I think I should explain WHY I'm a Civil Libertarian

[EdReed4Prez]

Phil fancies himself a marksman]. Really he's a UPS driver, but on weekends he likes to throw on the cowboy boots and strap his six shooter to his leg. He can hit 5 targets in less than 3 seconds now, right off the hip. If he walks off his property with that six shooter, he will be arrested. I do not understand why.
[

My name isn't Phil, but my cowboy boots are awesome.

 

[Steeltime]

**** who you want, smoke what you want, carry what you want (open or concealed), wager what you want, buy what you want. It's really none of my damn business. But some people will never see it that way. They insist that they have the right to regulate the personal lives of others.

Well, we give others the right to tell us what to eat, and what to drink, and what to smoke, and whom to ****, and where to live, and where to work, and what to drive, and on and ******* on, when we have the GODDAM GOVERNMENT pay for housing, and health care, and education, and food, and subsidize transportation, and on and on.

As long as Government Daddy is so powerful, Government Daddy will tell us how to live.

You know that phrase, "As long as you live under my roof, you will follow my rules"? That phrase is 100% accurate. I believe in that phrase. Unfortunately, over my protest and in direct contravention to my wishes, I AM FORCED TO LIVE UNDER DADDY GOVERNMENT'S ROOF.

I therefore have to follow the litany of personal behavior rules.

Want to reduce the litany of regulation on personal behavior? Then simply end government as Daddy, paying our bills. It really is THAT ******* SIMPLE.

 

[Stainless]

I agree with 1 & 5. I want to get high & swole. High swollen.

 

[oneforthebus]

Drinking and driving, wife beating, those things involve harming other people. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, I think you should be able to do what you want.

Bob and Jim are *******. They like to **** each other in the ***. They've decided that ******* each other in the *** is much preferable to ******* other people in the *** and wish to make the arrangement permanent. I don't understand why I should care that they want to exchange fudge packer rings. Why are conservatives so up in arms about this? I do not understand.

Danny, Denise, and Debbie are Mormons. They would like to **** each other stupid. They have decided they want to make this arrangement official. Why is that illegal? I do not understand. Why should anyone not named Danny Denise or Debbie even give a **** what their cohabitation arrangement is?

Rex is a foreman. He works hard all week. Come Friday night he likes to get loaded on ecstasy at the rave and throw glitter on himself. He always takes a cab home. But this is illegal. I do not understand why.

Phil fancies himself a marksman. Really he's a UPS driver, but on weekends he likes to throw on the cowboy boots and strap his six shooter to his leg. He can hit 5 targets in less than 3 seconds now, right off the hip. If he walks off his property with that six shooter, he will be arrested. I do not understand why.

Randy is, well, randy. He's not particularly good looking, or tall, or charming. But he's a decent guy and he likes pretty girls just as much as the good looking guys do. He likes to pick up hot girls (over 18) on Backpage and pay them to ****. He treats these women well and pays them handsomely for their time. In some states he can not only be arrested for this, but can be charged with human trafficking and sex slavery for consensual paid sex. I do not understand why.

Nick loves a wager. He bets a few bucks on every game. Plays scratchers too. He's been getting good at poker, lately, and wants to host his own local tournament. If he does, he'll be charged under RICO and sent to Federal Prison for 10 years. I do not understand why.

I am none of these things, nor have I engaged in any of these activities. And yet there are millions of people in prison, in county jail, on parole and on probation for these "offenses", and for the life of me I cannot understand why. None of these people are hurting anyone, none of them are forcing their views on anyone, they are just trying to pursue happiness in their own way.

And yet...

Unfortunately things rarely play out like this in the real world.


Personally I don't think the government should be involved at all in issues surrounding marriage, the other side of that coin is that our society seemed to be a lot better off when most kids were raised by their mother and their father. I don't think banning gay marriage or polygamy would accomplish that in this day and age, but I would still consider it the ideal and understand why some people have an interest in preserving it.

Rex often becomes addicted to ecstasy, stops going to work, gets brain damage and then becomes MY problem.

Randy may not realize it but most normal women don't **** total strangers for the fun of it...they do it because they're desperate for money, oftentimes because they have come from troubled backgrounds, have been physically and sexually abused and hooked on hardcore drugs from a young age. Randy is having fun but to say that his actions aren't harming anyone is not generally accurate. At a minimum he's enabling some young women to destroy their chances at any sort of normal life. Ultimately, they become MY problem.

Nick too runs a substantial risk of losing everything, breaking the law to get more money to fuel his gambling addiction, and then becoming MY problem.

