Name one federal or state law that you'd do away with.

[WillReadmore]

OK, so this is what I argued, "HOW MUCH crime will be eliminated. That isn't what you said in the last several posts on the subject, you said I claimed crime will be eliminated, which is a crock of shit, never said that. That "crime" will be eliminated is the absurd hyperbole that no one said.

Since you're back to what I did say, for now, I'll rejoin the conversation. Are you not aware on the impact of prohibition on crime? Prohibition funded the mob who flourished in prohibition. They came crashing down when the primary source of their funding went away. They were no longer able to easily bribe politicians and the police as well as the source of their funding shrank.

Now we have the same thing with drugs. No one is going to follow laws that tell us what we are going to do with our own bodies. It's just low hanging fruit for organized crime. And that crime is causing endless shootings in our inner cities as they fight for turf and funding even worse crime in countries like Afghanistan and Columbia.

If we brought it above ground, corporations wouldn't be fighting with guns like cartels do. They'd be taxed instead of our putting endless money into police to fight a losing battle. There is no win in drugs being illegal, it's a calamity

Again, for all the crime you claim was eliminated by ending prohibition, I can post stories and evidence of how countless lives have been ruined by it being legal.

The down side is still there. It simply has a new address.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Note you're back to the fallacious assumption that if alcohol is illegal then they couldn't get it and their life is saved! Yeah, feel behind your ears, it really is wet, isn't it? Teenagers can get all the pot they want in this country. So can you if you know any teenagers, just ask them

Show me where I ever said anything about how hard or easy it is to get.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

When you say you can link to people who's lives were destroyed by alcohol, so we should keep it illegal, that has the implication that if alcohol was illegal they wouldn't have gotten it and their lives would have been saved. I mean duh

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Studies show no significant negative ramifications in states that have legalized pot.

One such study is:
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa799.pdf

So far, I don't see you as having proposed ANY valid justification for keeping this substance illegal. It's status as being illegal is not appreciably reducing its use and is definitely funding crime.

 

[WillReadmore]

I wouldn't target individual laws, I would target the bureaucracies that have been given the power by Congress to make their own laws. These are the Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and other programs that are constitutionally illegitimate and harmful to Americans:

1. Commerce Department
2. Education Department
3. Interior Department
4. HUD
5. Transportation Department
6. Labor Department
7. Homeland Security
8. Council of Economic Advisors
9. SBA
10. IRS
11. Federal Reserve
12. NSA
13. FDA
14. Amtrack
15. FEMA
16. DEA
17. FCC

That's be my choice for elimination on day one. Then we'd REALLY start cutting.

Well you seem happy to bankrupt the whole of the US... No IRS is that smart?

Well you seem happy to bankrupt the whole of the US...

Only if we keep spending more than we collect.

No IRS is that smart?

When the 16th is repealed, there would hardly be a need.

There has been and will be no civilization without taxation.

Civilization simply isn't free.

 

[eflatminor]

I wouldn't target individual laws, I would target the bureaucracies that have been given the power by Congress to make their own laws. These are the Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and other programs that are constitutionally illegitimate and harmful to Americans:

1. Commerce Department
2. Education Department
3. Interior Department
4. HUD
5. Transportation Department
6. Labor Department
7. Homeland Security
8. Council of Economic Advisors
9. SBA
10. IRS
11. Federal Reserve
12. NSA
13. FDA
14. Amtrack
15. FEMA
16. DEA
17. FCC

That's be my choice for elimination on day one. Then we'd REALLY start cutting.

Well you seem happy to bankrupt the whole of the US... No IRS is that smart?

Well you seem happy to bankrupt the whole of the US...

Only if we keep spending more than we collect.

No IRS is that smart?

When the 16th is repealed, there would hardly be a need.

There has been and will be no civilization without taxation.

Civilization simply isn't free.

How then would you characterize the United States of America circa 1788 - 1913? Uncivilized?

I didn't say government can't generate revenue, it certainly can. I simply believe, as the founders did, that taxing a man's labor is immoral, untenable...anathema to a free society.

