LEF is Live on the Radio as we Speak

[Coloradocop]

Hello everyone I'd like to encourage some clean logical debate here.
I am an FTL subsciber and while I only started listening in hour 2 tonight I think I understand the crux of the debate.
While I respect the current establishment of law I'd like to point out that Libertarianism is not about legalizing things. It is about free market economics.

Milton Friedman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
who was mentioned on the news last week extensively because he died at 96 was a Nobel Prize winning economist and two of his major efforts were on eliminating drug prohibition and public education.
There is plenty of information about free market economics and specifically how black markets work available on the internet as well as a number of excellent books by friedman and his wife.

Libertarianism is not about some Utopian ideals, that is what communism and socialism are about, which is what government in general is about. Government is supposedly a necessary EVIL for the common good of the Commune-ity.
The closest thing we have to an example of a major active Libertarian politician in the US is (R) Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

The US Constitutional Republic is NOT supposed to be a democracy because democaracy aka "mob rule" allows others aka "society" to inffringe on individuals rights, which extend as far as an individual can imagine as long as imagined right does not infringe on the rights of any others because humans have free will to make any choice good or bad for themselves.

Rights as everyone should know are not given by the Constitution, but are "endowed by their creator". The founding fathers were simply pointing this bit of logic out and thought it would be good to document it.
As citizens it is our duty to be aware of things like the constitution as most of us know little I recommend a great refresher the Badnarik Constitution Classes for Real Patriots of the USA Republic.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...titution+Class
Yes its about 7 hours, but its mostly grade school stuff and its every Citizens duty to know.

No one is suggesting a lack of security or allowing drugees to run amuck. Everyone should be able to have property and be able to defend their property. I personally do not think taking any drugs is ok and I never have. I don't even take pain killers and I believe in maximizing personal health, but I have seen what illegal meth can do to a community in my state and legalzing the worst drugs is the only way to eliminate the the value and market demand for them completely. Legalizing the worst drugs leads to a lack of motive for mass production and therefore no need to market them to new possible addicts looking to be rebelious and try new drugs.

I challenge anyone to disprove the laws of the free market. It is true economics is not much of a hard science, but this is because the free market is really a force of nature that is unstoppable.

I look forward to learning about the current state of law enforcement in this country and hearing more of your concerns.

I don't see Meth as a problem of economics. At least in my area of the country meth isn't much of a "cash crop". It is a simple (albeit dangerous) drug to make, and doesn't cost very much to produce. Recipes for cooking Meth are passed down through generations of cooks, and you can simply buy everything you need to make the end product at your local Walmart.

Still, this doesn't justify legalizing Meth. First, Meth is a dangerous product, produced through a dangerous process. Homes explode, buildings burn, and people are poisoned in this process. If this only impacted the people producing or using this drug I wouldn't care. But, I've already seen a couple apartment buildings explode/burn as the result of Meth cooks screwing up... 10 year old girls end up dead because some asshole wants to make a dangerous and unecessary drug in his bedroom.

If that wasn't enough, Meth alters mindsets. Users can become extremely volatile, very unpredictable, and in my experience often very violent. Personally, short of someone strung out on PCP, Meth heads are my least favorite druggies to deal with. Additionally, Meth users support a very large criminal element that deals in identity theft and financial crimes. Any cop knows this, and most (including myself) have dealt with these issues firsthand.

The idea that legalizing this drug will create a related economic situation that will reduce/eliminate the crime rings that run in the Meth community seems ridiculous to me... It is already a cheap drug!!! This drug doesn't face the "black market" inflation that most drugs do (why would it? you can make it yourself).

Although I am a proponent of personal freedoms, I feel strongly that your freedoms end where mine begin... If a person's choice to make/use Meth impacts the health/safety/security of another person, then they have effectively trampled on that persons rights. While I feel that everyone has the right to abuse their own bodies, I don't feel that you have ANY right to do this in a way that puts others at risk.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with illegal drugs are the crimes that occur surrounding them... and the fact that users feel that their ability to use these substances is somehow an inalienable right guaranteed in the principals of our democracy (and I don't have a problem arresting people for commiting felonies that they knew they were commiting... drug use is not a freedom that you find in the Bill of Rights, or any other legal document for that matter).

