Show Us Your Papers

[hblask 1]

I have two friends (a couple, who are more of acquaintances) who are addicted to Oxy. Both of them have become zombie like people. One got a nice trip to the hospital for an overdose a few weeks ago, and the other has lost their job because they just wanted to stay home and get high all day (wow, now he has motivation to commit other crimes because he wont have money to afford his addiction soon).

So you are saying that the drug war is a complete failure, and therefore the only sensible response is to continue with it?

[dapokerbum 0]

When you get high, you get hungry.When a meth head gets high, he thinks his neighbor is a demon and cuts their head off. Do you see the difference?

Also if you get drunk you will crash into an expectant mother killing her and her unborn baby.Generalizations are fun!

[Ninjafoo 0]

So you are saying that the drug war is a complete failure, and therefore the only sensible response is to continue with it?

Where do you get that I said the war on drugs is a complete failure, there is no war on prescription medication, please explain.

[nutzbuster 7]

UPDATE>>>> just a few minutes ago....A Pinal county sherriff was just shot by an Illegal(s) with an AK 47(s). Nice. I blame any/every one who had a hand in whipping up the hysteria.

[Ninjafoo 0]

Also if you get drunk you will crash into an expectant mother killing her and her unborn baby.Generalizations are fun!

You support drunk driving.Hey they are fun.(Hopefully my sarcasm doesn't go unnoticed yet again, saying meth is ok because only some people go on murdering trips would be the same as saying drunk driving is ok because you only crash sometimes)

[Balloon guy 158]

OK, new rule. The next person who says this, I am going to track you down and rip your face off and feed it to wolverines.Here's a hint: I OBVIOUSLY KNOW WHAT THE LAW ALREADY IS. I AM POINTING OUT THAT IT IS A RETARDED AND HARMFUL LAW, AND THAT IT IS IMMORAL AND GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT UPON.Everyone, please re-read that all caps part again and defend the law on some ground other than "these people are breaking the existing law whose merits we are discussing".

Sorry, but you seem to want to be able to dance on the argument that the new law is making the problem, quit making this argument and we will quit pointing out why it is a bad one.Also, you should look at the definition of the what constitutes a plot of land becoming a country because I'm pretty sure borders and border enforcement are included somewhere.

[Balloon guy 158]

About a week after it passed. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Doesn't matter if it was a coincidence or on purpose, the law takes effect 60 days after the legislation session ends, so there is no reason to assume that all examples of profiling will be because of this law. Apparently they ALREADY profile.

[Balloon guy 158]

We increase the number to where economic equilibrium is met. See, Republicans are supposed to understand economics and that the government can't just override supply and demand. I'm not sure why they don't get it in this case.

Libertarians are supposed to have arguments that deal with reality. In order to meet economic equilibrium...we will have to set a number.So you are arguing that you don't like the current number.How can you justify saying immigration control is immoral and then say that there is a number based on money that should be our benchmark.Oh and our benchmark should be changed every couple years to adjust for new technologies, birthrates, status of the workforce, and current length of unemployment checks available.I guess we can start a new Department of Workforce Deployment and Labor Acquisitions. That way we can achieve parity with need and current manufacturing positions. Of course starting a new government bureaucracy will create a need for new people who like to control manufacturing and labor..I think the Russians would be our best source for this department's upper management.

[Balloon guy 158]

Uh, Tweeker already has access to meth/crack/ecstasy. For example, addiction rates for cocaine are *exactly* the same as they were when you could buy it over the counter without a prescription.So why should we let them?Drug war: Zero gain, extreme cost.Reality matters.

So your position on drugs is that some people are just going to let them control their lives, might as well make them legal so we can tax them and make a profit on their misery?

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't care how irrational you are, if you are given the choice between a drug that makes you feel X that kills you and you have to buy it from a guy with a gun who may rob or shoot you, and a drug that makes you feel X that you buy from a reputable company, and who makes sure you won't die and gives you a safe way of doing it.... well, even the most irrational addict will make the right choice.And for the two or three who don't.... who is going to be producing for three total wrecks who have no money anyway?

So under your plan to legalize drugs, serious addicts will begin making rational choices because they have that option? Like using clean needles and going to Walgreen's to get their heroin, then driving home to shoot up in the safety and privacy of their homes, which they can afford.And the ones that are lost are not going to have the money to maintain their addictions...Are you sure you've thought this through?

[Balloon guy 158]

The reason people hire illegals (god i hate that word) is because they are willing to work for less than Americans will work for.

Not true, in my experience, many illegals are just harder workers.