Besides, if the federal government contained it's reach to the strict reading of the law, there would be no need for even considering an income tax.

 

[Chuz Life]

Again, for all the crime you claim was eliminated by ending prohibition, I can post stories and evidence of how countless lives have been ruined by it being legal.

The down side is still there. It simply has a new address.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Note you're back to the fallacious assumption that if alcohol is illegal then they couldn't get it and their life is saved! Yeah, feel behind your ears, it really is wet, isn't it? Teenagers can get all the pot they want in this country. So can you if you know any teenagers, just ask them

Show me where I ever said anything about how hard or easy it is to get.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

When you say you can link to people who's lives were destroyed by alcohol, so we should keep it illegal, that has the implication that if alcohol was illegal they wouldn't have gotten it and their lives would have been saved. I mean duh

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Studies show no significant negative ramifications in states that have legalized pot.

One such study is:
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa799.pdf

So far, I don't see you as having proposed ANY valid justification for keeping this substance illegal. It's status as being illegal is not appreciably reducing its use and is definitely funding crime.

Someone said it very well just a few posts ago. They said I would have no problem at all finding some weed to try myself from any TEENAGERS nearby.

Teenagers.

I shouldn't have to waste my time explaining to you the problems with that.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[thereisnospoon]

Name one federal or state law that you'd do away with.

I'll start with making pot legal.

Open all markets to all health insurers.
End all state laws which ban wagering.
End all state laws which require motor carriers to buy special permits to perform intrastate pick ups and deliveries.
Make all gun permit regulations the same in every state. If we can observe full faith and credit for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, etc, we can do the same for those permitted to carry a firearm.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Title IX

worst piece of shit legislation to affect the public education system ever.
What makes this law so insidious is it selectively enforced.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Name one federal or state law that you'd do away with.

I'll start with making pot legal.

Remove any law that protects labor and holds corporations back from making as much money as possible.

For example a coal mine owner shouldn't have to make his mines safer.

Why is there a minimum wage? I know a bum who would be my in home slave for $3 hr or $72 a day plus room and board. Wouldn't he be better off? I would be an opportunity for him.

Prostitution. If I can kill my baby why can't I sell my pussy?

You can sell your pussy. In Nevada....Not to say anyone's buying....Freshen up!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wouldn’t get rid of any laws before I’d standardize them all. Someone who murders someone today and someone who murders someone tomorrow next door can get different sentences if both are found guilty. And that goes for a lot of different crimes. The punishments should be the same in the same jurisdictions. Now, if you can help the police with other persecutions…that should be the only deciding factor in getting less time. Not if you were a model citizen before you capped that dude or if you were a gang banger with priors. The crimes are the same.

As for getting rid of laws; nearly all of the new abortion laws need to go.

Sorry law is a bit different...

So a guy who kidnaps and rapes 6 year old girl and leaves her for dead.

should get less than than the child father who shoots him.

That is not what candy is taking about and you know it unless you really don't live in the U. S. And don't understand our laws..


Candy was using a general example on how fucked up our judicial system is.


.

One is Kidnapping and Rape and the other is attempted Murder....

I understand some parts of the judicial system has to be improved but mandatory minimums have generally been a disaster.

Going to prison used to be about rehabilitation, the US has huge prison population and high recidivism rate.
http://www.salve.edu/sites/default/files/filesfield/documents/Incarceration_and_Recidivism.pdf

I am not saying as much Candy is wrong but he might be looking in the wrong place....

Another statistic which European find horrifying is cop Shootings:
You are
98 times more likely to be shot and killed by a cop in US than in the UK
72 times more likely to be shot and killed by a cop in US than in the UK, if white
242 times more likely to be shot and killed by a cop in US than in the UK, if black
20 times more likely to be shot and killed by a cop in US than in the UK, if unarmed(any weapon) compared to all killing in UK

What does that say about respect for the US citizen?