Just my $.02, and these opinions do not necessarily reflect that of management

[Jackalope]

....most states did not fine you for driving without a seatbelt, and the smoking policy in a bar was up to the bar owner.

I agree with you on these two points. However, none of the officers on this site personally created these laws. In fact, it was not law enforcement officers at all who created these laws. So why are you wasting your time bothering us when you could be writing your Congressman?

[StanSwitek]

Case law, my friend.
Most recently, Hudson v. Michigan
Most pertienently, in 1995 in Wilson v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court ruled that LE may enter a home without first announcing their presence.

Which only reaffirmed the pre existing laws.

I assume then that you are in favor of a ban on fatty foods? You think I am being ridiculous, but Chicago just passed a ban on foie gras. I assume you are also in favor of mandatory exercise? Hey, I love going to the gym; I just have moral issues with forcing someone else to do so at gunpoint.

You are comparing apples to oranges. It is far easier to get one to simply buckle a seat belt that to change ones diet. Are you telling me you think it is OK for kids to ride in cars unseatbelted? I dont care what we did 30 years ago. Seat belts save lives.

You are failing to appreciate the difference between smoking on someone else's property, vs. smoking on your OWN property.

And you are failing to appreciate that bars & restaraunts are locations open to the general public thus public property. I have the right to not have someone cancer causing smoke in my lungs when I go out. Let them take a few steps outside to smoke their coffin nails.

[StanSwitek]

I don't see Meth as a problem of economics. At least in my area of the country meth isn't much of a "cash crop". It is a simple (albeit dangerous) drug to make, and doesn't cost very much to produce. Recipes for cooking Meth are passed down through generations of cooks, and you can simply buy everything you need to make the end product at your local Walmart.

Still, this doesn't justify legalizing Meth. First, Meth is a dangerous product, produced through a dangerous process. Homes explode, buildings burn, and people are poisoned in this process. If this only impacted the people producing or using this drug I wouldn't care. But, I've already seen a couple apartment buildings explode/burn as the result of Meth cooks screwing up... 10 year old girls end up dead because some asshole wants to make a dangerous and unecessary drug in his bedroom.

If that wasn't enough, Meth alters mindsets. Users can become extremely volatile, very unpredictable, and in my experience often very violent. Personally, short of someone strung out on PCP, Meth heads are my least favorite druggies to deal with. Additionally, Meth users support a very large criminal element that deals in identity theft and financial crimes. Any cop knows this, and most (including myself) have dealt with these issues firsthand.

The idea that legalizing this drug will create a related economic situation that will reduce/eliminate the crime rings that run in the Meth community seems ridiculous to me... It is already a cheap drug!!! This drug doesn't face the "black market" inflation that most drugs do (why would it? you can make it yourself).

Although I am a proponent of personal freedoms, I feel strongly that your freedoms end where mine begin... If a person's choice to make/use Meth impacts the health/safety/security of another person, then they have effectively trampled on that persons rights. While I feel that everyone has the right to abuse their own bodies, I don't feel that you have ANY right to do this in a way that puts others at risk.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with illegal drugs are the crimes that occur surrounding them... and the fact that users feel that their ability to use these substances is somehow an inalienable right guaranteed in the principals of our democracy (and I don't have a problem arresting people for commiting felonies that they knew they were commiting... drug use is not a freedom that you find in the Bill of Rights, or any other legal document for that matter).

Just my $.02, and these opinions do not necessarily reflect that of management

The bottom lines is meth rewires people brains. Meth makes it really tough to hold a job at the very least. What kind of parent is one if they are on meth? We have both seen meth addicts. They are good for nothing except scoring more meth. The legalization people just dont have the big picture.

The legalization idiots say "They are ony hurting themselves." Bull... I lost a brother to meth. My nephew lost a father. My mother & father lost a son. Victimless? I think not. Meth is an evil drug. Those that make it & sell it should be tried & if convicted, sentenced to death.

