Notorious Drug trafficker Caught at Texas Check Point

[Bondhead88]

This is the problem. You're speaking from both propaganda and feelings. Actual science disagrees with you and provides evidence contrary to your opinion. Pot is not a gateway drug.

Marijuana as a Gateway Drug: The Myth That Will Not Die – TIME Healthland

Study says marijuana no gateway drug | Science Blog

Not going to flame you, just going to point out the error in your thinking.

Actually science does disagree with me and so does my life working with addicts both in Canada, Mexico or the US and I figure when I go to Peru I will find the same thing.

It is funny when people who have agendas like the legalization of marijuana find publishing saying it is not a gateway drug and then ignore the large truth to the matter.

I also don't hold to the propaganda that the government needs to regulate everything. I am a large individualist who belives in the rights of the individual but I am not a Libertarian as it is impossible to be one.

But being blind to a fact that marijuana starts people on a road to addiction is like saying I don't care if you say the sun rises in the east i am going to look west every morning.

I understand what you are saying don't give me the facts I have already made up my mind and I have people who agree with my philosophy and have published articles to back up what I want done.

There is no error to my thinking I have vast experience in dealing with addicts. I have spoke all over the US and Canada on this subject both with groups that are dealing with addicted people in their lives and with others who are seeking information.

Last year I drove over 65,000 miles around the US and Canada and I will be back on the road in January.

So I will weigh my vast experience in this area against your opinion.

I am not trying to be rude, you are entitled to your opinion and whether I agree with you or not I will stand up for your right to hold to your opinion.

But please don't tell me that you are going to point out the error in your thinking

That is an egotistical thought process that says you understand both my heart and my purpose.

 

[rambone]

Sounds like you were quite a busy guy last year, dealing with addicts. That tells me that prohibition laws aren't stopping any them from following their addiction. Am I right?

Do you think Alcohol should be banned too? I have known a lot more people who's life has been destroyed by alcohol than marijuana. Is it the government's job to tell everybody they can do something because a few people destroy their lives?

Can we afford to keep up this expensive and fruitless fight? Is the degradation of our liberty worth it, given the lack of any conceivable benefits to the War on Drugs?

 

[Bondhead88]

Sounds like you were quite a busy guy last year, dealing with addicts. That tells me that prohibition laws aren't stopping any them from following their addiction. Am I right?

Do you think Alcohol should be banned too? I have known a lot more people who's life has been destroyed by alcohol than marijuana. Is it the government's job to tell everybody they can do something because a few people destroy their lives?

Can we afford to keep up this expensive and fruitless fight? Is the degradation of our liberty worth it, given the lack of any conceivable benefits to the War on Drugs?

I will never agree that because a fight against something is expensive that we should stop and give up and change. it is not a degredation to our liberty to put right to the wrong.

Neither is combating wrong fruitless. Enslaving people is enslaving people.

If you read the articles and reasons for ending prohibition you will find they went back against everything they said and were dead wrong in how the laws would be applied, how taxation would work, who would be in control of it and how society would be better off as the cost was too great. they were wrong about ending prohibition and they are wrong about legalizing drugs.

 

[rambone]

I will never agree that because a fight against something is expensive that we should stop and give up and change.

Some day countries like China are going to stop lending us money to chase our tails. When the USA is bankrupt, we will have a lot worse things to worry about than people smoking pot.

it is not a degredation to our liberty to put right to the wrong.

Of course it is. The Police State is thriving on the idea that there can be "banned" substances and plants. Instead of police giving us our speeding tickets and being done with us, we often have to do the song and dance about where we are going, whats in the car, yada yada. We've seen violent drug raids that result in police killing pets, and homeowners defending themselves from midnight raiders breaking down their doors. We've got checkpoints set up across the country, and harmless old men going to jail for having a pocket full of plants. It is outrageous, and there is no question in my mind that the War on Drugs is a huge affront to our liberty.

Neither is combating wrong fruitless. Enslaving people is enslaving people.

