What is a false law? I understand the concept of bad law, but as long as a law has been passed legally, how can it be false unless it's unconstitutional?
Okay, bad law.
Gonzales v. Raich
The original judge's logic is understandable, even though I don't agree with it.
It's not understandable when considering the Founding Father's intention and citizens have the right to tell politicians a law is wrong or bad. When laws not the people matter that can lead to fascism. Or any other ism but libertyism. Not that it hasn't been going on for a long tyme. Many people accuse FDR of court packing but it's been going on since before then. A century earlier, in defiance of the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson did it. When he forced the Cherokees, who inhabited areas of the Carolinas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee to move west across the Mississippi to Oklahoma he was sued in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall ruled against Jackson. So what does Jackson do? He says John Marshall made his own decision and that he can raise his own army to back it up.
You made the assertion not me, so you need to back it up.
This is obvious when you consider that they're poorer that the people in north arlington and don't usually call the cops.
DUH! They don't call police because they could be arrested themselves. By allowing them to be here legally they are more likely to report crimes. That doe snot mean they are committing the crimes!
This isn't immigration, because they aren't allowed to be here. Go tell socal it's for their own good that their schools and hospitals are overrun by illegals.
You need to look up the definition of immigration, here it is: "noun: migration into a place (especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there". They are immigrants, those who immigrate.
Guess what? These guys aren't starting businesses, they're working for cheap and generally are a drain financially.
More start businesses as a percentage than native born people do.
Great, they live 4 to a bedroom, spend like misers and send money out of our economy.
And they pay rent, buy food, and spend money too. Those they send money too also want to buy American goods as well, which improves export.
Did you ever think that the reason mexico is such a shithole is that the government exports its underclass to us?
Did you think this through? Mexico was a shithole before a lot of Mexicans started crossing the border. Not the other way around. And you can blame that partially on NAFTA. When US businesses can buy, export, and sell corn in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow it because those businesses receive billions in US taxpayer dollars in subsidies they can't compeat. You want to blame someone for illegal immigrants, blame Cargill, one of the largest private corporations in the world, and Archer Daniels Midland, ADM. Both are good examples of corporate welfare. They get billions of your taxpayer dollars, that can't be said enough, and you complain about Mexican illegal immigrants.
Lock down the borders and make it impractical to come here and work illegally, and see if they don't riot.
Yea, and let's call it the Berlin, er Apartheid Wall. Let's also say "fuck you" to those who have the right to cross the border such as the Tohono O'odham Nation. Let's split up families that live on opposite sides of a line on a map, but within a short walking distance.
What, like the ones that say that people have to fill out paperwork to become citizens?
Becoming a citizen is different than being resident. I have no problem what's so ever in requiring testing to become a citizen, but people should be able to freely move across borders. Without a lot of paperwork. I'll even say they should be legally able to work, and pay taxes. But the only way they could collect Social Security is if they become a citizen. Because a lot of immigrants want to work here for a short tyme then go back home this would help the Social Security Fund stay solvent.
Essentially, someone using that graph to argue that heroin is dangerous and should be prohibited is begging the question.
Yea, the GP posted the link to the graph to show how addictive drugs are supposed to be. Three of the drugs posted weren't even on the graph.
It's dangerous because it's illegal not the other way around.
I agree. I know of no illegal drug that's really addictive and harmful. Prescription drugs can be just as addictive and harmful yet their legal.
Please note that I do not use opiates, and do not approve of their use.
Either do I. Going to parties in my old neighborhood I used to get dirty looks when a drug was passed around. When it came to me I'd just hand it to the next person. My best friend would tell people I only smoked a joint once in a blue moon. The only other drug I'd use was alcohol. And of that, I used to make homebrew beer and wine, it's been years but I still have my equipment and want to start brewing again. Unfortunately I don't have much space in my apartment.
I also do not approve of FUD, which is more common than fact when talking about drugs.
As president Nixon had a presidential commission investigate whether marijuana should be legalized. However he said no matter what they concluded he'd never agree to legalization, and that's what the commission concluded.
Imagine how many more we could let in if illegals weren't jumping the line because they don't respect our laws?
You know why "illegal immigrants" risk their lives to cross the border instead of waiting in line? Because the system is convoluted and can take years.
We accept more immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world - over a million in 2008.
And we have a large population. Numbers don't matter so much as percentages or ratios do, as a percent how many immigrants are there of different ethnic groups? Take for instance Norway, Muslims make up 2% of the population and most are immigrants. Or take Turks in Germany, there are approximately 2.8 million immigrants from Turkey, 3% of the population in Germany.
What legal channels? Certainly American Indians didn't stamp visas. Oh you mean the European settlers, the same ones who massacred those already here? At least I don't see Mexicans doing that. And there are Mexicans who have the right to cross the border. The US Mexican border cuts right through the Tohono O'odham Nation. Yuman Indians who live on the border find it hard to get both Mexican passports and US visas. Some Indian tribes in Arizona oppose restrictions.
No, the laws about how noncitizens aren't allowed in are not prejudicial.
