Silk Road forums

Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: klaw239 on June 06, 2012, 08:09 am

Title: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: klaw239 on June 06, 2012, 08:09 am
WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a  privilege clause?

By this I mean we all are free to drink and go to clubs and drive drunk. Free to do it but against the law to do so drunk. In this instance the rights and freedom of the individual are not imposed upon   with the action of drinking but after he is drunk the citizen no longer has control of his faculty's and then the vehicle he/she is driving becomes a weapon  no different than if he were standing in McDonald's  twirling a pistol and it goes off and kills someone. Not out of evil or ill intent but cause he no longer has a brain to function on . We all know once we reach a certain point on some substances we lose control of motor skills and coherent thinking. Then our actions are   not dictated by our moral and justice code but by the chemical in the brain.

Everyone including my self I am sure has  went clubbing and drove home sloppy drunk that includes my self. By the grace of god no one ever got hurt  and in such cases I would choose my self over someone innocent to be hurt if it were to happen.  I just got tired of seeing pictures on the news of whole families wiped out or teen age prom queen killed by drunk driver. So I  ceased driving while drunk and drunk  is my point of no driving  and not just relaxing at the bar watching a game and putting a pint of beer  down.

Now while we all agree that drugs should be decriminalized and regulated and controlled   does anyone here think that with that right to use chemicals that we know before hand will impair us to sometimes a point of acting subconsciously that there should be a RIGHT but only with privileges granted clause to it?

By that I mean let's say you or me or anyone else went to the bar and had some drinks or decides to go in the bathroom and snort  some coke or bang some H ( that too I think should be done in such areas if ever legal some people just do not want to see it and that invades on their persons if it makes them ill or sick to see) He is practicing his free will to do so but once he gets to where he can not control him self and drives home shit face or so high he can not hardly keep from nodding  and is caught.  If this scenario were to occur under such a drug/alcohol policy it is of my belief that the 1st offense lic removed for a week, Most people when they see what it is like to go without transportation a week  will learn a lesson of how things are taken for granted. If he ignores the courts and the MORAL law in place and does it again. no lic for a month 1 week in jail. After this stage if it continues the system is clearly dealing with someone who has no concern for the well being of those around him much less the courts and it's laws and when it comes to the laws and the courts I believe they must be respected as you can not respect one that is of your liking  and detest another that you for personal reasons disagree with.   That it it's self undermines the cause and principles of the US constitution and bill of rights. You have the freedom to disagree with it but also must  respect it for it is that freedom which give you the ability to even express your opinion on it. It can not go both ways. The only time this train of thought in regards to the courts and a law is exempt  is when that law constricts the citizen of his rights and freedoms to do as he wishes so long as it hurts no one or no on elses property for IMMORAL LAWS are put in place ny IMMORAL men/women and in times such as that is when you fight it and take a stand.

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the  courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution.”
― Abraham Lincoln

So as to the individual who keeps ignore such a law and ignoring the safety of others after so many said offenses his privilege to drink or to use drugs should be striped from him and  incarcerated if he continues to do so    because such men and women at large my friends if you take a second to picture your child or children or husband or wife or anyone you love or care about is in harms way and could be taken from you in a blink of an eye. If you look at the statistics someones son or daughter was just killed by a drunk driver within the last 10 minutes. Imagine you getting that phone call right now? That is way such men and women need jail or prison after so many offenses and flat out disregard to others well being.

With freedoms comes privileges and as with anything  in life if you abuse those privileges they should be taken from you.

Agree/disagree   Just my own personal view point
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: sselevol on June 06, 2012, 08:43 am
No, you should be able to abuse your body however you want, unless someone else can be harmed by your actions. DUI is already illegal so I don't see what you're arguing.
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: klaw239 on June 06, 2012, 08:54 am
DUI is illegal  and when it happens so many times a person goes to jail/prison for it.

I am not arguing a point I am saying if drugs were legal  I think it  should be a privilege tagged on to the right to do so cause this is one right where if it is abused or not  respected it can and does hurt others.

sselevol you said
"o, you should be able to abuse your body however you want, unless someone else can be harmed by your actions."

and I agree 100%  but under the influence of substances  not all but many you are no longer in control of your own self . that is why drunk drivers hit and kill so many innocents.

