Why Does This Board Tolerate Illegal Activities?

The BBQ Pit
21

Here’s your proof, AvenueB:

Those two amendments - the last two of the Bill of Rights - were added because the framers of the Constitution knew that government couldn’t be trusted not to expand upon the handful of powers enumerated to it in the Constitution, so it provided that Federal government had no more rights than were specifically given to it. The rest are reserved to the states and the citizens. Unfortunately, Congress has seen fit to ignore that portion of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has seen fit to let them do so.

22

Yes, Ursa - I was wading through this thread, curious to see if anyone else was going to mention that.

A few weeks ago (I think it was) someone was asking about how money was laundered. They needed to know for a writing project they were doing. The answers were comphensive, and (I thought) not something that could be construed as “advice”. It seemed doubtful that anyone reading the information on the thread was going to go out and immediately launder their hundreds of thousands of dollars of drug money using the techniques described in the thread. (Because, like, uh - if you have thousands of dollars you need to launder, you probably already know how to launder it! You wouldn’t be going to The Straight Dope in order to find out how!) In other words, it seemed a harmless thing to discuss. Yet the thread was closed, the reason being that the Straight Dope does not condone the discussion of such illegal activities.

And what makes discussing illegal drug use any different? Why is such a thread not being closed as swiftly? They are both about “illegal” activities! Hell if I know what the difference is. (And no, I am not saying that closing the thread about drugs is the thing to do in order to make it “fair”. I am just wondering why the money laundering thread was closed.)

I will confess, I do not have one speck of respect for drug use. Oh, pot isn’t so bad - and it actually has some medicinal uses. But, personally, I just have no respect for it. (I think this is mostly because I have heard too many stories of people messing up their health because of drugs. And since I have a sister with very poor health, I think anyone who willingly takes such a risk on something they buy off the street is an idiot.) But, I digress… And I roll my eyes (privately) at those people who get their knickers in a bunch about legalizing pot. I do not see pot, or any other mind-altering drug, as strictly life-sustaining. OK, in a few instances, pot is, but most of the time, these are recreational drugs. If this were the cure for cancer, or AIDs, I could see the big stink, but these are drugs that are just “fun”. Right? But I digress again…

After saying all that, even though I don’t respect drugs, I am getting too old to make a big stink about it. People are going to do what they will do. They are going to zone out on pot if that’s what they want. I am guessing that you are quite young, AveB dude. I can’t say I didn’t feel a lot like you did when I was in college. (But I never would turn in anyone for drug use. Not that I am saying you would. But I remember being offered pot by one of my teachers, and I never told anyone about it. Even though I hated the thought of drugs more than anything.) Well, all I’m saying is, wait a few more years. You’ll see that people are going to do what they want. You won’t waste so much energy getting so indignant about it. But you don’t (and probably won’t ever) have to respect drugs, though.

23

Oh, so that’s why parts of the Tappan Zee keep falling into the river :wink:

24

Dear AvenueBDude:

Ordinarily I might just laugh at you and think you are an idiot, but you might actually be for real … and that ain’t so funny.
At this time, please start some MORE Pit threads about the OTHER things that outrage you as much as those AWFUL, AWFUL POTHEADS.
No, really … I’m interested. I’m betting it’s a LONG list (but only because you sound a tad mentally ill).

Sincerely,
RTA

I’m a loner, Dottie … a rebel.

25

I’m sorry Minxsmom, but you can’t blame the Tappan Zee on little old UncleBeer. I’ve done weapons systems, giant limestone crushing muthas and am now working in telecom; no bridges or roads though. I try to stay as far away from the civil engineering stuff as I can. You know what they say, don’t you? “Mechanical engineers build weapons; civil engineers build targets.”

26

You know you’re arguing my side now you fucking moron! Normally I’d be glad but with a feeb like you on my side will hurt more than help it.

READ THIS CAREFULLY: THE STATE OF NEW YORK HAS LAWS AGAINST POT. The Constitution that you quoted clearly says the states have those powers!!! Its not a Congress-made law idiot! The states make the laws against pot and it’s in they’re powers to do just THAT.

