of moral rectitude, nor do they tend to make moral rectitude their yardstick for judging others. That's actually central to liberal political philosophy. So yes, when conservatives try to shove their morality down everyone else's throat, and then are forced to admit that they can't live by the rules they expect everyone else to obey, liberals take a certain delight in yelling "hypocrite."
Where Coulter's wrong (not surprisingly, this will be a longer list):
1) Hypocrisy isn't the only, or even primary, sin that liberals care about. Martin Luther King didn't crusade against hypocricy, nor did Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, or Paul Wellstone. Liberals care about racism. Libreals care about the violence of poverty. Liberals care about social justice. The problem here is probably one of semantics: for Coulter, I supect, "draft dodging" is a sin, but racism and social injustice aren't. Interesting, no?
2) Liberals are subject to charges of hypocrisy, just as conservatives are. A liberal who belongs to an all-white country club is subject to that charge. A liberal who not only takes donations from big business, but then fights against pro-labor legislation on their behalf, is subject to that charge. Robert Byrd is still being tagged as a hypocrite for having once belonged to the Klan. But Coulter apparently doesn't notice this, probably because she sees nothing wrong with racial exclusion, union busting, or wearing a white sheet from time to time.
3) All politician lie, all politicians are weasels, all polticians defend themselves and their bretehren when charged with lying and weaseling. I'd challenge Coulter or anyone to find evidence that liberals defend lying and weaseling as acts (as opposed to defending liars and weasels, which is a bi-partisan activity). That's just solipsism, and a smear.
In the end, what Coulter and other conservatives just don't get is that people delight in seeing smug self-righteousness punished -- and smug self-righteousness is a core trait of conservatives (you can also find it in liberals, but it's almost always balanced by paralyzing self-doubt and fuzzy relativism).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mrmitchell
Ann Coulter is the most insane person I've ever heard of that did not use religion to back up their insanity (which excludes Falwell, Robertson, etc). |
I assume you have never heard of Larouche?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Ned: Anyone with a high school education should be able to understand the gross fallacy of that piece. It is probably the worst overgeneralization that I have ever read. |
 OK, Mr. High-School-Or-Better Education, please show how her specific cases of false accusations against conservatives, character assassinations against Limbaugh, and pandering to the womanizers and unindicted criminals on the left are generalizations, much less "the worst overgeneralization you have ever read."
 If anything, Coulter was restrained by lack of space for enumerating all the examples of liberalism's moral slackness towards their compatriots' hypocrisies and disproportionate or false accusations of hypocrisy against conservatives. As Berz said, she didn't bring up liberal hypocrisy at tolerating Jesse Jackson or their empty accusations against Bill Bennett.
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you call us evil for taking drugs, but you are secretly taknig drugs yourself, you're a hypocrite. What's so hard to understand. |
 If you can cite one example where Rush criticized people who got addicted to post-op painkillers for you would have a point. There have been numerous cases of celebrities going into rehab or even dieing from prescription painkillers, but Rush didn't blast them or hold them as comparable to users of illegal narcotics or pot.
 You guys can only keep repeating one quote, from 8 years ago, out of 15 years of broadcasting.
 You're wrong, get used to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
But I'd ask Ann what sin Jesus condemned the most often... Answer? Hypocrisy. Is Jesus a liberal now? |
 The hypocrites that Jesus condemned were those who take the name of God yet strive against God by their actions. Maybe you should reread those passages instead of assuming Jesus was using "hypocrite" as a generalization and condemning all touched with that broad brush.
So when Christians condemn Swaggart, they are acting righteously because he is a hypocrite of that calibre. If the Christian community had not held Swaggart accountable they'd be as bad as the liberals. But they did condemn him; QED.
quote:
If liberals don't condemn these behaviors, they are by definition, not hypocrites. But that raises a set of different accusations regarding ther character... |
 Isn't that Coulter's whole point? But apparently you are more interested in attacking Coulter than reading what she has written. Or maybe you just find it distasteful that Coulter is right, by your own inadvertant admission.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Drake - quote:
This wouldn't make you a hypocrite; it would mean you were immoral by your own standards. If you claimed that murder was moral in your case only, however, then you would be a hypocrite.
