Dr. Dobson reveals Liberty under attack

[AceArcher]

Originally Posted by RickLafayette

WHAT AN IMPRESSIVE LIST OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS!…
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party, a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.
First President to recommend changing our National Anthem as it portrays and promotes violence and is warlike in its theme.
First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer Breakfast and activities.
First President to initiate a Cash for Clunkers Program to clean up exhaust that adds to global warming, then extended it because it was so popular — wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to bypass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company which state they are allowed to locate a factory in.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Americorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
First President to pledge complete transparency while campaigning, then hide his medical, educational,and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to go on multiple global ‘apology tours’.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an and tells us that the early morning Islamic call to worship is the most beautiful sound on earth.

Many of these bullets point can be applied to the "Show me the Money" rule.... find out who his action benefited (almost always going to be a "megacorporation" think "monsanto, tyson, etc etc "

Now.... let me lay this on you.

What if O'drama is in power because he represents an ideal person to "blame" for all the changes that are happening in america? You would be hard pressed to find a more suitable scapegoat for middle class america to blame for the continued lessening of what america once was.

Please don't misunderstand me... I hate him as well... but your kidding yourself if you think he has achieved all this without help from both sides of the aisle as well as huge money backing it.

Just saying.

[CajunSteelsetter]

MG, I was taught at home my whole life and in what seems to be a similar way to what you are doing with your kids. Kudos! I really respect the sacrifices that I know you and your wife must make for the benefit of your kids.

[duck enticer]

I think Jesus summed it all up for us when he gave us the two great commandments:

1. Love the Lord your God with all Heart, Soul, and Strength.

2. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.

As Christians we can only show the love of Christ through action and deed to our neighbor. The problem with this country and this world is that there are too many fan's with too few followers. If we start working on ourself the world and our surroundings would be much better off.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by AceArcher

How the heck do you multi-quote... I tried the button at the bottom, can not get it to work.

I think you've figured it out. Use the quote and then cut and paste the tags at the beginning and end of the quoted material.

Originally Posted by AceArcher

Either way my opinion falls perfectly in line with theirs.. I will go so far as to say Thank goodness the do want to legalize. Understand something, I am a non user.. (well there was that one time in college sneaking out with a girl who enjoyed an occasional smoke) but i digress....

The war on drugs has done nothing but make hundreds of drug king billionaires, incite what amounts to basically open warfare south of our border, and provide fuel to hasten the stripping of own our citizens rights.

IMO its the proverbial 900lb gorilla in the room.... everyone knows that they are gonna have to recognize it sooner or later.... but no one wants to be the first to do so. Drugs will be legalized in our lifetime, there is simply to much science showing that it MUST be done.

Sadly, there is so much $$$$$$ wrapped up in continuing the "WAR" that it means millions more people are going to pay unnecessary penalties, fines, and prison terms before the nonsense will end. You simply cannot regulate what someone is going to do with there own body. You would think that we would have learned that lesson from prohibition.

I think you need to separate legitimate criticisms on how drug laws are enforced from the question of whether (and which and for who) drugs are illegal in the first place. Suppose that laws against child prostitution were brutally enforced with blatant disregard for Constitutional rights, would this support a case to legalize child prostitution?

Now there is certainly a lot of problems with current drug laws and their enforcement. Among these: Most federal drug laws are an overreach of federal power far beyond congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. In most cases, drug laws should be a purely state issue. Laws allowing agencies to confiscate property before anyone is convicted of a crime perpetuate and encourage bad behavior on the part of government officials. The US Constitution is the supreme law if the land, and government employees who violate it should face stiffer penalties (as corrupt officials) than the alleged offenders who they are purportedly trying to catch.

My case that drugs should remain illegal is framed around three basic ideas:
1. Many recreational drugs do harm that goes far beyond the individual user and greatly increase the likelihood that the individual user will become an undue burden on his employer, his family, his insurers, his landlord, his creditors, other associations (school, sports, religious), and society as a whole. Making and enforcing effective laws against driving under the influence is a particular challenge.
2. Laws train the conscience of young people, and many teenagers approach adulthood with the notion that if an act is truly wrong or dangerous, then it is against the law. Once legalized, there will be many more users both because the conscience will more easily accept it, and because it is simply more widely available.
3. As a practical matter, substances that are legal for adults are much more easily acquired by minors. Laws against alcohol and nicotine use by minors are very rarely enforced, and I would hate for those providing marijuana to children to face no more penalty or effective enforcement than those providing cigarettes.