Generally, in the UK,criminals are less likely to be armed.
Most suspects with negative interactions with police here are likely to be armed.
One other thing. One must consider culture as well. In most EU countries the degree of civility and duty as a citizen are much greater. Also, Europeans are not coddled as children the American kids are. Across the pond, kids are brought up n much stricter environments. They are not accustomed to being handed every thing they want. They are made well aware that along with happy, sad must be experienced as well.
Kids in Europe are NOT sheltered from disappointment. They are also not brought up to believe they are owed things and they DO have a duty to respect the authority of law enforcement and when commanded, cooperate with the police.

 

[kaz]

OK, so this is what I argued, "HOW MUCH crime will be eliminated. That isn't what you said in the last several posts on the subject, you said I claimed crime will be eliminated, which is a crock of shit, never said that. That "crime" will be eliminated is the absurd hyperbole that no one said.

Since you're back to what I did say, for now, I'll rejoin the conversation. Are you not aware on the impact of prohibition on crime? Prohibition funded the mob who flourished in prohibition. They came crashing down when the primary source of their funding went away. They were no longer able to easily bribe politicians and the police as well as the source of their funding shrank.

Now we have the same thing with drugs. No one is going to follow laws that tell us what we are going to do with our own bodies. It's just low hanging fruit for organized crime. And that crime is causing endless shootings in our inner cities as they fight for turf and funding even worse crime in countries like Afghanistan and Columbia.

If we brought it above ground, corporations wouldn't be fighting with guns like cartels do. They'd be taxed instead of our putting endless money into police to fight a losing battle. There is no win in drugs being illegal, it's a calamity

Again, for all the crime you claim was eliminated by ending prohibition, I can post stories and evidence of how countless lives have been ruined by it being legal.

The down side is still there. It simply has a new address.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Note you're back to the fallacious assumption that if alcohol is illegal then they couldn't get it and their life is saved! Yeah, feel behind your ears, it really is wet, isn't it? Teenagers can get all the pot they want in this country. So can you if you know any teenagers, just ask them

Show me where I ever said anything about how hard or easy it is to get.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

When you say you can link to people who's lives were destroyed by alcohol, so we should keep it illegal, that has the implication that if alcohol was illegal they wouldn't have gotten it and their lives would have been saved. I mean duh

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

OK, so you're an authoritarian rightist. You only believe that should be legal which you approve of. To allow people to do things you believe they should not do is to "legitimize" them. You believe people need to persuade you to allow them to do things you disprove of. I think if they aren't effecting me then it's none of my business.

Since your stated standard is you can legitimately use force to compel people to do your way unless they convince you not to and my standard is I can only legitimately use force to compel people to do my way if they are infringing on my own choices, we can never come to an agreement

 

[kaz]

Note you're back to the fallacious assumption that if alcohol is illegal then they couldn't get it and their life is saved! Yeah, feel behind your ears, it really is wet, isn't it? Teenagers can get all the pot they want in this country. So can you if you know any teenagers, just ask them

Show me where I ever said anything about how hard or easy it is to get.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

When you say you can link to people who's lives were destroyed by alcohol, so we should keep it illegal, that has the implication that if alcohol was illegal they wouldn't have gotten it and their lives would have been saved. I mean duh

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Studies show no significant negative ramifications in states that have legalized pot.

One such study is:
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa799.pdf

So far, I don't see you as having proposed ANY valid justification for keeping this substance illegal. It's status as being illegal is not appreciably reducing its use and is definitely funding crime.

Someone said it very well just a few posts ago. They said I would have no problem at all finding some weed to try myself from any TEENAGERS nearby.

Teenagers.

I shouldn't have to waste my time explaining to you the problems with that.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Pot is illegal, HELLO! My point is your laws ... aren't ... working ... So you're funding the mob, destabalizing countries, causing shootouts in cities ... for ... n-o-t-h-i-n-g. Nice job. Who wouldn't want that kind of investment?

You see Chuz Life, here's the deal. You give me your life savings, I give you nothing. Your answer is, "I'm in!"

BTW, ask teenagers which is easier to get, pot or alcohol. The answer is pot.

