LEF is Live on the Radio as we Speak

[Welpe]

Ah this was on Officer.Com but it did involve a forum invasion and a bunch of stupid arguing, although that was regarding traffic laws.

[121Traffic]

All in all a good show, and I actually enjoyed it. Ian, you guys were fair for the most part, although I took issue to a few things that were said.

You guys should set up a battle royale for your next show. Pit us against those who would argue that the cops were outside of their legal bounds in the UCLA incident, like that whiner at the end. I want in.

[Welpe]

All in all a good show, and I actually enjoyed it. Ian, you guys were fair for the most part, although I took issue to a few things that were said.

You guys should set up a battle royale for your next show. Pit us against those who would argue that the cops were outside of their legal bounds in the UCLA incident, like that whiner at the end. I want in.

That one was pretty funny....

"Our cops here have......have.... GUNS!"

[d_goddard]

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.

And that is why tobacco manufacture or possession should carry a 20-to-life term. And we should institute a zero-tolerance policy on users!

[Coloradocop]

And that is why tobacco manufacture or possession should carry a 20-to-life term. And we should institute a zero-tolerance policy on users!

Well, call your representative and get it done!

Seriously though, Meth impacts the rest of society a lot more than tobacco smoke (yes, I'm aware of the dangers of 2nd hand smoke... partially why I'm back and forth on the smoking ban). Still, this is apples and oranges when you look at the good of society (society in this context being primarily the non-meth user who doesn't want to become a victim of theft, or be blown up by a failed meth lab next door)

[Citizen72521]

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).

Actually most Libertarians don't approve of government environmental regulations either. If someone wants to pollute their property it is their right, but it is my right to sue their pants off for damages for any spill over onto my next door property. Other than that we also again encourage Rights/Responsibility by people voting with their wallets don't like said businesses pollution then don't by their products shun and shame them into decency and free market technologies will provide ways to eliminate pollution cheaply. Also we don't approve of government created corporate file folders, only individuals businesses. In other words the SEC must be eventually abolished just like the IRS, FCC, FDA, FAA, USDA etc. etc.

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).

In DUI cases obviously motorists who damage others property must pay for said damages and if lives are lost these people can be shunned into starvation etc. Personally I like the idea of a commmunity hiring peace officers to watch for and remove obvious wreckless drivers from the road and I would choose to live in such a community and pay the needed fees. But, lack of risk is not a right. Risk is inherent in life just as there are no garantees to happiness.
What will be very interesting in the next decade or so is cars will be driving themselves much like planes do now.

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.

Many Libertarians also do not approve of health codes. Such service providers should provide a decent healthy environment or go out of business due to poor service or law suits due to health issues.

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.

Again when lives are lost the criminals should be shunned into starvation and banned from any property, but there own. Some libertarians do not approve of any public property since this conflicts with individuals rights to then do whatever they please with such property.

Thus any criminals who could not pay for the damages, which would be much cheaper in a free market, and who can't live off their own property by themselves would be unable to survive as tresspassers on individuals property would be shot.
I know these things sound cruel, but putting responsibility back into people minds can be a powerful motivator to think first.

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.

It may sound cruel, but individuals need to look out for themselves first. If we can all do that then we would'nt even have half the issues we do. I know people just get to emotional and irrational about drugs, but making people responsible for themselves keeps them from being so dumb. And it is not just a survival of the fittest game either Americans already give billions of $$'s at the drop of a hat and if we didnt' have so many taxes we could do a lot more to help these addicts.

[Citizen72521]

Well, call your representative and get it done!

Seriously though, Meth impacts the rest of society a lot more than tobacco smoke (yes, I'm aware of the dangers of 2nd hand smoke... partially why I'm back and forth on the smoking ban).

The supposed dangers of 2nd hand smoke are BS. There is documentation on this and it makes a little sense if you just think about all the people who smoke like crazy and live to be old and don't even get cancer although I'll admit alot of that is just weird genetics.

Personally I detest cig smoke most of the time it really irritates me, but private property owners can do as they please.

[BEB]

The supposed dangers of 2nd hand smoke are BS. There is documentation on this

Citizen72521 : Please cite your source.

P&T's BS doesn't count. I want something to read - not just picking on you for not giving a source, I'd actually like to have something credible to reference.

[Coloradocop]

The supposed dangers of 2nd hand smoke are BS. There is documentation on this and it makes a little sense if you just think about all the people who smoke like crazy and live to be old and don't even get cancer although I'll admit alot of that is just weird genetics.

Personally I detest cig smoke most of the time it really irritates me, but private property owners can do as they please.

Seriously, no one in the medical community is pissing backwards on the dangers of cigarrettes at this point. Every new study I've seen points to them being more dangerous. This has practically digressed to the point of a "sky isn't blue" debate now.

[spcwes]

Which, now that we have been chastised for not following politics as close as this fella and have SO MUCH more of an understanding, thanks. Where in the hell did trying to keep our Society (the people of this nation, outside of politics, just the fucking people) safe from dangerous drugs, and the idiots that want it to be made legal discussion go. Let's stay the hell away from politics as much as possible. Let's just talk about how good of an idea it is!

Again, this is a case of people not wanting to be told not to kill themselves in a horrible way as it is stupid! And the same people getting pissed because someone has some flawed notion and interpretation that someone somehow has infringed on their basic liberties.

The image and thought that comes to mind “they can't tell me not to snort this OZ of meth, it is my right SNIIIIIIFFFFFFFFFF, ok, lets party. Where are my car keys?”

