doughboyshred

Your ignorance is appalling. Go here and educate yourself: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/drug-war-victim/ In no way to I despise LEOs. I am extremely opposed to the situation that has been created with the drug war, where innocent people and petty drug users are regularly murdered by cops.

Like I've been saying for over a year now. Bush V.2. If you liked Bush, you should love Obama. Most liberal commie president ever? Bwaaahaahaaa. What a joke. Besides his absolutely lame attempt at coming up with a solution to our health insurance problems in this country he hasn't done anything to earn the hatred that so many conservatives have for him. But, he's black and his name sounds muslim, so he must be hated. LOL.

Just a complete fucking idiot, and a perfect example of what is wrong with our legal system. People can sue for anything they want, with no risk to themselves. A losing plaintiff should have to pay all court costs, and the lawyer fees for who they are suing. Then there would be less of this nonsense.

You can stop there. Anyone doing that is committing felonies, and if they draw the negative attention of other felons, that's their problem. The rest of you post is hypotheticals and not worth a hill of beans. The facts in this case are that law enforcement drew a warrant, knock-and-announced, and forced entry. While entering and shouting "POLICE! SEARCH WARRANT!" a man came at them with a deadly weapon. Officers responded as trained. End result: one tweaker pot head dead, one lawsuit coming. No surprises. What do you want them to do, sit down for tea and cakes? Think about it- how long does it take you to cross a tiny room and hit something with a club? And if you want to say he was half asleep, all I can say is he was up and moving quick before the officers got five feet into the residence. So you put less value on the life of someone that uses drugs than you do on others? How's the view up on that horse?

# Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66) # Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1) The Bush Administration lead the charge, but you don't see a lot of protest here. Only Feingold voted no in the Senate. And you only have to look up Reno/Clinton (start with Carnivore) to doubt that it would have been much different with a Gore Administration. Very true, and Obumma hasn't done shit to reverse the trend. One of the reasons that I laugh when conservitards get all worked up about how liberal he is. What a joke. He is Bush light, or should I say dark? Bush V.2 beholden to the same power elite.

Tried to fix it for you. Democrats try and keep us from owning guns and doing things they perceive to harm the environment. Republicans try to keep us from doing things that are personal decisions. Both parties use the reasoning that these things are bad for society as a whole. Dems typically believe that having access to guns and burning a lot of fossil fuels is bad for society so they try and take away our personal rights to have guns and drive big trucks. Republicans think that if some guy gets high on X and fucks their boyfriend that society will collapse, so they try and ban drugs and fight the gay lifestlye. It's all bullshit, and is really nothing more than trying to push their personal opinions on others. Although, if you really look at it with an open mind the republicans have done much more to erode personal freedoms and liberty over the last 20 years than have the democrats. Can you say patriot act?

Well... yeah, partly. That's worded closer to personal responsibility. Its... Natural Rights. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men The Government does not exist to tell you what to do or how to live, or to create new regulations... it exists, ONLY, to protect your rights, that come from God. Justice - The Law... is fully based on, God's Law... Natural Law. If your rights come from God... if your life comes from God. Than who owns your body after God? You. That... is a Founding Principle. So... under a Federalist system. Where the Federal government is created by the States. Not a National Government. (We are nearly functioning as a National Government) National Government - Top Down - Full Ability to Regulate Anything Articles of Confederation - A mess - too weak - No central power. Federal Government - Only 16 powers... weak central control.... INTENTIONAL WEAK CENTRAL CONTROL There are only 16 powers enumerated to the Federal Government. All other powers, fall to the States: as long as they do not interfere with Federal Law under those 16 powers, nor violate, Gods Law. That is why you can have universal healthcare in Massachusetts... Go For It! State universal health care - Legal Federal universal health care - Illegal. Federal Drug Laws... Illegal!!!!!!! State Drug Laws.... Legal. 68% of Alaska consists of "Dry Counties". Localities that have passed laws against alcohol (learned from Alaska State Troopers, not Sarah Palin. ) The idea is... that you can vote with your feet. If a local community (where the Founders wanted Power to reside, with the people, locally) wants to ban alcohol... they can. If you want to drink. MOVE! Vote with your feet. It is the idea that if one state is being run by Idiots, (California) you can leave. If you are a business owner, and the state you are in increases taxes 70%, you can leave. But if the Federal government raises business taxes 70%... YOU... ARE... SCREWED! It is the fear of central power. Power corrupts... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. NO... nowhere in the constitution, does it specifically say that you have the right to drink alcohol. However, the Federal government can not ban it... without Amending the constitution, as they did. However, if you own your body... than you can do anything with it or put anything in it you please. And in the process of repealing an Amendment... it is crossed out, never erased, to remind us of the scars of the past. The Founders knew the American people were good people at heart, and that they would make mistakes, but they would eventually get it right. With the amendment process things can be changed, legally, if they are needed to be changed as times change. THEY DID NOT... want the constitution to be reinterpreted, nor develop precedents off those reinterpretations. Using the commerce clause for healthcare, is manipulation of the constitution. The commerce clause exists so the Federal Government can protect states, under the law, in dealing with each other. During the days of the Articles of Confederation... states WERE cheating other states. It was a mess! To regulate commerce between states...means to uphold the law. Regulate, to our Founders... meant, to maintain regularity... under the law... to maintain the law. The government exists to protect God given rights. Justice, under the law... is an unalienable rights. And if anyone disagrees with the definition of, Regulate... as I stated. Please, tell me what the second definition of Happiness is, as i spoke about previously. Nancy Pelosi.... is a liar. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3980210;search_string=pursuit%20of%20happiness;#3980210 excellent post