Excluding Chinese, eastern and southern Europeans is racial? Okay, it's nationalistic just like the NAZIs were.
They're low skill and tend to bring higher levels of crime to the places they settle.
Citation needed.
Immigration is for our benefit
And allowing immigrants in will be to our benefit. Immigrants start more businesses of their own than native born citizens, and those businesses create jobs. If they were made to pay income and social security taxes they could fix Social Security, they pay in but without becoming citizens they don't collect SS. And many only want to come here temporarily and work to send money home then go back. Actually allowing the free flow of immigrants more would go back, but because it's so hard to cross the border once they get here they don't want to risk not being able to cross it again. Up until the mid '90s that's how a lot of immigration worked. But then the borders were guarded more making it hard.
blame the greediness of 'Corporate America' that drove people to steal essentially your whole garden just to have food to eat. I know government welfare exists in the USA...if you are destitute enough to qualify for it. Otherwise, that avenue of aid is closed when no other form of 'social safety net' is available for those affected (i.e. the 'economic homeless'). This might have been the case here.
I am on welfare. Last Friday my brother-in-law took me to the local social services office to get financial assistance. I was given "food stamps", they're going to help with my medical expenses, and with my rent. My rent hasn't even been paid in a year. Now if it wasn't for my sister, who owns the apartment building I live in, I would have been evicted months ago. I know because the lady who lived in the apartment before I moved in was evicted, I delivered the eviction notice.
If it were vandals, this appears to be the inevitable conclusion of 'theft vs infringement' that gets debated (endlessely) here on Slashdot.
When I told my brother-in-law the plants in my garden were taken, he saw the work I put into it, at first he said he thought the city had taken them. I've seen others plant gardens between the sidewalk and the street and nothing happened to them so I did the same. However all who ever it was only took the plants, I also had a lot of soil and mulch as well as a dozen tomato cages that were left there. What puzzles me is if it was the city why leave these and if thieves why not take the cages? Also last year I had some tomatoes not 20 feet from what was taken that no one ever bothered, it could be because whoever was new to the area though. Right now I have Thai Basel there but I may transplant some to plant more tomatoes there, or something else.
You could grow a garden inside your home if possible to prevent this from happening again but likely you will draw the interest of the police who will think you are growing marijuana indoors
There's not enough space to grow much. And I don't have good sunlight through the windows so I'd have to use grow lights. About the best I could do really is grow lettuce.
but treating them medically implies they have no limits on their freedoms like in a prison. the reason they need to be constrained is that an addict is an addict is an addict. that is, they have no free will. given free choice, they pursue the same damaging endeavour. and so you need some sort of constraint on their freedoms in order to treat them, which implies some sort of criminal confinement in addition to the medical treatment.
And where's your medical or scientific evidence drugs are as addictive as drug warriors make out? According to this graph and chart heroin is the most addictive drug, yet the Rat Park study showed heroin is not as addictive as it's made out to be.
f you take an honest appraisal of all the lives destroyed by drugs on a regular background noise basis around the world throughout history and in all cultures, it would be as an ocean compared to the raindrop of the suffering caused by the cruel dictators who have ever lived.
as for cocaine, meth, heroin: it would be nice if you could use those drugs and only destroy yourself. but when these highly addictive
The Rat Pack study showed heroin is not as addictive as it's made out to be. And I bet if studies like it were done that would be true for cocaine and meth as well.
1. sound mind, unsound body: suicide ok. like someone with huntington's
2. sound body, unsound mind: suicide not ok
What is a sound mind? As I said my brain suffered neurological damage. I spent more than a year in therapy after I left the hospital and rehab house I lived in, but it did basically squat. According to the docs it was a "miracle" I lived but if I could argue that with them I'd let them know they are absolutely wrong. Instead of a miracle my life has been more like a living hell.
given time, you might reconsider suicide. given suicide, you don't reconsider anything
Believe me, I have thought of committing sepaku, hari kari, or another ritualized suicide, emphasis on ritualized. However I've been held back, by what is probably a combination of things. I hate quitting or giving up, as some of my therapists said I'm stubborn, and though I longer do I used to believe in reincarnation. I can't help but think that if it is true then I'm going through this for a reason and if I kill myself I've have to go through it again. Logical? No it isn't but logic can't touch it with a, forget a 10 foot pole, with a 10 mile pole. Sometimes though I imagine using what I call the Buddha method, find some place to stay without eating or drinking until I either reach enlightenment or die.
anyone who commits suicide and becomes a hardcore addict hurts family, friends, society. no man is an island. it is a colossal blindness to think you are only hurting yourself
And it's colossal sadism to make someone suffer just because you can't let them go.
To those that don't know.. phoenix/tucson are seeing record kidnappings and murders. These are being primarily carried out by drug cartels. CNN and Fox have been talking about it, which makes this a political move to calm the masses.
Yea, CNN is about the only tv station I watch and they've been going on about the border violence for weeks if not months. But I only heard once where the solution was made on how to fight it, Jessy "The Body" Ventura said on Larry King the only way to solve it is to legalize drugs. Though Arnold Schwarzenegger did say he wanted to legalize and tax it too.
