Adam Kokesh has home SWAT-teamed, faces years in prison

[rambone]

Unlike you, I think legalization should be accomplished in a way that doesn't require other citizens to pay for the consequences. Your version of legalization just trades one form of oppression for another, which again underscores my point that you don't really care about Liberty, you just want legalization, damn the torpedos, full steam ahead.

Oh right, you think you're doing taxpayers a favor with your continued Nanny State. Taxpayers are paying out the ass for the consequences of prohibition. Do you know how much bureaucracy is dedicated to this crap? Overcrowded courts, overcrowded jails, huge enforcement agencies, unending lawsuits, extravagant militarization of local departments, drones looking for drugs, constant raids, I mean get real. The abuses and injustices enabled by the Drug War are immeasurable. Families destroyed, property destroyed, freedom snatched, pets killed, lives ruined. But as long as we've got Adam Kokesh off the streets. You really saved us money on that one.

 

[Liberty1911]

Oh right, you think you're doing taxpayers a favor with your continued Nanny State. Taxpayers are paying out the ass for the consequences of prohibition. Do you know how much bureaucracy is dedicated to this crap? Overcrowded courts, overcrowded jails, huge enforcement agencies, unending lawsuits, extravagant militarization of local departments, drones looking for drugs, constant raids, I mean get real. The abuses and injustices enabled by the Drug War are immeasurable. Families destroyed, property destroyed, freedom snatched, pets killed, lives ruined. But as long as we've got Adam Kokesh off the streets. You really saved us money on that one.

LOL. Do you really think if we legalize tomorrow that police forces will downsize accordingly? Again, the real problem, which you don't seem to care about is much larger than the "war on drugs".

We can test your hypothesis though. Colorado legalized pot, so all you have to do is show the proportion of arrests and incarceration costs for pot before legalization and compare it with current law enforcement budgets.

I think we both know what that result will be.

We both agree that government is too big and oppressive and that we should end the welfare state (although I question your resolve on that), but the solution you advocate is like wanting to demolish a skyscraper by knocking it over and destroying the adjacent neighborhoods. I prefer a controlled demolition to minimize damage.

But, by all means, keep right on advocating open borders and legalization without regard for the damage it will cause to society. I only wish you could truly live in the world that you seek to create for the rest of us.

 

[steveh_131]

We can test your hypothesis though. Colorado legalized pot, so all you have to do is show the proportion of arrests and incarceration costs for pot before legalization and compare it with current law enforcement budgets.

I already did that, a long time ago, with prohibition. You weren't interested, but my point stands.

This argument is idiotic. Feel free to remain in the land of tyranny. The rest of us will keep fighting for liberty.

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

This is about "possessing a plant" as much as Al Capone's arrest was about "tax evasion". Again, your insistence that every single abuse of power is somehow born from the "war on drugs" diminishes your credibility.

Oh and, since as you well know, I'm not part of the "prohibition forever" crowd, your point there is disingenuous. Unlike you, I think legalization should be accomplished in a way that doesn't require other citizens to pay for the consequences. Your version of legalization just trades one form of oppression for another, which again underscores my point that you don't really care about Liberty, you just want legalization, damn the torpedos, full steam ahead.

The "plant" is the supposed justification for the arrest. The "plant" has quite a bit to do with this, and rambone pointing that out does not "diminish his credibility."

IMO

 

[Mark 1911]

Yeah how do you tell the difference between a "evil mushroom" and just another mushroom? Maybe he had a morell?


theres probably an evil mushroom certification coarse for Leo's to attend that costs is tax payors millions of dollars. Another "war on drugs" sham.

The evil mushroom is the one with the blue pocket lint all over it.

 

[Liberty1911]

I already did that, a long time ago, with prohibition. You weren't interested, but my point stands.

This argument is idiotic. Feel free to remain in the land of tyranny. The rest of us will keep fighting for liberty.

And again, I refuted your prohibition canard. I know legalization proponents like to hoist the prohibition flag whenever they can but you already know that it's a dishonest comparison.

Was consuming alcohol illegal during prohibition? That's right, it wasn't. How many people were thrown in jail for alcohol possession during prohibition? That's right, zero.

