Why the Government wants to disarm you

Boris

Son of Kalashnikov
NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
18,275
Likes
11,501
Location
Back from Motherland
I don't think that's true. Disarmed population is generally more docile and easier to control. Also disarming process has started long ago, almost 100years back for a serious effort, probably because new socialist policies called for every able producer to be onboard willing or not. We just have the illusion going over a long time that we are in control, while people who actually net positive pay taxes are not.

Also keep in mind, that right after the American revolution, things like Whiskey Rebellion (Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia) essentially stated "welcome to new boss" I'm not 100% on this event, but waging wars costs money and therefore taxes need to be raised, but taxes is theft.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,785
Likes
1,573
Location
RI
I don't think that's true. Disarmed population is generally more docile and easier to control. Also disarming process has started long ago, almost 100years back for a serious effort, probably because new socialist policies called for every able producer to be onboard willing or not. We just have the illusion going over a long time that we are in control, while people who actually net positive pay taxes are not.

Also keep in mind, that right after the American revolution, things like Whiskey Rebellion (Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia) essentially stated "welcome to new boss" I'm not 100% on this event, but waging wars costs money and therefore taxes need to be raised, but taxes is theft.
Events like the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, and Fries's Rebellion had two general starting reasons:

1) The states owed money to the nascent "Feds" and the national government owed money to foreign allies like the French and Dutch. These debts had to be paid in order to keep the national credit rating above "LOLWUT" and to prevent us from being an international joke, although we never fully repaid the French. So the states and the Feds enacted taxes to pay off these debts. The problem is, if you had just spent 1775-1783 fighting a war, and you're a bankrupt veteran, you just see exchanging one form of theft for another form of theft, like you said.

2) Paper money at the time was relatively worthless, so .gov wanted payment in specie. This was totally fine in urban areas because urban areas had access to international trade. International trade means an influx of money, which in 1783, was exchanged in foreign currency like Spanish pieces of eight or British pounds. America's banking industry was also just being born. Banks started up in cities like Boston, Providence, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, etc. The people who got harmed in all this were rural people who didn't have access to specie and either had to use paper money, which was worthless (check out Trevett v. Weeden: Trevett v. Weeden - Wikipedia), or a barter economy. Out in backwoods PA and the old "Ohio Country," people used whiskey as a form of currency. So enacting a tax on whiskey was like enacting a sales tax. In Western Mass, courts started foreclosing on people who couldn't pay debts or taxes in specie. The rural people wanted to pay debts in paper, but the merchant classes in say Boston and Providence and Newport didn't want to hear it because they knew the paper money was worthless. So people shut down the courts in Western Mass to stop the foreclosures and tax sales.
 

calsdad

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
37,639
Likes
12,355
Location
Chelmsford MA
I don't think that's true. Disarmed population is generally more docile and easier to control. Also disarming process has started long ago, almost 100years back for a serious effort, probably because new socialist policies called for every able producer to be onboard willing or not. We just have the illusion going over a long time that we are in control, while people who actually net positive pay taxes are not.

Also keep in mind, that right after the American revolution, things like Whiskey Rebellion (Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia) essentially stated "welcome to new boss" I'm not 100% on this event, but waging wars costs money and therefore taxes need to be raised, but taxes is theft.
The corruption goes back a long way. Before the Whiskey Rebellion there was Shay's Rebellion - and that was right here in Assachusetts.

This is one of the better accounts of the whole thing that I've run across:


This is the story of Shays’ Rebellion, which I contend is the most important falsified event in American history. It is a story of speculation in government bonds, political intrigue, propaganda, and systematic deception. But it is ultimately the story of John Hancock’s big toe.


As recently as 2001, only one historian knew that the event that is acknowledged as key political event in the success of promoters of the Constitution was not what it appeared to be. That lone historian, Leonard Richards, had not yet finished his revolutionary book, Shays’ Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle. In 2002, the book appeared. His thesis has not yet moved into the textbooks. It should.


Shays’ Rebellion was an armed resistance movement of about 4,000 men in western Massachusetts. Contrary to reports from the anti-Shays faction in 1787, and contrary to historians’ accounts ever since, it was not a revolt of impoverished, indebted rural radicals. It included men of all economic classes. Many of them were veterans of the American Revolution, including Daniel Shays, who served from the battle of Bunker (Breed’s) Hill onward, and was a distinguished officer who worked his way up from the ranks to captain. Lafayette awarded him a sword for his valor. These men revolted against a group of speculators who had recently gained control of the governor’s office.