Until Americans have fulfilled all the fast food jobs, which pay $9-$10/hr, I don't think there is much chance that we will suddenly want to start picking crops for $4/hr. At this point, I defy you to find a fast food place that is not hiring.

I was in the farm business for a couple seasons, they don't get paid $4 an hour. Grape pickers who know their stuff can make a K a week if they know what they are doing. Many of the onion and bellpepper pickers would work for 3 months here, keep their checks, and move back to Mexico to live on that money for the rest of the year. Drove the accounting department crazy to have paychecks not cashed for 6 months.

But yeah, at some point, theoretically, US citizens might want those jobs, and employers would be happy to hire them, but we are a long way from that. And frankly, I can't ever see Mr. Ex-Office Worker out in the sun toting boxes of strawberries. Have you ever seen those guys work? I grew up on a farm, and I'm not sure I could do it.

A story in Arizona recently told about a company that had 300 workers all illegal ( it's the law you know ), as soon as they were deported, the jobs filled up the next day with legal American workers.We can also go over the construction trades where $15 an hour workers are mostly illegal ( because of the law )

[Ninjafoo 0]

Driving to phoenix today I was reminded of some of the ludacris things that are allowed in the name of racism. Everyone has heard of the click it or ticket law. Makes sense, it keeps people safe. Did you know in Az you can pile as many people as you want in the bed of a pick up with no seatbelts and hit the freeway? This includes children, who may not have had the choice to sit in the bed, but were put there by their irresponsible parent. Seems pretty stupid to let people do this, and still every attempt made to make it illegal fails. One of the biggest arguments against it everytime is that it is racist to minorities. They say because day laborers often travel in the bed of trucks that. The thinking behind this is absurd to me.

[hblask 1]

Where do you get that I said the war on drugs is a complete failure, there is no war on prescription medication, please explain.

There is a war on getting enough of it to get addicted. Doctors go to jail for that, even if the patient legitimately needs it. Plus, you've already admitted to the prevalence of meth, heroin, etc.

[hblask 1]

Sorry, but you seem to want to be able to dance on the argument that the new law is making the problem, quit making this argument and we will quit pointing out why it is a bad one.Also, you should look at the definition of the what constitutes a plot of land becoming a country because I'm pretty sure borders and border enforcement are included somewhere.

The new law is ridiculous, because it is a "corrective" for another terrible law, as if they thought two wrongs make a right.I looked at the definition of country, and it doesn't say anything about keeping out disfavored minorities based on skin color.

[hblask 1]

Libertarians are supposed to have arguments that deal with reality. In order to meet economic equilibrium...we will have to set a number.

Only if you believe in central planning. I was under the impression that you didn't.

So you are arguing that you don't like the current number.

Certainly the number could be set high enough that the flawed system would cause minimal damage, but that just hides the bad system -- which, as sad as that is, I can live with that.

Oh and our benchmark should be changed every couple years to adjust for new technologies, birthrates, status of the workforce, and current length of unemployment checks available.I guess we can start a new Department of Workforce Deployment and Labor Acquisitions. That way we can achieve parity with need and current manufacturing positions. Of course starting a new government bureaucracy will create a need for new people who like to control manufacturing and labor..I think the Russians would be our best source for this department's upper management.

That's not the system I want. The system I want is: if you are honest and hard-working, you can stay here. If you are not, we send you back. Setting a number just eliminates most of the harmful effects of the bad law.

[hblask 1]

So your position on drugs is that some people are just going to let them control their lives, might as well make them legal so we can tax them and make a profit on their misery?

Uh, that's kind of the exact opposite of what I said, but if that's how you justify it to yourself, go ahead.

[hblask 1]

So under your plan to legalize drugs, serious addicts will begin making rational choices because they have that option? Like using clean needles and going to Walgreen's to get their heroin, then driving home to shoot up in the safety and privacy of their homes, which they can afford.And the ones that are lost are not going to have the money to maintain their addictions...Are you sure you've thought this through?

First of all, it's unlikely needles would be necessary. And just as bars don't sell to drunks, sellers of drugs would be responsible to cut off addicts before their life is ruined, in order to avoid lawsuits.Everything about that is better than the current system.

[brvheart's I Phone 0]

http://ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=1289944

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

First of all, it's unlikely needles would be necessary. And just as bars don't sell to drunks, sellers of drugs would be responsible to cut off addicts before their life is ruined, in order to avoid lawsuits.Everything about that is better than the current system.

