look my basic point is this, there needs to be a middle ground, instead of going to an extreme
Avoid Roids: you are really fucking delusional on this here. I agree with your implied position that pacifism is morally bankrupt, but you should never fight for some goddamn politician. I know alot about war and soldiers, and the most important fight ever (for Americans) was the American Revolution. They determined that thier government was bullshit and they formed the greatest country ever. Loyalists said “We got it pretty good, so let’s not bite the hand that feeds (and owns) us”. I honestly think you have just missed the point here, of individual rights and independence. The only other possibility is that you are some kind of a modern day Loyalist.
The goverment does not own us? Some people think we are the goverments property, if not the world banks. Check out this info I pulled from another site.
HOW the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has come to be the supreme codified law on the planet, enveloping all all other forms of codified laws as mere “subsets” of the UCC, and how the entire world now functions according to Commercial Law and the UCC.
HOW people of Earth – all the way down to newborn babies – have been relegated to the status of mere chattel property – commercial goods – to be regulated, manipulated, and disposed of according to the whims of those who run the show.
HOW every American man, woman, and child is used as “human collateral” by the US government for loans of credit from the banker-rulers of the world.
HOW common, everyday terms such as “person,” “individual,” and “employee” have deceitfully and treacherously have been given double meanings to ensure your legal subjugation and economic enslavement.
HOW today’s “money” no longer represents substance (gold or silver) but rather liability (debt), and how people’s signatures are used (without their knowledge) to create more debt-money out of thin-air.
HOW debts can no longer legally be paid and extinguished, but only “discharged” and placed in limbo/suspension.
I hope this stuff is science fiction, who knows anymore.
bryan, by legalized, i didnt mean a free for all, and neither do most people (although i am not sure about mike the lib 
). Some drugs would be prescription drugs. Others would require the users to get a permit. and others would be otc @ 7-11 when the user is 18 or 21 or whatever the law says. "if someone is spending all of their money on crack cocaine or heroin, instead of feeding their children, what kind of future will their children have, or if pops becomes a crack addict or get arrested for stealing money to get drugs what type of father will he be? " Well part of the reason drugs cost so much is that the black market= price inflation. If there was no black market, coke and heroin would be estimatedly 90% cheaper (esp. coke). Additionally, it is my philosophical opinion (and it is similar to those of the founding fathers) that people are free, and should be responsible for their actions. Some crackhead guy who can only think about crack, has no bussiness being a father. Whether crack is on an open market or the blackmarket, that man could and should be separated from his children (also is he all that different from alcoholic fathers who beat their children and wives among other things). Remember it is always a person who makes choices, drugs have influence certainly, but it all comes down to the one’s own choice-- People need to take responsibility for their own actions. The question of a dad spending all of the family’s dollars on coke is actually humurous, not because the scenario itself, but because it parralels to a century ago, when lower income workers, particularly immigrants would get their friday pay check and spend much or most of it at the local saloon. This is one of the key scenarios that the WCTU used to get prohibition of alcohol- which we all know was a failure, as is the WoD.
Read what I wrote, hemorrhoids: “I would never fight in ANY war for ANY cause no matter who ordered me to do so.” That means I would never fight in ANY war for ANY cause no matter who ordered me to do so. It does NOT mean that I would not defend myself and/or those I care about if properly motivated.
That said, I would NOT defend the people I care about unless I thought my probability of surviving was high. You don’t like that? Then go fuck yourself. I’m an atheist and have no sense of morality, my behavior is dictated entirely by rational self-interest, and if faced with the choice of non-existence or losing people I love, I would choose the latter without hesitation.
bryan, it doesn’t matter if many drugs have no “redeeming value”, nor if they ruin families, nor if they cause people to commit crimes. What matters is that people be free to do as they choose with their own bodies and possessions, and be punished only when they infringe on the equal rights of others to do the same. Now, I should point out that drugs DO have redeeming value to the people taking them, that they DO NOT ruin families because addicts tend to be single, and that they DO NOT cause people to commit crime (rather, it is the black market nature of the drug trade that drives prices to levels high enough to spawn crime; just as no one commits crime to buy alcohol, because alcohol is so cheap, if all drugs were legalized, no one would commit crime to obtain them). I would also point out that, as the above article mentions, in countries where drugs are legalized there are none of the ill consequences you predict. Although you probably didn’t even read the article, you just saw a chance to post your stupid drivel about finding the “middle ground” and avoiding the extremes.