So, you can continue to obfuscate the issue but we both know prohibition, and the dynamics surrounding it, was completely different than what you now call "The war on drugs". Persisting in the equivalence is willful dishonesty, willful ignorance, or both.

 

[rambone]

Modern day drug prohibition is much, much worse than alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Its more expensive, more expansive, and more oppressive. Good point.

 

[Destro]

Modern day drug prohibition is much, much worse than alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Its more expensive, more expansive, and more oppressive. Good point.

ohh humanity!!!

 

[steveh_131]

Modern day drug prohibition is much, much worse than alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Its more expensive, more expansive, and more oppressive. Good point.

Pwnd.

 

[Liberty1911]

Modern day drug prohibition is much, much worse than alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. Its more expensive, more expansive, and more oppressive. Good point.

I agree. Seriously. So I would think then that you and your lapdog would stop using the apples to apples comparisons because you know it's dishonest.

As an example: If you claim prohibition in it's lessor form wasn't very effective in stopping people from drinking, then surely prohibition in it's more aggressive form has to be more effective. Ergo, if you legalize, then you'll get MORE people using dope than you have now. In fact, as I pointed out in another thread, Colorado has documented teen pot use increasing after legalization.

So, you're being dishonest in your previous claims about prohibition. At least I have you on record admitting that 1920's prohibition is not the same thing we have today. I'll keep reminding you of that every time you try to use the prohibition canard. I doubt that will phase your lapdog though. He seems impervious to understanding facts when they conflict with how he wishes the world to be, so I expect we'll keep hearing more about how "prohibition proves the drug war doesn't work" from him. I expect more from you though. In all honesty, whether we agree or not, I regard you as an intelligent person who is capable of getting it.

 

[steveh_131]

I agree. Seriously. So I would think then that you and your lapdog would stop using the apples to apples comparisons because you know it's dishonest.

As an example: If you claim prohibition in it's lessor form wasn't very effective in stopping people from drinking, then surely prohibition in it's more aggressive form has to be more effective. Ergo, if you legalize, then you'll get MORE people using dope than you have now. In fact, as I pointed out in another thread, Colorado has documented teen pot use increasing after legalization.

So, you're being dishonest in your previous claims about prohibition. At least I have you on record admitting that 1920's prohibition is not the same thing we have today. I'll keep reminding you of that every time you try to use the prohibition canard. I doubt that will phase your lapdog though. He seems impervious to understanding facts when they conflict with how he wishes the world to be, so I expect we'll keep hearing more about how "prohibition proves the drug war doesn't work" from him. I expect more from you though. In all honesty, whether we agree or not, I regard you as an intelligent person who is capable of getting it.

One of several errors in this post is thinking that the amount of drugs being used has anything to do with effectiveness of prohibition.

Alcohol prohibition may have resulted in less consumption. We will never know for sure. What we do know is that it resulted in more crime and more waste of resources. That is pretty much documented fact.

 

[Liberty1911]

One of several errors in this post is thinking that the amount of drugs being used has anything to do with effectiveness of prohibition.

Alcohol prohibition may have resulted in less consumption. We will never know for sure. What we do know is that it resulted in more crime and more waste of resources. That is pretty much documented fact.

LOL. As I documented in another thread where we were arguing about prohibition, consumption did drop sharply the year after prohibition started, then steadily increased for the remaining years, but never reached the level it was at prior to prohibition.

So again, seriously, stop with the dishonest posts about prohibition. The facts aren't on your side and persisting in your claims is willfully dishonest, willfully ignorant, or both.

 

[steveh_131]

LOL. As I documented in another thread where we were arguing about prohibition, consumption did drop sharply the year after prohibition started, then steadily increased for the remaining years, but never reached the level it was at prior to prohibition.

So again, seriously, stop with the dishonest posts about prohibition. The facts aren't on your side and persisting in your claims is willfully dishonest, willfully ignorant, or both.

1. How could we possibly know if consumption dropped? It's production and distribution were all kept secret to avoid the law...so of course the stats would show a decrease in consumption.

2. Who cares? What does it matter if consumption increased or decreased? That's the point I was trying to make. All of the negatives that you associated with it increased during the time of prohibition. Crime, wasted tax dollars, etc. Even if consumption decreased, would you consider that a net positive for society?