I don't think Rush has said his drug abuse was not immoral and stupid, so I fail to see the hypocrisy. |
But immoral by my standard is "do as I say, not as I do". You can't say murder is immoral and that murderers should be punished only to take a different position when you become the murderer. Is Rush demanding he be punished now? No, he appears to be taking steps to avoid punishment. Murder is inherently hypocritical... As for Rush, he hasn't come out with proclamations of what a scumbag he is. I've heard how he has referred to drug users and we don't see him applying that standard to himself now that he's in the same boat as the people he's been defaming.
Ned - quote:
What you did not address is that some illegal drugs are highly addictive and can destroy lives, both of the victim and their families. |
That was a list of reasons to oppose the drug war, not a list of reasons to support it. Furthermore, what you describe is happening now and drugs are illegal. Using the results of a drug war to argue in favor of that drug war is illogical. However, what you describe will happen regardless of whether or not drugs are legal. The main question, for those who view the world in "utilitarian" terms and not moral terms, remains - how does the legality or illegality of drugs affect consumption rates. If consumption would skyrocket under legalisation, then obviously proponents of the drug war have a somewhat (utilitarian) valid argument. If consumption remains comparable or even goes down, then drug war proponents don't have even their speculative argument. And if they don't even have that, they have nothing...
quote:
Rush is said to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on pills. He is enormously wealthy and could afford it. But still he suffered. He lost his hearing because of the pills. But still he could not stop. |
If he knew there was a connection between hearing loss and Oxycontin abuse, he may have stopped. We don't know for sure... Some people just lack the discipline to stop addiction, that doesn't mean the substance is uncontrollably addictive. I've used all sorts of drugs in my life and nothing compared with tobacco wrt addictiveness.
quote:
I am of two minds on this issue. I recognize that we could go a long way towards ending crime and corruption of the police by legalizing drugs. But the this is not to say that drug use should be considered legitimate. |
If illegitimacy translates into illegality, we'll still have the problems resulting from the drug war. If you're saying drug use should be condemned, but legal, that would be the moral position if drug use deserves to be condemned. It doesn't deserve to be condemned though, just what some people do under the influence.
quote:
Both my parents ended their lives as alcoholics. During their last years, I hated going home or having them over. They were not there. It was bad. |
Sorry to hear that, my dad was an alcohlic and a violent one at that, albeit a functional one.
quote:
I was a juror at a trial where a father-in-law was accused of molesting. As the trial went on, it came out that both the mother and the father-in-law were heroin addicts. The amount of drug-induced abuse of the kids in that family by both the mother and father was apalling. |
I reject the cause and effect you've drawn. Using a drug doesn't turn a non-molestor into a molestor. That's like saying porn turns men into rapists, it just doesn't work that way. Sexual "determination", sexuality stems from deep rooted desires that are either inborn or developed very young. We know a very large percentage of child molestors were themselves molested when they were young. There are no studies showing that heroin use induces pedophilism...
quote:
It is not true, therefor, that the only argument against drugs is the potential for causing harm to others. Harm is almost inevitable when drugs are involved because drugs always involve getting high. |
It is not "inevitable" and "getting high" does not automatically translate into harming others. Tens of millions of Americans have used illegal drugs without hurting others, so you're still harming millions of people for the actions of others.
quote:
This might be acceptable only for singles in the privacy of their own home. It is not acceptable where kids are involved, or where someone has the lives of others in their charge, like doctors, pilots, train conductors, police, etc., etc., etc. Could you accept, for example, a president of the United States with a drug habit for example? |
So people should be jailed for smoking tobacco or drinking booze in front of their kids? Yes, I could accept a President with a drug habit, we've had several I imagine. JFK was one and I suspect there were a few back in the 1700-1800's. Even Bush senior and FDR were on some drugs for their condition... As for doctors, etc., the drug war doesn't prevent all these people from using drugs. That's the problem with your arguments, you point to what will happen if drugs are legalised and ignore that it's already happening. Legalisation doesn't mean people get to work at their jobs under the influence.
