Mark Levin: Drugs are not a victimless crime

[osan]

Agreed completely. It broke my heart the other day, to learn that, my own mother, was using Ambien, that was not prescribed to her.

I had no choice, but to report her.

OK, OK... I confess... I'm drinking unprescribed champagne. Report me too. Please. I want to pay my debt to society.

[osan]

Levin is at it again right now. Now he says if any "leaders" of this movement want to debate him he'll debate them. Basically calling out the ACLU and Kochs now. His big gripe today is letting out drug criminals.

Is this not an oxymoron?

OTOH, Levin is just a moron.

[heavenlyboy34]

Is this not an oxymoron?

OTOH, Levin is just a moron.

The real drug criminals are the Medical-industrial complex. Not only have these crooks destroyed Americans' health, they've fleeced them.

[Theocrat]

He's right. I'm just not comfortable banning things though unless absolutely necessary. We have to ban nuclear and biological weapons because the consequences are just so catastrophic. Drugs don't fall into that category, although they are extremely damaging to society. I'm inclined to let people destroy their own lives though if that's what they want. It's a really tough issue.

Your comment against drugs is yet another argument based on the fallacy of reification (ascribing animate qualities to inanimate objects). Drugs don't damage society; it's the people who use drugs that have the potential to cause problems in a society, just as it's not guns that kill people, but the people who use guns immorally. Drugs can't do anything to a society until a person uses them, for recreation/medicine or for financial profit.

But even if you want to argue that drug usage harms society in total, why should federal and state governments be the first lines of defense to stop its detriment? There are plenty of churches and private organizations devoted to help with drug abuse and addiction. That's where the solution needs to take place, from a "bottom-up approach." The system of a free market is much better and, dare I say, more holy than the political whims from federal and state governments to take care of drug habits that could be disastrous to a community or society.

[osan]

Yes, unprescribed Ambien is very dangerous. The prescribed version,, is much safer.

Unprescribed Viagra is even worse... or so I hear.

[heavenlyboy34]

Your comment against drugs is yet another argument based on the fallacy of reification (ascribing animate qualities to inanimate objects). Drugs don't damage society; it's the people who use drugs that have the potential to cause problems in a society, just as it's not guns that kill people, but the people who use guns immorally. Drugs can't do anything to a society until a person uses them, for recreation/medicine or for financial profit.

But even if you want to argue that drug usage harms society in total, why should federal and state governments be the first lines of defense to stop its detriment? There are plenty of churches and private organizations devoted to help with drug abuse and addiction. That's where the solution needs to take place, from a "bottom-up approach." The system of a free market is much better and, dare I say, more holy than the political whims from federal and state governments to take care of drug habits that could be disastrous to a community or society.

+rep ~hugs~

[Brian4Liberty]

Levin backtracked a little today. He said if you just want to "decriminalize", then that may be OK. It's letting out previously convicted "drug criminals" that is the problem.

He does have a point on who to release. If the criminal justice system had not been so perverted with easy drug convictions for other criminal activity, then there wouldn't be a problem. His corner case here is supporting convictions of real criminals on trumped up drug charges. I.e. Real murderer convicted on drug possession charges because the system is so screwed up that the real crime of murder is excused but drug charge is pursued. Then you have drug users mixed in with that. How to separate them is problematic. If the system was not so corrupt and perverted, then separating them wouldn't be an issue.

[misterx]

Your comment against drugs is yet another argument based on the fallacy of reification (ascribing animate qualities to inanimate objects). Drugs don't damage society; it's the people who use drugs that have the potential to cause problems in a society, just as it's not guns that kill people, but the people who use guns immorally. Drugs can't do anything to a society until a person uses them, for recreation/medicine or for financial profit.

But even if you want to argue that drug usage harms society in total, why should federal and state governments be the first lines of defense to stop its detriment? There are plenty of churches and private organizations devoted to help with drug abuse and addiction. That's where the solution needs to take place, from a "bottom-up approach." The system of a free market is much better and, dare I say, more holy than the political whims from federal and state governments to take care of drug habits that could be disastrous to a community or society.