For over two centuries, Americans did not know the truth. Then, in one of those fluke events that every historian dreams about, Professor Richards of the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) stumbled onto a fact that no previous historian had bothered to investigate. After the defeat of the rebels, the state required each of them to sign a loyalty oath. Unlike previous political rebellions, there were archival records of those who had participated. These records were right under Prof. Richards’ nose, yet it took several months for him to learn that they were actually in his own university’s library: on microfilm. He then made a detailed investigation of the participants: the towns they lived in, their family connections, their debt position in 1786, and their political offices, if any. What he learned enabled him to re-write the story of Shays’ rebellion. It was not a revolt of indebted farmers. It was a tax revolt.

===================

While it is not possible to trace the ownership of all of the debt after the war, what can be traced indicates that 80 percent of the speculators lived in or near Boston, and almost 40 percent was held by 35 men. Most had bought these notes at tremendous discounts. Then, to add insult to injury, interest on these notes was retroactively made payable in silver. To pay off these speculators, taxes were raised. The main ones were the poll tax and the property tax, beginning in 1785. Prof. Richards describes the nature of this tax burden:


Every farmer knew that he was going to have to pay for every son sixteen years or older, every horse he owned, every cow, every barn, every acre in tillage. Everyone also knew that the tax bite was going to be regressive. Only about 10 percent of the taxes were to come from import duties and excises, which fell mainly on people who were most able to pay. The other 90 percent was direct taxes on property, with land bearing a disproportionate share, and polls. The latter was especially regressive, since it mattered not a whit if a male sixteen years of age or older had any property or not. Rich or poor, he was going to have to pay the same amount, and altogether polls were going to pay at least one-third of all taxes.
But would these taxes actually be collected? After the Revolution, the most popular politician in Massachusetts was John Hancock

======================

Western counties had petitioned the government for relief for several years, but their petitions had been ignored. In July, 1786, a revolt began. It soon became an armed political revolt by towns, not by individuals. The rebels met as a convention to draw up a list of 21 grievances. This was not a mob. Daniel Shays became the head of this revolt after it had begun.

======================

The state of Massachusetts petitioned Congress to send in Federal troops, but the U.S. Army at that time had approximately 700 men. Congress responded by promising to add another 1,340 men, but Massachusetts was supposed to raise 660 of these. Congress then made up a phony war story to justify sending troops to quell a tax revolt. There was a pending Indian war, Congress said. Few believed this ruse. The U.S. Army raised a total of 100 recruits. Meanwhile, militia members in Massachusetts were joining the rebels. Boston’s militia responded to the call; western counties ignored it. Especially revealing were Revolutionary War veterans. Of 637 veterans in the militia in Northampton, only 23 volunteered for duty. The two senior officers from Northampton who responded had between them a total of 14 days of service in the War. All of the rebel captains had at least three years’ experience. Baron von Steuben, who had served under Washington, identified the problem in an article signed “Belisarius.” Massachusetts had 92,000 militiamen on its rolls. Why did the state need military support from Congress? He provided the correct answer: the government was not representative of the opinions of the people.


=====================

etc............ more at the link.


Note the last paragraph above - MA had 92,000 militia men in the state. This was back when the population of MA was approximately 388,000.

Also note that the militia were the ones leading the tax revolt.


You see it's stuff like this why I constantly bring up the militia - the TRUE militia. NOT the "National Guard".

Your ability to revolt - has been removed by the government - when it essentially got rid of the REAL militia.

These days the National Guard will ALL show up to fight any revolt. That's because they're loyal to the government - and not YOU.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 3, 2013
Messages
504
Likes
317
Location
Mars
I don't think that's true. Disarmed population is generally more docile and easier to control. Also disarming process has started long ago, almost 100years back for a serious effort, probably because new socialist policies called for every able producer to be onboard willing or not. We just have the illusion going over a long time that we are in control, while people who actually net positive pay taxes are not.

