Hydroponics, anyone? Interesting raid on home of "growers"

[Glocktogo]

So my flawed logic is probably wrong to assume that traffic laws, drivers' licenses, building codes and the FAA are necessary? After all, they are laws that regulate how and if you can drive, how you build or remodel a building and how and if you fly. They are all in the interest of "the children and public safety" and were undoubtedly sold that way.

Driving is a privilege not a right. I think the comparison of speed limits to narcotic use is a far better correlation than gun laws and narcotic use. I agree that a junkie will find their preferred fix or an alternative and there is no way to eliminate that. I am not on the side of legalized drug use but some of you make compelling arguments. I also do not favor a nanny state and we should be thoughtful and cautious about being duped into new legislation for the safety of the children. Frankly, the solution is not so clear on either side. The best scenario may be somewhere in the middle.

My issue is not with you making the argument. I just think you should make your arguments on their own merit without drawing a direct link to any of our natural rights because they are not the same. Protecting the "children" and the public are valid reasons to pass some legislation and make some laws. I get that public safety is behind many bad laws and some necessary laws. Dismissing any law based on public safety and comparing it to the infringement on our natural rights is disingenuous. That is the only point I am trying to make. Carry on.

Please understand that I'm not busting your chops here, but yes, it's still slightly flawed. The laws you mention regulate what a person is doing that may impact the safety of others. The laws on PSE impact what a person may ingest for themselves, not others. That is a natural right. Gun rights are an enumerated right as you recognized. Now I say "slightly", because you can draw a direct correlation between meth use and the safety of the public at large. Meth labs are a public health hazard. Statistical analysis proves that people on meth are disproportionately more likely to harm others than non-meth users.

So long as it's not impacting an enumerated right (which comes with equally offsetting negatives), and we're doing it to save the public at large and not specifically the user themselves, I'm OK with it. That's how I can accept the legalization of pot, but not much more dangerous drugs like meth. IMO, the line just isn't all that blurry. YMMV

 

[vvvvvvv]

No one (not even those you listed) argued for legalizing meth production or usage.

That's because production and usage are already legal, provided you hold the patent and have a prescription, respectively.



Re: Narc presenter - their message depends on the room they are in. If they are talking about themselves to the sheep, then pseudoephedrine laws have worked. If they are asking for more funding, then they either have worked or they haven't depending on how they read the views of the audience.

The War on Drugs is a beautiful thing. There are very few other areas in life where you can get more money for lack of effectiveness as well as more money for alleged effectiveness. "Success" means it's "working", so we need more money to invest in that tactic. Failure means it's not working, so we need more money to research other means of hurting the general populace.

 

[ez bake]

The War on Drugs is a beautiful thing. There are very few other areas in life where you can get more money for lack of effectiveness as well as more money for alleged effectiveness. "Success" means it's "working", so we need more money to invest in that tactic. Failure means it's not working, so we need more money to research other means of hurting the general populace.

Except for the War on Terror, the War on Communism, the Cold War...

 

[vvvvvvv]

Except for the War on Terror, the War on Communism, the Cold War...

Basically, those "few other areas" encompass all Wars on Ideology.

 

[bettingpython]

We gotta quit using logic and civilized discussion. We need to start flinging pooh like the illiterate monkeys the left makes us out to be and react to these subjects in an emotional manner. Then we can perpetuate their designs on controlling the subjects of the state because we have given them what they want. "Reasonable restrictions" on something to prevent the minimal abuse of something because we have an emotional reaction to it. When you tell me that 25 to 35 percent of the ephedrine being produced is being used to cook crank then I might start being concerned. But even then I subscribe to the gedoogbelied school of thought lets get peopple real meaningful help rather than criminalizing them for an addiction.

 

[criticalbass]

Except for the War on Terror, the War on Communism, the Cold War...

All of these have been "incomplete successes," as have our for real wars since WW II. Nobody mentioned the sexual revolution. I damned sure lost that one, and I was an eager combatant.

 

[caojyn]

All of these have been "incomplete successes," as have our for real wars since WW II. Nobody mentioned the sexual revolution. I damned sure lost that one, and I was an eager combatant.

those dihonest hippies...oh sure they all talk about free love, but when it comes time to get down to business they all back out.