 

[Stainless]

Aren't they becoming your problem when we throw them in prison? I wonder what percentage would ultimately spiral out of control and become everyone's problem vs the 100% when we outlaw those activities and just throw them all in jail. I also wonder what the cost comparison would look like.

 

[Steel Not A Player]

Aren't they becoming your problem when we throw them in prison? I wonder what percentage would ultimately spiral out of control and become everyone's problem vs the 100% when we outlaw those activities and just throw them all in jail. I also wonder what the cost comparison would look like.

******* beat me to it.

Also, the vast majority of recreational drug users never become seriously addicted, same with gamblers so that's bogus.

Most women get into prostitution for the same reason the get into porn or strip: they're too lazy to get a real job. In fact, that's the one thing hookers fear the most: a blue Wal Mart greeter's vest. Name the richest, safest, most progressive country in the world: Luxumburg. Guess what? There's still hookers there. Some ******* just be lazy, and dick is easy money.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Drinking and driving, wife beating, those things involve harming other people. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, I think you should be able to do what you want.

You've said people should be able to do whatever they want to do, or choose to do. I'm pointing out, I don't think you meant to say that. And you've clarified that.

 

[Zack_of_Steel]

My biggest problem with these issues is that most detractors paint this apocalyptic scenario where much of the country is relegated to junkie status where pillaging and gun violence will skyrocket and nobody will be safe. (Yes, there are reasonable opponents like oneforthebus, but the majority are carbon copies of this Steelr4evr dipshit)

Like some have mentioned previously, why would hard drug use dramatically increase? It is ingrained into our society that drugs = bad. How many normal people or people with families would even consider shooting heroin or smoking meth if it were legal? Addicts and hard drug uses will get their fix no matter what. One way will just save our ****** court, law-enforcement, and prison systems from the extreme burden of policing and enforcing these people and putting them in jail for it.

Like SNAP and Stainless said above, is the tax burden from the new users/gamblers/whatever that go off the deep end really going to outweigh clearing our court systems and jails and freeing police and the money we'd save from doing so?

 

[Steel Not A Player]

My biggest problem with these issues is that most detractors paint this apocalyptic scenario where much of the country is relegated to junkie status where pillaging and gun violence will skyrocket and nobody will be safe. (Yes, there are reasonable opponents like oneforthebus, but the majority are carbon copies of this Steelr4evr dipshit)

Like some have mentioned previously, why would hard drug use dramatically increase? It is ingrained into our society that drugs = bad. How many normal people or people with families would even consider shooting heroin or smoking meth if it were legal? Addicts and hard drug uses will get their fix no matter what. One way will just save our ****** court, law-enforcement, and prison systems from the extreme burden of policing and enforcing these people and putting them in jail for it.

Like SNAP and Stainless said above, is the tax burden from the new users/gamblers/whatever that go off the deep end really going to outweigh clearing our court systems and jails and freeing police and the money we'd save from doing so?

And all of it's been done, and those societies did not implode.

Vermont does not regulate firearms. When was the last time you heard of a mass shooting there?

Most of the planet has legalized hookers. AIDS did not skyrocket and surpass the common cold statistically as detractors said.

Several countries have decriminalized drugs. Guess what? Society did not implode. Everyone from Parliament to school teachers did not up and jump on the smack. As you say, people are conditioned against drugs. This ain't the 60's, we know what drugs can do to you now.

Lastly, "monogomous" heterosexual couples did a damn fine job ruining marriage long before the gays ever got involved with it. Don't even get me started on the sexist anti-father bias in our family court system.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Don't even get me started on the sexist anti-father bias in our family court system.

This. There should be a separate thread on it. This subject drives me crazy and it's truly an injustice how many lives the courts have ruined over this bias.

 

[Stainless]

I've been holding a couple grams of H and some syringes for years. As soon as it's legalized, it's on.

 

[MT~Forged]

Drinking and driving, wife beating, those things involve harming other people. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, I think you should be able to do what you want.

Bob and Jim are *******. They like to **** each other in the ***. They've decided that ******* each other in the *** is much preferable to ******* other people in the *** and wish to make the arrangement permanent. I don't understand why I should care that they want to exchange fudge packer rings. Why are conservatives so up in arms about this? I do not understand.While I do not agree with your verbage, I agree with the premise. I do not understand how this in any way diminishes my marriage or anyone else's

Danny, Denise, and Debbie are Mormons. They would like to **** each other stupid. They have decided they want to make this arrangement official. Why is that illegal? I do not understand. Why should anyone not named Danny Denise or Debbie even give a **** what their cohabitation arrangement is? Again, how does this effect me? Hell, a 3 person household has an even better chance of financial stability, if all 3 a re working. If only Danny is working, and can not support everyone, then that is a personal problem. Don't expect me to help fund your lifestyle.