Ah. Of course, we eliminate all personal responsibility and place it in the hands of Big Bad Corporations. Because the Addicts don't really have the great rational capabilities you'd assumed.Brilliant.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

I looked at the definition of country, and it doesn't say anything about keeping out disfavored minorities based on skin color.

...and I looked at the Law under debate and it doesn't either.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

http://ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=1289944

Being 1500 miles away when I see that story I don`t see it as an illegal immigrant story but rather a story about scumbag criminals and the drug trade. Those criminals doing the drug smuggling could just as easily be Americans as Mexicans except that the Mexican criminals are way more violent and dominant the smuggling.Here in Canada the problem is American criminals smuggling guns across our border and selling them to Canadian criminals and in many cases Canadian grown Pot and other drugs are smuggled the other way. If a Canadian criminal smuggles pot across the border it`s a criminal and drug issue and not an illegal immigration issue. BG`s fellow Country Club Member`s Nannies are an illegal immigrant issue, drug smugglers are criminals.

[hblask 1]

Ah. Of course, we eliminate all personal responsibility and place it in the hands of Big Bad Corporations. Because the Addicts don't really have the great rational capabilities you'd assumed.Brilliant.

Are you even paying attention? The idea is to *give* people personal responsibility, instead of pretending that federal bureaucrats will protect us. Hows that working out?Within that framework, companies would have responsibilities, too, just as in every other area of your life. Eaten any poison food lately? I didn't think so.

[Balloon guy 158]

First of all, it's unlikely needles would be necessary. And just as bars don't sell to drunks, sellers of drugs would be responsible to cut off addicts before their life is ruined, in order to avoid lawsuits.Everything about that is better than the current system.

So we would have the same success rate with personal responsibility with hard drugs as we do with alcohol?Except of course that many of these hard narcotics result in addiction levels that are exponential worse than alcohol.Again, I think you are only able to justify this position by looking at the 100% best possible result.

[Balloon guy 158]

The new law is ridiculous, because it is a "corrective" for another terrible law, as if they thought two wrongs make a right.I looked at the definition of country, and it doesn't say anything about keeping out disfavored minorities based on skin color.

No, this law is a reaction to the PC crowd who has slowly and effectively forced the issue by making it harder and harder to enforce the laws on the books now ( that it is illegal to come to this country without going through the proper procedures )In the 90s CA we passed a law, prop 187, that said that if a person is here illegally, then they are not allowed to receive the public largess such as health care ( with an exception for emergency care ) and schools. It passed like 2 out of 3 people voting yes.Then a single judge overturned it by saying that this particular kind of law cannot be passed by a vote of the people?????????. Then our democrat governor at the time of the appeals halted them and said that no more appeals were allowed and the whole thing failed.So when the democratic process results in a vote saying "Yes, we want our immigration laws to matter" a single judge can overturn it and a democrat gov can refuse the right of appeal.Next thing that happened to us was the incredibly stupid rule that the police were hamstrung with that refused them to be allowed to check the immigration status of anyone, including a person who speaks no English, and committed a murder, ran over a school bus full of nuns, lip sang at the World series, anything. Yes, no cop is allowed to enforce a law on the books, because it might be profiling.We have had to listen to the PC crowd tell us that we are racist for not wanting to allow people here illegally to have full access to every single social program this country has, while the government commitment level for these programs has reached breaking points.And I would bet that Ca is about a decade behind AZ when it comes to the problems with unchecked immigration issues. So you are pretending you get our issue, but your arguments show that you really don't.

[Balloon guy 158]

Only if you believe in central planning. I was under the impression that you didn't.

I never plan anything, ask El Guapo.

Certainly the number could be set high enough that the flawed system would cause minimal damage, but that just hides the bad system -- which, as sad as that is, I can live with that.

So you are saying that there is a number? One that, once reached, we would say " No More People are ALLOWED" and the borders would be closed? That's immoral

That's not the system I want. The system I want is: if you are honest and hard-working, you can stay here. If you are not, we send you back. Setting a number just eliminates most of the harmful effects of the bad law.

So we will change our cops from checking the immigration status of people, and will instead train them to place a grading system on people based on how hard they work? "Sorry Paco, you didn't get all the creamed corn off these forks when you washed them, you must leave this country now. But Pierre, you can wash like nobodies business, here is your new green card."Your argument is also kind of lacking in logic while the country has some of the highest unemployment numbers in the last few decades. I mean, am I off to assume that large levels of unemployment are an indicator that your allowed immigrant quota is on the "too dang many" side of the graph?Guess we will need to start sending some of them back. I guess we should ask the cops to start keeping their eyes open for people who are illll...of wait!