I'm sick of the government using billions of dollars to make it harder for people to get their hands on some weed. All it does is make it harder to get good weed.
The answer is to grow your own. Your weed, hemp or marijuana is one of the easiest plants to grow. Ever wonder why it's called "weed", because like other weeds it grows easily in many places.
Of course homegrown weed may not have as much THC as professionally grown weed.
Meth, Methamphetamine, is not on your chart. Neither is oxycodone or Phencyclidine, PCP. Now according to the chart and graph heroin and cocaine are the most addictive, however I knew people who used both and they were not addicted to either. Now according to the Rat Pack study of opiates, which heroin is, they are not highly addictive.
but some chemicals, like pcp and meth, are literally life destroyers: they are powerfully chemically addictive and habituating. this means you can't use them for awhile and walk away.
Drugs, all drugs including PCP and meth, should be treated as a medical not a criminal issue. Now if you commit a crime while using drugs, just as people do without using drugs, you should be punished.
pcp, oxycodone, methamphetamine... no, sorry, never. these are freedom destorying chemically addicting and habituating monsters that enslave and zombify worse than any government, real or imaginary, ever could.
How many deaths has these drugs caused? Not drug gang violence but deaths from overdoses and what have you? I bet not as many as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have. Heck I'd find it hard to believe they caused as many deaths as Pol Pot did.
for those people who are at empty stage of their lives, and might turn to a drug, the point is to keep them away from drugs, and allow them to get back to a full life again. but if you introduce drugs into the situation, you turn what might otherwise be a temporary bit of helplessness into a life-destorying chemical dependency
Your title is right, all you have to do is devalue your life. I used to be one of those people who had to keep in control of their lives. Though I grew up with drug users, most were causal users though there were some who were alcoholics, I rarely ever used them myself. And only alcohol and the occasional joint. However after surviving an injury, a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI, I now wish I could get high. If I have to live. However I wish I had died, my sister even told me that after I came out of the coma I was in I was screaming at everyone to let me die.
it is a symptom of people who have given up in some way. they need society to keep drugs away from them in the first place:
Why should people be stopped if they are not harming others? Laws that make alleviating suffering illegal are sadistic.
While legalizing cannabis should have been done years ago already, meth is so clearly destroying the heartland of America (and even making inroads into big cities) that legalization and taxation is not an option.
Do you have any economic or scientific studies supporting this? Unless and until something can be proven to cause victims other than users, it should not be made illegal. However with drugs almost all violence is caused because they are illegal. Those clashes spilling into the US from Mexico are caused by different gangs fighting each other for control of drugs, or gangs fighting law enforcement. With legal drugs a person could walk into a store and buy them just as they do alcohol.
I've read elsewhere on the Net (in another Slashdot post?) that in some 'third world' countries, people will share what litte food they have with others -- even when it is only three mouthfuls of food for the whole day.
Sharing happens in the US too. Last year I shared what I grew in my garden with the family of 4 next door even though I am on disability and don't work. What I don't like is theft. Now yesterday I spent a few hours working in my garden planting a number of veggies after I spend other days working on it as well. When I went out to work on it today of the 20 pepper, tomato, and tomatillo plants I had planted in one spot all but 2 were gone. One pepper that was mostly buried with mulch and a tomatillo with a broken stalk were all that was left. The rest were taken from the ground with some of the tomato cages I had over the tomato and tomatillo plants ripped out as well. Now I don't feel like sharing at all this year. And I was willing and expressed interest in helping others start their own gardens. I could have made and canned enough Chile Relleno and other stuff peppers, sauces, and soups to last me several weeks if not a few months.
Whats happening here is something thats well within laws that in my mind make sense, balancing the needs of national security with clear boundaries that protect the rights of Americans. Stopping foreign violence from spreading over our border is definitely within the scope of the federal government's responsibility.
Yes it's government's responsibility to protect the nation and people from foreign threats. However the best way to do so as far as drug violence is concerned is to legalize drugs. With legal drugs criminal gangs won't be fighting each other, or targeting citizens. Drug addiction itself is, should be, a medical not a legal issue. It's no different than say NYC banning trans fats. If under the influence someone harms another then they should be punished for that harm, just as people who cause harm who are not under the influence should be.
However, I do agree that what we do need to keep a watch on it. I'd suggest explicit laws stating the limits of how satellite surveillance can be used domestically.
I'd rather not have to watch period. Give government power and it will be abused. J Edgar Hoover was a good example. Like the old saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure". It's much harder to take power away than it is to give or grab power.
So, what American Indian tribe are you a member of?
Choctaw. From what overpopulated shithole did you come to invade my country?
I am American, I'm part Iroquois.
Correct. They are, however, taking capital away. As I stated, this capital is being diverted to provide education and other government services for illegal immigrants and their many children.
They are also paying taxes.
Actually immigrants are more likely to start new businesses creating jobs than those born in the US. More jobs make for a better economy in general.
1. We're talking about illegal immigrants, not all immigrants. Who's being "racist" now?
You? I certainly aren't being racist, though I do admit to being biased. I try not to be but am.