The thing with drug dealers is they don't ID ...

 

[Chuz Life]

Again, for all the crime you claim was eliminated by ending prohibition, I can post stories and evidence of how countless lives have been ruined by it being legal.

The down side is still there. It simply has a new address.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Note you're back to the fallacious assumption that if alcohol is illegal then they couldn't get it and their life is saved! Yeah, feel behind your ears, it really is wet, isn't it? Teenagers can get all the pot they want in this country. So can you if you know any teenagers, just ask them

Show me where I ever said anything about how hard or easy it is to get.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

When you say you can link to people who's lives were destroyed by alcohol, so we should keep it illegal, that has the implication that if alcohol was illegal they wouldn't have gotten it and their lives would have been saved. I mean duh

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

OK, so you're an authoritarian rightist. You only believe that should be legal which you approve of. To allow people to do things you believe they should not do is to "legitimize" them. You believe people need to persuade you to allow them to do things you disprove of. I think if they aren't effecting me then it's none of my business.

Since your stated standard is you can legitimately use force to compel people to do your way unless they convince you not to and my standard is I can only legitimately use force to compel people to do my way if they are infringing on my own choices, we can never come to an agreement

Does twisting, skewing and mischaracterizing your opponents views ever work for you? You damn sure aren't going to change my opinions that way.

I fully support people being free to do whatever they want to as long as they don't violate the rights of others, place others in harms way or anything like that.

That said, the case is easily made that drug abuse (aka recreational drug use) is an unnecessary and unreasonable endangerment and many times and infringement on the rights of others.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[kaz]

Note you're back to the fallacious assumption that if alcohol is illegal then they couldn't get it and their life is saved! Yeah, feel behind your ears, it really is wet, isn't it? Teenagers can get all the pot they want in this country. So can you if you know any teenagers, just ask them

Show me where I ever said anything about how hard or easy it is to get.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

When you say you can link to people who's lives were destroyed by alcohol, so we should keep it illegal, that has the implication that if alcohol was illegal they wouldn't have gotten it and their lives would have been saved. I mean duh

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

OK, so you're an authoritarian rightist. You only believe that should be legal which you approve of. To allow people to do things you believe they should not do is to "legitimize" them. You believe people need to persuade you to allow them to do things you disprove of. I think if they aren't effecting me then it's none of my business.

Since your stated standard is you can legitimately use force to compel people to do your way unless they convince you not to and my standard is I can only legitimately use force to compel people to do my way if they are infringing on my own choices, we can never come to an agreement

Does twisting, skewing and mischaracterizing your opponents views ever work for you? You damn sure aren't going to change my opinions that way.

I fully support people being free to do whatever they want to as long as they don't violate the rights of others, place others in harms way or anything like that.

That said, the case is easily made that drug abuse (aka recreational drug use) is an unnecessary and unreasonable endangerment and many times and infringement on the rights of others.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What a load. Explain how someone smoking a doobie in their own home effects you.

And I twisted nothing you said. Your whole argument is that you're not convinced drugs should be allowed, that's pure authoritarian. The opposite, libertarian is you proving they shouldn't be

 

[Chuz Life]

Show me where I ever said anything about how hard or easy it is to get.



Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

When you say you can link to people who's lives were destroyed by alcohol, so we should keep it illegal, that has the implication that if alcohol was illegal they wouldn't have gotten it and their lives would have been saved. I mean duh

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

OK, so you're an authoritarian rightist. You only believe that should be legal which you approve of. To allow people to do things you believe they should not do is to "legitimize" them. You believe people need to persuade you to allow them to do things you disprove of. I think if they aren't effecting me then it's none of my business.

Since your stated standard is you can legitimately use force to compel people to do your way unless they convince you not to and my standard is I can only legitimately use force to compel people to do my way if they are infringing on my own choices, we can never come to an agreement

Does twisting, skewing and mischaracterizing your opponents views ever work for you? You damn sure aren't going to change my opinions that way.

I fully support people being free to do whatever they want to as long as they don't violate the rights of others, place others in harms way or anything like that.

