Sunday, June 12, 2011

Who's Winning the Drug War? According to Judge Jim Gray, Six Groups Are, Including The Terrorists



Jim Gray, a conservative judge in conservative Orange County, California, is featured in the Reason video above.  Judge Gray came to the following realization as a criminal defense attorney, federal prosecutor and judge, and says that it has to be understood by others:

"The tougher we get with regard to drug crimes, literally, the softer we get with regard to the prosecution of everything else." He also says that drug prohibition is the "golden goose" of terrorists - one of the 6 groups that are winning from America's war on drugs.

HT: Mike Carlson

Update: See George Shultz and Paul Volcker's related editorial in yesterday's WSJ on why America's "War on Drugs" has failed, and what to do next.

43 Comments:

At 6/12/2011 7:48 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Why the incessant harping on legalizing drugs?

Wouldn't voters vote in the politicos who want them legalized or at least decriminalized if that's what they wanted?

 
At 6/12/2011 7:54 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

I agree with the judge. But as long as the majority is permitted to trample on individual rights we will continue to have prohibitions of all kinds, not matter how stupid they are.

 
At 6/12/2011 7:57 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"But as long as the majority is permitted to trample on individual rights..."...

So the rights of the individual should trump the rights of the majority?!?!

 
At 6/12/2011 8:00 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

The War on Drugs, the War on Poverty and the War on Terror--three wars designed to perpetuate federal agencies and the gaggle of grifters attached thereto.

 
At 6/12/2011 8:11 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

So the rights of the individual should trump the rights of the majority?!?!

Only individuals have rights.

 
At 6/12/2011 8:19 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Only individuals have rights"...

Where does this happen? On your planet? Where's that?

The majority can only be made up of individuals...

 
At 6/12/2011 8:50 PM, Blogger VangelV said...

Where does this happen? On your planet? Where's that?

The majority can only be made up of individuals...


Yes, it is made up of individuals. But they are not ants or bees and have different ideas, desires, and preferences. Whenever that majority decides to limit choices and voluntary activities it will trample on the rights of many individuals.

You are still in the progressive mindset and ignore that rights are negative.

 
At 6/13/2011 1:23 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

There are at least two benefits in legalizing drugs, to make it socially acceptable:

1. Politicians can more easily control a nation when the masses are addicted to drugs.

2. Politicians will collect a lot more in taxes.

The Republicans must be on drugs, because they've accepted the blame for the recession and financial crisis.

 
At 6/13/2011 5:14 AM, Blogger geoih said...

Quote from juandos: "So the rights of the individual should trump the rights of the majority?!?!"

VangeIV is correct. The "majority" is not an entity unto itself. The "majority" is only a group of individuals, none of whom have more rights than any other individual that doesn't agree with them.

 
At 6/13/2011 6:01 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

There are at least two benefits in legalizing drugs, to make it socially acceptable:

1. Politicians can more easily control a nation when the masses are addicted to drugs.


Many are addicted to drugs now. There is no difference between being addicted to legal drugs and illegal drugs. Alcoholism did not explode after Prohibition ended with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.

2. Politicians will collect a lot more in taxes.

Yes they will. But consumers of drugs will still pay a lot less.

The Republicans must be on drugs, because they've accepted the blame for the recession and financial crisis.

To believe that the Republicans are very different from the idiot Democrats requires something to dull the mind.

 
At 6/13/2011 7:15 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"But they are not ants or bees and have different ideas, desires, and preferences. Whenever that majority decides to limit choices and voluntary activities it will trample on the rights of many individuals"...

Well the majority also decided to limit the choices and voluntary acts of necrophiliacs too...

According to your logic the majority is also stepping on their rights...