Rex is a foreman. He works hard all week. Come Friday night he likes to get loaded on ecstasy at the rave and throw glitter on himself. He always takes a cab home. But this is illegal. I do not understand why. As long as Rex is RESPONSIBLE I don't have a problem. If I am going to become involved, due to his lack of responsibility, it will not be with a liberal koombahya midset.

Phil fancies himself a marksman. Really he's a UPS driver, but on weekends he likes to throw on the cowboy boots and strap his six shooter to his leg. He can hit 5 targets in less than 3 seconds now, right off the hip. If he walks off his property with that six shooter, he will be arrested. I do not understand why.As long as Phil is RESPONSIBLE I don't have a problem. If I am going to become involved, due to his lack of responsibility, it will not be with a liberal koombahya midset.

Randy is, well, randy. He's not particularly good looking, or tall, or charming. But he's a decent guy and he likes pretty girls just as much as the good looking guys do. He likes to pick up hot girls (over 18) on Backpage and pay them to ****. He treats these women well and pays them handsomely for their time. In some states he can not only be arrested for this, but can be charged with human trafficking and sex slavery for consensual paid sex. I do not understand why. Yes there are always going to be problems within the sex trade, even if it becomes legal. Since it is currently illegal there is a much greater chance that the issues will go unreported. My stance is that what goes on between CONSENTING ADULTS is their business, until I am going to become involved, then it will not be with a liberal koombahya midset

Nick loves a wager. He bets a few bucks on every game. Plays scratchers too. He's been getting good at poker, lately, and wants to host his own local tournament. If he does, he'll be charged under RICO and sent to Federal Prison for 10 years. I do not understand why. As long as Nick is RESPONSIBLE I don't have a problem. If I am going to become involved, due to his lack of responsibility, it will not be with a liberal koombahya midset.

We currently have way too many people in jail for "social" offenses, that needs to change.

 

[MT~Forged]

"monogomous" heterosexual couples did a damn fine job ruining marriage long before the gays ever got involved with it. Don't even get me started on the sexist anti-father bias in our family court system.

This is the truth. The biggest threat to marriage is DIVORCE. BTW, why are churches not up in arms over people breaking their vows? Because the religions would die off if they started enforcing their "rules".

 

[Omar10213245]

For all of you negative karma *** drug lovers...suck my balls dopeheads. You're the ******* idiots.

Red Foreman?? That you??

 

[Steel Not A Player]

We currently have way too many people in jail for "social" offenses, that needs to change.

I'm going to clarify my stance on public involvement right here: while I don't share the view that Obamacare is evil, it would tax the public for the irresponsible behaviors of the few in a free society, and as such would have to go. Futhermore, any civilized society must have a safety net. **** happens. People get laid off, they get sick, have accidents on the job. The problem is the permanent malingering. Benefits need to be temporary and kept on a strict cut off schedule. Do those things and I think the fears of your wallet being broken by the bad habits of others tends to evaporate.

Will some stupid people die? Yes. The will OD, or get AIDS, or gamble away the house note and college fund. But it will never be a pervasive problem the way that massive incarceration, aggressive police militarization, cartels, gang wars, and fatherless homes have become as a result of the Prison Industrial Complex.

 

[MT~Forged]

I am all for helping someone get thru a problem in their life, supporting someone for the rest of their lives, not so much.

 

[oneforthebus]

Aren't they becoming your problem when we throw them in prison? I wonder what percentage would ultimately spiral out of control and become everyone's problem vs the 100% when we outlaw those activities and just throw them all in jail. I also wonder what the cost comparison would look like.

I'd rather pay for them to be housed in small cells and receive prison rations to eat than to pay for them to sit around in their government housing spending their welfare checks on drugs and getting free food, cell phones and health care while knocking other junkies up with kids they can't afford to support.

Also, let's not pretend that people who are in jail for drugs were mostly doing them in the privacy of their own home not bothering anyone else. Most people who are arrested for drugs are either driving under the influence, speeding, engaging in behavior that is some other sort of public nuisance, or dealing (including to very sick addicts and children).

And let's also not pretend that legalization solves the problem of dealing to very sick people and children. Thriving black markets remain wherever drugs are legal.

 

[DBS1970]

I'd rather pay for them to be housed in small cells and receive prison rations to eat than to pay for them to sit around in their government housing spending their welfare checks on drugs and getting free food, cell phones and health care while knocking other junkies up with kids they can't afford to support.