quote:
But, again, the war on drugs does involve a significant lowering our our constitutional rights, and this is wrong. It does make a lot of criminals who deal drugs. It does make illegal activity that is harmless when conducted in private by singles. |
And that is immoral.
quote:
To me, the jury is still out on this issue. I really would like to hear what Rush has to say in three weeks. |
Me too, but I quoted him from a Playboy interview and he was asked if he should have been punished for using pot and he said, "no, because I was a conservative who was experimenting". That interview was from the mid 1990's so even then he was making up excuses for why his previous behavior was somehow special. And his attempt to save his butt now, that "I will fully co-operate with the authorities in any investigation" bit just turned my stomach. If he was telling the truth, then he's a rat. I would have never turned on people who sold me drugs, it's a matter of honor.
quote:
Also, I do appreciate you confirming that Rush Limbaugh has not been hammering the drug issue in recent years. Obviously, he would be a hypocrite if he did. But he did not. So, when we hear from the media that he was an apostle in the war on drugs in recent years, you are hearing a false charge. |
We disagree on what constitutes hypocrisy. You don't spend years smearing people and advocating harm towards them and get an exemption when you turn out to be one of those people.
quote:
Rush is a victim, just as all who become addicted. I agree with you that we should not punish victims, but should treat them. |
Not against their will. And Rush said he is NOT a victim. Normally I'd applaud him for saying that but he has spent years railing against liberals for making more and more people into "victims" so he may have said that for a reason other than personal responsibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Straybow - quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
If you can cite one example where Rush criticized people who got addicted to post-op painkillers for you would have a point. |
Rush has said people who use illegal drugs should be jailed. He used illegal drugs. In fact, what he did is a felony. I'm not sure pot is a felony...but who knows given the jackasses in Washington
quote:
There have been numerous cases of celebrities going into rehab or even dieing from prescription painkillers, but Rush didn't blast them or hold them as comparable to users of illegal narcotics or pot. |
Rush's drugs weren't prescribed, they were from the black market. And let's deal with moral reality and not interject the subjectiveness of what is legal or illegal, drugs are drugs; and while they aren't identical, certainly it is hypocritical for someone who uses "hillbilly heroin" to gripe about pot smokers.
Now, Ned thinks the possible fact he stopped griping about pot smokers exempts him from charges of hypocrisy. I don't agree, he had to apologise - he had to do a 180 - and he hasn't. He had to come out and apologise to those people before he began using illegal prescription drugs. In fact, it doesn't matter if he was using legal or illegal prescription drugs.
quote:
The hypocrites that Jesus condemned were those who take the name of God yet strive against God by their actions. Maybe you should reread those passages instead of assuming Jesus was using "hypocrite" as a generalization and condemning all touched with that broad brush. |
In that passage, Jesus was talking to people who judge others while being sinners themselves. Before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye, first remove the plank from your own eye (notice the distinction between specks and planks?). Rush claims to be a Christian and he has judged others for doing what he has been doing for the past 5-6 years - using illegal drugs.
quote:
So when Christians condemn Swaggart, they are acting righteously because he is a hypocrite of that calibre. If the Christian community had not held Swaggart accountable they'd be as bad as the liberals. But they did condemn him; QED. |
Yes, and will they now condemn Rush? Some will, some will find a way to exempt him with rationalisations about "pain", etc...
quote:
Isn't that Coulter's whole point? But apparently you are more interested in attacking Coulter than reading what she has written. Or maybe you just find it distasteful that Coulter is right, by your own inadvertant admission. |
You really think my "admission" was inadvertant? Trust me, I knew what I was saying. Maybe you were so intent on attacking me you felt the need to ascribe to me ignorance of my own words... 
If one condones or endorses adultery, they are not a hypocrite for "failing" to condemn adulterers. But while they are not guilty of hypocrisy, they do suffer from a different character flaw - an inability to understand right and wrong wrt adultery.