[Coloradocop]

Funny, the libertarians feel the same way

Actually, I take that back.
30 years ago we did not face no-knock raids, warrantless wiretaps, most states did not fine you for driving without a seatbelt, and the smoking policy in a bar was up to the bar owner.

1) From what I've been told, our department's policy for no-knock warrants is more strict now than it was 30 years ago (I wasn't a cop 30 years ago, so this is 2nd hand from old timers/DA's). Despite the fact that the Supreme Court only recently handed down the ruling you quoted, consider that this case appeared before the Supreme Court because of an actual no-knock warrant incident (in other words, no knock warrants have been around for a long time, they have simply been defined more precisely in recent times).

2) We don't do warrantless wiretaps on my level (and really, I'm not going to speak for the Feds here, but it seems like getting a judge to put a signature on a piece of paper, and thus make it a "warrant", isn't that hard to do... and, at least around here, doesn't take much time). So, I can pretty much conceed that point to you in a lot of cases... I'm generally not a fan of removing the judicial system from the process, but you must realize that these "Patriot Act" issues are WELL above most of our paygrades... consider addressing these issues with your congressman/woman, I only enforce laws.

Seatbelts and smoking... Seriously, if these are the biggest reasons "we" should fear our government, I think we are pretty safe. Seatbelts do save lives, but I don't really care if you wear yours. Still, there is an argument that a driver wearing a seatbelt will have a greater chance of maintaining control of a vehicle after an initial collision, so I can still support seatbelt laws for drivers (and really for minors as well). As for smoking, I can see the issue both ways... I love the fact that the bars are smoke free, but I always had a choice not to go there in the first place... Again, this isn't what I would call a "priority" issue in the grand scheme of things.

[Coloradocop]

The bottom lines is meth rewires people brains. Meth makes it really tough to hold a job at the very least. What kind of parent is one if they are on meth? We have both seen meth addicts. They are good for nothing except scoring more meth. The legalization people just dont have the big picture.

The legalization idiots say "They are ony hurting themselves." Bull... I lost a brother to meth. My nephew lost a father. Victimless? I think not.

+1. I think seeing this firsthand everyday really changes a person's point of view on the subject.

[StanSwitek]

1) From what I've been told, our department's policy for no-knock warrants is more strict now than it was 30 years ago (I wasn't a cop 30 years ago, so this is 2nd hand from old timers/DA's). Despite the fact that the Supreme Court only recently handed down the ruling you quoted, consider that this case appeared before the Supreme Court because of an actual no-knock warrant incident (in other words, no knock warrants have been around for a long time, they have simply been defined more precisely in recent times).

There is really no such thing as a no knock warrant. The law provides exceptions to the knock & notice rule. One is when there is a potential for the destruction of evidence <flush>.

2

) We don't do warrantless wiretaps on my level (and really, I'm not going to speak for the Feds here, but it seems like getting a judge to put a signature on a piece of paper, and thus make it a "warrant", isn't that hard to do... and, at least around here, doesn't take much time). So, I can pretty much conceed that point to you in a lot of cases... I'm generally not a fan of removing the judicial system from the process, but you must realize that these "Patriot Act" issues are WELL above most of our paygrades... consider addressing these issues with your congressman/woman, I only enforce laws.

This is NSA stuff combating terrorism. How listening in on some terrorists call harms Americans is beyond me.. I'm sure the commie bastards at the ACLU have the answer.

[spcwes]

How so? Is it too confusing? the point Im making is society is not a reliable source for determining what is right and wrong. Each individual has the right to decide for themeselves what is right and wrong, what is immoral and moral, and no one has the right to dicatate that to anyone including you or me.

Ok bud, this is what Society is:

A society is a grouping of individuals, which is characterized by common interest and may have distinctive culture and institutions. "Society" may refer to a particular people, such as the Nuer, to a nation state, such as Switzerland, or to a broader cultural group, such as Western society. Society can also be explained as an organized group of people associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

That means it could be the majority of the United States of America as a whole that used the majority to make the laws such. First it starts out small and then works its way to a federal level.

What this means even for someone as close minded as you is that the people that live right next you likely would tell you if you asked that they support the laws against dangerous drugs. People get so tied up with the fact that for the greater good and safety of its people that there will be laws made and enforced to keep STUPID people from hurting themselves and others with their stupidity.