2. If that were true, they would be doing it in their own countries. They aren't.
Some are but others find it easier here.
3. If true, illegal immigrants still don't create enough jobs to make up for their higher-than-average birth rate. Again, look at their home countries for perfect examples of this in action.
If it weren't for immigrants, legal and illegal, the US's population would be in slow decline. "U.S. Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low". While the birth rate, in developed nations, needs to be about 2.1 in the US it is about 2.09. Now I'm not saying it's bad, actually it's worse in Europe. As populations improve their education, economics, and equal rights they have fewer children.
4. More jobs absolutely do not "make for a better economy". Low unemployment, high wages and low resource costs make for a better economy.
With more jobs there is lower unemployment. Lower unemployment drives wages higher.
In fact, fewer jobs is the ideal economic situation
I call BS. Now I'm willing to admit I am wrong, so if you can provide a link to economic studies supporting your assertion I am change my beliefs. But you have to prove it to me first.
That's true. And most of the houses would likely have been built regardless due to poor Fed policy.
Yea, federal policies encouraged financial institutions to make bad loans.
Cheap illegal immigrant labor just ensured that vast quantities of capital would be transferred out of the country, or invested in a new generation of migrant laborers, in the process, rather than continuing to circulate in the US economy to ensure jobs and benefit Americans.
Immigrant labor period help the Third World more than foreign aid does. Immigrant laborers remit more money back to their home country than governments give in aid. You cut those remittances and they would be worse off. Now if you want to reduce immigration them you should oppose the billions of dollars the government gives in subsidies to businesses like Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill. With all the subsidies they get, your tax dollars, they can buy and export corn to Mexico to sell it there for less than Mexican farmers can grow corn. If those Mexicans could make a living on their farms then they would stay there.
Also, have you ever heard of trade? Those people receiving remittances from immigrant laborers can then buy American goods, which helps the American economy.
Legalize drugs and release those convicted of non violent drug offenses. Not only would this reduce the costs of laws enforcement but it would reduce drug violence as well.
I'm not really prepared to debate this, but I doubt you can back this up with anything resembling statistics or proof.
Thats true, but there are also very clear boundaries (I'd assume you couldn't use the military-derived images to prosecute anyone, but TFA doesn't say), which make it much harder for mission creep to happen. Plus the ACLU is keeping a close eye, which personally makes me more comfortable with it. If anything goes beyond what's reasonable I'm sure we'll hear about.
How much help has the ACLU been able to give librarians after the PATRIOT Act was passed who have been issued a National Security Letter requesting information? The ACLU is still fighting National Security Letters today.
No, I fear government more than anything else and don't want them having any more power than they have now. I want government with less power not more.
That said, yes, pot heads shouldn't be in jail. But... Get to drugs much harder than that and they should be. Harder, more addictive, drugs add to crime, and not just drug crimes. Hard drug users are a deeper social problem than the mere moral crime of marijuana use.
Where is the evidence from peer reviewed scientific studies that shows drugs cause deep social problems? Oh and don't forget to include alcohol, I bet it causes a lot of problems.
Forget about rehab centers. Those are expensive. The profits from legalized drugs wouldn't even pay for the increase in jail cells required.
More people are in prison in the US from drug convictions than from any other crimes. With legal drugs all those people can be taxpaying employees. And no crimes won't increase with legalization, if anything it will decrease. When alcohol was prohibited crimes increased and became more violent as well as made organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia powerful.
And aside from the practical difficulties, do you really want government more dependent on the proceeds of drug distribution than it already is?
I don't want government passing laws that make victim-less crimes. Who's the victim when a causal drug user gets arrested and sentenced to gaol? The one convicted. Who's the victim when someone is charged with prostitution or for being a client? Who's the victim when there's gambling? Again those convicted. While one of the most dangerous drugs, alcohol, is legal an extremely industrially useful drug, hemp, is illegal.
If someone is imprisoned because they were convicted of a false, bad, law they are falsely imprisoned.
As some of the USA's Founding Fathers said, paraphrasing, it's better to let 10 guilty go free than to falsely convict 1 innocent. In the California medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich the federal judge wouldn't allow the jurors to know that California law allows medical marijuana. Nor do many judged allow jury nullification, a method by which the Founding Fathers supported as a way for citizens to tell politicians laws were bad. After jurors in Ed Rosenthal's case convicted him then found out "he was growing the stuff for the city of Oakland" they were outraged. Perhaps as the Fully Informed Jury Association, FIJA, has called for we need another Tea Party.
Slashdot Mirror
What is a false law? I understand the concept of bad law, but as long as a law has been passed legally, how can it be false unless it's unconstitutional?
Okay, bad law.
Gonzales v. Raich
The original judge's logic is understandable, even though I don't agree with it.