Btw Straybow, I didn't "attack" Coulter, I "attacked" her logic. If you want "attacks" on Coulter, read some of the other posts. There's no shortage of ad hominems in this thread but none from me.
Last edited by Berzerker on 17-10-2003 at 13:07
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Straybow - quote:
It almost worked, missed this one the first reading. Do you really not know, or have you deluded yourself that falsifying your premise will go unnoticed if you hide it in enough verbiage?
The drugs Limbaugh was taking were 100% legal and FDA approved. They were obtained and used without prescription, which is an illegal action. The difference between illegal drugs and abuse of legal drugs is quantified in law. |
Straybow, it is illegal to use prescription drugs without a prescription. It is illegal to obtain those drugs thru the black market. By definition, the drugs he was using were not legal. Didn't you know pot can be legally prescribed and there are people who have federal approval for pot? Does that mean the people who use pot without that approval are not using an illegal drug?
quote:
Your statement is either uninformed or deliberately twisted to "make your point." If you're going to get on a high horse, make sure your saddle strap is tight or you'll fall off on your face. |
I see, you think the fact he used prescription drugs "illegally" means he wasn't using illegal drugs? Most of us here know the distinction you're making, but we also know it's a distinction without a difference.
 Tell that to the liberals here because many of them are constantly calling me a right wing whacko... I happen to be so "conservative" I'd make you look liberal...
Drake - quote:
Since when are your moral standards the ones other people should go by? |
*sigh* I was using your example. You said a murderer is not a hypocrite for committing murder after claiming that murder is immoral and I said he is unless he comes out and reverses his condemnation of murder before contemplating murder. Limbaugh has never reversed himself regarding drugs, he may have merely toned down his rhetoric more recently.
quote:
He doesn't need to in order to avoid hypocrisy. I doubt he ever said that drug addicts should not use the legal system to try and avoid going to jail. He urged the authorities to place them in jail, which is a different argument. |
So, does he now urge authorities to place him in jail?
quote:
No, it isn't. You can think that murder is immoral, **** up and kill somebody and still think that your act and murder in general are immoral afterwards. There's no hypocrisy there. |
I said murder is inherently immoral. Even murderers don't want to be murdered. I didn't say a murderer must think that murder is immoral to be guilty of hypocrisy, only that the fact he doesn't want to be murdered while murdering someone else makes his act of murder inherently immoral.
quote:
Again, he isn't a hypocrite just because he doesn't go on national TV to call himself a piece of **** addict and beg for prison time. He would be a hypocrite if he attacked the authorities for prosecuting his alleged crimes, since he has urged them to do the same to others in the past, but I haven't seen him do this. |
He's called other illegal drug users names, so, does he now refer to himself in those terms? No. He's called upon the authorities to jail drug users, so, does he now call upon the authorities to jail him? No.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:31
|
|
Gimp - quote:
Am I misunderstanding the Rush case? I was under the impression that he was a drug addict who was repeatedly breaking the law in order to feed his addiction. Was that not the case? |
No, you got it. But Straybow seems to think that using a prescription drug without a prescription is an illegal action but the offender is not using an illegal drug. By his logic, pot smokers are not using an illegal drug because there are people who use pot with prescriptions and federal approval.
Spiffor - quote:
So, if I understand Coulter's argument, she's saying liberals don't have the same moral standards as conservatives, and therefore can not be called "hypocrites" when they're not doing what the conservative morals want them to do ? |
Umm...no, she's saying that liberals conveniently exempt themselves from charges of hypocrisy by not condemning the behaviors she cites. If they don't condemn, e.g., adultery, then they can't be guilty of hypocrisy for committing adultery. Of course, they are guilty of hypocrisy unless they want their spouses to cheat on them
Last edited by Berzerker on 17-10-2003 at 14:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
|
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
Once more, with feeling: liberals aren't immune to charges of hypocrisy. They are immune to hypocrisy on certain issues -- adultery, say -- because they've never come out against adultery to begin with. But by that token, conservatives are immune to charges of hypocrisy when it comes to, say, racism and sexism. If Mitch McConnell and Barbara Boxer both belonged to the same all-white country club, only one of them would be accused of hypocrisy -- and it wouldn't be the Republican.