Ok. Your whole argument is a red herring. I'm not arguing to ban drugs, I'm arguing that people shouldn't use them.

[misterx]

Yes, unprescribed Ambien is very dangerous. The prescribed version,, is much safer.

It's flat out dangerous no matter what, but using it with a doctor's supervision is substantially safer. Some people just shouldn't be using it.

[misterx]

Not a victim.



Not victims.



You have got to be joking.

Next...



CAN be.



You sound JUS like a liberal because this is textbook liberal logic FAIL.

By your apparent reasoning, ANY human action is invalid because it effects others. If I'm at a party and fart, someone MIGHT leave for the balcony and then they MIGHT fall off, 50 stories to their deaths. Husband is widowed. Children are down a mom, who was the sole bread winner and whose parents commit suicide due to grief. Kids, all $#@!ed up because of my fart, take to rape and robbery, for which I must answer.

Therefore, I should be forbidden from farting at parties.

This line of hopelessly failed reasoning, taken to its absurd conclusion would mandate all humans be eliminated because everything they do has a POTENTIAL effect on other humans. First order preposterousness up one side, down the other, and all around.

FAIL.

PS: it is clear you are not an engineer, seeing as you are not familiar with the phenomenon of DAMPING. I will not explain it to you, but there is an analog in human activity and it speaks directly and with great force to the failed notions you have attempted to disseminate here. I seriously suggest you learn about it and ponder how it applies in the ways I have stated. It will improve your thinking greatly on matters such as this.

PPS: your reasoning fails to take into account the responsibilities of others for their choices, focusing only on those of the subject at hand. You asymmetrically assign responsibility for personal action.

Über-, mega-, hyper-, ULTRA-FAIL.

All your rambling might have been worth typing if I was arguing that drugs should be banned. I said nothing of the sort.

[Weston White]

Cholesterol is not a victimless crime!
Staph infections are not victimless crimes!

He is confusing drug use with (intentional/unintentional) drug overdose resulting in death or serious impairment or debilitation.

[Theocrat]

Ok. Your whole argument is a red herring. I'm not arguing to ban drugs, I'm arguing that people shouldn't use them.

Explain to me, again, how drugs are extremely damaging to society.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Ok. Your whole argument is a red herring. I'm not arguing to ban drugs, I'm arguing that people shouldn't use them.

Is coffee a drug ? Is sugar a drug ? A lot of things can influence your mental state as well as other things in your daily life.. What's the difference ? Moderation and common sense perhaps ?

[Weston White]

Is coffee a drug ? Is sugar a drug ? A lot of things can influence your mental state as well as other things in your daily life.. What's the difference ? Moderation and common sense perhaps ?

Certainly, the "Twinkie defense" has been forever cream-filed into American jurisprudence.

[osan]

All your rambling might have been worth typing if I was arguing that drugs should be banned. I said nothing of the sort.

I referred nowhere to drugs, but to the inadequacies of your argumentation. This is all you could come up with in response, so I will take that as acknowledgment of my points. I will add that your response smacks in tone of having taken my response to your other post personally, which I assure you that it was not offered in that vein. Any butthurt on your part is on you. Your logic is fatally flawed and I showed the manners in which it is so. Take from that what you will - the opportunity to make corrections on your thinking, or offense. Choice is always yours.

[Working Poor]

Drugs are not a victimless crime

Especially since the government is involved.

[MelissaWV]

Explain to me, again, how drugs are extremely damaging to society.