In a libertarian utopia where insurers, fathers, sports teams, schools, employers, and other interested parties could contractually insist on drug testing and there would remain criminal penalties for fraud or theft by deception for lying/cheating on drug tests, a society might still maintain sufficient safeguards. But merely legalizing recreational drugs in the current nanny state where many insurers, employers, traffic enforcement, and other parties which have interests in limiting exposure to drug users cannot fully protect their interests is a likely disaster.

I remember a high school principal once almost fired me (as a math teacher working in the school) because I overheard students in class talking about their weekend drug use, told their parents, and suggested their parents use widely available at home drug tests to monitor and bring correction to their children's behavior. I am confident I would have been fired had I not resigned first. 80% of the seniors at this high school were regular recreational drug users. The school resource officer, the principal, the school nurse, and most of the teachers either did not care, or had been manipulated into not acting by their desire for a paycheck. Effectively teaching math, physics, and chemistry was impossible.

Any path to drug legalization certainly needs to empower any and all associates of possible drug users (parents, schools, sports teams, employers, coaches, traffic enforcement, insurers, etc.) to implement effective drug testing programs (if they choose) as a condition of ongoing association. I would certainly want my daughter's prom date to pee in a cup before allowing my daughter to ride in his car! I would also want our military to retain the power to restrict drugs under the UCMJ.

I am curious if your view of libertarian ideals would grant all associates of possible drug users the rights to choose and limit their associations (if they wished) by insisting on drug testing as a condition of association. After all, what justification is there in limiting civil contracts not to permit drug testing under any relationship where one of the parties feels it may be necessary or desirable?

[BassAssasin]

pretty good argument there. You raised some very valid concerns that I have not thought of.

[bmac]

I'm opposed to legalization, but I think comparing marijuana to child prostitution hurts your argument.

[AceArcher]

I have to run out for a bit tonight. But in a quick comment i will say that those are the same arguments used to promote prohibition.

Will discuss further either later tonight or when i have a chance to get back on the computer.

[AceArcher]

Discussion after this moved to Libertarian view on drugs.

Before addressing some of the things below, I want to clarify a bit. When i referred to "legalization" I am speaking of drugs which are considered to be "Soft" i.e. Alcohol, Nicotine, Cannabis / Weed / MJ etc, Mushrooms and like.

So now we can proceed.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Legitimate criticisms on how drug laws are enforced should be separated from the questions of whether drugs are illegal in the first place, which drugs are illegal and for who are they illegal. Suppose that laws against shoplifting were brutally enforced with blatant disregard for Constitutional rights, would this support a case to legalize shoplifting?

As indicated above I have clarified that i take this discussion to be one on the legalization of various "soft" drugs. Although compelling arguments can be made that one should even legalize "hard" drugs i do not believe that this is the correct time or place to discuss those.

To be blunt here MG, there is no comparison between shoplifting, child prostitution, legalized murder or any other violent crime / crime against another person that you care to use as an example.... if you ask why? its because "soft" drug use is a personal decision that can be made by an adult and does not in and of itself cause any harm what so ever to anyone else.

Every other example listed involves one human either physically or monetarily harming another.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

There are certainly a lot of problems with current drug laws and their enforcement. Among these: Most federal drug laws are an overreach of federal power far beyond congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce. In most cases, drug laws should be a purely state issue. Furthermore, laws allowing agencies to confiscate property before anyone is convicted of a crime perpetuate and encourage bad behavior on the part of government officials. Finally, the US Constitution is the supreme law if the land, and government employees who violate it should face stiffer penalties (as corrupt officials) than the alleged offenders who they are purportedly trying to catch.

Basically i agree with what your saying in this paragraph, The current laws pertaining to "soft" drug use are the very definitions of insanity. When violent person on person crimes (assault & battery, rape, etc) receive lower sentencing due to silly "get tough on drugs" laws, then there is something very very wrong with our system.