What drives Coulter and her ilk nuts is that people are far more tolerant of political hypocrisy than they are of personal hypocrisy. And conservatives, with their all-consuming desire to control people's personal lives by demanding puritanical standards of behavior, continually set themselves up for that particular fall. That's why Clinton's approval rating kept going up during the impeachment, and why Gingrich, Livingston, and other conservatives ended up being the only ones damaged by that farce.
Last edited by Rufus T. Firefly on 17-10-2003 at 14:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:31
|
|
Yes, Berz, just ignore the legal difference between illegal abuse of otherwise legal prescription drugs and the use of entirely illegal drugs. You have indeed falsified you premise.
Thanks for making my point that you can only make yours by convenient ignorance.
quote:
certainly it is hypocritical for someone who uses "hillbilly heroin" to gripe about pot smokers. |
Wrong again. That is when Oxycontin is crushed and injected. Oral use at normal dosages (a little more than 2/day for 6 years by the figures cited in I-forget-which-news-story-and-won't-bother-to-search-again) is simply use without a prescription. It isn't even covered by the same legislation. Do try and get your facts straight.
quote:
Before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye, first remove the plank from your own eye… |
Without thumping on it too much, Mt 5-7 / Lk 6 are a compilation of instructions and admonitions for the faithful, not condemnations. The tone is quite gentle. Compare to Mt 23 / Lk 11; that is stern condemnation of hypocrisy.
quote:
Rush claims to be a Christian and he has judged others for doing what he has been doing for the past 5-6 years - using illegal drugs |
Again the factual distinction escapes you… I feel I must ride that point until you at least acknowledge that there is a legal distinction… and even were that not the case you are still wrong. Again, one statement 8 years ago, specifically directed about those drugs classified as illicit (heroin, cocaine, pot, etc), out of 15 years of this particular format of broadcasting. No comparison to Swaggart, I'll let you investigate those facts if they matter to you. Not a convincing argument; no sale today.
quote:
[previously stated by Berz] If liberals don't condemn these behaviors, they are by definition, not hypocrites. But that raises a set of different accusations regarding ther character... |
Coulter's point is that they do condemn those behaviours, but only when spotted in a conservative. Which in fact makes them hypocrites by their own standards. They just refuse to live by their own standards, so they think they aren't hypocrites.
 Get it? If not it is their logic or lack thereof at fault.
quote:
Didn't you know pot can be legally prescribed and there are people who have federal approval for pot? Does that mean the people who use pot without that approval are not using an illegal drug? |
 Those sticky factual distinctions still escape you. In any case, pot is not a product approved by clinical trial according to the FDA. There is no effective way to control dosage or monitor effects in a non-clinical environment, except by extracting essenses such as TCB or whatever and processing them. Pot is therefore not a legal drug. Oxycontin is a legal drug, meeting clinical trial standards overseen by the FDA.
If you think the last round of that legal battle has been fought you are sadly deluded.
quote:
[not addressed to me] He's called other illegal drug users names, so, does he now refer to himself in those terms? |
Again, accusations without merit. Where does Rush use name-calling on those who become addicted to prescription painkillers? Only when he is applying the liberals' standard to their hero JFK, or whichever Hollywood champion of some cause celebre checks in to the Ford clinic. He does that all the time, turning liberals personal attacks back on them. That's half his schtick. He uses "ast" instead of "ask" because of "Ebonics," etc. Hmmm, kinda like what Coulter was doing.
He points out that if a conservative were to check in they'd call him/her a "junkie." Lo, and behold… Rush is right.