 
At 6/13/2011 8:50 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"So the rights of the individual should trump the rights of the majority?!?!"

you are missing the point here completely.

first off, the whole purpose of rights is to prevent a tyrannical majority.

let's say you are gay. let's say that 51% of Americans say you should be sent to a re-education camp top learn to be straight and that your property should be confiscated and used to fund such camps.

feeling free?

the whole point of rights is that they are not in any way dependent on majority opinion.

if i wish to speak freely and express my views that the united states was founded by cabbage patch kids bent on world domination, my right to speech means that even if every single other person in the US wants me silenced, i am still permitted to voice my views just as i can be gay or a communist or whatever.

rights have nothing at all to do with majority. they are a defense against it.

your notions here are dangerously tyrannical.

second, what rights of yours are trampled by others using drugs? if your neighbor sits home, smokes pot, eats a box of cookies and watches scooby doo reruns, what in hell does that have to do with you or your rights?

now, you are likely to try to make a flawed economic argument and claim that you don't want to pay for them. that's just foolish. you are already paying for them. you are paying far more than you would if drugs were legal.

now you pay for jails, courts, the dea, fbi, customs, and treatment programs.

if drugs were legal, you'd pay for NONE of that. such treatment as was needed or desired would be paid for by taxes on the drugs.

if you want to see the rights of the society trampled, then the current system is the way to go. i am forced spend money to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate people who have harmed me in no way all to protect the theft of my right to use drugs if i so choose?

that's insane. that's tyranny coming and going, both economic and social. i am forced to pay to take away my own rights.

you have no leg to stand on with this "rights trampling" argument. legalization would increase rights and freedom for everyone.

 
At 6/13/2011 8:57 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

Well the majority also decided to limit the choices and voluntary acts of necrophiliacs too...

According to your logic the majority is also stepping on their rights...

this is just stupid.

a body continues to have rights just as a living person does, even if they are just property rights. you cannot violate it absent permission just as an autopsy cannot be performed without permission or warrant.

you are making incredibly flawed jumps here including the assumption that just because something IS law that that law is right, just, or constitutionally consistent.

this sort of reasoning could be used to defend slavery, female disenfranchisement, illegal homosexual relations, or any number of other egregious rights violations.

you cannot start with the proposition that "it's the law therefore it is right".

that's totalitarian dogma.

 
At 6/13/2011 9:00 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"2. Politicians will collect a lot more in taxes.

Yes they will. But consumers of drugs will still pay a lot less."

precisely. and get better, safer products as well.

someone is going to make money on this. think juandos, would you rather it be a drug cartel destabilizing mexico through murder and corruption or the US federal and state governments with some left over for consumers.

 
At 6/13/2011 9:18 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

let's say you are gay. let's say that 51% of Americans say you should be sent to a re-education camp top learn to be straight and that your property should be confiscated and used to fund such camps.

feeling free?


This type of argument does not work well among many of the brainwashed. My twelve-year old son just got a B on his speech where he argued that intentions do not matter as much as actions and used the gay rights issue as an example.

He pointed out that gays were hounded by the police, churches, and courts. There were no effective activists that recognized their rights to be left alone. They had to rely on the mob to provide them with places to drink and hang out. The mob did not do this because it supported gay rights. It ran gay bars because it was interested in getting rich by meeting a social need that could not be met legally. In his story the mob had the higher ground while the government was just being a petty tyrant even though if we judged by intention we could argue that the opposite was true.

But even though he brought Sophocles and the Nuremberg trials as support for his position there was no way to convince the teacher. Yet.

 
At 6/13/2011 9:26 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

you are making incredibly flawed jumps here including the assumption that just because something IS law that that law is right, just, or constitutionally consistent.

this sort of reasoning could be used to defend slavery, female disenfranchisement, illegal homosexual relations, or any number of other egregious rights violations.

you cannot start with the proposition that "it's the law therefore it is right".

that's totalitarian dogma.


Yes it is the totalitarian's dogma. But since we live in a world where authoritarianism is considered respectable but libertarians are considered dangerous we should expect that such a dogma would be dominant.

My son pointed out something interesting abut tyranny. He said that even though the allies tried the Nazis at Nuremberg their leaders never had the honesty or the guts to bring up Natural Law directly. Instead, they used the term 'crime against humanity', which could be interpreted as something that could be determined by an international body like the UN. He said that it is this point that should be used to argue against the UN and no other.

The problem as I see it is that neither the Right nor the Left is opposed to its own brand of authoritarianism. They only oppose the authoritarianism of the other side.

 
At 6/13/2011 9:57 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"what rights of yours are trampled by others using drugs? if your neighbor sits home, smokes pot, eats a box of cookies and watches scooby doo reruns, what in hell does that have to do with you or your rights?"

