Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:39 pm
good for you, I trust the founding fathers and the proccess. I think you only spout the words hence the rolling eyes
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
TDPerk wrote:Then what good could Prohibition have done? Those who didn't mind the bottom of their mattresses wet made their own, and the smugglers' customers funded a certain regrettable Senator Kennedy and his son, and some 'shiners customers went dead or blind from bad whiskey.paperburn1 wrote:No it was far cheaper to make it at home, and I believe usage did go up a tad bit.TDPerk wrote: Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?
Did people keep on using WWI surplus U-boats to smuggle whiskey into the country after Prohibition ended?
Can you think well enough to draw an obvious conclusion?
A win-win for everything but society, that's all Prohibition ever is.
paperburn1 wrote: If that does not work move to a country that has the same view on the subject as you (AKA Johnny DEPP) But flapping you lips here does nothing but irritant people and lower your credibility . para fides paternae patria
Not that familiar with the history of federal courts overturning presidential executive order, although I hope you are correct. I am worried that he seems to think he can simply bypass Congress on everything from the budget to raising the debt limit by presidential fiat. I am worried when there are those in our national media who seem to think that would be great…gun control without having to deal with those pesky Republicans in the House and Senate. He promised the Brady campaign “under the radar” gun control, looks like he trying to deliver. I understand he has been trying to "stack" the federal courts with justices favorable to his point of view. There was one whose name escapes me who argued that it was irrelevant what the framer's intent was with the 2nd amendment, only what in his estimate served the public interest mattered. Fortunately he was not confirmed after a public outcry.GIThruster wrote:The current fuss about OBama planning to enter the gun control scene with an executive order is not worth concern. Several times in the past, US Presidents have tried to make law through executive order and were overturned by the courts. If OBama wants to make a political point by giving instruction to executive agencies alone, that is his prerogative. If for example he wants to tell all US Marshals they cannot carry handguns that take magazines that hold more than 10 shots, that is within his authority. If he wants to tell NASA personnel they can't carry weapons to work (what I'd expect is the current policy) he can do that. He cannot however make law for US citizens with an executive order. That's not what executive orders are all about, as several US Presidents have found in the past.
De nada. And thank you, you made me laugh.paperburn1 wrote:Here in front of me I have a machine that allows me to access the greatest works of mankind and I use it to look at cat and dog pictures and argue with strangers. I guess I just got carried away by the hype. Pardon me for thinking I knew you and sorry if I cuased you any stress.
Of that I have no doubt. Stacking the court could easily be the most damaging facet of his legacy. One or two more solid supporters on the court and the 2nd amendment option may be the only barrier between the regime and unrestricted tyranny.williatw wrote:I understand he has been trying to "stack" the federal courts with justices favorable to his point of view.
Is the death toll in Portugal and the Netherlands many orders of magnitude worse? Remember we are talking about decriminalizing 1st, maybe eventually legalized and in the case of harder drugs if legalized strictly regulated as to concentration/availability. Treating drug addiction as a medical condition. Other than being conquered like China was that would be the only way Opium would be legalized today. Of course Opium was legal in the states and Britain at the time the British forcibly legalized it in China. Yes I know you will say it only hadn't had enough time, or wasn't available enough to produce the same level of deleterious effects it did in China. In the States Opium laced products were being sold as "health tonics" or such, people didn't even know what they were buying. After all they used to put cocaine in Coca Cola sold to children, obviously regs were needed. We should have simply regulated concentration and availability instead of going whole hog on the Prohibition bandwagon. The war on drugs (and terror) can get us to an authoritarian socialist quasi-democracy just as surely if not more so than gov health care. Warantless no knock entry and searches, to say nothing of asset forfeiture. Being told by the courts you have no legal right to defend yourself from law enforcement forcing their way into your home even if they didn't identify themselves as such and have no warrant. Personally I don't think Obama has the Cajuns to be a dictator (he also doesn't I think have nearly enough support from the military..and of course a disarmed populace) but this rule by presidential fiat worries me because it would establish a precedent. One that will live long after Obama leaves office in 2016.Diogenes wrote:TDPerk wrote:Legalize drugs and those ratlines evaporate overnight. Why would they stay if there is no money to be made in it?GIThruster wrote:I disagree. I think Diogenes has hit the nail on the head here--the goal is not to win a war but rather to fight a mitigating action.
Your argument overlooks the most salient aspect of the discussion. Drugs KILL people. Thousands every year. And that's with them being ILLEGAL. If you let them establish a safe beach-head in society, the numbers of people being killed by them will go up into the millions just like they did in China. Alcohol kills something like 75,000 people per year,and it is relatively benign compared to most drugs.
Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.
Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them.Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.
Executive order can be overturn by the court or they can be rescinded by another executive order (E.G. Bushes stem cell research order was removed by President Obama). So although they seldom get changed the mechanism to make the change is well understood and has precedent in law.williatw wrote:GIThruster wrote:T
Not that familiar with the history of federal courts overturning presidential executive order, .
So speaks the all knowing Oz.TDPerk wrote:Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them.Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.
And it's not.
Will you say the same thing to GiT?ladajo wrote:So speaks the all knowing Oz.TDPerk wrote:Only if Prohibition is really keeping anyone who wants to try drugs away from them.Yeah, you may solve the problem of people making money off of drugs, but your solution will CAUSE a problem many orders of magnitude worse.
And it's not.
Just what makes you think you know what other people have in their heads?
I bet you let your kids play with loaded guns by themselves.