Everything that is "wrong" doesn't need to become something that our tax dollars are dumped into like a black hole. Adultery is "wrong" and ruins lives. Morbid obesity is "wrong" and ruins lives. Cigarettes, alcohol, you name it. We could create quite the list of things that are "wrong."

The point is that it is not a legitimate and constitutional cause to spend our tax-money on. And the laws certainly don't stop addicts from being addicts. Seems pretty fruitless to me.

If you read the articles and reasons for ending prohibition you will find they went back against everything they said and were dead wrong in how the laws would be applied, how taxation would work, who would be in control of it and how society would be better off as the cost was too great. they were wrong about ending prohibition and they are wrong about legalizing drugs.

They were wrong about ending alcohol prohibition? Did I read that correctly?

 

[level.eleven]

I will never agree that because a fight against something is expensive that we should stop and give up and change. it is not a degredation to our liberty to put right to the wrong.

Neither is combating wrong fruitless. Enslaving people is enslaving people.

If you read the articles and reasons for ending prohibition you will find they went back against everything they said and were dead wrong in how the laws would be applied, how taxation would work, who would be in control of it and how society would be better off as the cost was too great. they were wrong about ending prohibition and they are wrong about legalizing drugs.

Well, at least you are consistent in your prohibition. I honestly have never encountered someone who wants to revert back to alcohol prohibition. In my attempt to gain insight into your position, would it be inappropriate of me to ask if you are affiliated with the LDS church? I only ask because you mentioned your travels as well. I certainly wouldn't be offended if you told me bugger off, as well.

 

[Bondhead88]

Well, at least you are consistent in your prohibition. I honestly have never encountered someone who wants to revert back to alcohol prohibition. In my attempt to gain insight into your position, would it be inappropriate of me to ask if you are affiliated with the LDS church? I only ask because you mentioned your travels as well. I certainly wouldn't be offended if you told me bugger off, as well.

Hi level.eleven,

No I am a Baptist Missionary. and I would never tell anyone to bugger off. Whether or not i agree with someones opinion doesn't mean I don't believe they are entitled to it.

There are opinions I don't agree with that I respect, there are opinions that I do not respect and there are opinions I vehemently oppose, some i will not even debate but that never removes me from the place that everyone is allowed to their opinion and voice it.

I strongly disagree with rambone but I do not agree with anyone trying to silence him, i wish that people would learn their heritage and what they are perpetrating is not what was started by the Founding Fathers and i wish people would understand that both Anarchists and Libertarians have been used as tools of facists, socialists and communists.

Every time we try and say I don't want to infringe my values or beliefs on others is to miss that you just infringed you values and beliefs on others.

I am an individualist but I cannot sell myself into indentured servitude, even if I say I am only affecting myself. we do not allow incest even if it is two consenting adults .

There are rules to any society and the further we fall into the mistaken belief that we should be allowed to do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want, the further we will see our society destroyed.

we have to have a balance of freedom for the individual (as much as possible) vs having an orderly society where the government does not get involved in the personal business of it's citizens (as little as possible)

 

[rambone]

i wish that people would learn their heritage and what they are perpetrating is not what was started by the Founding Fathers and i wish people would understand that both Anarchists and Libertarians have been used as tools of facists, socialists and communists.

Every time we try and say I don't want to infringe my values or beliefs on others is to miss that you just infringed you values and beliefs on others.

I am sort of curious what you have to say about Libertarians, but it is way off topic for this thread. Would you like to create a thread and explain some of this? I saw that you wrote that true libertarians do not exist. I am curious how you feel they are being used by communists and fascists also. I think such a thread holds great potential.

we have to have a balance of freedom for the individual (as much as possible) vs having an orderly society where the government does not get involved in the personal business of it's citizens (as little as possible)

I would like to suggest to you that the idea that government can tell you what you are not allowed to eat, drink, smoke, and what plants you are not allowed to grow and own... Is one of the most controlling concepts ever conceived by governments in all of history.