I am saying  drink all you want  dope up all you want cause that is our right to do so but if we abuse that right and privilege to where it can and will hurt another . then after so many chances of trying to educate this person on that then his right to practice those privileges should be revoked . Cause such a person has no thought or care of well  being for those around him and someone without their faculties  driving a car is just a gun being waved in a crowed that can go off any second. If I want to do lcd or bang herion at hime  that is all fine but if I do it and get fucked up and  want a pizza  but have to drive to get it and say to my self "im too fucked up to drive but do anyways then I am abusing  my right and my privilege cause it puts others in harms way . A person must always pratice and put fourth good judgement and no his limitations when it comes to using drugs and know where to stop and how much will get you to where you do not know what you are doing.

Same principle applies to we have the right to bare arms but do you think charles manson or or convicted murderer should have the privilege to exercise that right or have it taken from him?
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: oscarzululondon on June 06, 2012, 09:09 am
No, you should be able to abuse your body however you want, unless someone else can be harmed by your actions. DUI is already illegal so I don't see what you're arguing.

Does the tax payer paying the bill for hospital treatment come under "unless someone else can be harmed by your actions"?

I'm in two minds about this. Personally I believe you should be able to do whatever you want to yourself like you said if you aren't affecting others. But if you think long and hard, somehow, someway you are always affecting others. Obviously I take drugs myself, but in moderation as to minimize those effects.
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: klaw239 on June 06, 2012, 09:56 am
Oscar I agree and that is why the law is such a fine line between this and that and why the ONLY law that was never meant to be amended was the individuals freedom to do as he wishes with his person or his property so long as it does not infringe or hurt some one else.

The gov takes most our money in taxes anyways so what we give them in taxes is and was never our to begin with cause if it was we would not have to give it to them so I say the Gov can pay for it all. I do not care taxes coming out if I know it goes to good use and helps the people.  But there is no accountability to where this money goes.

The gov bailing out the auto companies was another bs criminal action by them in my opinion. The Japanese make great long lasting  cars and they stay in the black. The US auto companies  were making garbage  with most models and eventually that became known  and looked at as the gospel so people stopped buying their cars  and with with other companies and their flow of currency dropped and was about to go under. Well guess what the principle there is no different than one here for venders. If you put out a shitty product no one will buy it and word of mouth will spread. If you build a shitty car eventually no one will buy it. They made poor business decisions  thinking cheaper is better  and wanted max profits  failing to see  the possible outcome. Either they counted on the SHEEP (most citizens) to support all that BUY AMERICAN bullshit or they had a hidden agreement with the Gov which is highly likely that if any situation like this occurred they get a get out of jail free card and  get bailed out of trouble.

All the buy american shit  goes out the window when you  are poor and barley make enough to  pay bills and  take care of your family. I will buy what I can afford and what will last me the longest.

They sold people  garbage and they knew it so they should have all went under. I am one of the most forgiving and caring individuals you could hope to meet in real life  but I  also will drop the hammer on someone if their actions deserve it. Wrong doing needs punishment. In most cases. Try and never speak in absolutes because there are always exceptions. It is wrong to steal but if a 8 yr old homeless child  starving is caught stealing a burger or pizza from some place then while  his actions is a crime  (the act of stealing) the power  of the human brain to  be able to think and be flexible and put the reason for the action with understanding and a moral process. A crime was committed  but no one was hurt and morally he is not someone to be labeled a criminal. But someone who needs help.

Same with many addicts  unless  they are violent  and commit violent crimes against  others. Except an adult who steals to eat does not have to. He or she can work if they want to. Unless disabled and if they truly were they have assistance programs  so  excuses in many errors are just that. excuses to justify ones own criminal and immoral behavior.
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: hornblower on June 06, 2012, 05:10 pm
The privilege clause is unnecessary because ALL legislative laws are rights restricting laws.  In principle, the implication is that the legislature understands your right to liberty but codifies those laws restricting it in certain areas.  So with DUI laws, the state acknowledges your right to operate a vehicle while also acknowledging your right to be intoxicated but restricts those rights when you attempt to exercise them simultaneously.  So essentially, because laws prohibit certain actions, laws are necessarily "privilege clauses" (at least in the way you're suggesting it).

Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: Limetless on June 06, 2012, 05:23 pm
I sit on the fence about this. On the one hand if you want to abuse your body, that is completely up to you. However what about if some Junky goes out on the nick from a civilian to get a fix? Surely it's within whoever was robbed's rights to batter the fuck out of said Junky? I certainly think it is. With rights come responsibility and if you have the right to do something (good or bad) you have the responsibility to take whatever the consequences of doing something brings (rewards or negative consequences).

When I was young (around the age of 14) I was held up at knife point on my way home from school by 3 well known local crack'eds in my area so perhaps this has given me a black-and-white view of these things. I don't feel sorry for addicts that aren't forced to take drugs like Crack, Heroin, Meth and other drugs like that because unless you have lived under a rock all your life everyone KNOWS what those drugs CAN end up doing to you. As I said a person has every right to do those drugs but then if bad things happen you have to accept the responsibility for the consequences if it all goes south.

Obviously some people may not agree, that's fair enough. Would be a boring world if we all thought the same. :)
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: Kappacino on June 06, 2012, 06:19 pm
I tend to agree Lim.. Whilst we should have rehab/addiction fellowships that help people get off the shit, it should be said that if you let yourself get addicted to heroin, then there's something fucked up with you to begin with. As you say, we know what these drugs do to you.

And of course, coming through H withdrawal is one of the most gruelling things you can possibly go through. I agree that we should help these people get through it with the appropriate support/medication. But ultimately, it comes down to your own personal responsibility.

You take heroin one day, fine. You'll feel shit for a bit, but whatever. Two days the same, but you feel shitter. 3/4 is pushing it and anything longer than that and you're looking at a SERIOUSLY rough withdrawal.

So it begs the question, why the fuck would you do it? Of course you should be allowed to, but why the fuck would you? That's why I say that there must be something fucked up with you to begin with. Some problem you're trying to mask with the drugs. Because that goes well beyond recreational drug use and into the realm of addiction (the boundaries of which are always open for debate, and it brings up some deep questions). You know that taking heroin for ages is going to be horrible to get through + you still do it = you've got some issues. By all means good luck to you if you party that hard, but fuck is that a dumb choice to make.

If you do it just a bit then it's pretty benign. No worse for you than say, breaking your arm and getting put on pain meds. I just don't understand why people let themselves and their lives slip away from them like that.
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: Duckman on June 06, 2012, 06:21 pm
You cant legally sign a contract when if you are drunk / under the influence of drugs / not in a fit state of mind.

Your argument is essentially that you should be able to do X Y or Z so long as you take responsibility for any consequences, i.e. you get a tougher sentence if you hit someone whilst dink driving rather than if you were sober.

However form a legal stance, you cant enter into a contract whilst under the influence of drink or drugs because you are not considered to be in a state where you can make informed choices.

So you are essentially asking for a change in the law that allows people to make informed choices whist in a state the law deems that person unable to make informed choices.

Thats quite a paradox.



Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: rise_against on June 07, 2012, 12:43 am
LOL, i just saw on the news where a sheriff got put on paid leave of absence for showing up to work drunk.  I love it when cops arrest cops.
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: Limetless on June 07, 2012, 02:27 am
You cant legally sign a contract when if you are drunk / under the influence of drugs / not in a fit state of mind.

Your argument is essentially that you should be able to do X Y or Z so long as you take responsibility for any consequences, i.e. you get a tougher sentence if you hit someone whilst dink driving rather than if you were sober.

However form a legal stance, you cant enter into a contract whilst under the influence of drink or drugs because you are not considered to be in a state where you can make informed choices.

So you are essentially asking for a change in the law that allows people to make informed choices whist in a state the law deems that person unable to make informed choices.