It's not understandable when considering the Founding Father's intention and citizens have the right to tell politicians a law is wrong or bad. When laws not the people matter that can lead to fascism. Or any other ism but libertyism. Not that it hasn't been going on for a long tyme. Many people accuse FDR of court packing but it's been going on since before then. A century earlier, in defiance of the Supreme Court, President Andrew Jackson did it. When he forced the Cherokees, who inhabited areas of the Carolinas, Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee to move west across the Mississippi to Oklahoma he was sued in the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Marshall ruled against Jackson. So what does Jackson do? He says John Marshall made his own decision and that he can raise his own army to back it up.
Falcon
Citation needed.
Go look it up.
You made the assertion not me, so you need to back it up.
This is obvious when you consider that they're poorer that the people in north arlington and don't usually call the cops.
DUH! They don't call police because they could be arrested themselves. By allowing them to be here legally they are more likely to report crimes. That doe snot mean they are committing the crimes!
This isn't immigration, because they aren't allowed to be here. Go tell socal it's for their own good that their schools and hospitals are overrun by illegals.
You need to look up the definition of immigration, here it is: "noun: migration into a place (especially migration to a country of which you are not a native in order to settle there". They are immigrants, those who immigrate.
Guess what? These guys aren't starting businesses, they're working for cheap and generally are a drain financially.
More start businesses as a percentage than native born people do.
Great, they live 4 to a bedroom, spend like misers and send money out of our economy.
And they pay rent, buy food, and spend money too. Those they send money too also want to buy American goods as well, which improves export.
Did you ever think that the reason mexico is such a shithole is that the government exports its underclass to us?
Did you think this through? Mexico was a shithole before a lot of Mexicans started crossing the border. Not the other way around. And you can blame that partially on NAFTA. When US businesses can buy, export, and sell corn in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow it because those businesses receive billions in US taxpayer dollars in subsidies they can't compeat. You want to blame someone for illegal immigrants, blame Cargill, one of the largest private corporations in the world, and Archer Daniels Midland, ADM. Both are good examples of corporate welfare. They get billions of your taxpayer dollars, that can't be said enough, and you complain about Mexican illegal immigrants.
Lock down the borders and make it impractical to come here and work illegally, and see if they don't riot.
Yea, and let's call it the Berlin, er Apartheid Wall. Let's also say "fuck you" to those who have the right to cross the border such as the Tohono O'odham Nation. Let's split up families that live on opposite sides of a line on a map, but within a short walking distance.
Falcon
What, like the ones that say that people have to fill out paperwork to become citizens?
Becoming a citizen is different than being resident. I have no problem what's so ever in requiring testing to become a citizen, but people should be able to freely move across borders. Without a lot of paperwork. I'll even say they should be legally able to work, and pay taxes. But the only way they could collect Social Security is if they become a citizen. Because a lot of immigrants want to work here for a short tyme then go back home this would help the Social Security Fund stay solvent.
Falcon
Essentially, someone using that graph to argue that heroin is dangerous and should be prohibited is begging the question.
Yea, the GP posted the link to the graph to show how addictive drugs are supposed to be. Three of the drugs posted weren't even on the graph.
It's dangerous because it's illegal not the other way around.
I agree. I know of no illegal drug that's really addictive and harmful. Prescription drugs can be just as addictive and harmful yet their legal.
Please note that I do not use opiates, and do not approve of their use.
Either do I. Going to parties in my old neighborhood I used to get dirty looks when a drug was passed around. When it came to me I'd just hand it to the next person. My best friend would tell people I only smoked a joint once in a blue moon. The only other drug I'd use was alcohol. And of that, I used to make homebrew beer and wine, it's been years but I still have my equipment and want to start brewing again. Unfortunately I don't have much space in my apartment.
I also do not approve of FUD, which is more common than fact when talking about drugs.
As president Nixon had a presidential commission investigate whether marijuana should be legalized. However he said no matter what they concluded he'd never agree to legalization, and that's what the commission concluded.
Falcon
Imagine how many more we could let in if illegals weren't jumping the line because they don't respect our laws?
You know why "illegal immigrants" risk their lives to cross the border instead of waiting in line? Because the system is convoluted and can take years.
We accept more immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world - over a million in 2008.
And we have a large population. Numbers don't matter so much as percentages or ratios do, as a percent how many immigrants are there of different ethnic groups? Take for instance Norway, Muslims make up 2% of the population and most are immigrants. Or take Turks in Germany, there are approximately 2.8 million immigrants from Turkey, 3% of the population in Germany.
Falcon
channels
What legal channels? Certainly American Indians didn't stamp visas. Oh you mean the European settlers, the same ones who massacred those already here? At least I don't see Mexicans doing that. And there are Mexicans who have the right to cross the border. The US Mexican border cuts right through the Tohono O'odham Nation. Yuman Indians who live on the border find it hard to get both Mexican passports and US visas. Some Indian tribes in Arizona oppose restrictions.
Falcon
No, the laws about how noncitizens aren't allowed in are not prejudicial.
Excluding Chinese, eastern and southern Europeans is racial? Okay, it's nationalistic just like the NAZIs were.
They're low skill and tend to bring higher levels of crime to the places they settle.
Citation needed.