If a government can "ban" a naturally-occurring plant, then there is truly nothing that they couldn't ban. Additionally, a government that can make laws telling you what NOT to drink can also make laws telling you what you MUST drink. There are no limits on this government and that is truly scary.

 

[Bondhead88]

I am sort of curious what you have to say about Libertarians, but it is way off topic for this thread. Would you like to create a thread and explain some of this? I saw that you wrote that true libertarians do not exist. I am curious how you feel they are being used by communists and fascists also. I think such a thread holds great potential.



I would like to suggest to you that the idea that government can tell you what you are not allowed to eat, drink, smoke, and what plants you are not allowed to grow and own... Is one of the most controlling concepts ever conceived by governments in all of history.

If a government can "ban" a naturally-occurring plant, then there is truly nothing that they couldn't ban. Additionally, a government that can make laws telling you what NOT to drink can also make laws telling you what you MUST drink. There are no limits on this government and that is truly scary.

That's a faulty argument, there are many things that occur in nature that you cannot own or handle safely.

Nature is not benign it is a living thing that can kill. Non of this means I believe that the government has a right to control everything the individual does. Nor do I believe the government has a right to try and keep me safe from myself.

Anybody who knows me knows I do not want the government in every or all aspects of my life.

but drugs are tools of enslavement and it is wrong. I am not going to go round and round with this. Neither you nor I have the right anywhere to do whatever we want. we were not given this right by anybody and certainly not by the founders. if you studied the autobiographies of the founding fathers you would quickly come to realize this.

They laid out obligations, to your country, your country men, to your family, to God in fact.

I am going to end this here as i doubt this will convince you. again i say you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[mrjarrell]

Looks like they dropped the felony charge against Willie and went with a misdemeanor. Glad to see that a lawyer brought up the point that this unConstitutional checkpoint was 100 miles away from any border and had no business stopping anyone.

Willie Nelson Dodges Felony Charge | Rolling Stone Music

 

[theweakerbrother]

Making marijuana illegal because of potential addiction is like banning McDonalds because you're worried about thin people turning into fat people.

 

[MTC]

Question for Rambone and Mr. Jarrell:

Leaving the drug issue aside for a moment, is there such a thing as a constitutional checkpoint? (in general, for any or other reasons)
If no, there is no need to go further.
If yes, under what conditions might that be permissible?

The question is meant to be conversational, not confrontational, as there is agreement on many key points regarding 4th Amendment issues. No need to expound (unless you just want to), or quote chapter and verse of this or that. If it is considered inappropriate for this thread, I might solicit your views in a different thread, or simply go back to reading - not posting.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, my personal view is that there is no such thing as a Constitutional checkpoint. Unfortunately, the courts disagree with me (where sobriety checkpoints are concerned, anyway). The law, in regards to these border patrol points, tho is rather cloudy. Courts have ruled that their unwarranted interrogations aren't on the up and up and people who have resisted their intrusions have been exonerated, when they've reached courts at all. 100 miles inland from the border is more than a bit much, to suit me. It's the worst sort of police state shenanigans, (although, as we have seen in the past, many INGO members are all in favour of stopping citizens at these internal check points and questioning them).
As for a legitimate check point. I don't know. Perhaps your local sheriff might be justified in a temporary case, if they're trying to catch a violent criminal, but even then I'd want severe restrictions on them. The feds have no excuses for setting up internal check points. Perhaps they could justify a border point, but not past that border. That's a step way too far.

 

[rambone]

is there such a thing as a constitutional checkpoint? (in general, for any or other reasons)

I don't believe government can achieve the Probable Cause necessary for a legal search by setting up a checkpoint at which everyone must stop and explain themselves. How could they? Every passerby cannot be suspected of a crime.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As mrjarrell suggested, it might be reasonable in the search of a suspect of a crime that has already been committed, if conducted by local police and in a very restricted way. For example, watching people as they pass by and looking for a someone matching particular physical description - but not stopping everyone.