Thats quite a paradox.

If you are aiming this at me I don't think that at all lol.
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: redalloverthelandguyhere on June 07, 2012, 03:20 am
With rights comes responsibilities in the form of allowing other people there rights.

With drugs, as long as you use in a responsible manner and do not drive stoned or spend the children's money on coke then what you do with your recreation time is your choice.

Drug laws are the thin end of a wedge which seeks to empower the government over the individual.

Alcohol kills on a daily basis - hundreds of deaths and injuries. My hospital has drunks making most of the 'work' at weekends.

People who drink can choose to buy enough to die.

A free society would legalize drugs but be honest from the word go. no more stupid scare tactics for kids. Legal drugs will NOT kill people as much as illegal drugs. but we would see far less harm in addicts. The addicts from the 80s using the heroin daily lose legs. Addicts with access to pure heroin will be healthy. I do not use heroin and never have but if made to use either coke, mdma, speed or meth on a daily basis the heroin if pure would be VERY benign to me. Speed would get me sectioned as would daily coke. Daily MDMA will mess you up big time. Daily meth use - not the best way to go about life!

In the UK we did have a program in which heroin addicts got pure diamorphine, I think it was. It was pure heroin in a glass vial. the addict buddy was working and was chosen for some pilot scheme. He got a fancy case with pure distilled water, needles, alcohol swabs and other goodies. He worked a good job and looked like a normal guy. The heroin addicts buying £10 bags off the local kids working for the usual dealers of heroin are selling stuff that will seriously harm users who use for years. They look aged my buddy looked in good shape.

I know other heroin addicts take great care to clean and filter the heroin. But if legalized it would free addicts, and free the victims of crime also. Dealers would have to maybe work for a living. It happens.

So, drug laws are just going to mean less freedom for citizens. More money for the people investing in private jails and the services provided there.

Making drugs legal?

Lot of people making big money lose out.

But for the vast majority of people making drugs legal would be not an issue.

We would need to work out levels of drugs in blood relating to driving. How much coke is too mcuh? If you do MDMA last night and drive to work at 7.00am are you really fit to drive?

Someone who smoked cannabis 6 weeks ago might be tested positive in some tests for drugs.

Making drugs legal is not 'easy'. But filling prisons with people who sold drugs to people who wanted to buy them seems illogical.

Making drugs legal would need age limits.

It would also mean stringent laws dealing with purity and quantity.

It would also make a LOT of people unemployed. People who you would not trust near a drug lab! People who could not work selling drugs as they would just do what they always done. Contaminate them.

Making coke legal would see Mexico gang wars become boardroom meetings.

the tax alone on coke would see the USA deficit paid off.

Maybe its just control. Maybe drugs are illegal so more profit can be made.

All drugs sold here the money eventually goes back to the banks. People pay MORE tax than they owe to become 'legit'' Shops that sell nothing much. Businesses that pay bills and vat but do little work.

Lealise them all. But we need to have limits and coke and heroin ought be be priced maybe £70 a gram for the real thing. Maybe £100 as if it was £10 we would all be coke-heads in a week on the good stuff that legal coke would be.

 ;D
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: kmfkewm on June 07, 2012, 06:19 am
Let's legalize drugs and make them too expensive to buy and then funnel all of the profit made off of them to the people who have been oppressing us sounds fun.

How about instead we sell drugs illegally and use the profits to fund an insurgency, then after we overthrow the currently established powers we can make all activity that doesn't harm others completely legal, abolish taxation and hold trials for all of the police and politicians who supported the war on drugs :).

Since you got to have a liberal day dream I decided to have a libertarian one :).
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: traverty on June 07, 2012, 02:39 pm
kmfkewm what is your opinion on John Maynard Keynes?
Title: Re: WHo thinks with certain rights there should be a
Post by: Whothefuckisthis on June 07, 2012, 10:39 pm
Either way taxation is there to help pay for capital (police, education, city structures and maintenance. Taxation Was established for us to sort of share in the wealth. But with the 1% that won't give up a little of their money for others that break their backs for them, that is tyranny.