But, of course, we're not just talking about pot here, are we?

"you are likely to try to make a flawed economic argument and claim that you don't want to pay for them. that's just foolish. you are already paying for them. you are paying far more than you would if drugs were legal ... if drugs were legal, you'd pay for NONE of that. "

There is absolutely no way that you can know this. And, as far as I know, no country that has experimented with liberalization has ever realized these kinds of benefits. Instead, the costs simply get shifted around. Alcohol abuse costs our economy well over $100 billion dollars a year, do you really believe that the costs associated with drug abuse will instantly disappear after uttering the magic word "legal"? If you do, you're naive.

"Well the majority also decided to limit the choices and voluntary acts of necrophiliacs too ... According to your logic the majority is also stepping on their rights..." "this is just stupid."

No, it's illustrative. The people have a right to establish societal norms, and you apparently have no intelligent argument to make with regard to that.

"that's totalitarian dogma."

No, what's totalitarian is to assume that you have the right or the power to impose your individual values on the rest of society.

"you are making incredibly flawed jumps here including the assumption that just because something IS law that that law is right, just, or constitutionally consistent."

The perception of what is "right" or "just" has changed many times through human history for reasons of changing mores, an increase in knowledge, etc, etc. What is important is the system under which those changes are allowed to take place. Under our system, laws are made by representatives who draw their authority from the freely expressed will of the people. Those laws are then subject to the review of an independent judiciary to ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution. The drug laws in question have all been made and enforced in accordance with this system. You may take issue with them and seek to have them changed or abolished, but you will have to convince the rest of us that that is the best course for our society to take. That is not "totalitarianism", that is the workings of a free society.

 
At 6/13/2011 10:04 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"The problem as I see it is that neither the Right nor the Left is opposed to its own brand of authoritarianism. They only oppose the authoritarianism of the other side."

Ah, yes, no one is as intelligent or as pure of heart as you.

It's just hell having to live under the tyranny of the free and democratic Western world.

 
At 6/13/2011 10:07 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

First, he calls for the elimination of the FDA - "The government has as much of a right to control what I, as an adult, put into my body as I put into my mind - it's none of their business." Later on he cites "control" and "regulation" as benefits of his scheme. Huh? He then insinuates that cocaine use has increased when, in fact, it has decreased dramatically. Next, he blames the "Drug War" for his department's failure to prioritize the prosecution of violent crimes, including murder. Was that really Ronald Reagan's directive? Prosecute low end drug users and let murders walk? Perhaps Reagan naively believed that these guys could walk and chew gum at the same time. Rich drug dealers, gangs, parasitic law enforcement, terrorists, blah, blah ,blah. Is their any evil in the world that isn't a direct result of the "Drug War"? Is there any budgetary shortfall which cannot be resolved simply by legalizing and taxing pot? I'm not big on blame shifting. Call me naive, but I figure that those responsible for all of the societal harm resulting from the use of illegal drugs are the users themselves.

Most of his talk is centered on the legalization of pot, which more and more people are starting to agree with, if for no other reason than that it is already de facto legal in many states. Of course, it is one thing to legalize pot and another to legalize harder, more addictive drugs. Drug abuse is already said to cost our economy more than $100 billion dollars a year. I've stated my case in previous posts, so I will not do a "Benji" and repeat it over and over, but I would ask you to think long and hard about the myriad problems that the legalization of hard, addictive, mind altering drugs would pose for our society.

 
At 6/13/2011 10:27 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

But, of course, we're not just talking about pot here, are we?

So what? The point is still the same even if the user was on heroin, cocaine, opium, or whatever else. Someone taking drugs does not violate your rights.

There is absolutely no way that you can know this. And, as far as I know, no country that has experimented with liberalization has ever realized these kinds of benefits. Instead, the costs simply get shifted around. Alcohol abuse costs our economy well over $100 billion dollars a year, do you really believe that the costs associated with drug abuse will instantly disappear after uttering the magic word "legal"? If you do, you're naive.

Nonsense. Not having to spend $100 billion plus on the war on drugs is a huge benefit. So is the lower crime rate and the higher tax revenue.

As for alcohol abuse, it did not go up after Prohibition ended. People always had access to alcohol. The difference was cost and quality. And the lower cost of law enforcement.