Oh by the way, I guess you have a better grasp of where the apostrope goes every little place. Too bad they didn’t fucking teach you what any of the words MEAN that you are so good at spelling out. You’re like a trained monkey you know that? You can spout out simple phrases and you have no idea what they even mean. Maybe I am not the worlds best speller but I can fucking read and understand what words mean, try it sometime! And then blow me!

27

Coldfire walks in, smoking a big-ass joint. Hell, he’s even inhaling, for Gods sake!

I suppose you were refering to me, Mojo?
I have little knowledge of US law regarding marihuana and the like. All I know is that the (limited) growth (for personal use) and said personal use of marihuana are legal in the Netherlands, and that Coffee Shops, whilst not fully legal, are condoned (a pragmatic approach). This has one major effect: there no longer is ONE drugs circuit, but there are TWO. The hard drugs scene, and the soft drugs scene.

Since the latter is (almost) fully legal, the first is fully illegal and can be dealt with more effectively in terms of legal procedures, criminal trials, et cetera.

I will have you all know, that the Netherlands have one of the lowest drug related crime rates in the world. Yes, one of the lowest. This is a point that is accepted (and looked upon with some envie) by a lot of countries, but some governments keep insisting our little country is a cesspool, a modern day Sodom and Ghomorrah in one. The French spring to mind.

Of course everyone can judge drugs on an individual basis. If you are not interested, don’t do it. But the fact remains, that soft drugs (and I failed to notice ANY mention of the distinction between soft and hard drugs in this thread) are NOT physically addictive. In that sense, they pose less harm than alcohol and tobacco. Combined with the obvious knowledge that the use of mariuana by one person could never harm the rights or interests of another, there simply are NO ethical grounds for a government to ban soft drugs.

This is what happened in my country, and it has worked. While I can understand that this is a system that will only be adapted gradually throughout the world, I fail to understand why seemingly intelligent people cannot see the logic of said system.

In this case, I am especially disappointed in Rousseau, even if he DOES put the emphasis on people talking about illegal practices on message boards. That is just another masquerade for the same narrowmindedness, in my opinion.

Saying no to soft drugs on a personal basis is everybodys right. For a government to ban soft drugs for all its citizens makes as much sense as banning coffee.

Coldfire
Voted Poster Most Likely To Post Drunk

"You know how complex women are"

  • Neil Peart, Rush (1993)
28

::hands CF a ice cold Grolsh to quench the cotton mouth::
Refreshing … Like your post :slight_smile:

A point in every direction is like no point at all

29

Rousseau, who should know better, said:

I don’t use drugs. But this is a matter of preference, not legality. Using drugs is not immoral. Drug laws are immoral.

You cannot claim to live in a free country as long as your government decides what you can and cannot put into your body.

Read Coldfire’s post again.

30

See my point, Dude? I believe the exact way I worded it was something along the lines of, "they turn any drug-related thread into a debate over whether or not drugs should be illegal. You could put 10 disclaimers in the OP saying ‘Let’s have a discussion based on the incontrivertible fact that these drugs are illegal in the United States,’ and I guarantee two out of the following three posts will say “yeah, but they shouldn’t be illegal.’”

By my count, 19 out of 28 replies to this thread so far have been about whether or not certain drugs should be legal. That’s 67.8% (a little better than two out of three) for those of youj keeping score at home.

Oh, and for my grammar-loving bestest friend:

I believe you mean “You are an idiot that can’t write.”

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.” -Winston Churchill

31

Oh man!!

I am saved! Avenue B has shown me the error of my ways! Due to the brilliant nature of his posts, I am now a convert…

I now hate all dope smokers with the rapid distaste reserved for bible-thumpers.
Awww…kisss ma asss!

32

Rousseau,

What is your point? The reason the board “tolerates” discussions about marijuana is that most rational people find drug laws absurd. Thus any discussion about whether or not the board should allow dope-smoking to be discussed is going to generate posts pointing this out. Furthermore, the subject is a hot button issue for people and is going to generate the kind of indignant, sarcastic posts you are complaining about. It just seems disingenous to feign surprise when someone posting an insulting rant about Democritus and other dope-smoking dopers gets flamed.