Also keep in mind, that right after the American revolution, things like Whiskey Rebellion (Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia) essentially stated "welcome to new boss" I'm not 100% on this event, but waging wars costs money and therefore taxes need to be raised, but taxes is theft.
a more sinister friendly method is the ongoing process of legalizing recreational drugs. it will be a doped up population that is easy to control [i.e. the opium wars of the 1800's]
 

June4th

NES Member
Rating - 100%
38   0   0
Joined
Feb 17, 2008
Messages
4,020
Likes
2,503
Location
SE MA
a more sinister friendly method is the ongoing process of legalizing recreational drugs. it will be a doped up population that is easy to control [i.e. the opium wars of the 1800's]
.gov wages War on Drugs to expand its power... .gov legalizes drugs to dope population to expand its power...

Something doesn't compute. Divide by zero error.

 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
3,697
Likes
2,462
Location
NH
OMG a believer in the War on Drugs, I thought you were all extinct!
Hey now, the "pursuit of happiness" in the Constitution doesn't apply to certain plants or chemical combinations.

If anything, the combination of big pharma, prisons (housing lots of otherwise innocuous drug offenders), etc. is much more sinister.

I can't think of any reason anyone other than a big gov't or "let me impose my morality on you" type would support the war on drugs. Morally, financially, logically...it's untenable.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
13,960
Likes
7,573
Events like the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, and Fries's Rebellion had two general starting reasons:

1) The states owed money to the nascent "Feds" and the national government owed money to foreign allies like the French and Dutch. These debts had to be paid in order to keep the national credit rating above "LOLWUT" and to prevent us from being an international joke, although we never fully repaid the French. So the states and the Feds enacted taxes to pay off these debts. The problem is, if you had just spent 1775-1783 fighting a war, and you're a bankrupt veteran, you just see exchanging one form of theft for another form of theft, like you said.

2) Paper money at the time was relatively worthless, so .gov wanted payment in specie. This was totally fine in urban areas because urban areas had access to international trade. International trade means an influx of money, which in 1783, was exchanged in foreign currency like Spanish pieces of eight or British pounds. America's banking industry was also just being born. Banks started up in cities like Boston, Providence, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, etc. The people who got harmed in all this were rural people who didn't have access to specie and either had to use paper money, which was worthless (check out Trevett v. Weeden: Trevett v. Weeden - Wikipedia), or a barter economy. Out in backwoods PA and the old "Ohio Country," people used whiskey as a form of currency. So enacting a tax on whiskey was like enacting a sales tax. In Western Mass, courts started foreclosing on people who couldn't pay debts or taxes in specie. The rural people wanted to pay debts in paper, but the merchant classes in say Boston and Providence and Newport didn't want to hear it because they knew the paper money was worthless. So people shut down the courts in Western Mass to stop the foreclosures and tax sales.
There was another chapter to the worthless money issue

Poor/common people sold their notes to a handful of moneyed interests for pennies and those moneyed/connected interests then lobbied/forced government to compensate them at a rate higher than they paid common people for the notes

It was corruption in its purest form
 

FiremanBob

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
3,036
Likes
4,542
Legalize drugs, but keep the foreign cartels out of the business by controlling the border properly - with a wall. Broaden employers' power to test, and to not-hire/fire for drug use. Eliminate all forms of government assistance for drug users, including use of emergency rooms for drug-caused problems. Eliminate alcoholism/drug addiction from the provisions of the ADA.

Problem goes away in a few years.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,785
Likes
1,573
Location
RI
There was another chapter to the worthless money issue

Poor/common people sold their notes to a handful of moneyed interests for pennies and those moneyed/connected interests then lobbied/forced government to compensate them at a rate higher than they paid common people for the notes

It was corruption in its purest form
The money issue was cyclical. Common people owed debts and taxes to the lending and political classes of the day. The political classes were the monied establishment who lent money, owned land, and whose offices depended on tax revenue. The average people didn't have much representation at the time whereas the political establishment did.

These post-Revolution rebellions are good examples of how much sh*t people tolerate before they start shooting back and shutting down the system. Imagine a world where your money, land, goods, and labor are all worthless and can't be used to pay your bills and taxes. After you just fought a war over individual liberty.
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
3,697
Likes
2,462
Location
NH
Legalize drugs, but keep the foreign cartels out of the business by controlling the border properly - with a wall. Broaden employers' power to test, and to not-hire/fire for drug use. Eliminate all forms of government assistance for drug users, including use of emergency rooms for drug-caused problems. Eliminate alcoholism/drug addiction from the provisions of the ADA.

