mechanicalmoron wrote:(obviously people who smoke marijuana are generally pretty harmless, if maybe a bit slowed down

and do we really need anymore dumb-ing down of our society? lol (im serious on this question too)

while people who use meth are dangerous, violent, delusional, and unpredictable)

exactly

I would agree with a system that makes any crime committed on drugs a more serious crime, while simultaneously making simple drug possession a civil, as opposed to criminal, offense.

impossible. criminal is STATE vs YOU. while civil is YOU vs JOHN DOE CITIZEN

At the very least, we wouldn't have all our money leaving the country, if the trade could be contained here.

maybe in an ideal world - but in reality, we'd have the south latin cartels peddling pot cheaper than the taxed, regulated, and profitable pot that would be grown here. the cartels would simply undercut us till it no longer is profitable to grow it here."
CHINA" ring a bell? they are peddling crap that American manufacturers cant keep up with, causing eBay and Amazon to be flooded with identical copies (often times even better than the products being made here)

but if marlboro grew the stuff here, it would be here, going to US investors, and not funding our enemies.

see above

I mean, we could say the same of alcohol: it leads to harder drugs, and it, in and of itself, is horribly addictive and ruins lives.

if alcohol was addictive on the first shot, as say meth and others are - then id agree. alcohol is on the level of pot. its not addictive on its own; per say. the person being able to forget about his or her daily troubles is the addiction they use alcohol/pot for. while meth in itself is addictive.

I personally would argue that raising the drinking age to 21 is, in fact, immoral

i think its a good thing - because as you currently see: more and more of our youth is facing severely increased deadly accidents due to alcohol (so much so NJ instituted a red decal to designate minors & driving curfews), young girls are blacking out at parties and being gang raped by young males who too are drunk, etc. YOUNG PEOPLE SIMPLY DONT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE OF "LIFE" TO UNDERSTAND LIMITS, and consequences. giving them access to alcohol will simply open us to what my birth place (russia) has: young alcohols. young abused teens. and young loosers. and this is a problem in many european countries where drinking ages are not moderated, or on the books.

I think we need to be free to make the wrong decision, as long as it doesn't hurt others, and if it does then there should be laws that protect those others.

and where do you think the current day laws came from? they came from ugly past experiences. the nation was not born yesterday. take a look at almost any law - and there is a story behind it. there is generally an ugly experience behind every law. either those bad experiences happened elsewhere or here in America - but you just kinda contradicted yourself.

Besides, I really would not like alcohol illegal, I drink, though responsibly - and I would not pretend that I always have, I totally admit that a few years ago I drank totally irresponsibly, not in a way that would hurt others but that could have put me in danger. I'm glad that I'm okay and figured out how to approach that sort of thing, but I can't imagine it helping anything if I had gotten in legal trouble over it.

and thats why we have drinking age limits, dwi laws, etc. but those laws wont stop folks from stepping out of line. you stepped out of line even though we have tough laws; now imagine lawlessness (when it comes to alcohol). the only thing that stopped you is you realized the CONSEQUENCES the laws bring.

Is this all a bit hopelessly libertarian of me? Probably. But I think people should be free to do as they wish, if they don't hurt anybody else.

face it. drugs never lead to good things. i have never heard of a success story where someone used meth, coke, crack, ketamine, krokodil, and walked away clean and free of some forms of life long scars. they are addictive, they degenerate your mental capacity, they remove normal morals & values for its users, they remove drive and desires for achievement, etc.

incase you didnt know the very famous russian drug called Krokodil = GOOGLE IMAGE IT if you dare. its currently an epidemic in my home-land where there are not enough cops to enforce much of anything. youth are dying daily form this crap.

So ask yourself this question: wtf is wrong with us today? why is America borrowing so much money from china? why is America in such financial trouble?
we are rotting from the inside out. drugs wont solve those issues.

i leave you with this quote: "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." - Abraham Lincoln

Do we need more dumbing-down? Well no, but I don't think anything they smoke will compare with reality TV.