That is not a violation of your constitution bud that is a violation of what you think (KEY WORD) you should be allowed to do. The rest is proven fact and revolves around how dangerous stupidity and the drugs that follow them are.

[StanSwitek]

I agree with you on these two points. However, none of the officers on this site personally created these laws. In fact, it was not law enforcement officers at all who created these laws. So why are you wasting your time bothering us when you could be writing your Congressman?

It makes them feel important.

[Doc_Holliday]

Stan, I must say you are my new found hero on this board! Alas, it seems in the short time since I joined, the, how shall we say, clientele (sp) has gone way downward. Maybe some of the members here like the verbal jousting with people who's views are polar opposites and have a low opinion of them, but me, I just wanted to pick some LEO's brains as I went thru the application process' with several departments. I have no desire to listen to a minor league talk show that runs down the one thing I have wanted to do since I can remember. It has nothing to do with my ability to argue, because I love to do that....I just have much better things to do with my time than wade through all the mindless drivel..I wish everyone on the board luck...maybe I will check back when I can access the Verified section...

[d_goddard]

I lost a brother to meth.

I lost a grandfather to tobacco and will probably lose a mother.
Shall I save them by threatening to put them in jail against their will unless they stop?

Perhaps I should threaten violence against the stores that sold them the cigarettes they willingly bought?

[StanSwitek]

I lost a grandfather to tobacco and will probably lose a mother.
Shall I save them by threatening to put them in jail against their will unless they stop?

Perhaps I should threaten violence against the stores that sold them the cigarettes they willingly bought?

My brother was 35. I suspect your parents are a bit older. You lack of understanding & compassion is all too typical.

[StanSwitek]

Stan, I must say you are my new found hero on this board! Alas, it seems in the short time since I joined, the, how shall we say, clientele (sp) has gone way downward. Maybe some of the members here like the verbal jousting with people who's views are polar opposites and have a low opinion of them, but me, I just wanted to pick some LEO's brains as I went thru the application process' with several departments. I have no desire to listen to a minor league talk show that runs down the one thing I have wanted to do since I can remember. It has nothing to do with my ability to argue, because I love to do that....I just have much better things to do with my time than wade through all the mindless drivel..I wish everyone on the board luck...maybe I will check back when I can access the Verified section...

I have to agree. I left because of this kind of stupidity. I have one foot out the door again.

[spcwes]

I lost a grandfather to tobacco and will probably lose a mother.
Shall I save them by threatening to put them in jail against their will unless they stop?

Perhaps I should threaten violence against the stores that sold them the cigarettes they willingly bought?

There you go smart guy, you just proved our point with this statement, WOW, you are a smart one.

Just think if they were on drugs that would do 100 times the damage as the fucking cigarettes do like, METH! Wow, aren't you glad we have laws against them. Just think how bad your mom and your grandfather would be if they had used meth like they use cigarettes.

I sure am glad that Society as a whole (well the smart ones) decided that certian drugs are very bad for you and that if a chunk of stupid Americans are not smart enough to make the decision for themselves that Society will do it for you!!!!

If they can't keep from hurting themselves and the others around them they will be dealt with accordingly. Man, I sure am glad...

[Citizen72521]

I don't see Meth as a problem of economics. At least in my area of the country meth isn't much of a "cash crop". It is a simple (albeit dangerous) drug to make, and doesn't cost very much to produce. Recipes for cooking Meth are passed down through generations of cooks, and you can simply buy everything you need to make the end product at your local Walmart.

Still, this doesn't justify legalizing Meth. First, Meth is a dangerous product, produced through a dangerous process. Homes explode, buildings burn, and people are poisoned in this process. If this only impacted the people producing or using this drug I wouldn't care. But, I've already seen a couple apartment buildings explode/burn as the result of Meth cooks screwing up... 10 year old girls end up dead because some asshole wants to make a dangerous and unecessary drug in his bedroom.