No, it's illustrative. The people have a right to establish societal norms, and you apparently have no intelligent argument to make with regard to that.

As the man said, "that's totalitarian dogma." I agree.

No, what's totalitarian is to assume that you have the right or the power to impose your individual values on the rest of society.

He is not imposing anything because he is not using force to make people act in any particular way. It is you who impose your will on others by using the force of government to prevent them from engaging in voluntary activities. You can't spin that; it is totalitarianism.

The perception of what is "right" or "just" has changed many times through human history for reasons of changing mores, an increase in knowledge, etc, etc. What is important is the system under which those changes are allowed to take place. Under our system, laws are made by representatives who draw their authority from the freely expressed will of the people.

Really? Nobody asked the people if the military should bomb Yemen or Libya. Nobody asked the people if it is all right to frisk little old ladies and kids at airports.

Those laws are then subject to the review of an independent judiciary to ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution. The drug laws in question have all been made and enforced in accordance with this system.

The judiciary is not independent. No sane or independent judge would rule that growing your own wheat for use on your own farm constituted interstate commerce.

You may take issue with them and seek to have them changed or abolished, but you will have to convince the rest of us that that is the best course for our society to take. That is not "totalitarianism", that is the workings of a free society.

A society that uses force to regulate voluntary activities or prosecutes victimless crimes is not free.

 
At 6/13/2011 10:28 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Ah, yes, no one is as intelligent or as pure of heart as you.

It's just hell having to live under the tyranny of the free and democratic Western world.


If they regulate how much water your toilet uses, just how free do you think that you are?

 
At 6/13/2011 10:31 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Drug abuse is already said to cost our economy more than $100 billion dollars a year. I've stated my case in previous posts, so I will not do a "Benji" and repeat it over and over, but I would ask you to think long and hard about the myriad problems that the legalization of hard, addictive, mind altering drugs would pose for our society.

Addictions to legal drugs are also causing a huge amount of damage. If you take out the cost of running prisons and prosecuting the drug wars they probably cost society more than the use of legal drugs. And if I substitute prescription drugs for illegal drugs it is hard to argue that drug use has really gone down.

 
At 6/13/2011 10:39 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 6/13/2011 10:52 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"A society that uses force to regulate voluntary activities or prosecutes victimless crimes is not free."

Really? Do you have the "right" to masturbate in public, say on a school yard? And if not, why not? And if you do not, is that an indication that our society is "not free"?

As usual, you respond with an avalanche of gibberish.

 
At 6/13/2011 11:34 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

"But, of course, we're not just talking about pot here, are we?"

and what difference would it make it i used other drugs? how would that impinge upon your rights?

"There is absolutely no way that you can know this. "

sure there is. just add up the price of incarcerating drug offenders, running the courts, the dea etc. then double the number of americans in drug treatment. you'd still have huge savings even before you levied taxes. you are just being unreasonable and obstructionist because you need to keep some shred of a financial argument in place. but there is just no way you can get to any kind of drug treatment cost that looks anything like the existing costs.

"No, what's totalitarian is to assume that you have the right or the power to impose your individual values on the rest of society."

oh, you mean like telling people not to use drugs? (bu that they can drink and smoke to their hearts content).

wow did you just defeat your own argument.

and this is just as flawed:

"Under our system, laws are made by representatives who draw their authority from the freely expressed will of the people. Those laws are then subject to the review of an independent judiciary to ensure that they are consistent with the Constitution"

which is why blacks were not considered people and women had no right to vote and beating them was legally acceptable?

your whole argument is antithetical to a notion of human rights. the whole point of them is that they are NOT subject to restriction.

 
At 6/13/2011 12:43 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"a body continues to have rights just as a living person does, even if they are just property rights. you cannot violate it absent permission just as an autopsy cannot be performed without permission or warrant"...

Absolute nonsense morganovich!

All these alledged rights are those imposed by the majority on few who would take someone's property or body or whatever...

Unless its the state (the state just goes through the motions) one needs permission to take from another whatever it is...

Look at the asinine anti-smoking laws...

Now we're talking about the few having a say over the majority...

