RAND PAUL for 2016??

Started by Bluedog, December 05, 2012, 03:15:51 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:43:37 AM
No, you keep demanding that I justify jailing you.

I told you many times that I don't support that. I even bold the important points and increase the font in the hope that you'll pick up on my position.  You don't.  If your state decides that's the PUNISHMENT for your CRIME.

Do I demand that you justify something you never advocated?

You're just a fool. You insist on going in circles. You have no logic to your argument.  THAT is what pot does to you.

First off, this has nothing to do with me. I am not a drug user.

That you want to make this argument about me shows that you are seeking to incite anger. You want to make this personal.

Well good luck with that. This is not my first political forum. I have debated bullies before.

Secondly, you support using force to punish drug users in some form, whether it be fines or flogging. That is violent.

So how do you justify supporting the use of violence on humans who themselves have not become violent?

Yawn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 09:43:23 AM
So you support punishing people for drug possession/use/ distribution?

How do you justify it?

Apologize for misrepresenting my position.
  Then take it up with YOUR state.  I have no influence there.

QuoteSo you support punishing people for drug possession/use/ distribution?

Already answered that.  You can't read



TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:47:55 AM

Apologize for misrepresenting my position.
  Then take it up with YOUR state.  I have no influence there.

Already answered that.  You can't read

You very clearly support the government using force to coerce drug users and those possessing and or distributing them.

Now we are just waiting on a moral justification for this opinion.

Do you know what it means to justify something? You have to argue why the act is just.

There needs to be an argument made by you defending the ethics of using force on humans.

So far you have not even attempted such an argument.

I will help you.

It is easy to justify using force on those who themselves use force on others.

Caging a murderer is just because the murderer gave up his right to be free when he took the life of another.

Rapists and thieves can be jailed, fined or punished under similar reasoning.

Now- what is the moral justification for using force on a human who has not used violence on another?

Yawn

You DON'T live in a vacuum. You convinced yourself that it is a "victimless crime." It is not.  You've convinced yourself that the only thing wrong with drugs is that you don't have easy access.  You are wrong.

I support a state's RIGHT to determine it's CRIMES and their PUNISHMENT

You want legalization.

QuoteBackground:

Drug legalization or decriminalization is opposed by a vast majority of Americans and people around the world.  Leaders in drug prevention, education, treatment, and law enforcement adamantly oppose it, as do many political leaders.  However, pro-drug advocacy groups, who support the permissive use of illicit drugs, although small in number, are making headlines.  They are influencing legislation and having a significant impact on the national policy debate in the United States and in other countries.  The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) is the oldest drug user lobby in the U.S.  It has strong ties to the Libertarian party, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the American Civil Liberties Union.  These groups use a variety of strategies which range from outright legalization to de facto legalization under the guise of "medicalization," "harm reduction," crime reduction, hem/marijuana for the environment, free needle distribution to addicts, marijuana cigarettes as medicine, and controlled legalization through taxation.

Rationale:

The use of illicit drugs is illegal because of their intoxicating effects on the brain, damaging impact on the body, adverse impact on behavior, and potential for abuse.  Their use threatens the health, welfare, and safety of all people, of users and non-users alike.

Legalization would decrease price and increase availability.  Availability is a leading factor associated with increased drug use.  Increased use of addictive substances leads to increased addiction.  As a public health measure, statistics show that prohibition was a tremendous success.

Many drug users commit murder, child and spouse abuse, rape, property damage, assault and other violent crimes under the influence of drugs.  Drug users, many of whom are unable to hold jobs, commit robberies not only to obtain drugs, but also to purchase food, shelter, clothing and other goods and services.  Increased violent crime and increased numbers of criminals will result in even larger prison populations.

Legalizing drugs will not eliminate illegal trafficking of drugs, nor the violence associated with the illegal drug trade.  A black market would still exist unless all psychoactive and addictive drugs in all strengths were made available to all ages in unlimited quantity.

Drug laws deter people from using drugs.  Surveys indicate that the fear of getting in trouble with the law constitutes a major reason not to use drugs.  Fear of the American legal system is a major concern of foreign drug lords.  Drug laws have turned drug users to a drug-free lifestyle through mandatory treatment.  40% - 50% are in treatment as a result of the criminal justice system.

A study of international drug policy and its effects on countries has shown that countries with lax drug law enforcement have had an increase in drug addiction and crime.  Conversely, those with strong drug policies have reduced drug use and enjoy low crime rates.

The United States and many countries would be in violation of international treaty if they created a legal market in cocaine, marijuana, and other drugs.  The U.S. is a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotics & the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, and has agreed with other members of the United Nations to control and penalize drug manufacturing, trafficking, and use.  112 nations recently reaffirmed their commitment to strong drug laws.

Permission is granted to reproduce this article,
provided credit is given to Drug Watch International

http://www.drugwatch.org/Against%20Legalization%20of%20Drugs.html



TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:59:56 AM
You DON'T live in a vacuum. You convinced yourself that it is a "victimless crime." It is not.  You've convinced yourself that the only thing wrong with drugs is that you don't have easy access.  You are wrong.

I support a state's RIGHT to determine it's CRIMES and their PUNISHMENT

You want legalization.

I never argued that I did live in a vacuum.

I have not convinced myself that it is a victimless crime- it is.

Drug exchanges are free exchanges. You can't victimize yourself.

And there a lot of things wrong with drugs, and most of them flow out of the fact that they are produced and sold on a black market. Just as prohibition gave us bath tub gin and the deaths associated with it, the drug war has given us crack and meth, and those who support this war share in the responsibility for the death and destruction that flows from the black market.