If that wasn't enough, Meth alters mindsets. Users can become extremely volatile, very unpredictable, and in my experience often very violent. Personally, short of someone strung out on PCP, Meth heads are my least favorite druggies to deal with. Additionally, Meth users support a very large criminal element that deals in identity theft and financial crimes. Any cop knows this, and most (including myself) have dealt with these issues firsthand.

The idea that legalizing this drug will create a related economic situation that will reduce/eliminate the crime rings that run in the Meth community seems ridiculous to me... It is already a cheap drug!!! This drug doesn't face the "black market" inflation that most drugs do (why would it? you can make it yourself).

Although I am a proponent of personal freedoms, I feel strongly that your freedoms end where mine begin... If a person's choice to make/use Meth impacts the health/safety/security of another person, then they have effectively trampled on that persons rights. While I feel that everyone has the right to abuse their own bodies, I don't feel that you have ANY right to do this in a way that puts others at risk.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with illegal drugs are the crimes that occur surrounding them... and the fact that users feel that their ability to use these substances is somehow an inalienable right guaranteed in the principals of our democracy (and I don't have a problem arresting people for commiting felonies that they knew they were commiting... drug use is not a freedom that you find in the Bill of Rights, or any other legal document for that matter).

Just my $.02, and these opinions do not necessarily reflect that of management

Thanks for the excellent reply. I can essentially agree with you.
In my area meth went into a sort of boom in rural areas a few people started manufacturing it on large scales as most folks don't know or want to make their own drugs obviously. These normally decent people are generally poor or middle class folk trying to support families etc. and from what I've heard theres been plenty of money involved enough that they have shops with security systems and of course small machine guns.

Obviously this is purely anecdotal evidence. I actually had to work shortly with a gentlemen who was caught cooking meth who happened to also live right near a retired cop friend of mine. His shop had caught fire and he was caught and eventually lost it one evening everyone joked his house looked like a SWAT team hit it, but it was really all his doing.

I've heard meth more rapidly fries the parts of the brain making dopamine faster than any other drug to due to much stronger over stimulation eventually leading to lack of ability to create much dopamine and essentially losing ability to "feel".

I am not suggesting some related economics would totally eliminate other crimes meth rings may be involved in I am suggesting removing the incentive for cooking and selling would eliminate the meth rings.
There are many safer temporary possibilities local legal out of the way pharmacies could more safely provide drugs to addicts until they disapear from death or rehab. New young addicts would be unlikely since the illegal rebel nature of drugs is often a souce of youths initial interest and the lack of black market demand eventually reduces production down to near nothing.

I'd also like to reinforce my statements about Rights not being from any document such as the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In the videos I linked one thing Badnarik points out well is there is no such thing as "Constitutional Rights". Anything you can come up with that you'd like to do you have a right to do as long as it does not harm anyone else or their rights. These points are made well by the founding fathers in various texts also mentioned in the video classes.

So the act of drug abuse itself is an inalienable right since only the abuser is harmed if all goes safely. It is the burning down someone elses property and severely injuring or killing children in a fire due to the drugees incompetence that is infringing on others rights. Rights are just a logical extension of humans ability to reason and our free will.

If someone makes a stupid choice and burns down their house thats their problem (as long as they don't commit insurance fraud). If they burn down an apartment and injure others they need to pay for the damages and possibly be shunned by society into starvation for deaths etc.

On a more entertaining note I must recommend viewing some interesting liberty minded online graphical novels mostly about Cops and Texan rangers. Plenty of guns and action.

http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn?page=1

http://www.bigheadpress.com/roswell?page=1

[d_goddard]

if these are the biggest reasons "we" should fear our government, I think we are pretty safe. ... Again, this isn't what I would call a "priority" issue in the grand scheme of things.

I used to think that way too.
I lived in San Francisco (hey, it's where the job was, OK?)
They passed a smoking ban. I hate smoking. I didn't like the fact that they had just trampled property rights, but hey it wasn't a big thing, right?

Now that same city has banned handguns and pit bulls.

There's no difference between these 3 "prohibitions".
The government that does not respect property rights on an issue you don't care about, is also not going to respect your property rights on the issues you DO care about.

We are willing to stand up and fight -- yes, FIGHT, as in, make hundreds of phone calls to the legislature, to newspapers, to talk shows, you name it -- when ANY rights are infringed.