 PS: If you are going to quote me, please add the back in. It's there for a reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
If Mitch McConnell and Barbara Boxer both belonged to the same all-white country club, only one of them would be accused of hypocrisy -- and it wouldn't be the Republican. |
Yeah, and only one of them would be called a racist—and it wouldn't be the Democrat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:31
|
|
Berz' great drug war diatribe
1) Wrong, it isn't immoral. There may be immoral things perpetrated by some involved, but that doesn't mean the whole is irrevocably tainted by the part.
2a) Wrong, the Second Amendment does not guarantee any and all individual practices of religion. Religions that use drugs as ancient tradition (e.g., peyote use in certain tribal spiritual rites) are specifically allowed in federal legislation. These are handled case by case.
2b) Complicating drug charges with weapons charges is just another way to raise the probability of conviction due to the level of evidence and proof required in our justice system. The right to bear arms is not to be confused with the right to use arms indiscriminately. Tying drug violence to prescription painkillers is a red herring.
2c) Quartering of soldiers is primarily an imposition equivalent to taxation, or to fines and deprivation of property (or its free use) levied without due process. It is basically a legalized form of pillaging. The side-effect of spying is secondary and I don't know of any specific mention in either the 3rd Amendment or the Federalist Papers and other commentaries on debate in Constitutional Congress. Not that I'm an expert, I have only read excerpts of FP. I reason that if they were to be found in those records they'd be brought out front and center. If I'm wrong, please cite the reference.
2d)  "It was a no-knock raid with a deceitfully obtained warrant (based on the allegation of a meth lab) that caused the tragedy at Waco." Blatantly false, Berz! A whole army was camped on the edge of the cult's property for days. How can you claim this was a "no-knock raid?" Or maybe you are confusing "Waco" with some other event. Please clarify if that is the case.
2e) Please cite where due process is revoked. Your rhetoric here is empty without some facts.
2f) If you want speedy trials do not presume that the drug war is the only clog in the system. Maybe the lawyers who file endless appeals on behalf of DNA-confirmed, unequivocally guilty murderers, rapists, etc are the ones who should be on the receiving end of your ire. As for punishing those opting for jury trials and discouraging jury nullification, the practice antedates the drug war. Do not conflate widespread police and prosecution tactics with the drug war per se.
2g) No, conservatives argue that rights enumerated in the Constitution cannot be warped into anything the reader wishes, even if that reader be a Justice of the Supreme Court. The argument is that rights not enumerated are subject to legislation defining and modifying those rights. The typical example is abortion on demand, which had been regulated by states severally, but were then co-opted by the SCOTUS as a mythical "right to privacy" extrapolated from the Constitution.
2h) Federal laws in the drug war focus almost solely on the distribution end, which is by nature interstate. I suppose that if a defendant can establish that his particular case does not involve drugs grown, processed, or distributed from or through more than one state only that one state would have jurisdiction. For example, drugs in small enough quantity for self-consumption are routinely not treated as a Federal offense; the assumption of distribution does not apply in that case.
3) No, the other choice is to allow the drug cartels to set up petty fiefdoms that rule by might and intimidation as we see in numerous countries around the world. It is the height of naivete to say, "Why can't we all just… get along?" or "if we all just laid down our guns there wouldn't be any more war." Sorry, Virginia, there really are bad guys out there.
4) Agreed, asset forfeiture is widely abused. Do something specific about that instead of whining that the whole drug war is unfair. The case like Donald Scott is one where a claim against the government for redress can be petitioned through a Rep or Senator, either on the state or federal level. Elected officials responsible can be dealt with by various means—petition for recall comes to mind. You must know that actions against the government are going to be slow and difficult, but that is a necessary evil. For all I know the case you cited may have another side that you don't know about (or worse, that you ignore—not that I'm accusing you, but slanted cases start somewhere).
5) Tentatively agree. In a case where Mom is shacked up with some no-good drug pusher I hope a child reports this and can survive the ordeal that follows. Maybe what we need is more caring people to get involved in foster care so that it isn't such a nightmare. Are you volunteering?