3. Even if drug prohibition both lowered consumption and lowered crime and tax liabilities (Good luck making that case), I would still choose liberty. I've never used drugs nor had any interest in them or even associated with people who do. Nevertheless, I'd choose liberty.

 

[Liberty1911]

1. How could we possibly know if consumption dropped? It's production and distribution were all kept secret to avoid the law...so of course the stats would show a decrease in consumption.

2. Who cares? What does it matter if consumption increased or decreased? That's the point I was trying to make. All of the negatives that you associated with it increased during the time of prohibition. Crime, wasted tax dollars, etc. Even if consumption decreased, would you consider that a net positive for society?

3. Even if drug prohibition both lowered consumption and lowered crime and tax liabilities (Good luck making that case), I would still choose liberty. I've never used drugs nor had any interest in them or even associated with people who do. Nevertheless, I'd choose liberty.

Ok, I get it. When it suits your purpose, we can definitely know exactly how prohibition impacted society and how that exactly correlates to the war on drugs today. But, if it suits your purpose, then we can't really know anything for sure about prohibition and it doesn't matter anyway.

Makes perfect sense.

Again, my larger point is 1920's prohibition was very different than what we have today, so ANY comparison is flawed. To claim otherwise, as you frequently do, is, as I've said before, willfully dishonest, willfully ignorant, or both. So you can either stop, or I'll continue to call you out for doing it. I'm good either way.

 

[traderdan]

Anybody but me wish that Adam Lanza had been able to smoke a little cannabis every day? I feel like many drugs prescribed by doctors for the benefit of the large drug companies are truly dangerous. Say what you will,but the "mushroom" that may send Adam K. to the big house long term, was no doubt relatively harmless. I doubt that it was his.

 

[lucky4034]

Ok, I get it. When it suits your purpose, we can definitely know exactly how prohibition impacted society and how that exactly correlates to the war on drugs today. But, if it suits your purpose, then we can't really know anything for sure about prohibition and it doesn't matter anyway.

Makes perfect sense.

Again, my larger point is 1920's prohibition was very different than what we have today, so ANY comparison is flawed. To claim otherwise, as you frequently do, is, as I've said before, willfully dishonest, willfully ignorant, or both. So you can either stop, or I'll continue to call you out for doing it. I'm good either way.

Steady trolling... apparently nonstop insults are the best way to get the point across (as you continue to prove over multiple posts in multiple threads). Is it a defense mechanism or are you really just that pissed at everyone that you don't agree with?


WARNING: This video may not be safe for work.. but is funny as hell.

[video=youtube_share;-GhkjIyBdhw]http://youtu.be/-GhkjIyBdhw[/video]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn't mean he is trolling. Trolls typically post only to annoy or elicite emotional responses. If casting aspersions to end or shut down a debate is trolling, then I see trolling from several here on the last few posts.

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, I get it. When it suits your purpose, we can definitely know exactly how prohibition impacted society and how that exactly correlates to the war on drugs today. But, if it suits your purpose, then we can't really know anything for sure about prohibition and it doesn't matter anyway.

Makes perfect sense.

Again, my larger point is 1920's prohibition was very different than what we have today, so ANY comparison is flawed. To claim otherwise, as you frequently do, is, as I've said before, willfully dishonest, willfully ignorant, or both. So you can either stop, or I'll continue to call you out for doing it. I'm good either way.

You didn't call me out. I made several valid points and you ignored them. You've lost this particular debate.

 

[BogWalker]

I'd support legalization if home invasions, robberies, and other violent crimes committed while under the influence resulted in an automatic death penalty. If you want your drugs you better be able to keep on the straight and narrow. None of that **** with breaking into my house for money to get your fix.

 

[steveh_131]

I'd support legalization if home invasions, robberies, and other violent crimes committed while under the influence resulted in an automatic death penalty. If you want your drugs you better be able to keep on the straight and narrow. None of that **** with breaking into my house for money to get your fix.

I fully support heavy penalties for violent crimes. Not going to get behind you on the death penalty, but violent crimes should certainly not be handled as lightly as they are today.