As to mexico undercutting our taxes, it's possible, but people are lazy. Everyone could grow their own tobacco to circumnent cigarette taxes, with no legal issues, but nobody does. Mexico could undercut our cigarette and alcohol taxes, but they don't. The cartels make all their money because they're essentially bidding on risky jobs: they charge more than a job is actually worth, because of the artificial risk that our law places on doing something little like driving a truck, and as a result, doing something like driving a truck also becomes something that can get you shot by other people doing the same thing, not because they're truckers, but because of the highly inflated value of their cargo, which really should be pretty much worthless, if the law didn't add the risk element to the equation.

Consider that WE sell china their tobacco, it's actually supposed to be a lucrative investment market right now, if I understand properly. It would be all about the company that has the extensive industry built around mechanized argiculture and processing, and already preparing cigarettes. They would have no startup costs, and could smoothly segway into it.

I suppose you're right about civil vs. criminal penalties, but I mean like when they decriminalize something, so that it becomes like a parking violation or zoning issue or something, you know?

You're right that our laws (usually) are to protect people (or intrests of whatever sort) but remember that they can also be reactionary and cause more harm than good. When I say that laws should keep people from hurting others, if you stab someone while you're high on meth, you should be charged with that, but if someone takes meth and doesn't stab anybody, since nobody was hurt he should not be considered a criminal. Otherwise it's like charging people with potential crimes. For instance, it's very easy to kill somebody with a car, without even meaning to, but we don't charge people with driving, but we're happy to charge them for hurting people with a car, even if they didn't intend to.

I don't see where young people can get the experience to handle themselves, with out messing up a bit. The trick is to rig things so that they don't actually hurt themselves or anybody else in the course of messing up and learning.

As for krokodil, I don't know much about it, but it's my understanding (from a few articles I've read, nothing serious) that they use it because russia has aggressive drug prohibition, like ours. The result is that the price of heroin and perscription pain killers is very high, and so when people get addicted and spend all their money, they turn to krokodil, which is very cheap, and satisfies the addiction.

I just think we're dealing with the problem in a way that actually leads to other crime, like gun or border crime, which we then treat as it's own promlem. The best way to fix a lot of US problems would be a better approach to drugs, that seperates out different types in ways that keep the gateway drug thing from being true. If high school kids are smoking weed, and their dealer can also get them heroin and illegal guns, isn't that a bigger problem than if they're just smoking pot, and that was just like underage drinking?

We can't prohibit out way out of anything. That doesn't mean we should just accept negative behaviors, but there is a point where the law is more damaging than the problem, and causes other problems, like cartels and violence.

mechanicalmoron wrote:if you stab someone while you're high on meth, you should be charged with that, but if someone takes meth and doesn't stab anybody, since nobody was hurt he should not be considered a criminal.

it is not a crime to be high/drunk. you can walk up to a cop and tell him: "i just smoked pot". as long as your not in possession of it, nor driving, nor in violation of a local ordinance barring public intoxication = you are not a criminal.

i think our society is dumb enough. The United States places 17th in the developed world for education, according to a global report by education firm Pearson. we cant handle what we currently have (alcohol, Rx). our youth is dumb as s***, lazy, not productive, and we will pay for it soon (if not already). south korea, china and japan has their youth educated to the point where they grow up to be useful to society. our youth are growing up taught how to hold their hand out.

while i couldnt care less who does what inside their own home - i have to take a broader look at things. spaced out mofo's will crash and kill our people. spaced out mofos will rape our women. addicted mofo's will steal/rob to further their addiction. while i dont like big government - i dont mind barring drugs. scum will always be scum. no matter if its legal or not.

As far as traditional america, I don't think harsh prohibition of personal use or possession of drugs is a very american thing, and it has not been that way for most of the history of america. Opium, weed, alcohol, very intoxicating patent medicines, all spent well over 100 years legal at a federal level, with states free to do what they wanted about them. I would argue that was much more in the interest of freedom and smaller more repersentetitive government, than what we have now.