We do this because we understand that the tyrrany of good intentions bans "dangerous" guns and dogs just as much as it bans alcohol and cigarettes.

[Citizen72521]

Ok bud, this is what Society is:
...
That means it could be the majority of the United States of America as a whole that used the majority to make the laws such. First it starts out small and then works its way to a federal level.

What this means even for someone as close minded as you is that the people that live right next you likely would tell you if you asked that they support the laws against dangerous drugs. People get so tied up with the fact that for the greater good and safety of its people that there will be laws made and enforced to keep STUPID people from hurting themselves and others with their stupidity.
...

I think you just proved a major libertarian point.
The USA is not a Democracy btw. It is a Constitutional Republic. It was designed so specifically because the founding fathers like Jefferson understood democracy was mob rule or tyranny of the majority.

Theres a nice flash animation that explains personal liberty based on property here.
http://www.free-market.net/resources/introduction.swf

In fact they basically predicted the current US situation. The US spiraled down into a massive authoritarian Federalist Centralized Government with a huge Government funded Military-Industrial Complex and a two party system creating democratic tyranny allowing said parties to sway the ignorant masses to democratically vote in some particular direction either party may see fit thus infringing on the rights of the others. FYI "Demos" is the root word for democracy, which apparently means man and therefore democracy is "rule by man" and some silly people consider man to be evil for some reason.

[Coloradocop]

Anything you can come up with that you'd like to do you have a right to do as long as it does not harm anyone else or their rights. These points are made well by the founding fathers in various texts also mentioned in the video classes.

So the act of drug abuse itself is an inalienable right since only the abuser is harmed if all goes safely. It is the burning down someone elses property and severely injuring or killing children in a fire due to the drugees incompetence that is infringing on others rights. Rights are just a logical extension of humans ability to reason and our free will.

I can partially agree with your point that a person essentially has a right to do as they choose as long as they don't harm someone else, or infringe on their rights. However, the idea of legalizing illicit drugs for the sake of protecting the rights of citizens doesn't withstand this logical test in my mind.

Generally, this philosophy of what defines a "right" can cover most conceivable situations. For instance, a major industrial plant that is putting out a lot of pollution can still be termed illegal without violating their rights in this thought process (simply put, they have violated my right to breath clean air, and put my health at risk, among other things. The pollution they produce is not entirely contained within their property, and thus our society has decided to regulate them). Similarly, the drunken motorist puts other drivers at risk. Just because an accident has not occured does not mean that this driver has not violated the rights of other more responsible drivers... The mere act of operating a motor vehicle while impaired puts everyone else at a great deal of risk (and, in my mind, violates their inalienable rights).

So, along these lines, I can say that illegal drug use is harmful to the rights of others. The meth lab that might blow up still puts me at risk, just like the restaraunt that doesn't follow health codes. The meth-head who has fried his/her brain with a dangerous substance puts us at risk of his/her psychotic episodes (and these do happen). Even if a harmful event doesn't occur, the possibility of it happening is so great that we have to regulate it. You speak of the Meth head being held responsible for financial damage to other's property. Yet, you can't replace a human life... You can't salvage a life that was shattered because a meth head thought it was okay to assault (or do worse) to an innocent person. And, even if financial measures were enough, these criminals hardly have the resources necessary to rebuild an apartment building that they burned to the ground.

All else being equal though, we are a civilized nation. We aren't a group of individuals living on a remote island trying to keep away from each other. We work around others, we live around others, and we depend on each other for the products/services we use daily. At some point we have to consider that the greater good of 99.5% or more of society outweighs the desire of a handful of idiots who want to turn their bodies into a scientific version of an amusement park. Meth has NO medical benefit, and serves NO useful function. It ruins lives, and impacts hundreds of other lives before killing its host. Sometimes we just have to look out for people who are too dumb to look out for themselves, if for no other reason than protecting the rest of us.

[Welpe]

I'm getting deja vu...this feels like the stunt biker fiasco again.

[Coloradocop]

I'm getting deja vu...this feels like the stunt biker fiasco again.

Must have missed that one.