Immigration is for our benefit
And allowing immigrants in will be to our benefit. Immigrants start more businesses of their own than native born citizens, and those businesses create jobs. If they were made to pay income and social security taxes they could fix Social Security, they pay in but without becoming citizens they don't collect SS. And many only want to come here temporarily and work to send money home then go back. Actually allowing the free flow of immigrants more would go back, but because it's so hard to cross the border once they get here they don't want to risk not being able to cross it again. Up until the mid '90s that's how a lot of immigration worked. But then the borders were guarded more making it hard.
Falcon
blame the greediness of 'Corporate America' that drove people to steal essentially your whole garden just to have food to eat. I know government welfare exists in the USA...if you are destitute enough to qualify for it. Otherwise, that avenue of aid is closed when no other form of 'social safety net' is available for those affected (i.e. the 'economic homeless'). This might have been the case here.
I am on welfare. Last Friday my brother-in-law took me to the local social services office to get financial assistance. I was given "food stamps", they're going to help with my medical expenses, and with my rent. My rent hasn't even been paid in a year. Now if it wasn't for my sister, who owns the apartment building I live in, I would have been evicted months ago. I know because the lady who lived in the apartment before I moved in was evicted, I delivered the eviction notice.
If it were vandals, this appears to be the inevitable conclusion of 'theft vs infringement' that gets debated (endlessely) here on Slashdot.
When I told my brother-in-law the plants in my garden were taken, he saw the work I put into it, at first he said he thought the city had taken them. I've seen others plant gardens between the sidewalk and the street and nothing happened to them so I did the same. However all who ever it was only took the plants, I also had a lot of soil and mulch as well as a dozen tomato cages that were left there. What puzzles me is if it was the city why leave these and if thieves why not take the cages? Also last year I had some tomatoes not 20 feet from what was taken that no one ever bothered, it could be because whoever was new to the area though. Right now I have Thai Basel there but I may transplant some to plant more tomatoes there, or something else.
You could grow a garden inside your home if possible to prevent this from happening again but likely you will draw the interest of the police who will think you are growing marijuana indoors
There's not enough space to grow much. And I don't have good sunlight through the windows so I'd have to use grow lights. About the best I could do really is grow lettuce.
Falcon
but treating them medically implies they have no limits on their freedoms like in a prison. the reason they need to be constrained is that an addict is an addict is an addict. that is, they have no free will. given free choice, they pursue the same damaging endeavour. and so you need some sort of constraint on their freedoms in order to treat them, which implies some sort of criminal confinement in addition to the medical treatment.
And where's your medical or scientific evidence drugs are as addictive as drug warriors make out? According to this graph and chart heroin is the most addictive drug, yet the Rat Park study showed heroin is not as addictive as it's made out to be.
f you take an honest appraisal of all the lives destroyed by drugs on a regular background noise basis around the world throughout history and in all cultures, it would be as an ocean compared to the raindrop of the suffering caused by the cruel dictators who have ever lived.
Where's your proof?
Falcon
as for cocaine, meth, heroin: it would be nice if you could use those drugs and only destroy yourself. but when these highly addictive
The Rat Pack study showed heroin is not as addictive as it's made out to be. And I bet if studies like it were done that would be true for cocaine and meth as well.
1. sound mind, unsound body: suicide ok. like someone with huntington's
2. sound body, unsound mind: suicide not ok
What is a sound mind? As I said my brain suffered neurological damage. I spent more than a year in therapy after I left the hospital and rehab house I lived in, but it did basically squat. According to the docs it was a "miracle" I lived but if I could argue that with them I'd let them know they are absolutely wrong. Instead of a miracle my life has been more like a living hell.
given time, you might reconsider suicide. given suicide, you don't reconsider anything
Believe me, I have thought of committing sepaku, hari kari, or another ritualized suicide, emphasis on ritualized. However I've been held back, by what is probably a combination of things. I hate quitting or giving up, as some of my therapists said I'm stubborn, and though I longer do I used to believe in reincarnation. I can't help but think that if it is true then I'm going through this for a reason and if I kill myself I've have to go through it again. Logical? No it isn't but logic can't touch it with a, forget a 10 foot pole, with a 10 mile pole. Sometimes though I imagine using what I call the Buddha method, find some place to stay without eating or drinking until I either reach enlightenment or die.
anyone who commits suicide and becomes a hardcore addict hurts family, friends, society. no man is an island. it is a colossal blindness to think you are only hurting yourself
And it's colossal sadism to make someone suffer just because you can't let them go.
Falcon
Just stop them from coming across with drugs? Stop all illegal migration north of the border?!?!
How are they going to do that? Build a Berlin Wall, er Apartheid Wall?
Falcon
To those that don't know.. phoenix/tucson are seeing record kidnappings and murders. These are being primarily carried out by drug cartels. CNN and Fox have been talking about it, which makes this a political move to calm the masses.
Yea, CNN is about the only tv station I watch and they've been going on about the border violence for weeks if not months. But I only heard once where the solution was made on how to fight it, Jessy "The Body" Ventura said on Larry King the only way to solve it is to legalize drugs. Though Arnold Schwarzenegger did say he wanted to legalize and tax it too.