I am in agreement with him that drug ABUSE is extremely damaging well beyond the person abusing the drugs (or alcohol). I'm also in agreement that the only effective way to mitigate those effects is to have the ability to be honest and open about what is socially acceptable. If we took all the criminal implications away, for instance, how many people would shun someone for smoking pot? How about cooking up a batch of meth next door and wandering around under its effects in your neighborhood? How bad would it be to get tipsy, versus falling down, vomit-in-your-front-yard drunk? What about "mean drunks" that become abusive and loud and disturb the peaceful enjoyment of your home? All of this ties back to their behavior, which is definitely influenced by what is being consumed. It should be on voluntary organizations to provide assistance to those that can be rehabilitated... and want to be.

What government interference does is try to level that playing field artificially. Pot is terrible. Selling pot revokes your freedom. The same drugs you can be arrested for taking one day, become allowable as long as you get an approved person's permission slip and purchase them at a Government-approved shop.

But getting back to the damage. Anything that wrecks a family tends to echo through generations and everyone the family interacts with. People become more abusive, or they stop paying the bills. There's that charming meth lab we discussed, which definitely causes problems when it pollutes the area it's in or explodes. Maybe it leads to divorce, maybe it causes a few car wrecks, maybe it removes one of the great minds from society when they are too strung out to follow their own ideas, or because they're too busy taking care of someone abusing drugs. The physical implications of drug abuse by a family member are obvious and can also cost society in insurance costs.

I realize none of that states the drugs themselves are bad, but the abuse certainly is, and that's what misterx was getting at.

[tod evans]

I realize none of that states the drugs themselves are bad, but the abuse certainly is, and that's what misterx was getting at.

Speaking as a man who has consumed large quantities of lots of different drugs over the course of several decades.......It's my opinion that both drug use and drug abuse wouldn't be the issues they are if government wasn't involved.

This includes both the legal and illegal markets, their customers and the purveyors...

All of the problems society attributes to 'drugs' can realistically be traced to government instead.

Even the late 1800's didn't have the issues or stigma that government intervention has brought over the last decades....

Society as a whole has been hurt by their actions, only government employees have benefited.

[Brian4Liberty]

"drug criminals"

Is this not an oxymoron?

OTOH, Levin is just a moron.

What you usually discover during these kind of conversations is that they will eventually admit that "drug crimes" is simply the easiest way for them to convict people they believe have committed other, more serious crimes. Thus, they didn't want to release people convicted of drug crimes, as the whole thing was prosecutorial deception from the start. Like convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

[MelissaWV]

Speaking as a man who has consumed large quantities of lots of different drugs over the course of several decades.......It's my opinion that both drug use and drug abuse wouldn't be the issues they are if government wasn't involved.

This includes both the legal and illegal markets, their customers and the purveyors...

All of the problems society attributes to 'drugs' can realistically be traced to government instead.

Even the late 1800's didn't have the issues or stigma that government intervention has brought over the last decades....

Society as a whole has been hurt by their actions, only government employees have benefited.

I disagree with the statement

All of the problems society attributes to 'drugs' can realistically be traced to government instead.

but I should also be clear I am speaking of any substance abuse, including ones that are currently legal. There are many situations where not having entire use of your conscious faculties, having reduced reaction times, being easily distracted, or having diminished inhibitions could lead to tragic results, independent of the fact that government would lock you up even if you weren't exhibiting any dangerous behavior or causing a demonstrably hazardous situation, all based on the outcome of a test or hunch.

[MelissaWV]

"drug criminals"



What you usually discover during these kind of conversations is that they will eventually admit that "drug crimes" is simply the easiest way for them to convict people they believe have committed other, more serious crimes. Thus, they didn't want to release people convicted of drug crimes, as the whole thing was prosecutorial deception from the start. Like convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

Correct, though that's hardly comforting. It also means that if you're suspected of a really awful crime, your lesser offense might be fast-tracked and certain implications might be made in that case to up the sentence, even if there's never enough evidence to convict you of the worse crime.

[pcosmar]

I'm arguing that people shouldn't use them.

Why?

The strain of Cannabis I have been using for the last year is better than aspirin for my Chronic Back Pain,, and has been keeping my Depression in check, and my mood generally civil.

And I am only one of millions of such testimonials.