mike the lib., are you sure you aren’t an anarchist. You certainly seem to have the mindset of one (don’t want ANYTHING to do w/ a gov., while libertarians i gather generally like the constituion but not current laws). You know Somalia has been in anarchy for over a decade…
The majority of libertarians in the US are for a constitutional government (that is NOT true elsewhere). However, I am for no government at all – buy what you want on the free market (including protection services, conflict resolution, the right to use private roads, etc. – all the services the government currently provides). I describe myself as a libertarian because I want all social interaction to be libertarian in nature – i.e. don’t initiate force or fraud against anyone, for any reason. This principle precludes taxation, laws against drugs, laws that force you to protect yourself, etc.
I reckon you’d all be better off if King George had decided to get serious about things. Given the choice, I’d rather live in the UK than the US.
First of all king George did the best he could but losers don’t generally accept the blame. The revolution was fought with the active support of only about 1/3 of the colonial population. The other 2/3 was split between loyalists and fence sitters…and we still won with a bit of 4th quarter help from the French.
We had less of a drug problem when the stuff was legal. Similar situations are observable in countries with lax or no drug laws. People regulate themselves pretty well when society isn’t manipulated too much. You can grow cannnibis in your closet. If it was legal more people would do so and what little violence there is associated with it would evaporate. As far as the harder drugs go they are no more dangerous than alcohol. Look at numbers of deaths per year for the various substances and you’ll see.
The idea that protecting people from themselves is a poor one. In my state so far this year 53 people have drowned. Should we deny everyone the benefits of boating and swimming so no others die?
I can’t believe this cowardly little sociopath. Read what Mike the LIP just posted:
“I would NOT defend the people I care about unless I thought my probability of surviving was high. You don’t like that? Then go fuck yourself. I’m an atheist and have no sense of morality, my behavior is dictated entirely by rational self-interest, and if faced with the choice of non-existence or losing people I love, I would choose the latter without hesitation.”
Hey "guy", this is the TESTOSTERONE site. I think you want WWW.WimpyLimpyWeasel.Com.
And Colin, trust me, you do NOT know anything about soldiers and war. Until you have been in a muddy little hole in the ground with a half dozen screaming hopped up crazies closing in at 30 feet trying to frag your ass, you do NOT know shit about war or what soldiers are about. Your “knowledge” comes from what you read in books and hear in history class. And I sincerely hope that that is all the knowledge you ever have to have.
'Nuff said. Back to physical culture.
For those of you who are inclined to read more
on this topic, you can read a series of nine
articles on the economist web site which
consider the pros and cons of legalization.
The series begins here:
Apollo,“given the choice”, you ARE given the choice.but anyway, if you are an adult in this country you SHOULD be able to consume what you like. there is NO midle ground, you either have freedom or you do not. peace
The Canadian Gov is currently growing pot in a
mine near Flin Flon Manitoba for use by those
who have health permits.Of course you need some fucked up disease like AIDS or MS to qualify.
(PCP aside) considering a womans right to have an abortion is part of her right to privacy (or something like that, according to Roe. V. Wade) there is no legitimate reason that a person cannot posses and use a drug in non-public places, so long as they are legal adults, don’t give them to kids, and are responsible for actions, while they are on them. There is no reason. none. Abortion arguably and i say arguably harms another person. Drug use if anything is confined only to the user.
I find it interesting that all of the replies that disagree with the ideas presented in the opening post do so from a subjective standpoint. That post makes some great objective points, and those in disagreement with them have not logically debated those points. Anyone can say, “Well, I just don’t think heroin should be legalized”, but a generalization like that holds absolutely no ground to the origional post that details exactly why it should be legalized. It’s like Brock Strasser said on another thread, once someone reads or hears something they don’t agree with, they tend to close their minds off to whatever information might be following it. Open up, people!
i actually am in agreement w/ the article. Legalizing cannabis is about the biggest no brainer (that takes some balls) out there. Other hard drugs, require a bit more thought. The article doesn’t mention a 1990 or 1980, i forget, treaty signed by most if not all UN countries, saying that they would keep mj illegal (Holland and soon to be Switzerland have found ways around this making it “tolerated” but not technically legal. in other news though the UKRAINE is pushing to no longer prosecute people in possesion of cannabis (the most pure form of decriminalization). I mean come on the Ukraine, one of the former soviet republics who we demonized for their war against their citizens. geez.