Problem goes away in a few years.
I think legalizing them to begin with resolves a lot of the problem.
- Cartels: legalize it, and I think the majority of people start using retail establishments as they would be presumably safer, higher standards, etc. This opens the door to tax revenue as well.
- With the job stuff, I think the market would sort that out. I'm OK with allowing people to hire/fire and test, but I think companies that do might lose employees. If I ran a business, I wouldn't care what my employees do with that stuff if it doesn't affect their job. And if it's affecting their job, I'll see it and it will reflect in their reviews, etc. I know some people that partake in that stuff that are perfectly productive employees, lead teams, earn promotions, etc. The fact that they may smoke a joint on the weekend is pretty irrelevant to their ability at the office.

With all the money saved between police/courts/prisons, you could do a great deal of good things, like Veterans programs, etc.
 

calsdad

NES Member
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Messages
37,639
Likes
12,355
Location
Chelmsford MA
Events like the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion, and Fries's Rebellion had two general starting reasons:

1) The states owed money to the nascent "Feds" and the national government owed money to foreign allies like the French and Dutch. These debts had to be paid in order to keep the national credit rating above "LOLWUT" and to prevent us from being an international joke, although we never fully repaid the French. So the states and the Feds enacted taxes to pay off these debts. The problem is, if you had just spent 1775-1783 fighting a war, and you're a bankrupt veteran, you just see exchanging one form of theft for another form of theft, like you said.

2) Paper money at the time was relatively worthless, so .gov wanted payment in specie. This was totally fine in urban areas because urban areas had access to international trade. International trade means an influx of money, which in 1783, was exchanged in foreign currency like Spanish pieces of eight or British pounds. America's banking industry was also just being born. Banks started up in cities like Boston, Providence, Newport, New York, Philadelphia, etc. The people who got harmed in all this were rural people who didn't have access to specie and either had to use paper money, which was worthless (check out Trevett v. Weeden: Trevett v. Weeden - Wikipedia), or a barter economy. Out in backwoods PA and the old "Ohio Country," people used whiskey as a form of currency. So enacting a tax on whiskey was like enacting a sales tax. In Western Mass, courts started foreclosing on people who couldn't pay debts or taxes in specie. The rural people wanted to pay debts in paper, but the merchant classes in say Boston and Providence and Newport didn't want to hear it because they knew the paper money was worthless. So people shut down the courts in Western Mass to stop the foreclosures and tax sales.
The French had to wait a while for their payback - but they got it, with a huge interest payment.

The French also had their own reasons for helping the Revolution - since they wanted to get back at the British for France's loss during the Seven Years War.

It's not like they did it entirely because of some charitable impulse they had.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,785
Likes
1,573
Location
RI
The French had to wait a while for their payback - but they got it, with a huge interest payment.

The French also had their own reasons for helping the Revolution - since they wanted to get back at the British for France's loss during the Seven Years War.

It's not like they did it entirely because of some charitable impulse they had.
The French were employing a basic "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy.

Our lack of actual payment seriously helped kick off the French Revolution, but that's for another thread. If you count blood/sweat/tears as repayment, we had them covered in 1918 + 1944/45. Especially once we took over global hegemony from the British after WW2.

I guess you could see France's loans to us as seed money for a new global superpower, but that's a ton of hindsight.
 

smokey-seven

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
4,520
Likes
2,750
Location
North Shore
These days the National Guard will ALL show up to fight any revolt. That's because they're loyal to the government - and not YOU.
The Brits were known to have said, "Getting to Concord was not a problem, getting back to Boston was."

If the National Guard thinks that they have the upper hand and will follow the government mandate to kill citizens, they will probably rethink that order on a number of fronts.
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
29,469
Likes
14,597
I think legalizing them to begin with resolves a lot of the problem.
- Cartels: legalize it, and I think the majority of people start using retail establishments as they would be presumably safer, higher standards, etc. This opens the door to tax revenue as well.
- With the job stuff, I think the market would sort that out. I'm OK with allowing people to hire/fire and test, but I think companies that do might lose employees. If I ran a business, I wouldn't care what my employees do with that stuff if it doesn't affect their job. And if it's affecting their job, I'll see it and it will reflect in their reviews, etc. I know some people that partake in that stuff that are perfectly productive employees, lead teams, earn promotions, etc. The fact that they may smoke a joint on the weekend is pretty irrelevant to their ability at the office.