If you think that's a joke just look at all the 'mom & pop' bars that have closed down since various states, counties, and cities have foisted off these socialist/progressive laws onto others...

Do you see the difference?!?!

 
At 6/13/2011 1:15 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"All these alledged rights are those imposed by the majority on few who would take someone's property or body or whatever..."

this is gibberish.

what on earth are you trying to say?

and rights are not "imposed by the majority", they are guaranteed by the constitution.

in what country do you think you live?

can you possibly believe that the dead body of your spouse would not be your property?

smoking laws are a little tricky. (though your logic here is totally invalid - pointing to one bad law does not make another bad law any better, you're just engaging in the same error you keep making over and over)

on the one hand, i support people being able to do as they like, even with a substance that causes more health problems in the US than any other. you want to smoke in your home, go for it.

where it gets tricky is when you smoke near me. that may well be having significant health effects on me (though such data is always going to be difficult to impossible to compile accurately). what is not ambiguous is that the smoke stinks and ups my cleaning bills etc.

if i bring my pet skunk to a restaurant and it sprays you, you'd feel entitled to compensation for the clothes etc as well as perhaps for ruining your meal.

how is that any different from smoking?

this is where smoking becomes so tricky as a rights issue. you feel you have the right not to be sprayed by my skunk. why? because you feel you have the right to the sanctity of your person and possessions.

making my clothes stink of smoke is the exact same thing.

if i have the right to clean air and not to have my clothes infused with the smell of smoke (or skunk), then even though you have the right to smoke at home, your doing so in public violates my rights.

thus, it is a rights primacy issue.

i may have the right to free speech, but your right to property means you can tell me to get off your land while i do it.

this is precisely the same as you having the right to smoke, but not if it interferes with my right to clean clothes and fresh air.

 
At 6/13/2011 1:29 PM, Blogger juandos said...

No morganovich the 'gibberish" emanated from you with your inability to understand how rights come about...

"this is where smoking becomes so tricky as a rights issue. you feel you have the right not to be sprayed by my skunk. why? because you feel you have the right to the sanctity of your person and possessions"...

Then you know less than nothing about 'mom & pop' corner bars in local neighborhoods...

People go there to relax, have a beer or whatever and a cig...

Re: the skunk and it belonging to you and its spraying, well that's assault...

"making my clothes stink of smoke is the exact same thing"...

Then stay out of bars... People might be smoking so the carrion stench of whining non-smokers doesn't invade their nostrils...

 
At 6/13/2011 1:42 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

"what difference would it make it i used other drugs? how would that impinge upon your rights?"

You write this sentence and then follow it with the proposition that we "double the number of Americans in drug treatment" and fail to see that you've answered your own question. I know, I know, it will cost me LESS as long as I am willing to accept their behavior. I get it.

"oh, you mean like telling people not to use drugs? (bu that they can drink and smoke to their hearts content) ... wow did you just defeat your own argument."

As I said, the people set societal norms. They have chosen to make both tobacco and alcohol legal. Fine. But that has not meant, as you argue, that the costs have disappeared. The people may decide that you are right and that drugs should be legal, but they must do that within the constitutional framework. That is how free societies work.

"... you need to keep some shred of a financial argument in place."

The financial arguments you make are not compelling. Most of the people in prison for "drug possession" are, in fact, dealers, or their associates, who have pled down to that charge. Those people who are casual users are routinely directed toward drug treatment. (Read the whole article) Even if the drug trade became less profitable, these dealers will not simply get out of "the life" and get a job with a landscaping company, they will simply shift their focus to other illegal activities. So, instead of tying up the courts on drug related charges we will be tying them up on bank robbery, extortion, kidnapping, etc., etc..

"your whole argument is antithetical to a notion of human rights. the whole point of them is that they are NOT subject to restriction."

"Human rights" do not encompass every act of free will. One's liberty must be exercised within a social setting and the greatest exercise of one's liberty is within an ordered society.

Look, we disagree on this issue, that doesn't mean that I do not respect your arguments - and it certainly doesn't mean that I don't think that blacks are not people or that women should be beaten - I just have looked at the arguments, for and agianst, and have decided that my liberties are better protected under something like the current system.

 
At 6/13/2011 2:12 PM, Blogger Che is dead said...