Although the current AG has proposed sweeping reforms to how non violent drug offense crimes are handled (by seemingly fast tracking them into treatment programs rather as an alternative to jails) I am viewing these actions as a stopgap attempt to continue the "war" on drugs, and just changing from prison punishment to one where drug counseling programs will be the new benefactors of a massive federal cash infusion. It will kind of make for a somewhat "perfect" storm ... drug war and it's associated cost's will get to continue, and the drug counseling programs will get a huge present under the tree this christmas. If this goes thru expect to start seeing a lot of commercials for "compassionate care for your loved one's suffering from addiction."

Originally Posted by MathGeek

My case that drugs should remain illegal is framed around three basic ideas:
1. Many recreational drugs do harm that goes far beyond the individual user and greatly increase the likelihood that the individual user will become an undue burden on his employer, his family, his insurers, his landlord, his creditors, other associations (school, sports, religious), and society as a whole. Making and enforcing effective laws against driving under the influence is a particular challenge.

2. Laws train the conscience of young people, and many teenagers approach adulthood with the notion that if an act is truly wrong or dangerous, then it is against the law. Once legalized, there will be many more users both because the conscience will more easily accept drug use, and because drugs are more widely available.

3. As a practical matter, substances that are legal for adults are much more easily acquired by minors. Laws against alcohol and nicotine use by minors are very rarely enforced, and I would hate for those providing marijuana to children to face no more penalty or effective enforcement than those providing cigarettes.

On subject #1: Again when discussing "soft" drugs that are currently illegal the exact opposite of what you are stating has been proven on many many different scientific fronts. Whether you want to look at studies conducted here in the states, or one's conducted overseas in countries where "soft" drugs are either legal, or de facto legal. Everything points to the fact that legalization results in lower levels of drug use by residents of that area (although there is some uptick in tourism drug use) lower petty and violent crime rates, in short legalization, regulation, and control help!

The making and enforcing of laws to cover vehicle use, while under the influence have already been done. Therefore they are no longer a challange, IMO it's very similar to Alcohol. You administer a field sobriety test, if the person fails said test they are then required to submit to a drug test to determine THC levels in their sample. Case closed, book 'em Danno.

On subject #2: Again the exact opposite of what your stating has been scientifically studied and proven in test bed countries like Portugal and the Netherlands, as well as many many studies here in the states.

The Netherlands experienced a static level of drug use after legalization of "soft" drugs. After removing the increase in drug use seem by drug tourism. They actually saw a significant reduction in drug use of the local population.

Portugal decriminalized and has not even gone so far as to begin regulation. And they have shown a significant downturn in all (not just soft) drug use. Incidentally HIV infections due to infected needle sharing have all but disappeared.

on Subject #3: Study has shown that making a drug illegal has at best no impact on teenagers desire and ability to obtain the drug. In point of fact most studies show that teenagers tend to rebel rather than conform. I have to ask you here MG, If you are the guardian of a teenager who is choosing to rebel without your permission. Would you prefer that said teen purchase their weed in a enviroment that's controlled and regulated to ensure safety. Or would you prefer that said teen purchase the drug in the "Black Market / Gang Underworld" as they do now.

If you feel that the second option is the better of the two, please in detail explain to me how you feel that it would be the better option.

If it's a case of an "adult" straw purchasing the drug for the minor, please answer the same question in regards to whats more beneficial (legal purchase vs black market)

Originally Posted by MathGeek

In a libertarian utopia where insurers, parents, sports teams, schools, employers, and other interested parties could contractually insist on drug testing, and there would remain criminal penalties for fraud or theft by deception for lying/cheating on drug tests, a society might still maintain sufficient safeguards. But legalizing recreational drugs in the current nanny state where many insurers, employers, traffic enforcement, and other parties which have interests in limiting exposure to drug users cannot fully protect their interests is a likely disaster.

There is no difference between who is currently insured and is a user of "soft" drugs, and who will be insured as a user of "soft" drugs post legalization. It is none of any insurance, employers, schools, teams, etc parties business what you as a person do with your personal time. None of the above "Sky is falling" issues presented any real concern in other country's who have legalized. Again, the scenario's remain clear. Same as if your intoxicated with alcohol in one of these situations. A person will report that they believe you may be under the influence, your then given a field sobriety test to determine if you are or not, if you fail you have the option to submit to drug test and / or lose your job, team affiliation...etc.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I remember a high school principal once almost fired me (as a math teacher working in the school), because I overheard students in class talking about their weekend drug use, I told their parents, and I suggested their parents use widely available at home drug tests to monitor and bring correction to their children's behavior. I am confident I would have been fired had I not resigned first. 80% of the seniors at this high school were regular recreational drug users. The school resource officer, the principal, the school nurse, and most of the teachers either did not care, or had been manipulated into not acting by their desire for a paycheck. Effectively teaching math, physics, and chemistry was impossible.