Sorry, but you're just flat out wrong. Legalization would not make hard drugs any more accessible. It's already shockingly easy , especially for youth, to obtain hard drugs. It's easier in the states for a teenager to get crack than it is for them to get alcohol. I am amazed that you can admit that prohibition didn't work for alcohol, but be blind to the fact that it doesn't work for other drugs either.

Yes, it does sound absurd, especially since if we legalized we could redirect our funds to education and treatment instead of imprisonment. This would give us a more free and healthy society.

so just be be clear - are you supporting the rights of casual or abusive drug users to purchase a gun, or not? We know that you side against gun rights for anyone that might be mentally suspect, so it seems that you should also oppose drug users have the right. If you are so vociferous in your support of the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS, why are you and the others here not just as vociferous in your support of all the OTHER rights we supposedly had? It seems that so very many of our RIGHTS as delineated by our Founding Fathers are limited and trampled on, and the Christian Right wishes to legislate and trample on even more based on THEIR view of morality. I see a leap of inference here. There is nothing in the US Constitution securing a right to ingest substances. While I have no problem with you getting high so long as you aren't living on my tax dollars or endangering anyone, I don't see that you have a right to it. To compare that to the right to keep and bear arms is ludicrous. I whole heartedly support all of the rights delineated by the Founding Fathers. Who herein has not? So, if the specific right isn't spelled out in the constitution it isn't a right? That is severely flawed logic. Especially considering this:

I thought I read that it mandated the military to turn over the name of any applicants that admitted drug use on their application. I was honest (I know, stupid), so I guess I'm one of the guys that shouldn't have a gun. Ridiculous. Schumer's a fucking idiot.

ROFLMAO ... you don't know me very well. I shall forgive you for making these remarks since you are new. Rest assured Government is the last people I look to towards keeping myself safe. Serious question then, why do you support the illegality of drugs? From your posts I got the impression that you think the government should be keeping people from using crack. I don't think anyone should use crack, but I firmly believe that should be a personal decision not one made by the government.

Shit, if I could have fired myself I would have done it a long time ago.

ROFLMAO ... do I come off as some WHUFFO to you? Wherever did you get the impression that I would go for such an absurd statement. Must have been in a different part of the world because the "Dawn of the Dead" zombies of "Hastings and Main" are pretty much the worst crack heads in North America. I am not talking property crime here, I am talking about real life "Dawn of the Dead" zombies roaming the streets. Once again you are demonstrating how little you know about what goes on in Vancouver's Downtown East Side. If these people are being imprisoned for being crack heads, why are there thousands of them roaming the streets? You know the main Vancouver Police station is only one block away from "Hastings and Main". You don't need to worry these crack heads mugging you, they can't even see two feet in front of themselves. But I see where you are coming from. You want to legalize drugs like crack, allow people to destroy their lives and then spend tons of public money on your feel good "Dawn of the Dead" crack head special interest project. Many of these zombies are beyond help. Many of these zombies have already destroyed their brains and bodies with hard drugs. You don't come off like a whuffo, you come off like someone that thinks it's the governments responsibility to keep them from harming themselves in their pursuit of happiness or fun. I'm pretty sure I've been where you're talking about, and I also lived in Tacoma for a couple years. LOL Obviously having crack be illegal isn't doing any good, so why not legalize it? Believe it or not I have smoked crack, and it was fun. I didn't turn in to a worthless zombie. My old roomie still smokes rocks and he has had the same job for almost ten years. If you believe that anyone that uses crack should be thrown in prison then your support for current drug laws makes sense. If you think something should be done to try and change the situation you see on the streets then why are you opposed to trying a different route? Prohibition obviously does not achieve the intended result if in fact the intended result is the reduction of harm caused by illegal drug use. As far as arrests in vancouver for crack: http://www.vancouversun.com/jailed+trafficking+crack+Downtown+Eastside+minimart/4046603/story.html http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cocaine+trafficking+cent+mayor+says/4089483/story.html related death: http://www.vancourier.com/news/Bodwell+student+dies+lake+accident/4026147/story.html http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/energy-resources/Altercation+Calgary+stabbing+death+prosecutor/4087708/story.html Clearly there is a drug problem that prohibition is not solving

better ban skydiving then, cause it actually KILLS people. http://www.dropzone.com/fatalities/ better yet, better ban guns, cause people kill people with them! I've spent time in worse places than that shitty part of Vancouver, and I firmly believe that if we spent as much money trying to help people with their drug problems as we do demonizing them and imprisoning them for it that we would be much better off. As far as this specific topic, anyone that thinks this bill will keep guns out of peoples hands that shouldn't have guns isn't thinking straight.