[heavenlyboy34]

Explain to me, again, how drugs are extremely damaging to society.

It seems misterx is to drugs what fire11 is to pr0n. LOL

[Brian4Liberty]

Correct, though that's hardly comforting. It also means that if you're suspected of a really awful crime, your lesser offense might be fast-tracked and certain implications might be made in that case to up the sentence, even if there's never enough evidence to convict you of the worse crime.

Yes, quite the opposite of comforting. It's the loss of integrity in the system that leads to essentially the situation we have today. Is it three felonies a day? Five? Bottom line is that they can charge and convict anyone they want to go after. Everyone is guilty, they just fish for a charge that can be applied. It makes a system ripe for abuse, corruption and vendettas. Obama's IRS targeting of "Tea Party" groups is but one example. Drug law may be the most abused category of law when it comes to selective enforcement.

[misterx]

Explain to me, again, how drugs are extremely damaging to society.

I'm not getting into a stupid argument about semantics. If you want to use drugs then by all means, go ahead. I will try to be the best I can be, which means keeping away from drugs, alcohol, and sugar.

[misterx]

Why?

The strain of Cannabis I have been using for the last year is better than aspirin for my Chronic Back Pain,, and has been keeping my Depression in check, and my mood generally civil.

And I am only one of millions of such testimonials.

Lol A little exercise would be better for your back. I hurt my back a month ago. The doctor said stay in bed for 2 months. I pushed myself as hard as I could, and in three days I was walking around again, in a week I was completely recovered. You don't need drugs to help you through life unless you are weak. It might make you feel better, but what else is it doing you?

[osan]

What you usually discover during these kind of conversations is that they will eventually admit that "drug crimes" is simply the easiest way for them to convict people they believe have committed other, more serious crimes. Thus, they didn't want to release people convicted of drug crimes, as the whole thing was prosecutorial deception from the start. Like convicting Al Capone for income tax evasion.

I believe that all day long. Have we not seen it even admitted from time to time? Theye cannot get it straight up because the criminals are smarter, so they resort to chicanery that starts out as a once in a blue moon thing only to become SOP after a while.

[MelissaWV]

Lol A little exercise would be better for your back. I hurt my back a month ago. The doctor said stay in bed for 2 months. I pushed myself as hard as I could, and in three days I was walking around again, in a week I was completely recovered. You don't need drugs to help you through life unless you are weak. It might make you feel better, but what else is it doing you?

k never mind. I guess I misread your earlier posts.

Believe it or not, there are things exercise doesn't cure. Your anecdote about hurting your back doesn't mean jack when it comes to chronic pain, deformities, disease, and structural infirmities. Depending on how you "hurt your back" by the way, pushing yourself as hard as you could right away could have some awful side effects many years down the line.

Hope you never get anything serious that might actually require a chemical adjustment (natural or otherwise). I also hope that you make a distinction between drug use and abuse, otherwise you're just being ridiculous.

[MelissaWV]

oh and lol at suggesting pcosmar is some kind of couch potato... that may be the funniest thing I've heard all day

[H. E. Panqui]

misterx asserts: Drugs don't fall into that category, although they are extremely damaging to society. I'm inclined to let people destroy their own lives though if that's what they want. It's a really tough issue.



...what's even more 'damaging to society' is the jailing, harassing, ostracizing, taxation, etc., ?your and levin's stinking stooooooooooooooopid republicrat drug prohibition has unleashed...

...i believe you'll find that ?your rotten, CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL pot prohibition (starting in ?1937 at the fed. level) has been attended by a HUGE increase in pot use...

...so ?your gd republicrat fools enacted fed. pot laws to [supposedly] curb pot use...at a time when hardly anyone had even heard of pot....now, after some 80 years of ?your stinking prohibition it's hard to find a republicrat who hasn't been photographed sucking on a bong at college!!...

...and despite this horrible record, ?you republicrats are still torn about this really 'tough issue'...

...gd. republicrat. fools.