George Shultz and Paul Volcker's editorial:

"... the costs of the drug war have become astronomical. Inmates arrested for consuming drugs and for possessing small quantities of them now crowd our prisons, where too often they learn how to become real criminals."

As the above link to the L.A. Times shows, this argument is just false. Our jails are not crowded with inmates "arrested for consuming drugs and for possessing small quantities of them". The vast majority, 85 percent, are imprisoned for dealing and they have simply pled down to "possession". Casual users are directed toward treatment.

"The number of drug-related casualties in Mexico is on the same order as the number of U.S. lives lost in the Vietnam and Korean wars."

Let's put this nonsense to rest. The FARC, the Shining Path, the Taliban and many other terrorist groups profiting from, and currently trying to capture, the drug trade started out as political movements. First, they robbed banks and kidnapped foreigners and the wealthy in order to finance their socialist rebellions. Now, they deal in drugs. But their desire is for political power and if they were denied drug financing they would simply turn to other illegal, violent activities. The body count in the Congo is orders of magnitude greater than in Mexico, are they big players in the U.S. drug market? It's not just about drugs, it's about power.

"We want to find our way to a less costly and more effective method of discouraging drug use, cutting down the power of organized crime, providing better treatment and minimizing negative societal effects ... One possibility is to decriminalize the individual use of drugs while maintaining laws against supplying them, thus allowing law-enforcement efforts to focus on the drug peddlers. Some of the money that is saved can be spent on treatment centers, which drug users are more likely to seek out if doing so does not expose them to the risk of arrest."

I couldn't agree more. But most of their recommendations, including the above, are already en force and are yielding results, yet they insist that this represents a "failure". The only difference is that they would seek to decriminalize and de-stigmatize drug use hoping to encourage addicts to seek treatment. But those involved in providing treatment argue that the threat of incarceration is needed to get addicts into their programs.

We will not realize an economic benefit from following policies that are already en force and calling the effort something else. Drug users behavior imposes a cost on society resulting in a loss of liberty, simply looking the other way will not change that.

 
At 6/13/2011 2:58 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"the proposition that we "double the number of Americans in drug treatment""

i was not proposing that we double the number. i was tossing out an extreme example and saying that even if that happened, you'd still be better off.

"The people may decide that you are right and that drugs should be legal, but they must do that within the constitutional framework. That is how free societies work."

this is totalitarian dogma.

you could make this same exact argument about no allowing women to vote.

 
At 6/13/2011 3:03 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

"The financial arguments you make are not compelling. Most of the people in prison for "drug possession" are, in fact, dealers, or their associates, who have pled down to that charge. Those people who are casual users are routinely directed toward drug treatment. (Read the whole article) Even if the drug trade became less profitable, these dealers will not simply get out of "the life" and get a job with a landscaping company,"

you mean like all the illegal liquor sellers stayed in business when prohibition ended?

if making and selling drugs are legal, you would not imprison dealers either.

your argument is a straw man.

""Human rights" do not encompass every act of free will. One's liberty must be exercised within a social setting and the greatest exercise of one's liberty is within an ordered society."

if one can exercise liberty without impinging upon that of another, then it ought be allowed. that is how you get the freest society in which the most liberty can be exercised.

 
At 6/13/2011 3:17 PM, Blogger morganovich said...

juandos-

i am part owner of a bar. trust me, i understand the business and the clientele better than you do.

but your logic is still nonsense, as was that gibberish you posted which literally cannot even be parsed.

you are taking a social norm and trying to substitute it for rights. you are also saying "this law exists, so why not that one" which is a completely flawed basis for evaluation.

"hey, blacks are slaves, why can't we enslave mexicans?" is the literal equivalent of your augment.

"Re: the skunk and it belonging to you and its spraying, well that's assault..."

but blowing a carcinogenic chemical on me and making my clothes stink isn't?

skunk musk doesn't cause cancer.

and let's say it was not right on you, let's say my skunk is at my table, sprays, and now the whole room stinks, but nothing was directed at you.

how is that different from smoking in terms of rights?