And I am still waiting on your moral argument.

I am beginning to think you have never considered the moral dimension of the law and dont have an answer...

Yawn

You have them. You just reject them. I can't help you with that, and I know I can't convince you.  I'm done trying. 

This isn't the issue I ever mentioned regarding Rand Paul.

My opposition was based on his stated stance on
Abortion
ILLEGALS

You only debate this one issue--but then RP supporters always do. That and crucifying Israel.

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 10:11:42 AM
You have them. You just reject them. I can't help you with that, and I know I can't convince you.  I'm done trying. 

This isn't the issue I ever mentioned regarding Rand Paul.

My opposition was based on his stated stance on
Abortion
ILLEGALS

You only debate this one issue--but then RP supporters always do. That and crucifying Israel.

I really dont know what the first 3 sentences of this post refer to.

I have only debated this one issue with you.

I am more than capable of discussing a wide variety of issues.

My views on immigration are well known.

Yawn

Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 10:15:29 AM
I really dont know what the first 3 sentences of this post refer to.

I have only debated this one issue with you.

I know. Kinda makes my point.  So does the fact that you can't follow a thread.

bye

TowardLiberty

#83
Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 10:22:23 AM
I know. Kinda makes my point.  So does the fact that you can't follow a thread.

bye

This coming from the poster who has been unable to form a moral argument justifying their opinions, even after many pages of questioning.

Ultimately it seems that you dont question the morality of law at all.

While running from forming an argument you have proven most adept at taking a discussion into the realm of the personal- eager to insinuate that I was a drug user, as if everyone who is against the drug war must be a drug user.

This is same reasoning that posits that only slaves could be abolitionists, or that only gay people can support gay marriage.

Shooterman

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:33:22 AM
You're offended because I tell you the truth.
In what way?  You've really said nothing.

If a little introspection doesn't show you how idiotic you are being in attacking those that differ from you on what being caged means, or those that do whatever they will as long as it hurts no one else, then all the talking and debating, ( which seems beyond your ability ) would lead one to believe at heart you are no better than the Inquisitors that took great delight in torturing people. You wish to cage a man and/or flog him for taking a stand on Pot that is different than yours because YOU think it to be immoral because it is illegal due to past racist thinking. 
There's no ticks like Polyticks-bloodsuckers all Davy Crockett 1786-1836

Yankees are like castor oil. Even a small dose is bad.
[IMG]

TowardLiberty

Quote from: Shooterman on December 06, 2012, 10:47:35 AM
If a little introspection doesn't show you how idiotic you are being in attacking those that differ from you on what being caged means, or those that do whatever they will as long as it hurts no one else, then all the talking and debating, ( which seems beyond your ability ) would lead one to believe at heart you are no better than the Inquisitors that took great delight in torturing people. You wish to cage a man and/or flog him for taking a stand on Pot that is different than yours because YOU think it to be immoral because it is illegal due to past racist thinking.

Well said, Shooter.


kramarat

Quote from: Yawn on December 06, 2012, 09:17:32 AM
Last time.

Take it up with YOUR state. It's between you and them

I'm not your King. I've decreed NOTHING in your state.

I already told you I don't generally agree with jail or prison except for capital offences until EXECUTION.  I support other forms of PUNISHMENT that doesn't burden the taxpayer.  You seem to want to ignore that and act like I have some say in YOUR PUNISHMENT.

You're not even arguing against PUNISHMENT. You keep arguing about "cages"  (the FORM of punishment).

Here's the argument for "caging" youYOU BROKE THE LAW.  If it's the PUNISHMENT for that crime in your state, that's the PUNISHMENT.

Since you seem to dislike it so much, maybe the deterrent value will do it's job.

I still prefer FLOGGING you. If not for pot, then for stupidity.  but a "cage" is fine with me in your case.  Seems to be what you fear. Maybe it'll help you straighten out your life.

I'm done with you on this topic.

Flogging? :confused:

Somehow this all sounds familiar....................

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/iranian-pair-death-penalty-alcohol

TowardLiberty

#87
Quote from: kramarat on December 06, 2012, 11:16:34 AM
Flogging? :confused:

Somehow this all sounds familiar....................

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/iranian-pair-death-penalty-alcohol

I find it interesting that Yawn cannot see the violence in forcing a person into a cage and holding them their against their will.

Apparently that is peaceful!

Well I am curious about something.

If one man were to forcibly restrain another, and proceed to whip him or "flog" him, would not this forced physical invasion constitute a violent act?

And if not, why not?

And if we can give our opinion regarding the legitimate use of violence in society, then should we not be prepared to justify this opinion?

Is that not what makes us human- the ability to use reason to justify our actions and beliefs?

hfishjr81

Quote from: TowardLiberty on December 06, 2012, 11:26:01 AM
If one man were to forcibly restrain another, and proceed to whip him or "flog" him, would not this forced physical invasion constitute a violent act?




Why does it have to be a "man" doing the forcing and "flogging"?  Sexist!!!  :ttoung:
"According to Gallup, 68 percent of Americans want corporations to have less influence in America."

TowardLiberty

Quote from: hfishjr81 on December 06, 2012, 11:32:29 AM


Why does it have to be a "man" doing the forcing and "flogging"?  Sexist!!!  :ttoung:

Men do most of the legal violence in this society.

But it certainly can be a woman.

Perhaps we have accidentally hit on something here...