Finally, there are several posts which do differentiate between doing drugs and talking about doing drugs, which answers the OP directly.

I have alot of respect for you from reading other posts of your’s, and I’m surprised to see you get this indignant about an inconsequential issue

Perked Ears indicate curiosity - Know Your Cat

33

That would be like saying if we were to discuss the moon landings, you would not want anyone to say “Maybe we should not have gone to the moon before we solved all our problems here.”

Oh, and for my grammar-loving bestest friend:

I believe you mean “You are an idiot that can’t write.”

**
[/QUOTE]

You may be right, but I won’t concede just yet. Further investigation is in order.

When all else fails, ask Cecil.

34

Sheesh - did spelling ever become the issue here? Why is it being discussed? Next you’ll be arguing about whose dick is bigger. JUST GET OVER THE SPELLING THING!

And, will anyone answer why it is not OK to discuss money laundering, but it is OK to discuss drug use? (Read my previous post to get the entire gist of this question.) Not advocating the closing down of the money laundering thread, not advocation the closing of drug-related discussion. But wondering what the difference is, exactly. In that context (only), AveB Guy’s question is valid. It apparently wasn’t OK for people here to discuss money laundering on SDMB, because it is “illegal”. So what’s the diff?

35

AvenueB-dude:

Not true, dude. Medicinal marijuana is legal here in California. What’s more, I voted for it.

::

36

I know that this is hard for some of you to understand, because you don’t smoke pot.
There is a difference between smoking pot and doing ‘hard’ drugs, such as powder in any flavor, pills, anything to do with needles ect…
You might have noticed (but you didn’t) that most of us decline to discuss those drugs, and certainly don’t advocate their use. IMHO most of the mellow dope smokers around here have either not done those drugs or have quite them long since. But we can and do speak from experience on these issues. Which is more than you can say, you pulpit-pounding self-rightous jerk.
Again I say, if you don’t like the subject that is being discussed, don’t read the thread.
Friggin Drama Queen.

I pity the fool that brings a knife to a gun fight.

37

I hate to apologize in the pit but I must.
The above post is in my hubby’s name, but it’s me writing it. He was using this computer a while ago.

Carpe Jugulum

38

AvenueB-dude:

You certainly argued this point rather vehemently, but isn’t this an extreme over-simplification. I was about to make the same point about Amendments 9 and 10, noticed it had already been made, then noticed your “rebuttal”.

I recall that when CA (and AZ too, IIRC) first attempted to pass their medical marijuana bill, the federal government mentioned various ways of defeating it, regardless of how the citizens of the state voted on it. One of the measures (I don’t know if this ever came to pass) was that the federal government threatened to strip any doctor’s license if he/she wrote a note allowing a patient access to marijuana. I’m not really sure where this issue stands as of right now.

Sure, marijuana was legal (or, if not legal, at least tolerated) for a while in Alaska, and, so far as I know, the federal government did not resort to such coercion. But this is California, for christsakes, the most populous state in the union, and the feds will be damned if marijuana is tolerated in any fashion there!

Sure, Constitutionally the feds have no authority to deny a state its right to legalize a substance; but do you actually think the federal government, in its overzealous continuance of the war on drugs, would sit back and allow, for example, California or New York to legalize it without some sort of repercussions for either state?

39

-Money laundering is illegal everywhere and is unethical. It causes harm to people other than the money launderer.

But back to the OP: I really feel sorry for you if you are such an imbecile that you have no concept of morality other than what the law dictates. Why stop at the potsmoking? I posted something related to sodomy in a MPSIMS thread a while back and, in case you didn’t know, sodomy is illegal in Virginia. As is sex outside of marriage. Same with radar detectors. Should I not be allowed to discuss those topics?

And ditto for what Coldfire said.

40

I doubt if the above poster is old enough to vote.