With all the money saved between police/courts/prisons, you could do a great deal of good things, like Veterans programs, etc.
Can we form an NES "Cartel"?
I want to get in on some of this cash!
 

Spanz

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
29,469
Likes
14,597
Legalize drugs, but keep the foreign cartels out of the business by controlling the border properly - with a wall. Broaden employers' power to test, and to not-hire/fire for drug use. Eliminate all forms of government assistance for drug users, including use of emergency rooms for drug-caused problems. Eliminate alcoholism/drug addiction from the provisions of the ADA.

Problem goes away in a few years.
so your daughter shows up at the emergency room, with a reaction to some roofie drug some ahole gave her at a bar....and the ER refuses treatment and she dies? Is this what you really want?
 
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
20,244
Likes
8,462
Location
NH (CT Escapee)
so your daughter shows up at the emergency room, with a reaction to some roofie drug some ahole gave her at a bar....and the ER refuses treatment and she dies? Is this what you really want?
That's not what he said. He said remove government funding. The docs will still help your daughter, but she gets the bill like she should becuase she CHOSE to ingest something.

If she wants recourse for costs she can sue the person who drugged her.
 

FiremanBob

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
3,036
Likes
4,542
so your daughter shows up at the emergency room, with a reaction to some roofie drug some ahole gave her at a bar....and the ER refuses treatment and she dies? Is this what you really want?
Your hypothetical is out of context. Perhaps I should have said, "drug addiction related problems". We are talking about self-inflicted misery due to a lack of character, not being a victim of a crime.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,500
Likes
7,759
Location
North Shore
I think legalizing them to begin with resolves a lot of the problem.
- Cartels: legalize it, and I think the majority of people start using retail establishments as they would be presumably safer, higher standards, etc. This opens the door to tax revenue as well.
- With the job stuff, I think the market would sort that out. I'm OK with allowing people to hire/fire and test, but I think companies that do might lose employees. If I ran a business, I wouldn't care what my employees do with that stuff if it doesn't affect their job. And if it's affecting their job, I'll see it and it will reflect in their reviews, etc. I know some people that partake in that stuff that are perfectly productive employees, lead teams, earn promotions, etc. The fact that they may smoke a joint on the weekend is pretty irrelevant to their ability at the office.

With all the money saved between police/courts/prisons, you could do a great deal of good things, like Veterans programs, etc.
Have you ever met a heroin addict that was gainfully employed ?
At least for long?
I've know a few, and it's always a downhill slide.
Now here's the kicker , to a person they have ended up stealing and robbing to support their habit once they hit that bottom of the slide.
As violently as need be, it's a bitch of an addiction .
Look at methadone mile and there you have the end result.
What I find incredible is you have people trying to say that this is all going to go away because now uncle sugar is selling it instead of the shitbird on the corner.
Unless of course uncle sugar is giving it away at taxpayer expense.
The notion that suddenly the nature of addiction will change simply because you buy it from some "Legit" source is the stupidest freaking thing I have ever heard.
And I've heard some dumb shit.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,785
Likes
1,573
Location
RI
Have you ever met a heroin addict that was gainfully employed ?
At least for long?
I've know a few, and it's always a downhill slide.
Now here's the kicker , to a person they have ended up stealing and robbing to support their habit once they hit that bottom of the slide.
As violently as need be, it's a bitch of an addiction .
Look at methadone mile and there you have the end result.
What I find incredible is you have people trying to say that this is all going to go away because now uncle sugar is selling it instead of the shitbird on the corner.
Unless of course uncle sugar is giving it away at taxpayer expense.
The notion that suddenly the nature of addiction will change simply because you buy it from some "Legit" source is the stupidest freaking thing I have ever heard.
And I've heard some dumb shit.
Here's the thing about drug addiction and alcoholism: they won't go away. Society has had drunks since people first discovered alcohol and there have been junkies since ancient Rome (opium). Making the drugs illegal isn't going to get rid of addicts or the people who become addicts.