 

[MTC]

Thanks for the replies. (Don't want to seem like a drive-by poster, but had to tend to some chores and errands.)

Anyway... It can help to clarify some of these views, and hopefully come to agreement on basic principles before moving on to more specific cases. I do have somewhat of a problem with this (or at least have run into some rhetorical objections) because I draw a distinction between domestic and national security issues. Acknowledging that that line can sometimes become blurred, it can help then to come up with viable solutions to - for example - offer our reps, lest we be seen as merely criticising without giving instructions on what we expect, thus leaving them to their own devices to possibly implement a cure that is worse than the ill.

 

[level.eleven]

Hi level.eleven,

No I am a Baptist Missionary. and I would never tell anyone to bugger off. Whether or not i agree with someones opinion doesn't mean I don't believe they are entitled to it.

There are opinions I don't agree with that I respect, there are opinions that I do not respect and there are opinions I vehemently oppose, some i will not even debate but that never removes me from the place that everyone is allowed to their opinion and voice it.

I strongly disagree with rambone but I do not agree with anyone trying to silence him, i wish that people would learn their heritage and what they are perpetrating is not what was started by the Founding Fathers and i wish people would understand that both Anarchists and Libertarians have been used as tools of facists, socialists and communists.

Every time we try and say I don't want to infringe my values or beliefs on others is to miss that you just infringed you values and beliefs on others.

I am an individualist but I cannot sell myself into indentured servitude, even if I say I am only affecting myself. we do not allow incest even if it is two consenting adults .

There are rules to any society and the further we fall into the mistaken belief that we should be allowed to do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want, the further we will see our society destroyed.

we have to have a balance of freedom for the individual (as much as possible) vs having an orderly society where the government does not get involved in the personal business of it's citizens (as little as possible)

Thanks for the answer! I must have missed this thread over the past couple days. +1 to you.

But, and isn't there always a but, do you think I should have the police raid my property and put me in a cage should I decide to brew beer for personal use only? You mention infringement, do you not see that as
a pretty major infringement on my property? In addition, violent? You would be forcing me to do what you want, at the barrel of a gun, because you "think" it "may" cause a harm to society? Why the violence?

In addition, were it not for beer halls, would the United States even exist? Much of history, whether for good as in the US, or for bad as in Berlin, meeting areas for the common man have played a major roll in the development of world governments. I would also like to here on your take of the founders in regard to beer. Again, the history that has crossed my desk has always been that the FFs were brewers and not on board with the prohibition of alcohol or tobacco. Do you have some contradictory information?

 

[Bill of Rights]

The argument over pot is skewed. People look at it as a mild drug, it should be legalized. It is not a mild drug it is a gateway drug.

It is the drug that leads down to more addictive roads, do all people who do marijuana do heavier drugs? No absolutely not but you would have a difficult time finding addicts who were hopelessly addicted to stronger drugs that were not influenced by marijuana.

I know I am going to have differing opinions on here but that's ok I am not a Libertarian and have never claimed to be. By the way I have never met a true Libertarian as there is no such thing, one way or the other someone will always impose their values on another.

Ready, Set, Go!

I'm not going to flame you either. I've said I do not drink alcohol and have never used illicit drugs nor used prescription drugs other than as prescribed. I've had a narcotic in my system one time, after surgery, and I made every effort to refuse and protest it, but at 17, no one listened. With that in mind, it should be clear that my interest in decriminalizing it is not personal.
Your interest in keeping the use of certain substances illicit and the recriminalizing of others is based in your religious belief, it seems. I won't tell you you're wrong, I'll simply say I disagree, and add that religious beliefs of one or even of a group should not, IMHO, be the basis for a system of laws that apply to those of other beliefs. Murder is not against the law because God said so in whichever Commandment it was, murder is against the law because it harms another person without that person's consent. Rape is not listed in the Commandments, (and no, adultery doesn't count for that) yet it's still wrong. Why? Because it causes harm to another person without his/her consent.

