Drug Users and SUV drivers: Do you not know or Do you not care?

The BBQ Pit
181

You are comparing civil disobedience in the fight for civil rights to spending money on dope? Seriously? I am almost at a loss as to how to respond. Suffice it to say that your example is flawed. The brave people who fought for civil rights did so in a non-violent way, with no financial support going to people who, as part of their profit motive, killed and murdered. Your example would only hold water if the police officers, not the protestors compatriots, were the one responding to the breakage of the laws with violence, lynching, murders, and arson. If police officers do those things, they are horribly wrong. To compare drug use to civil disobedience in the search for civil rights is ludicrious and insulting on so many level.

I have no problem with people protesting the drug laws. What I have a problem with is that people who are chasing a fucking high have convinced themselves that those actions are a great act of civil disobedience, while ignoring the uses their money is being put to, and the Very Bad Things they support.

182

Ender Your complaint that I am using a false analogy ignores one glaring flaw: You have the choice to not do drugs. You try and say that my analogy isn’t valid because I have a choice of somewhere else to go, while ignoring that people have the choice of not to consume. I already used the fur example, but you could also consider veal. Because of the very bad things that occur in the creation of fur and veal I simply refuse to purchase those items. It’s not like I have to buy these things, and drug users don’t have to buy their drugs.

And your second alleged point that drug users are voting with their pocketbooks ignores my entire argument about taking responsibility for where and to whom your money goes. If I refuse to spend my money supporting one company, and, in protest, give the money to a company whose president kills undercover officers, I’ve only made a more irresponsible choice.

183

Hamlet the point is, that you missed - the people fighting for Civil Rights believed that the Jim Crow et al laws were unconstitutional, wrong etc. They certainly could have lobbied for changes in the laws, wrote articles etc, however, they chose to Fight the laws by their acts of civil disobedience, by breaking the laws, and were willing to accept the consequences of wrongful prosecution etc.

How is that at all different from the position of the (current) drug user saying “I believe that these drug laws are unconstitutional, wrong etc. and I believe that the best way to fight this fight is by civil disobedience” even when ‘verybadthings’ happen (as they did wrt civil rights)

Show me how the analogy is flawed. In each case, a group of people believe that the laws themselves are unjust and have chosen acts of civil disobedience to demonstrate this and as their way to communicate their concept that the laws are unjust. IN both cases, violence occur(s/ed). Yet in the one case, because apparently you believe that the fight was in fact, just etc, you’re going to give them a ‘by’ on the responsability for the violence, yet in the other case, you steadfastly declare that the civil disobedients are responsible for all of the violence that arise out of the situation.

184

By ignoring who is responsible for the very bad things. Kinda a biggie, I think.

In the Civil Rights actions, the activists protested Jim Crow laws by violating the laws, being arrested, and remaining non-violent. The very bad things happened TO them and was done by bigoted idiots of the public.

In a legalization actions, the activists “protest” the drug laws by violating the laws, hopefully not getting arrested, and giving the money to support systemic violence. The very bad things happened to others, and is being done by the very people the drug users are financially supporting.

Again, you may have a point, if the Civil Rights activist’s civil disobedience financially supported and not suffered at the hands of the very bad things. Had Rosa Parks protested the law by giving money to the people who were responsible for the lynchings, you might have a leg to stand on.

185

Hamlet (kinda a biggie) the drug users in this thread are suggesting that it’s the laws themselves that create the environment for violence. So, by civil disobedience to those laws, they’re attempting to rectify it.

It’s in the drug suppliers’ best interest that drugs remain illegal (thus bringing greater profits), just as it was in the KKK’s (for one) better interest to maintain the status quo for the Jim Crow laws et al.

charting it out:

a. civil disobedient wants jim crow laws overturned. Choose civil disobeience as the means to this end.

b. police/government enforce the law.

c. KKK et al need jim crow laws to remain on the books, create violence.

you say the civil disobedient is not responsible for the violence in the end.

but the same chart works for the drug laws.

a. Civil disobedient wants drug laws overturned, chooses civil disobedience as means to that end.

b. Cops/government enforce laws on the books.

C. drug dealers need for drug laws to remain on the books to continue higher profits, create violence etc.

yet here, you contend that the civil disobedient is also responsible for the violence etc.

I don’t see any difference (except for the obvious that all of us enlightened folks presently agree that the jim crow laws etc were unjust)

186

Look at your C. on your charts, and ask yourself who are committing the very bad things, and who are supporting those people.
I’ll wait…

…

…

In your first chart, the KKK were committing the very bad things. They did so WITHOUT THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE civil rights activists.

In the second chart, the Drug Dealers are committing the very bad things, WITH THE FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE drug users.

My whole point in the drug part of this thread is that drug users are financially supporting people who do very bad things. That is something that the civil rights activists never did. Again, if a civil rights activist had disobeyed the law and financially supported the lynching of their own, then you have a point. But they didn’t. And you don’t.

I honestly don’t know how to make it any clearer.

187

Well asking what you would do is apparently out of the question, which is fine, because your answer would most likely be complete shit with no basis in reality. The cliche “go fuck myself with a rusty chainsaw” was a nice touch though. I’m glad you done with me.

188

This explains a lot. Might I ask, respectfully, what it is that happened to you that made this such a hot button issue?

189

No, that would be too complicated for his simple brain to comprehend because he’s one of the types that actually believes the crap the government spews about pot.