That said, the case is easily made that drug abuse (aka recreational drug use) is an unnecessary and unreasonable endangerment and many times and infringement on the rights of others.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What a load. Explain how someone smoking a doobie in their own home effects you.

And I twisted nothing you said. Your whole argument is that you're not convinced drugs should be allowed, that's pure authoritarian. The opposite, libertarian is you proving they shouldn't be

I don't feed trolls. If I thought you were more receptive, then maybe we could have delved more into it.

As it is, I am out.

Thanks though for reminding me once again how druggies and their sympathizers are such bad ambassadors for their cause.

That part about practically bragging about how teens have such easy access to drugs and (it seems) in your opinion they should have that access?

Priceless.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[kaz]

When you say you can link to people who's lives were destroyed by alcohol, so we should keep it illegal, that has the implication that if alcohol was illegal they wouldn't have gotten it and their lives would have been saved. I mean duh

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

OK, so you're an authoritarian rightist. You only believe that should be legal which you approve of. To allow people to do things you believe they should not do is to "legitimize" them. You believe people need to persuade you to allow them to do things you disprove of. I think if they aren't effecting me then it's none of my business.

Since your stated standard is you can legitimately use force to compel people to do your way unless they convince you not to and my standard is I can only legitimately use force to compel people to do my way if they are infringing on my own choices, we can never come to an agreement

Does twisting, skewing and mischaracterizing your opponents views ever work for you? You damn sure aren't going to change my opinions that way.

I fully support people being free to do whatever they want to as long as they don't violate the rights of others, place others in harms way or anything like that.

That said, the case is easily made that drug abuse (aka recreational drug use) is an unnecessary and unreasonable endangerment and many times and infringement on the rights of others.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What a load. Explain how someone smoking a doobie in their own home effects you.

And I twisted nothing you said. Your whole argument is that you're not convinced drugs should be allowed, that's pure authoritarian. The opposite, libertarian is you proving they shouldn't be

I don't feed trolls. If I thought you were more receptive, then maybe we could have delved more into it.

As it is, I am out.

Thanks though for reminding me once again how druggies and their sympathizers are such bad ambassadors for their cause.

That part about practically bragging about how teens have such easy access to drugs and (it seems) in your opinion they should have that access?

Priceless.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only like three posts after I told you this discussion is pointless because you're an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian you declare yourself out. Pretty quick reflexes there, Sparky.

I don't do drugs, including pot, because I think it's stupid. But I sure don't not do them because you don't approve

 

[Chuz Life]

Then you completely missed the point that was actually being made. Harm is done regardless, whether it is legal or not. So, it comes down to everything else that needs to be considered.

You seem to be willing to add legitimacy to druggies and prostitutes by making their activities "legal" and those of us who don't want to legitimize that shit don't see any benefit or reason to do so. Especially when it only trades one set of problems for another.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

OK, so you're an authoritarian rightist. You only believe that should be legal which you approve of. To allow people to do things you believe they should not do is to "legitimize" them. You believe people need to persuade you to allow them to do things you disprove of. I think if they aren't effecting me then it's none of my business.

Since your stated standard is you can legitimately use force to compel people to do your way unless they convince you not to and my standard is I can only legitimately use force to compel people to do my way if they are infringing on my own choices, we can never come to an agreement

Does twisting, skewing and mischaracterizing your opponents views ever work for you? You damn sure aren't going to change my opinions that way.

I fully support people being free to do whatever they want to as long as they don't violate the rights of others, place others in harms way or anything like that.

That said, the case is easily made that drug abuse (aka recreational drug use) is an unnecessary and unreasonable endangerment and many times and infringement on the rights of others.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What a load. Explain how someone smoking a doobie in their own home effects you.

And I twisted nothing you said. Your whole argument is that you're not convinced drugs should be allowed, that's pure authoritarian. The opposite, libertarian is you proving they shouldn't be

I don't feed trolls. If I thought you were more receptive, then maybe we could have delved more into it.

As it is, I am out.