I very much agree, things need to be done about education and that sort of thing. But strong personal motovation generally follows a good economy with good prospects, as people don't lose heart and turn to drugs. Drug use and drunkenness, throughout history, has come in times of economic woe. Fighting drug use is like giving someone with a broken leg a pain killer and making them walk home: sure, they won't hurt as bad now, but it's going to be doubly worse in the future, with the entrenched cartels and criminal cultures spreading among common people and everything else that this model causes, and that's been steadily happening the longer we've prohibited drugs.

As for the robbers, I think that banning the 30 inch chrome rims would do more social good than banning drugs.... literally. Trash "size of my rims on moms car" culture. At least the drugs get them high, the rims just show off and promote more of that trash culture.

You compare our (relatively) individualistic society and it's triumph over the communistic ones..... what's the difference? That when making laws concerning "the greater good", we consider the individual, and their freedoms.

Interesting how the OP's incredibly short-sighted, ignorant, and uninformed first post EVOLVED (yes, I said evolved, get over it) into a sane, mutually-respectful discussion between two pretty smart people who happen to be diametrically opposed on some pretty basic beliefs.

Kill that, and the terrorists have won.

With that said, I'd hate for anyone to be "embarrassed" to be a member of the largest, most active, independently-owned automotive forum on the web. Shall I delete the user account, or would you prefer to just exit gracefully?

Might I also remind the OP that everything here is on MY dime, not yours - all this entertainment, information, advice and convenience doesn't cost you one red cent.

When you write the $60K annual check to keep this place up and running, only get 4-5 hours a night in order to maintain it, and do all the research and hard work that goes into staying at the top of the heap, I'll consider your position.

Until then, it's just a fart in a hurricane.

truth be told, mechanicalmoron sounds like a great person. smart, educated, well spoken, etc. even though he has different views than i do, he was respectful, and shared his views like a man (and i hope i was just as courteous). mechanicalmoron is everything the OP isnt. clearly mechanicalmoron is a person of true valor, with the backbone to stand up for his beliefs and to not fear the idea's of others, and run away. i actually enjoyed our conversation. i enjoyed sharing views. i enjoyed seeing what others think/believe. its refreshing.

mechanicalmoron is someone id meet at a bar, start chatting - and buy a beer for. while the OP is the type id stay away from - all because he has the mentality of a typical Jihadist: "if they are different, they must be stopped & shut down".

Pretty sure I went from Liberal to Libertarian solely from visiting this section.

s0m3th1ngAZ wrote:Pretty sure I went from Liberal to Libertarian solely from visiting this section.

I went from being a lot farther right to being much closer to center. I'm not sure I fit the mold of any particular "brand" though.

Nobody does. Every individual is a basket of divergent views that cannot be filed as a total package in any one ideology despite what the political elite wishes people to believe. You might be predominantly textbook liberal with one strong conservative view jammed in there messing it up or vice versa, a conservative wish list with one starkly liberal stance.

Within the various well-known ideologies there are such a broad range of interpretations that they can't even come together on a mutually-agreeable definition of the very thinking they voluntarily claim. Is it any wonder all these people who wrestle with those that claim to be on the same course with them can't get along with those that chart a completely different one.

i think its time to eradicate the name tags, affiliation abbreviations, and simply have our politicians post on their website what it is they stand for, against, or neutral in - and vote based upon that. because i am sick and tired of voting for a republican who isn't steadfast on gun ownership. i am also tired of hearing some dipsh!t voting for anyone with a (D) simply because its a democrat. (mind you that same (D) isnt voting in the favor of a true democrat ).

It will never happen. Politicians must be as ambiguous as possible to survive the shifting tides of constituents' opinions. Those that chose to clearly define themselves don't usually last and if they do, they are marginalized by the majority of their more shifty peers.

They need a letter after their name so that people like the OP know who to vote for.

God forbid they should actually DO THEIR RESEARCH.

Lazy Americans should be deported.