Falcon
I'm sick of the government using billions of dollars to make it harder for people to get their hands on some weed. All it does is make it harder to get good weed.
The answer is to grow your own. Your weed, hemp or marijuana is one of the easiest plants to grow. Ever wonder why it's called "weed", because like other weeds it grows easily in many places.
Of course homegrown weed may not have as much THC as professionally grown weed.
Falcon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
Meth, Methamphetamine, is not on your chart. Neither is oxycodone or Phencyclidine, PCP. Now according to the chart and graph heroin and cocaine are the most addictive, however I knew people who used both and they were not addicted to either. Now according to the Rat Pack study of opiates, which heroin is, they are not highly addictive.
Falcon
but some chemicals, like pcp and meth, are literally life destroyers: they are powerfully chemically addictive and habituating. this means you can't use them for awhile and walk away.
Drugs, all drugs including PCP and meth, should be treated as a medical not a criminal issue. Now if you commit a crime while using drugs, just as people do without using drugs, you should be punished.
pcp, oxycodone, methamphetamine... no, sorry, never. these are freedom destorying chemically addicting and habituating monsters that enslave and zombify worse than any government, real or imaginary, ever could.
How many deaths has these drugs caused? Not drug gang violence but deaths from overdoses and what have you? I bet not as many as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao have. Heck I'd find it hard to believe they caused as many deaths as Pol Pot did.
Falcon
for those people who are at empty stage of their lives, and might turn to a drug, the point is to keep them away from drugs, and allow them to get back to a full life again. but if you introduce drugs into the situation, you turn what might otherwise be a temporary bit of helplessness into a life-destorying chemical dependency
Your title is right, all you have to do is devalue your life. I used to be one of those people who had to keep in control of their lives. Though I grew up with drug users, most were causal users though there were some who were alcoholics, I rarely ever used them myself. And only alcohol and the occasional joint. However after surviving an injury, a Traumatic Brain Injury or TBI, I now wish I could get high. If I have to live. However I wish I had died, my sister even told me that after I came out of the coma I was in I was screaming at everyone to let me die.
it is a symptom of people who have given up in some way. they need society to keep drugs away from them in the first place:
Why should people be stopped if they are not harming others? Laws that make alleviating suffering illegal are sadistic.
Falcon
While legalizing cannabis should have been done years ago already, meth is so clearly destroying the heartland of America (and even making inroads into big cities) that legalization and taxation is not an option.
Do you have any economic or scientific studies supporting this? Unless and until something can be proven to cause victims other than users, it should not be made illegal. However with drugs almost all violence is caused because they are illegal. Those clashes spilling into the US from Mexico are caused by different gangs fighting each other for control of drugs, or gangs fighting law enforcement. With legal drugs a person could walk into a store and buy them just as they do alcohol.
Falcon
I've read elsewhere on the Net (in another Slashdot post?) that in some 'third world' countries, people will share what litte food they have with others -- even when it is only three mouthfuls of food for the whole day.
Sharing happens in the US too. Last year I shared what I grew in my garden with the family of 4 next door even though I am on disability and don't work. What I don't like is theft. Now yesterday I spent a few hours working in my garden planting a number of veggies after I spend other days working on it as well. When I went out to work on it today of the 20 pepper, tomato, and tomatillo plants I had planted in one spot all but 2 were gone. One pepper that was mostly buried with mulch and a tomatillo with a broken stalk were all that was left. The rest were taken from the ground with some of the tomato cages I had over the tomato and tomatillo plants ripped out as well. Now I don't feel like sharing at all this year. And I was willing and expressed interest in helping others start their own gardens. I could have made and canned enough Chile Relleno and other stuff peppers, sauces, and soups to last me several weeks if not a few months.
Falcon
Whats happening here is something thats well within laws that in my mind make sense, balancing the needs of national security with clear boundaries that protect the rights of Americans. Stopping foreign violence from spreading over our border is definitely within the scope of the federal government's responsibility.
Yes it's government's responsibility to protect the nation and people from foreign threats. However the best way to do so as far as drug violence is concerned is to legalize drugs. With legal drugs criminal gangs won't be fighting each other, or targeting citizens. Drug addiction itself is, should be, a medical not a legal issue. It's no different than say NYC banning trans fats. If under the influence someone harms another then they should be punished for that harm, just as people who cause harm who are not under the influence should be.
However, I do agree that what we do need to keep a watch on it. I'd suggest explicit laws stating the limits of how satellite surveillance can be used domestically.
I'd rather not have to watch period. Give government power and it will be abused. J Edgar Hoover was a good example. Like the old saying goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure". It's much harder to take power away than it is to give or grab power.
Falcon
So, what American Indian tribe are you a member of?
Choctaw. From what overpopulated shithole did you come to invade my country?
I am American, I'm part Iroquois.
Correct. They are, however, taking capital away. As I stated, this capital is being diverted to provide education and other government services for illegal immigrants and their many children.
They are also paying taxes.
Actually immigrants are more likely to start new businesses creating jobs than those born in the US. More jobs make for a better economy in general.