6) I don't know statistics about direct causation of fatalities in the US. Are all drunk driving related deaths completely separate from illegal drug use? I don't know. Blood alcohol is often measured by "breathalizer" and no evidence of other drugs is sought. Alcohol and tobacco use are both far more widespread than narcotics use and probably more widespread than pot use. Neither pot nor tobacco can cause accute fatality, while both alcohol and narcotics can. The categories are even on that score. As a percentage of users I'd bet more die of narcotic OD that alcohol poisoning.
7) No comparison between drugs and guns. Ownership of guns is specifically protected. Use of pot and narcotics is not. Empty rhetoric.
8, 9) Post hoc ergo propter hoc: you are assuming that because the rises occured after certain laws were passed there is a causative relationship. Nobody can quantify what murder rates would have been without aggressive law enforcement tactics against narcotics distribution (or alcohol in the 20s). I can, however, cite the examples seen in other countries where smuggling cartels of many sorts are the de facto law.
Violence is not inherent, it is a choice made by those involved. In some cases the violence began as purely political revolution, which then turned to drug trade as an easy means of support. While the US may not have been as susceptible to the extremes seen elsewhere, yet the threat does exist.
In some cases the post hoc premise is flatly wrong. Gang recruitment of minors has always been around. I know a couple guys who were youths involved in gangs in the '50s. In this example the propter hoc does not apply either; minors are recruited for certain tasks in activities unrelated to drugs. All illicit activities can benefit from inconspicuous lookouts and delivery agents, and youths or even children are sometimes used.
10) "Just imagine tha crime wave we'd see if basic food staples were banned with a corresponding inflation of cost" Non sequitur, Berz. Weren't you just arguing that addiction was a problem with self control? You can't have it both ways. You die without food. You only feel like death withdrawing from an addiction.
Not only can you not compare drug price effects to staple prices, but you cannot blame the violence on the prices either. If you can't get enough money, then keep working at whatever you're doing until you can afford your "entertainment." Oh, unless drug use is indeed addicting (at least for a fraction of the population) and precludes the ability to hold out for an indeterminate time. Or unless drug effects preclude the ability to hold down a job. In either case you've just lost about ¾ of the argument. Even still, just about anybody, male or female, can whore for drug money. Commiting violent crime is a choice.
11) "Expansion of government" Which has expanded government more: entitlements, or drug enforcement? Go away, thou irrelevant argument. As for "spying" and reporting income, technically, even bartering is income that is taxable. Only that which you produce for consumption in your own household is not taxable, as long as you don't claim resources used as business expenses. Beat this drum in some other argument.
12) Like the FBI wasn't corrupted by anything else. No agency can long withstand corrupting influence of power. Pretend the drug war is to blame if you like, just don't trot this out as an argument here.
13) To the extent that opiate distribution is separate from other narcotics you have a point: the terrorism that comes from cocaine trade is focused in Columbia and spills over to neighbors. Since it doesn't affect us directly (unless you know people in those countries, as I do) we should mention that terrorism is a by product.
Inasmuch as money can be traced to individuals and countries we are using what resources we have to reduce the flow of oil revenues or other legitimate moneys into terrorism. Are you in favor of using drug policing tactics on a military scale against suppliers of terrorist funds? Sorry, can't be done. You have to either commit to war, or rely on diplomacy. There is essentially nothing in between. Yet another non sequitur.
14) As mentioned before, in S America the drug trade is controlled in part by those who opted for leftist military revolution in the first place, and only took to drug trade because it was easier and more profitable than kidnapping, or smuggling of low-value or low-volume goods. We are, in effect, helping a legitimate military response to infiltration and insurrection, and the conflict might well be worse without our aid.
* Straybow thinks God, this drivel just goes on and on… Berz has obviously done this before. My ability to hash this out is diminishing, but I'll try.
15) Nonsense. Methanol poisoning was more common in the prohibition era, not ethanol poisoning. Overdoses are not caused by contamination. Only inattention on the part of the distributer or user, or possibly deliberate action by one of those parties, will result in OD. Do you have hard stats on drug poisoning due to contamination due to lack of regulatory attention that a legal drug would incur? Doubt it.