I know a lot of people that have fucked up their lives on drugs, but I know more people that have fucked up their loves on alcohol. Shit skydiving kills people we better make that illegal. Can't have kids growing up without daddies. The government is NOT responsible for protecting us from ourselves. Funny how you call cocaine a chemical. You do know that cocaine is not synthetic, don't you? Debating whether drugs are bad or to what degree they are bad is pointless and meaningless. The question is should the government be responsible for keeping you from doing things that may be bad for you. If you think the answer is yes, than why are cigarettes legal? What about high calorie junk food. Better get a national diet on the books heaven forbid we let people eat a bunch of junk and get obese, oh wait a minute. Uhhh. Funny thing is that this is another one of those debates that typical conservatard / libdouche lines don't apply. Conservatives always arguing about personal freedom are typically very anti legalization, while libdopes that regularly want the government to take care of people are usually pro legalization. Really shows the hypocrisy of most political philosophy in our country.

I do agree that drug laws regarding weed are asinine. Weed should be treated in the same manner that alcohol and tobacco are treated. But that is about as far as I would go. I will never agree that drugs such as cocaine (or other chemicals should be legalized). But don't fool yourself into thinking weed is harmless. I know from personal experience exactly what everyday "wake and bake" weed consumption does to you. It is a harmful substance and only should be used at best in moderation. 'Shrooms on the other hand are a beautiful thing (as long as you don't poison yourself with the wrong ones). Oh and to get back on topic, whoever would check off "I am a drug user" on any application is not playing with a full deck. As long as you are not being blood tested, checking off "I do drugs" on any application just sends red flags to the bureaucrats processing these application to instantly reject you no matter what you or they think about something like weed. That's a ridiculous argument. Either we have the right to decide what substances we want to use or we don't. Personally I am sober. I don't drink or use any drugs, besides the occasional aleve. But to suggest that if a drug is bad enough that the person who decides to use it should be imprisoned is insane imo. Especially when viewed with the acknowledgement that alcohol is not only legal but heavily promoted and accepted in our society, while it is arguably much more dangerous than lsd or cocaine. The government should absolutely not be in charge of what we decide to do to our own bodies.

Someone who smokes weed and possesses a firearm isn't nearly as scary a scenario as someone who does harder drugs and is in possess of a firearm. "Drug Usage" is a rather generic term. I would much rather have a stoned hippy with a glock, then a drunk redneck with a shotgun. Our drug laws are asinine. Alcohol and opiates, while legal, are just as bad if not worse than many of the illegal drugs.

Take your own advice - it says nothing about banning someone on the basis of weird Youtube videos. Weird does not begin to describe him. Appears he was planning to be a poster boy for unlimited 2nd Amendment rights. Am I the only bothered that Wallgreens turned those pictures over to police? Last time I checked there's nothing illegal about posing in a G string with your guns. Weird, yes, but illegal, no. Assuming they gave the police these pictures before the murders, that is.

What's a sex partner? If you got a handjob from someone would that count? What's the criteria?

Violence is not the answer. The way to "fight back" against government is non-violent non-cooperation. Violence undermines righteousness. Besides, the government has you hopelessly out gunned anyway, and would crush any violent (popular or not) opposition. You are mistaking the military with the government. They are separate entities, and most military personnel have privately owned firearms as well. Do you believe that the military will sit idly by during an attempt to overthrow the government? Our military is made up of individuals, many of which would join in an armed revolt if one became necessary.

Company might be responsible if they knowingly hired someone that was not bond-able. Pizzeria could be responsible if they give their drivers a bonus based on how many deliveries they can make in less than the alloted time. Wal - Mart would be responsible because they used the cheapest screws they could find and the whole fucking display fell apart and crushed the customers back. DZO could be responsible if they ran the show with a real party atmosphere and knew that the jumper was heavily intoxicated. etc.... No. So, in your opinion a business owner (which I am, btw) is never responsible for the actions of it's employees or customers, even if they contribute to said actions? Wal Mart would not be responsible for a customer being injured by a shelfing system that was not built to withstand an occasional bump by an off balance customer? What if they built the entire shelf and didn't install the mandated (building code) anti topple bands? A DZO could share a bottle of Tequila with a jumper and then let said jumper hop on one of their planes and proceed to pass out during free fall? There's always a grey area.

Violence is not the answer. The way to "fight back" against government is non-violent non-cooperation. Violence undermines righteousness. Besides, the government has you hopelessly out gunned anyway, and would crush any violent (popular or not) opposition. You are mistaking the military with the government. They are separate entities, and most military personnel have privately owned firearms as well.

Company might be responsible if they knowingly hired someone that was not bond-able. Pizzeria could be responsible if they give their drivers a bonus based on how many deliveries they can make in less than the alloted time. Wal - Mart would be responsible because they used the cheapest screws they could find and the whole fucking display fell apart and crushed the customers back. DZO could be responsible if they ran the show with a real party atmosphere and knew that the jumper was heavily intoxicated. etc....

That's what I was thinking as I read your post.