"Then stay out of bars... People might be smoking so the carrion stench of whining non-smokers doesn't invade their nostrils..."

and this is just asinine emotional venting over an argument you do not seem to be able to follow, much less win.

you are just making yourself look like a fool.

not only is this argument the literal equivalent of "hey, if they don't like being beaten up, wives should not contradict their husbands", but it is also contradictory to your earlier arguments about social norms.

you seem happy to support social norms when you agree with them (drugs), but look at how upset you get when social norms oppose your chosen vice.

the irony is pretty thick.

you seem to want YOUR norms, not social norms.

you see firsthand and rage about the tyranny of the majority, but then seem to wield the whip hand yourself.

that's pure hypocrisy.

imagine how angry you'd be if cigarettes were made altogether illegal. you would be a criminal unless you quit. they would cost $30/pack. quality would be low. "dealers" would go to jail. how would you feel about being taxed to incarcerate them?

your views here seem awfully inconsistent.

 
At 6/13/2011 3:33 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"i am part owner of a bar. trust me, i understand the business and the clientele better than you do"...

Yeah, sure you are and I'm part owner of a bridge, you want in on the action?

"but your logic is still nonsense, as was that gibberish you posted which literally cannot even be parsed"...

Well now coming from boss gibberish this is really quite the treat...

BTW only TARDS parse...

"and this is just asinine emotional venting over an argument you do not seem to be able to follow, much less win"...

Says the alledged bar owner and boss gibberish commando...

This is to rich for words...

And thoroughly delusional too!

You're from California, right?

"you are just making yourself look like a fool"...

This coming from boss gibberish! LMAO!

"not only is this argument the literal equivalent of "hey, if they don't like being beaten up, wives should not contradict their husbands", but it is also contradictory to your earlier arguments about social norms"...

You really should see a professional about your tenuous grip on reality morganovich, its really rather sad, still you're entertaining though...

"imagine how angry you'd be if cigarettes were made altogether illegal"...

Apparently you won't be happy unless the whole world sucks like California or New York city, eh?

"they would cost $30/pack. quality would be low. "dealers" would go to jail. how would you feel about being taxed to incarcerate them?"...

Again your tenuous grip on reality rears its ugly head again...

"your views here seem awfully inconsistent"...

Ahhh, go with the delusions then if it makes you quit whining...

 
At 6/13/2011 3:57 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Bar owners across Central Texas breathed a smoky sigh of relief Friday when an amendment to ban indoor smoking across the state died in the Senate...

State's Smoking Ban Sends Puffers To Idaho

Educate yourself boss gibberish{ Smoke Free Bars Business Loss Smoking ban South Carolina

 
At 6/14/2011 8:22 AM, Blogger morganovich said...

juandos-

you have no devolved into whiny childish blather because you cannot argue on the merits.

you have completely lost the thread and made my point for me.

you get absurdly angry if social norms threaten your vice and claim rights, but you are happy to wield the club of "social norms" to take away other peoples.

this makes you a hypocrite.

you did not make a single valid argument of any kind in you last post, it's just febrile rantings.

seriously, go back and read your post responding to me.

please point out one valid argument in it.

you will not be able to because there is not one.

you are just having an emotional melt down because you know i am right and cannot find a way out of the hypocrite hole you have dug for yourself.

and then, you attempt to call em a liar about something you cannot possibly know anything about. i am, in fact, an investor in a bar in san francisco. it's not a big part of my life or investments, but it does exist. it caters to a pretty hip crowd. i doubt we'd let you in.

to call others a liar about issue which you know NOTHING AT ALL makes you more than just unable to think clearly (as evidenced by your poor attempts at logic), it makes you an ass.

who but an ass would level such accusations without any knowledge whatsoever?

 
At 6/14/2011 9:29 AM, Blogger juandos said...

"you have no devolved into whiny childish blather because you cannot argue on the merits"...

Still whining & blathering eh, morganovich?

Grab a clue child and join the rest of the folks in the 21st century...

"who but an ass would level such accusations without any knowledge whatsoever"...

Ahhh, I can only think of one person its you morganovich...

 
At 6/14/2011 1:58 PM, Blogger Free2Choose said...

Morgo Said, "first off, the whole purpose of rights is to prevent a tyrannical majority."

Sorry Juandos, but Morgo is right on this one. Your are born with your individual rights - they are not granted to you by the government nor by the majority using the force of the government. At least that's how it is supposed to work.