Colin - good to see you were paying attention when you were programmed with…sorry, I meant “learned” American history. The vast majority of Loyalists did NOT think “we’re just fine right now” - most of them AGREED with the majority of the secessionst’s goals - repeal of unfair taxation, shifting of decision making to local Parliaments (early ideas similar to the idea of “Dominion status within the Empire” that emerged with the creation of Canada), etc.
Where they differed with the revolutionaries was that they couldn’t stomach the idea of a complete break - they might disagree with the government’s actions, but still considered themselves British. Also, many had trouble with some of the secessionists’ positions, such as their position on the Indians (Native Americans, First Nations, whatever.) One of the “Intolerable Acts” was the Ohio Valley Proclamation, which limited westward expansion of the colonists to give the First Nations of the Ohio Valley somewhere to live. Those who learned their American history from “Schoolhouse Rock” have probably never heard of this one - it gets left out of many modern elementary and HS texts on the technical ground that it wasn’t an Act of Parliament, but an order-in-council. This wasn’t entirely altruistic (it was also a reward for their siding with the Crown in the French and Indian Wars), but it was also recognized that the Indians were ALSO subjects of the Crown and entitled to the Crown’s protection. We all know where the Revolutionaries’ ideas led to - ever heard of something called the Trail of Tears? (And yes, in case you’re curious, I’m part Cherokee.)
There’s also little quibbles such as the way the decision to secede was reached at: even those few colonists - white males who, in most areas, had to own property in order to be eligible to vote - rarely had any actual choice, just a vote between secessionsists of different flavours. The attitude of the Revolutionaries was “your betters have made the basic decision, but you can have a voice in the details.” Anyone who dared to voice a contrary option would - if lucky - just be severely beaten and exiled. If they were unlucky, they’d wind up DEAD and their families would be exiled - with their land snapped up in auctions after they left by the same wealthy secessionsts who ran the Revolution. We have a name for the decendants of those unfortunate exiles who stood up for what they believed in - we call them “Canadians.”
We were just lucky that there were enough good men among the secessionsts who MEANT what they said about freedom, and turned out fine in the end. It was a close call (ever hear of the Alien and Sedition Acts?) A little one way or the other and we could have been just another tin-pot dictatorship, or France, which I believe has had EIGHT systems of government since their revolution (they’re on the Fifth Republic, with three (?) Empires in between.)
njloyalist, to give some credit to our founding fathers, Jefferson and Madison of the Republican Party got rid of the Alien and Sedition Acts employed by the FEDERALIST party. Also, it is ironic that you mention the racism and discrimination involved in the US gov, since it really pertains to this topic. Here is an excerpt i found from somewhere, from the Marijuan Tax Act of 1937 that first made MJ illegal.
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negoes, entertainers and any others.” Harry Anslinger, US Commissioner of Narcotics, testifying to Congress on why marijuana should be illegal, 1937."
njloyalist, Canadians did stand up for what they beleive, being a meaningless subject to some higher governmental power. The Canadian “constitution” (which does not even include Quebec) does not secure individual right one, instead it ensures a “right to good government” and “universal health care” to it’s citizens. I will take freedom and what is rightfully mine in exchange for the government enforced theft of others property where it conviences me. The loyalist/Canadian attitude has always been “Every one should be forced to take it in the ass just incase I get lonely some day” and just because you don’t particulary like the American Revolutionaries (if history tells us anything it is that nice guys end up face down at a young age) does not make supplication of ones self and others (via the mob rule of the democratic process) to a hegemonic master by whom you are rewarded for your “Loyalism” any sort of liberated (or “non-programmed”) intellecual state. Any thing less than a demand for freedom is a gutless prostration by an imasculated slave to a beloved master.