HOW RETARDED. What we have here folks is the majority of the nation that agrees that dangerous drugs should be kept off the street and remain illegal and no one, not you or anyone else has enough facts or a good enough case to turn the thought process.

Oh, well, no argument here.

[Trojan 42]

Actually most Libertarians don't approve of government environmental regulations either.





Many Libertarians also do not approve of health codes.

I'm sorry, but being English, I'm struggling with a language barrier here. Is Libertarian and American word for Retard? Or resident of a Mental Institution?

[TheOldRhino]

I'm sorry, but being English, I'm struggling with a language barrier here. Is Libertarian and American word for Retard? Or resident of a Mental Institution?

No, you Limey Freak, it means a person who belongs to the libertarian party- a party that believes laws and policy should be in place to protect a persons life, liberty, and property- and little else. Basically, shrinking the US government to it's constitutional foundation.

Google it.

Edit: Anyone else calls Troj a limey freak will answer to me. Love ya, Troj.

[Trojan 42]

Thank you for your swift reply Rhino. And for clearing up the confusion. What you describe seems eminently reasonable. Perhaps it's just the other posters who 'claim' to be Libertarian seem, how can I describe them eloquently? I know, total morons .



Or maybe like Jehovah Witnesses. Who try to ram their beliefs down your throat whether you want them or not!

[Cheech]

OK , I just got off shift . I guess I was working at the start of all this drama. 15 pages is too much to read right now.... WTF is going on

[OFK]

OK , I just got off shift . I guess I was working at the start of all this drama. 15 pages is too much to read right now.... WTF is going on

I just got home, but whooo I gotta go find the download now.

[Ducky]

OK , I just got off shift . I guess I was working at the start of all this drama. 15 pages is too much to read right now.... WTF is going on

I think a certain 'element' has moved into the neighborhood. You know, the kind that scream 'police brutality' at the sight of a taser on someone's hip, but if you don't show up to take care of their problem in 30 seconds or less then you're not doing your job. Of course, you can't even THINK of looking at them because they're stoned off their collective asses. They have their own forum, but have sludged their way over here because everyone is supposed to enjoy their potheaded ideas as much as they themselves do.

AKA, 'There goes the neighborhood'

[FTL_Ian]

I'd like to address the why we're bringing these issues to the police instead of just the politicians.

It's simple. Informing the police and recruiting allies is important because when the issue does get brought to the forefront politically, like it did in Nevada this year, the police associations actively OPPOSE any form of decrim or legalization.

I realize that not all of you support the Chiefs of Police and the other organizations that come out in favor of the War on Drugs, but the fact still remains that they do.

Therefore, the more LEOs we can get on our side, the more "legitimate" we become because then we can point to the LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) cops as a counter argument to the Drug-Warrior cops.

When the issue is citizens vs. cops, on-the-fence people tend to side with the cops. When the issue is cops vs cops, then perhaps people will stop and think, and really look closely at the issue of ending the War on Drugs.

I hope that makes sense.

[Virginian]

I'd like to address the why we're bringing these issues to the police instead of just the politicians.

It's simple. Informing the police and recruiting allies is important because when the issue does get brought to the forefront politically, like it did in Nevada this year, the police associations actively OPPOSE any form of decrim or legalization.

I realize that not all of you support the Chiefs of Police and the other organizations that come out in favor of the War on Drugs, but the fact still remains that they do.

Therefore, the more LEOs we can get on our side, the more "legitimate" we become because then we can point to the LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) cops as a counter argument to the Drug-Warrior cops.

When the issue is citizens vs. cops, on-the-fence people tend to side with the cops. When the issue is cops vs cops, then perhaps people will stop and think, and really look closely at the issue of ending the War on Drugs.

I hope that makes sense.

Do you honestly think police haven't thought about drugs and their effects on people? What you've likely been exposed in your life are the "responsible" drug users. Still breaking the law, but hopefully only doing so in that they possess and use illegal substances. Police deal with the "non-responsible" criminals often, and have a much different outlook on the impact of drugs on society than you may have. Recruiting cops to your cause may not be as simple as you think. You want to "educate" cops, but you're ignoring all that cops can teach you about the negative side of drugs in our society.

[StanSwitek]

I'd like to address the why we're bringing these issues to the police instead of just the politicians.

It's simple. Informing the police and recruiting allies is important because when the issue does get brought to the forefront politically, like it did in Nevada this year, the police associations actively OPPOSE any form of decrim or legalization.

I realize that not all of you support the Chiefs of Police and the other organizations that come out in favor of the War on Drugs, but the fact still remains that they do.

Therefore, the more LEOs we can get on our side, the more "legitimate" we become because then we can point to the LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) cops as a counter argument to the Drug-Warrior cops.

When the issue is citizens vs. cops, on-the-fence people tend to side with the cops. When the issue is cops vs cops, then perhaps people will stop and think, and really look closely at the issue of ending the War on Drugs.

I hope that makes sense.

Those of us in law enforcement have heard this propaganda many times before. I just don't buy it. I base that on first hand experience. It is your over indulgent crowd with it's me first attitude that is intolerant of the views of others. Cops have seen first hand the harm drugs like crack & meth cause. Don't preach to me pal, because I've heard all your bullshit before. You dont have the first clue of the damage these drugs cause. Legalization will NOT make it better.

[BigDawg]

He doesnt care about that stuff. Doesnt care what we see on any given day, why? Because it goes completly what he has been brain washed into believing.

Incase you havent noticed most of us here dont agree with legalizing it. You can argue till your blue in the face and I personally wont change my opinion, why? Because of what I see on any given day of work.