Also, let's not pretend that people who are in jail for drugs were mostly doing them in the privacy of their own home not bothering anyone else. Most people who are arrested for drugs are either driving under the influence, speeding, engaging in behavior that is some other sort of public nuisance, or dealing (including to very sick addicts and children).

And let's also not pretend that legalization solves the problem of dealing to very sick people and children. Thriving black markets remain wherever drugs are legal.

We would actually be better off legalizing drugs and treating addiction as a disease. Its cheaper on every level.

 

[SteelChip]

We would actually be better off legalizing drugs and treating addiction as a disease. Its cheaper on every level.

That grand experiment has already been tried and has been a total fail.....oh wait.

Ten Years Ago Portugal Legalized All Drugs -- What Happened Next?
When the nation legalized all drugs within its borders, most critics predicted disaster. But a decade later, drug use has plunged dramatically.

"By freeing its citizens from the fear of prosecution and imprisonment for drug usage, Portugal has dramatically improved its ability to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of treatment. The resources that were previously devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug addicts are now available to provide treatment programs to addicts." Under the perfect system, treatment would also be voluntary, but as an alternative to jail, mandatory treatment save money. But for now, "the majority of EU states have rates that are double and triple the rate for post-decriminalization Portugal,"
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...ed_next//RK=0/RS=.SO.j82fdmp8kTqmYOR2vq8LRzY-

The Netherlands

Proponents of legalization almost certainly would cite Amsterdam as the drug Mecca of the Western world. Anyone may go into the restaurants in this city and order marijuana and hashish from a menu; further, heroin and cocaine have been decriminalized for all practical purposes. The police simply leave the users alone.

Switzerland

Much like Amsterdam, Switzerland until recently followed a policy of decriminalization.

Spain

Since 1983 in Spain, it has been legal to use, but not sell, cocaine and heroin

While I believe that certain 'drugs' like cannabis should be legalized, I am real certain I don't want heroin, cocaine or crack selling on the vendor tables at my local farmers market.

 

[DBS1970]

While I believe that certain 'drugs' like cannabis should be legalized, I am real certain I don't want heroin, cocaine or crack selling on the vendor tables at my local farmers market.

So you would rather those drugs continue to be sold on the black market for inflated prices that drive and finance a criminal underground run by violent sociopaths? That's all governmental prohibition does, creates criminal enterprise. In the case of the "War on Drugs" its a situation where the general public cant see past the hysteria and thinks legalization would be going soft on crime. The pols know the real story but it gives them both a cash cow and a hot button issue to sell at election times.

 

[oneforthebus]

So you would rather those drugs continue to be sold on the black market for inflated prices that drive and finance a criminal underground run by violent sociopaths? That's all governmental prohibition does, creates criminal enterprise. In the case of the "War on Drugs" its a situation where the general public cant see past the hysteria and thinks legalization would be going soft on crime. The pols know the real story but it gives them both a cash cow and a hot button issue to sell at election times.

Do you really think free and legal access to highly addictive drugs is a good idea? From what I understand, heroin and crack addiction are almost instantaneous for a lot of people...how do you manage this? And the fact that kids will believe it to be socially acceptable, and find it easier to get their hands on? How hard was it to get your hands on a beer when you were in junior high? Is that really what you want?

 

[SteelChip]

So you would rather those drugs continue to be sold on the black market for inflated prices that drive and finance a criminal underground run by violent sociopaths? That's all governmental prohibition does, creates criminal enterprise. In the case of the "War on Drugs" its a situation where the general public cant see past the hysteria and thinks legalization would be going soft on crime. The pols know the real story but it gives them both a cash cow and a hot button issue to sell at election times.

To tell ya the truth 'D', I don't know the answer to that. On one hand I believe the war on drugs is and always has been a very expensive joke and a massive failure. On the other hand having the really dangerous drugs on the open market doesn't sound like a worm can that needs opened. There has to be an answer but I can tell ya for sure that it won't be comin' from me, that kinda stuff is way over my pay grade.

 

[Confluence]

oh **** you dope head. You do some reading. Maybe start with opium dens. Some of you are comical and dumb.

you are an ignorant ********.

Just because you don't like someone else's opinion, you immediately turn to "**** you" and "dope head"? Grow up, asshat.

 

[MT~Forged]

The "War on Drugs" is the biggest Tax grab ever enacted in this country. Then add in the Civil Forfeiture Laws, where you have ZERO ability to defend your self.

 

[Confluence]

This. There should be a separate thread on it. This subject drives me crazy and it's truly an injustice how many lives the courts have ruined over this bias.

This anti-father bias is just a subsection on the injustices of the courts and their decisions.