There have been loads of published studies which indicate that a person's capacity to learn is not hampered by reasonable level's of "soft" drug use. Does that mean you can learn if your stoned / drunk off your ***... probably not. But the overwhelming majority of drinkers do not choose to be drunk 24 hrs a day. I propose to you that the overwhelming amount of soft drug users will also have little or no desire (not to mention the financial means) to be stoned all the time.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Any path to drug legalization certainly needs to empower any and all associates of possible drug users (parents, schools, sports teams, employers, coaches, traffic enforcement, insurers, etc.) to implement effective drug testing programs (if they choose) as a condition of ongoing association. I would certainly want my daughter's prom date to pee in a cup before allowing my daughter to ride in his car! I would also want our military to retain the power to restrict drugs under the UCMJ.

So we should start administering BAC (blow in the tube sir) tests to all at every opportunity? Should there be a BAC tester ignition disabeler installed in every vehicle straight from the factory? Have you asked your daughter's prom date to blow in the tube when he last picked her up? Will you stay up until the return home and expect him to blow in the tube again then? And i'm sure your daughter's prom date wants to know how many shotguns you have and if your proficient in there use

I jest a little, but really. The sky will most certainly not fall and everyone will most probably not go completely slap insane if soft drugs are all legalized.

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I am curious if your view of libertarian ideals would grant all associates of possible drug users the rights to choose and limit their associations (if they wished) by insisting on drug testing as a condition of association. After all, what justification is there in limiting civil contracts not to permit drug testing under any relationship where one of the parties feels it may be necessary or desirable?

So I would only get to join your secret handshake club if I were to pass a drug test? That's not discriminatory at all is it? Going to go out on a limb here and say that if any "secret handshake club" is more worried about a prospect being an "evil" drug user than whether they are recruiting a solid upstanding member of society, who pays his taxes, loves his family, contributes to his community....... who may occasionally smoke a herb on the weekend etc... well they probably are looking at the wrong stuff and are not gonna be to popular an organization anyways.

I do certainly espouse some "libertarian ideals"

But i have learned my lessons well in life, and i do know this. What's right is right, And you should always "Aim small, Miss small" (ie Aim for the stars, when you make it to the moon it won't be a dissapointment)

[swamp snorkler]

Ace, do you currently smoke weed?

I really don't care one way or the other, just wondering since you seem to support it.

[AceArcher]

Swamp believe it or not i don't touch the stuff. I did try it during my younger days and quickly realized that the only effect it really had on me was to make me hungry (when i reconciled that fact with already being a lard *** i realized it would not be a good thing for me)

I was fortunate in my younger years that a close friend who did smoke was the person who purchased the product and shared it with me. I say i was fortunate because if i had been exposed to a dealer pushing other products.... Well i have always had an addictive personality(have been hooked on copenhagen, cigs, and alcohol to some extent in my younger days) so i wouldn't be surprised if i would have ended up as a statistic if I had tried worse drugs.

I am however very very intolerant of some of the sideshow's that the government has made of these issues. What could we achieve as a country if all we did was stop this rediculous war on drugs and restarted the hemp industry. We could have a country like most euro zone countries where good solid healthcare was free and considered to be a basic human right. We would have a country where incredible sums of money could be shoved into strong infrastructure growth programs, thereby insuring quality standards of living for our children, rather than the current path to a third world country status.

Sadly the could would probably not happen.. the money will simply line to pockets & bank accounts of people who already have so much of it that they no longer have a use for it.

[Montauk17]

Some interesting facts on hemp...this is my favorite one.

14. Henry Ford’s first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the car itself was constructed from hemp! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, ‘grown from the soil,’ had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel. (Popular Mechanics, 1941.)

http://listverse.com/2009/04/15/15-f...ts-about-hemp/