16) Berz says, "I don't think the drug war has done any good, therefore it hasn't done any good." Sell that line if you can, but I'm not buying.
17) Gateway behavior is well established in psychology. For example, being abused as a child sometimes results in the victim becoming an abuser later in life. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, even verbal abuse. We are delicate creatures in that respect. The combination of desensitizing and sociopathic pleasure are hard for some people to resist.
Violence in particular has this "gateway" effect, with one type of violent behavior sometimes leading to escalation. Non-violent rape (using alcohol or drugs to incapacitate the victim) does sometimes lead to forcible rape. Childhhood abuse of animals, especially mutilation, is often a "gateway" behavior for violent crime against humans.
Do children of smokers have a higher likelihood of smoking? What about other drugs? You cite examples about drugs being legal in certain countries not leading to an increase in use. Apparently legalization doesn't lead to a decrease either.
18) Continuing that argument, has decriminalization of pot led to a decrease in narcotics use? Obviously the gateway effect can't be explained by illicit status in that case, or by lack of supply of pot, so both arguments fail. What's more, the introduction of crack is the result of experimentation, an accidental discovery that cannot be tied to a specific cause. It cannot be analyzed probabilistically. Another non sequitur.
19) Freedom—the absence of coersion or restraint on your location. Last I saw, you were free to move to one of those countries where the drug of you choice is decriminalized. If it were really so important you'd move. You're welcome to whine about having to move, but otherwise don't whine about not having a choice.
20) Death and taxes. Get used to them. Find somewhere with less if either gets to you.
21) "Communism" get real. Barbarians rule by force of arms, civilized man rules by force of law. Choose one or the other.
22) $7+ trillion IIRC (a figure closely matching the federal debt) in the "war against povery" and we haven't "won" that one either. We have multi-generation drug "junkies," we have multi-generation welfare "junkies;" sometimes both at once. Sad, sad, sad.
In summation, the general bent of all your arguments is circulus in probando: after are assuming all visible effects are directly or indirectly caused by drug enforcement you use that assumption to "prove" that the drug war is eeevil. You have not proven that point, and in some cases you are entirely wrong.
You should just put your stuff up on a website. Easier for you to reference…
and easier for us to point and laugh.
Edit:
local federal in 4)
serves in 17)
are in summary
Last edited by Straybow on 17-10-2003 at 18:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
|
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
quote:
Yes, Berz, just ignore the legal difference between illegal abuse of otherwise legal prescription drugs and the use of entirely illegal drugs. You have indeed falsified you premise. |
Though he did repeatedly and deliberately break the law in order to feed an addiction, right? Not some archaic joke law either. |
Yes, Limbaugh repeatedly broke the law. He is therefore liable to the penalty for breaking that specific law, not for breaking some other law (use of an illicit narcotic). Most if not all aspects of the two cases are defined in separate codes of law.
He also repeatedly and flagrantly breaks the speed limit; so do I (and almost certainly you do as well). He did not, however, repeated break laws against murder. He and I (and 95% of drivers) are liable for the penalties of the former, but not the latter.
This is like antigun nuts who try claim the 2nd Amendment is only refering to hunting. Hunting is governed by a specific set of historical written and common laws, with terminology peculiar to it.
You "take prey," with bows, guns, traps, lures, etc. The term "bear arms" never appears in historical hunting terminology, it is unique to human warfare. "Bear arms" isn't even the terminology generally used for self-defense against burglars, etc. It is a phrase dedicated to military conflict.
The power of a Democracy stems from the people, and the people have a right to bear arms, even to the extent of resisting the people in government. Seems that's what Jefferson and some of those guys thought, anyway.
"I don't want to go on a rant here… yes I do!"
The law(s) Limbaugh broke are not laws against use and possession of illicit substances, but laws against use and possession of licit substances by illicit means. If he owns a CD player that's legal. But if he buys a CD player off the back of a truck and it turns out that CD player was stolen from me, he is in possession of stolen property. That is different from being in possession of something intrinsically outlawed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-10-2003 09:56
|