Thanks though for reminding me once again how druggies and their sympathizers are such bad ambassadors for their cause.

That part about practically bragging about how teens have such easy access to drugs and (it seems) in your opinion they should have that access?

Priceless.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only like three posts after I told you this discussion is pointless because you're an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian you declare yourself out. Pretty quick reflexes there, Sparky.

I don't do drugs, including pot, because I think it's stupid. But I sure don't not do them because you don't approve

May those who DO decide to do their drugs (without any worries about you) be the ones driving the school bus when your kids are ready for school.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[kaz]

OK, so you're an authoritarian rightist. You only believe that should be legal which you approve of. To allow people to do things you believe they should not do is to "legitimize" them. You believe people need to persuade you to allow them to do things you disprove of. I think if they aren't effecting me then it's none of my business.

Since your stated standard is you can legitimately use force to compel people to do your way unless they convince you not to and my standard is I can only legitimately use force to compel people to do my way if they are infringing on my own choices, we can never come to an agreement

Does twisting, skewing and mischaracterizing your opponents views ever work for you? You damn sure aren't going to change my opinions that way.

I fully support people being free to do whatever they want to as long as they don't violate the rights of others, place others in harms way or anything like that.

That said, the case is easily made that drug abuse (aka recreational drug use) is an unnecessary and unreasonable endangerment and many times and infringement on the rights of others.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What a load. Explain how someone smoking a doobie in their own home effects you.

And I twisted nothing you said. Your whole argument is that you're not convinced drugs should be allowed, that's pure authoritarian. The opposite, libertarian is you proving they shouldn't be

I don't feed trolls. If I thought you were more receptive, then maybe we could have delved more into it.

As it is, I am out.

Thanks though for reminding me once again how druggies and their sympathizers are such bad ambassadors for their cause.

That part about practically bragging about how teens have such easy access to drugs and (it seems) in your opinion they should have that access?

Priceless.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only like three posts after I told you this discussion is pointless because you're an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian you declare yourself out. Pretty quick reflexes there, Sparky.

I don't do drugs, including pot, because I think it's stupid. But I sure don't not do them because you don't approve

May those who DO decide to do their drugs (without any worries about you) be the ones driving the school bus when your kids are ready for school.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Again with the fallacy that drug laws = no drugs. What you said does not deviate from today in any way. Drugs are available anywhere.

How do you not grasp that?

 

[Chuz Life]

Does twisting, skewing and mischaracterizing your opponents views ever work for you? You damn sure aren't going to change my opinions that way.

I fully support people being free to do whatever they want to as long as they don't violate the rights of others, place others in harms way or anything like that.

That said, the case is easily made that drug abuse (aka recreational drug use) is an unnecessary and unreasonable endangerment and many times and infringement on the rights of others.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

What a load. Explain how someone smoking a doobie in their own home effects you.

And I twisted nothing you said. Your whole argument is that you're not convinced drugs should be allowed, that's pure authoritarian. The opposite, libertarian is you proving they shouldn't be

I don't feed trolls. If I thought you were more receptive, then maybe we could have delved more into it.

As it is, I am out.

Thanks though for reminding me once again how druggies and their sympathizers are such bad ambassadors for their cause.

That part about practically bragging about how teens have such easy access to drugs and (it seems) in your opinion they should have that access?

Priceless.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only like three posts after I told you this discussion is pointless because you're an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian you declare yourself out. Pretty quick reflexes there, Sparky.

I don't do drugs, including pot, because I think it's stupid. But I sure don't not do them because you don't approve

May those who DO decide to do their drugs (without any worries about you) be the ones driving the school bus when your kids are ready for school.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Again with the fallacy that drug laws = no drugs. What you said does not deviate from today in any way. Drugs are available anywhere.

How do you not grasp that?

The ability to punish druggies exists today, too. But you don't like druggies being punished for pushing your kids to try them... do you? You think your kids should not only do all the drugs they want. . . They should be free to try to get my kids to try them as well.