 
At 6/14/2011 2:38 PM, Blogger Free2Choose said...

Che said, "Really? Do you have the "right" to masturbate in public, say on a school yard? And if not, why not? And if you do not, is that an indication that our society is "not free"?

Interesting argument, Che. But you could treat that as you would pollution or any other externality (like very loud noise) which impacts those around you. As the famous Chief Justice said, "My right to extend my fist should be limited only by the proximity of your chin." When your exercising your individual right substantively or materially infringes upon my rights, then of course there's a problem. There has to be some curtailment of the right of the individual since it impairs the rights of another individual.

I am not a drug user nor do I care much to associate with those that do. However, whatever a person does in the privacy of his/her own home, and which does not infringe on the individual rights of another, is quite frankly none of my (nor anyone elses's) business.

 
At 6/14/2011 4:20 PM, Blogger juandos said...

"Sorry Juandos, but Morgo is right on this one. Your are born with your individual rights - they are not granted to you by the government nor by the majority using the force of the government"...

Sadly free2choose if these people could talk, they'd probably tell you different...

 
At 6/15/2011 10:37 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

"Really? Do you have the "right" to masturbate in public, say on a school yard? And if not, why not? And if you do not, is that an indication that our society is "not free"?

How did I ever miss this bit of stupidity? Let me see if I can explain it in a way that your authoritarian biased brain can understand it.

First, a public space is not my property so I cannot do as I please without violating the rights of others. Whether I like it or not there are some customs that need to be obeyed. Since in our society individuals can expect not to be bothered by displays of public sexual acts, a show of violence, excessive noise or disruption, I have no right to engage in activities that will produce those disruptions.

Let me divert for a paragraphs to explain something more clearly. As a libertarian I do not believe that the rules of custom have to be obeyed at all times by all individuals. If we live in a society in which custom requires that we spit and kick Jews it does not make me a good citizen to obey that custom. I am with Aquinas and believe that logic and reason can provide a set of principles or 'Natural Laws' that will rise above mere custom or tradition. Customary and traditional norms should be violated if they run contrary to Natural Law.

But in the case where you wanted to masturbate in public the custom does not violate natural law. That means that you do not have the right to masturbate in public and can be forced to compensate individuals that you have harmed.

We can take this a step further. You are not even allowed to masturbate on your own property unless there is a line of sight barrier that would prevent the public or your neighbours witness your acts.

Your postings indicate that you are one of those people who believes that the King, Parliament, or Congress are incapable of passing a 'wrong' law and that your liberty is dependent on the whim of lawmakers, who are the source of your rights. That is a position that is used by tyrants to justify their totalitarian actions and activities. But it is not a valid position that can be defended by logic or reason. As Antigone reminded Creon, there was a higher law than his and as the Nazis found out, obeying a law that killed or enslaved innocent people was not a legitimate excuse to defend those that committed crimes against their fellow man.

 
At 9/08/2011 12:59 AM, Blogger rhinoron said...

Obama can be a Hero. If one looks at what products that can be made from the Hemp plant they would be amazed.1,000's of items including Fuel,Clothes,Plastics to name a few without using all the dangerous chemicals needed for processing. Take just one moment of your life and do a web search on What can be made from Marijuana (Hemp) Talk about jobs there would be 100's of 1'000 new jobs and Obama could be a Hero. Please just take one minute and google what can be made from marijuana(hemp) and I'm totally sure you'll have a change of mind. Even food can be made. Take just 1 moment of your life and get an education that you never knew. Tks Rhino Ron

 
At 9/08/2011 8:51 AM, Blogger VangelV said...

Obama can be a Hero. If one looks at what products that can be made from the Hemp plant they would be amazed.1,000's of items including Fuel,Clothes,Plastics to name a few without using all the dangerous chemicals needed for processing.

Actually, Obama can learn one thing from that failure FDR. FDR was popular because he stopped the property tax riots by getting rid of Prohibition. The tax revenues from alcohol sales allowed governments to make up a huge shortfall and to divert money away from unproductive law enforcement.

Taxpayers in Revolt: Tax Resistance During the Great Depression (ePub)

Taxpayers in Revolt: Tax Resistance During the Great Depression (PDF)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home