Throwing people in jail isn't cost effective nor is it effective at getting people to stop doing drugs. People inside jail do drugs. People on the outside will take lawyers' business cards, slice them width-wise, and fill coke in the middle. Close up the card again with coke inside. Deliver the card to people inside. People go to jail and become better drug dealers, learning the art of the trade.

Decriminalizing drug possession and focusing on treatment for addiction will do a whole lot better than throwing people in jail and making them into better criminals. Don't need to set up heroin dispensaries, but the never ending arrest-jail-release catch and release game clearly isn't working. More people are addicts these days than ever before.
 

Dadstoys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
13,500
Likes
7,759
Location
North Shore
Here's the thing about drug addiction and alcoholism: they won't go away. Society has had drunks since people first discovered alcohol and there have been junkies since ancient Rome (opium). Making the drugs illegal isn't going to get rid of addicts or the people who become addicts.

Throwing people in jail isn't cost effective nor is it effective at getting people to stop doing drugs. People inside jail do drugs. People on the outside will take lawyers' business cards, slice them width-wise, and fill coke in the middle. Close up the card again with coke inside. Deliver the card to people inside. People go to jail and become better drug dealers, learning the art of the trade.

Decriminalizing drug possession and focusing on treatment for addiction will do a whole lot better than throwing people in jail and making them into better criminals. Don't need to set up heroin dispensaries, but the never ending arrest-jail-release catch and release game clearly isn't working. More people are addicts these days than ever before.
The only drug that should be illegal in that case is Narcan.
Self correcting problem.
I've known 4 heroin addicts personally and all but one are dead.
One was a classmate since kindergarten and he was breaking into 4-6 houses a day .
He impacted a lot of peoples lives in a negative way.
Last time I saw him he weighed about 90 lbs. and was walking in circles scratching like he had poison ivy and talking to himself. Shortly after he was found dead from an OD.
 

C. Stockwell

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
1,785
Likes
1,573
Location
RI
The only drug that should be illegal in that case is Narcan.
Self correcting problem.
I've known 4 heroin addicts personally and all but one are dead.
One was a classmate since kindergarten and he was breaking into 4-6 houses a day .
He impacted a lot of peoples lives in a negative way.
Last time I saw him he weighed about 90 lbs. and was walking in circles scratching like he had poison ivy and talking to himself. Shortly after he was found dead from an OD.
You and I both know that drug addiction and alcoholism aren't self-correcting problems. Let's get real here. There were no DUI laws in most states prior to the 1970s and 80s. Did allowing drunks to drive kill all the alcoholics? No. There weren't many anti-drug laws before the 1880s. Did unfettered access to laudanum and opium kill all the addicts? No, we have more addicts as a percent of the population than ever before.
 

daekken

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
3,697
Likes
2,462
Location
NH
The only drug that should be illegal in that case is Narcan.
Self correcting problem.
I've known 4 heroin addicts personally and all but one are dead.
One was a classmate since kindergarten and he was breaking into 4-6 houses a day .
He impacted a lot of peoples lives in a negative way.
Last time I saw him he weighed about 90 lbs. and was walking in circles scratching like he had poison ivy and talking to himself. Shortly after he was found dead from an OD.
You cannot (effectively) legislate morality. Even Augustus encountered this during Rome.

Financially the drug wars are a failure, ethically they are a failure, and from a liberty standpoint they are a failure.

We're often railing against banning guns since "the criminals will still have them." Well, ban drugs and the cartels/illegal dealers will still have and provide them. The difference is you're not throwing a guy in jail (and then paying all of the associated costs) for a recreational amount.

Prohibition was a failure. Banning stuff (99% of the time) doesn't make it go away.
The alcoholic eventually messes up his employment and/or family life. He loses his job. The druggie the same.
We shouldn't jail the guy that knocks a few back at home with his buddies on a Friday night. Similarly, we shouldn't jail the guy that smokes a plant (or similar) with his buddies at home on Friday night.
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
10,012
Likes
4,614
Location
Granite State of Mind
Have you ever met a heroin addict that was gainfully employed ?
At least for long?
I've know a few, and it's always a downhill slide.
I've known 4 heroin addicts personally and all but one are dead.
What makes you think that those are the only addicts you've known?

They were the only ones you knew about, which is not the same thing, at all.
 
Top Bottom