My friend, the problem is our government, not the people it governs. I should have the right to smoke pot responsibly, but because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU, I am forced to buy it from those that can supply it. Your high and mighty rant is not going to change peoples desire to do what they will in their own time. Stay out of my business, my life, and my living room. Legalize instead of prosecute and the whole problem, the whole “war on drugs” and all its nasty side effects, are nullified. We are left with other problems, but I’ll take those any day over a country that fills its prisons with people who should never have been there in the first place. I know you are incapable of understanding my position, unless you live both sides of it you couldn’t possibly. It comes down to personal freedoms. I believe we should have them and that it is worth the cost. You do not…I feel sorry for your dog.

190

BinaryDrone, I wouldn’t even ask if I were you! Besides, who cares?

Hamlet, I must say that you are amazing. For someone who said they had very little time to put it together, that series of posts was impressive!

As for fucking myself with a chainsaw, no thanks, I’m strictly a meat-and-potatoes girl and don’t do anything really kinky.

Jump back. Seriously. Why do you think that “ravishes of drug use” made me laugh? Because that is just about the most accurate description I have heard in ages! I’m really sorry that you haven’t been able to come to grips with that part of your life (and you haven’t, if you are so humorless), but I have and I can laugh at myself and the whole drug thing. I have been sober almost 12 years, and I know that I am confortable enough with myself to find humor in horror. Sorry if you don’t.

Golly, drug money supports people who do Very Bad Things. So what? If I was still using, that would not be a compelling reason to change my behavior.

191

I wanted to be more clear on something: If you are insisting on placing blame for “Very Bad Things” then do so with the responsible party, those that continue to keep it illegal, people like yourself.

192

Can anyone point at someone who hasn’t read the whole thread? I can.

193

I’ll put you down on the “don’t care” side.

Bongmaster, I’ve already addressed the legalization issue, and, despite your protests, I completely understand your position. I guess you would rather stick with the namecallling than deal with that explanation, so I won’t bother repeating it, but if you are interested, look at my responses to Gary on page 3. Feel free to come on back if you have something intelligent to add though. I won’t hold my breath, though.

194

Well, believe me, I don’t want my money to go there either. Looks like there is a solution to the problem, doesn’t it?

Funny, I think of drug use as civil disobedience. I do not think of murder as civil disobedience. Perhaps if you want less people killed, you will agree to revoke the law. We’re not budging. Neither are you? Well, then, there you have it. Rant in a bottle.

Aww, is that pretty little law too costly for your precious uber-society? Funny, we’re expected to give up drugs because of those costs, and yet the suggestion of giving up the law is just a rationalization. Stunning piece of work there.

195

Hamlet if you’re talking about monetary links, don’t forget the huge monetary link between the Police (narcotic squads in particular) and the drug money - the confiscatory laws in this country are astounding.

The bottom line to your point visavis the $$ is “so what?” the actions between a and the law are the same, and for the same reasons. It was part and parcel of your whole contention that drugs were against the law now. the money factor has come into place because of the laws, not despite them.

196

You lost me. Completely. Are you saying the fact that police officers forfeit money and property from drug dealers somehow means they are supporting those drug dealers? And I don’t get your whole second paragraph. Are you saying that the fact there is a profit in drug dealing means police are financially supporting drug dealers? Please try and explain it again, maybe I’ve been at this too long.

197

the drug confiscatory laws allow the various police agencies to confiscate anything they deam possibly the proceeds of criminal venture. And they do. And keep the proceeds. (ie, it doesn’t go to say, the general fund of the governing body etc, it goes directly back to the drug enforcement agency - or at least it does locally).

so, there’s a built in incentive for the police involved to bust folks in ways to maximize confiscation potential.

how does this play out? an example (no cites, this happened to a guy I know personally vs. professionally) a relative of his was under surveliance for suspected drug dealing. This man (in his 50s, a father supporting his family) was seen giving a ride to a person from that relatives’ home. Based on that, when the bust went down, a couple of dozen people were arrested, including that man.

When they searched his home, they confiscated money. Money that had come from an insurance policy (his bro in law had just died and left the wife as beneficiary). This was easily demonstrated, in addition, his tax records from the past couple of decades demonstrated that everything in his home was accounted for through legal means of acquistion.

DIdn’t matter, the guy that had been given a ride was a courier. This man was charged w/money laundering. (potential 5 year federal sentence). They kept him reporting to a probation agent (yes, even though hadn’t been tried) for 3 years. three years. then dropped the case.

the money?

never returned. He’s tried to track it down but gosh darn, they (the officials) can’t seem to locate what happened to it.
So, this man never found guilty of any crime had money essentially stolen from him. The presumption was that any cash was from ill gotten gains. HOwever, w/in weeks of his arrest, they were able to prove exactly where the $$ came from.

he may end up loosing his house (where he’s lived for 30 years).

Yes, proceeds from ill gotten gains shouldn’t be retained by the criminal. HOwever, it should actually go to the state (as in ‘the state vs. joe criminal’) if there is no actual victim, not to a fund for the narcotic squad.

198

Alright, forget I said libertarian. Let’s just say that “Because I can” isn’t valid enough reasoning.

Erek

199

Why not?

200

Actually it’s an extremely legitimate example. People are going to jail for years for smoking marijuana. I think that’s on par with black people having seperate water fountains.

And I’d just like to go on record to say that everyone who required a cite to prove that illegal drug trafficking directly results in violent crime is a fucking idiot, and I would ask them to please stop posting on my side because they are making it harder to make a case. You shouldn’t have to provide a cite for something that fucking obvious.

Drag Racers are loud

Erek