Right?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[kaz]

What a load. Explain how someone smoking a doobie in their own home effects you.

And I twisted nothing you said. Your whole argument is that you're not convinced drugs should be allowed, that's pure authoritarian. The opposite, libertarian is you proving they shouldn't be

I don't feed trolls. If I thought you were more receptive, then maybe we could have delved more into it.

As it is, I am out.

Thanks though for reminding me once again how druggies and their sympathizers are such bad ambassadors for their cause.

That part about practically bragging about how teens have such easy access to drugs and (it seems) in your opinion they should have that access?

Priceless.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only like three posts after I told you this discussion is pointless because you're an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian you declare yourself out. Pretty quick reflexes there, Sparky.

I don't do drugs, including pot, because I think it's stupid. But I sure don't not do them because you don't approve

May those who DO decide to do their drugs (without any worries about you) be the ones driving the school bus when your kids are ready for school.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Again with the fallacy that drug laws = no drugs. What you said does not deviate from today in any way. Drugs are available anywhere.

How do you not grasp that?

So is the ability to punish druggies exists today. But you don't like druggies being punished for pushing your kids to try them... do you? You think your kids should not only do all the drugs they want. . . They should be free to try to get my kids to try them as well.

Right?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So drunk driving is legal? I have to call bull shit to that. Try it and see if you can be punished for it or not

 

[WillReadmore]

I wouldn't target individual laws, I would target the bureaucracies that have been given the power by Congress to make their own laws. These are the Agencies, Bureaus, Commissions, and other programs that are constitutionally illegitimate and harmful to Americans:

1. Commerce Department
2. Education Department
3. Interior Department
4. HUD
5. Transportation Department
6. Labor Department
7. Homeland Security
8. Council of Economic Advisors
9. SBA
10. IRS
11. Federal Reserve
12. NSA
13. FDA
14. Amtrack
15. FEMA
16. DEA
17. FCC

That's be my choice for elimination on day one. Then we'd REALLY start cutting.

Well you seem happy to bankrupt the whole of the US... No IRS is that smart?

Well you seem happy to bankrupt the whole of the US...

Only if we keep spending more than we collect.

No IRS is that smart?

When the 16th is repealed, there would hardly be a need.

There has been and will be no civilization without taxation.

Civilization simply isn't free.

How then would you characterize the United States of America circa 1788 - 1913? Uncivilized?

I didn't say government can't generate revenue, it certainly can. I simply believe, as the founders did, that taxing a man's labor is immoral, untenable...anathema to a free society.

Besides, if the federal government contained it's reach to the strict reading of the law, there would be no need for even considering an income tax.

Now you're talking about the method. Our military of that time was not free.

Our society has changed dramatically. So, it's no surprise that our methods of paying for our government have changed.

 

[Chuz Life]

I don't feed trolls. If I thought you were more receptive, then maybe we could have delved more into it.

As it is, I am out.

Thanks though for reminding me once again how druggies and their sympathizers are such bad ambassadors for their cause.

That part about practically bragging about how teens have such easy access to drugs and (it seems) in your opinion they should have that access?

Priceless.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Only like three posts after I told you this discussion is pointless because you're an authoritarian and I'm a libertarian you declare yourself out. Pretty quick reflexes there, Sparky.

I don't do drugs, including pot, because I think it's stupid. But I sure don't not do them because you don't approve

May those who DO decide to do their drugs (without any worries about you) be the ones driving the school bus when your kids are ready for school.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Again with the fallacy that drug laws = no drugs. What you said does not deviate from today in any way. Drugs are available anywhere.

How do you not grasp that?

So is the ability to punish druggies exists today. But you don't like druggies being punished for pushing your kids to try them... do you? You think your kids should not only do all the drugs they want. . . They should be free to try to get my kids to try them as well.

Right?

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

So drunk driving is legal? I have to call bull shit to that. Try it and see if you can be punished for it or not

So you agree that there are limits to how much we can do with and to our bodies, now?

How authoritarian of you.

Sent from my SM-N920V using USMessageBoard.com mobile app