By your logic in the bolded and underlined portion above, any person who has ever taken an aspirin or a tylenol and then later used stronger drugs could be said to be "influenced" by those innocuous substances... For that matter, "Oxygen USP" is a drug, and the same logic applies.

Now... if someone commits a crime of violence against another person, that person should be punished. If that same someone commits an act of negligence causing harm to another, s/he should pay restitution, if such is possible, and live out his/her own life in destitution if not, however short that life may be. This is not affected for boon or bane by the fact that the motivation was to obtain or the result of intoxication on some substance. (that is, I don't care if you're using pot, heroin, or prescribed oxycodone; if you get behind the wheel and kill someone, I want you to suffer for whatever the remainder of your life is while you starve or freeze to death because no one will sell you anything, including shelter or food.)

For the life of me, I can't see why people can't just live and let live: if someone wants to poison him- or herself with like that, it's none of your, my, or especially not the government's business... it's between him/her and his/her Deity, and when the two of them meet, the latter will decide if it's a problem or not... and if so, then the former will answer for it.



Oh, by the way.... never met a true libertarian? Hi. My name's Bill. I don't care what you do, so long as your actions don't force others to do or not do something they don't want to do. Feel free to ask. Feel free to attempt to convince me to do it your way. If I agree, fine. If I don't, and you use force to convince me (and Government is force, BTW), we're going to argue... and I don't give up easily, if at all.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hi level.eleven,

No I am a Baptist Missionary. and I would never tell anyone to bugger off. Whether or not i agree with someones opinion doesn't mean I don't believe they are entitled to it.

There are opinions I don't agree with that I respect, there are opinions that I do not respect and there are opinions I vehemently oppose, some i will not even debate but that never removes me from the place that everyone is allowed to their opinion and voice it.

I strongly disagree with rambone but I do not agree with anyone trying to silence him, i wish that people would learn their heritage and what they are perpetrating is not what was started by the Founding Fathers and i wish people would understand that both Anarchists and Libertarians have been used as tools of facists, socialists and communists.

Every time we try and say I don't want to infringe my values or beliefs on others is to miss that you just infringed you values and beliefs on others.

I am an individualist but I cannot sell myself into indentured servitude, even if I say I am only affecting myself. we do not allow incest even if it is two consenting adults .

There are rules to any society and the further we fall into the mistaken belief that we should be allowed to do whatever we want, whenever we want, however we want, the further we will see our society destroyed.

we have to have a balance of freedom for the individual (as much as possible) vs having an orderly society where the government does not get involved in the personal business of it's citizens (as little as possible)

You can't sell yourself into indentured servitude? Ever been in the military? I haven't, but those who have or are, please feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken: When you sign your name and take your oath, you are no longer considered a citizen but a soldier. By that I mean that your ability to exercise your rights is restricted... you cannot say what you wish, you cannot invoke the 4A or for that matter the 5A. You are subject not to the laws of this country but to the UCMJ.
You are considered "government property", and IIUC, if you get a tattoo, you can be charged, convicted, and punished for defacing government property. You cannot associate with whomever you wish. Your movements are restricted. You are paid for your time, but you cannot quit or leave the service without their consent until the prearranged and agreed-upon time is up, and even then, maybe not.

Sounds like indentured servitude to me.

As for incest, I find the concept disgusting and its practice reprehensible, however, if you are willing and able to provide for the care of any offspring you produce and your partner(s) is/are willing and cooperative, I cannot see how government has any business intervening. This is a decision of the parties involved and no one else on this earth.

For that matter, I also find the concept and practice of attempting to force others to comply with one person's or group's moral code disgusting and reprehensible. Morality should not, IMHO, be legislated.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[theweakerbrother]

New Army Tattoo Policy

 

[MilitaryArms]

Has he hit 3 strikes yet? We need to put this habitual offender behind bars for life to stop this public menace.