1. We're talking about illegal immigrants, not all immigrants. Who's being "racist" now?
You? I certainly aren't being racist, though I do admit to being biased. I try not to be but am.
2. If that were true, they would be doing it in their own countries. They aren't.
Some are but others find it easier here.
3. If true, illegal immigrants still don't create enough jobs to make up for their higher-than-average birth rate. Again, look at their home countries for perfect examples of this in action.
If it weren't for immigrants, legal and illegal, the US's population would be in slow decline. "U.S. Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low". While the birth rate, in developed nations, needs to be about 2.1 in the US it is about 2.09. Now I'm not saying it's bad, actually it's worse in Europe. As populations improve their education, economics, and equal rights they have fewer children.
4. More jobs absolutely do not "make for a better economy". Low unemployment, high wages and low resource costs make for a better economy.
With more jobs there is lower unemployment. Lower unemployment drives wages higher.
In fact, fewer jobs is the ideal economic situation
I call BS. Now I'm willing to admit I am wrong, so if you can provide a link to economic studies supporting your assertion I am change my beliefs. But you have to prove it to me first.
That's true. And most of the houses would likely have been built regardless due to poor Fed policy.
Yea, federal policies encouraged financial institutions to make bad loans.
Cheap illegal immigrant labor just ensured that vast quantities of capital would be transferred out of the country, or invested in a new generation of migrant laborers, in the process, rather than continuing to circulate in the US economy to ensure jobs and benefit Americans.
Immigrant labor period help the Third World more than foreign aid does. Immigrant laborers remit more money back to their home country than governments give in aid. You cut those remittances and they would be worse off. Now if you want to reduce immigration them you should oppose the billions of dollars the government gives in subsidies to businesses like Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill. With all the subsidies they get, your tax dollars, they can buy and export corn to Mexico to sell it there for less than Mexican farmers can grow corn. If those Mexicans could make a living on their farms then they would stay there.
Also, have you ever heard of trade? Those people receiving remittances from immigrant laborers can then buy American goods, which helps the American economy.
Legalize drugs and release those convicted of non violent drug offenses. Not only would this reduce the costs of laws enforcement but it would reduce drug violence as well.
I'm not really prepared to debate this, but I doubt you can back this up with anything resembling statistics or proof.
Thats true, but there are also very clear boundaries (I'd assume you couldn't use the military-derived images to prosecute anyone, but TFA doesn't say), which make it much harder for mission creep to happen. Plus the ACLU is keeping a close eye, which personally makes me more comfortable with it. If anything goes beyond what's reasonable I'm sure we'll hear about.
How much help has the ACLU been able to give librarians after the PATRIOT Act was passed who have been issued a National Security Letter requesting information? The ACLU is still fighting National Security Letters today.
No, I fear government more than anything else and don't want them having any more power than they have now. I want government with less power not more.
Falcon
And yes anti-emigration laws are at least prejudice if not racist.
Bullshit. The laws state that if you don't have permission to be here, you can't be here. That's not prejudicial.
Oh, the Know Nothings who wanted to bar Irish Catholics from immigrating weren't prejudicial? The Chinese Exclusion Act wasn't racist either?
Falcon
That said, yes, pot heads shouldn't be in jail. But... Get to drugs much harder than that and they should be. Harder, more addictive, drugs add to crime, and not just drug crimes. Hard drug users are a deeper social problem than the mere moral crime of marijuana use.
Where is the evidence from peer reviewed scientific studies that shows drugs cause deep social problems? Oh and don't forget to include alcohol, I bet it causes a lot of problems.
Falcon
Forget about rehab centers. Those are expensive. The profits from legalized drugs wouldn't even pay for the increase in jail cells required.
More people are in prison in the US from drug convictions than from any other crimes. With legal drugs all those people can be taxpaying employees. And no crimes won't increase with legalization, if anything it will decrease. When alcohol was prohibited crimes increased and became more violent as well as made organized crime syndicates such as the Mafia powerful.
And aside from the practical difficulties, do you really want government more dependent on the proceeds of drug distribution than it already is?
I don't want government passing laws that make victim-less crimes. Who's the victim when a causal drug user gets arrested and sentenced to gaol? The one convicted. Who's the victim when someone is charged with prostitution or for being a client? Who's the victim when there's gambling? Again those convicted. While one of the most dangerous drugs, alcohol, is legal an extremely industrially useful drug, hemp, is illegal.
Falcon
They were not, by and large, falsely imprisoned.
If someone is imprisoned because they were convicted of a false, bad, law they are falsely imprisoned.
As some of the USA's Founding Fathers said, paraphrasing, it's better to let 10 guilty go free than to falsely convict 1 innocent. In the California medical marijuana case Gonzales v. Raich the federal judge wouldn't allow the jurors to know that California law allows medical marijuana. Nor do many judged allow jury nullification, a method by which the Founding Fathers supported as a way for citizens to tell politicians laws were bad. After jurors in Ed Rosenthal's case convicted him then found out "he was growing the stuff for the city of Oakland" they were outraged. Perhaps as the Fully Informed Jury Association, FIJA, has called for we need another Tea Party.
Falcon