From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b4152e6$1$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:jo2dnTB1f4iAtdzWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b40db00$1$19493$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:4b3f6337$0$19481$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:W72dneX5A8t1WaPWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
>>>>>>> If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes
>>>>>>> harm, should that be illegal?
>>
>> weg9 says: No. It should not be illegal to deliberately and knowingly
>> manufacturer a substance that causes harm.
>>
>> It should be illegal to take any substance that is capable of causing
>> harm if misused, and misuse it to harm someone else who doesn't want to
>> be so harmed.
>>
>> Does that answer your question? The answer is "No."
>
> Those dependant on you fall squarely within your definition. Are you
> saying that those that sell, manufacture and distribute this substance,
> that can be easily misused to cause harm should not be prosecuted?
>
> Peter
You can misuse a hammer.......A carpenter makes his living with it, but you
could hammer someone to death with it. I don't want the liberals to take it
away from me because someone else might misuse it. The army uses explosives
to kill our enemies with. I wouldn't prosecute someone for making them just
because some AH uses them to kill an innocent person with. It's the crime
that should be prosecuted, and not the gun, or the explosive, or the hammer.
Or the person who makes the gun, explosive, or hammer. There are legitimate
uses for explosives. Construction contractors use them to remove buildings
and mountains with. Farmers remove stumps with them. Please use some common
sense here. Put criminals in jail, and not the gun manufacturers.

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:F8KdnfqlqNUKx9zWnZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b4152e6$0$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:z7GdnRM9GNEAstzWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote in message
>>> news:4b412776$0$3003$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Lets take a modern example......The possession of child pornography.
>>>>> Some states have laws against the possession of child pornography. I
>>>>> don't believe in these laws. (I think they are unconstitutional) Why?
>>>>> Suppose I am driving down a road in the country, and I see a trunk by
>>>>> the side of the road......I wonder what's in the trunk, so I stop and
>>>>> inspect it. It is locked, and I have no tools with me to open it. So,
>>>>> I put it in my trunk and drive it home to open it. On the way home, I
>>>>> have an accident, and the police and fire department show up at the
>>>>> scene and find the trunk in my trunk, and it has burst open and they
>>>>> discover that it is full of photos of child pornography......They
>>>>> arrest me and accuse me of possession of CP, when I had no idea that
>>>>> was what the trunk contained. I believe creating CP should be a crime,
>>>>> but not possessing it. I believe that I should be allowed to possess
>>>>> anything I please. This is part of the libertarian philosophy.
>>>>
>>>> Silly story.
>>>> Suppose the trunk had been full of crystal meth/crack cocaine/heroin.
>>>>
>>>> Does that constitute an argument to legalise - or even *possess* -
>>>> said "pharmaceuticals"?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeff R.
>>>> "Honest, Officer! I thought it was icing sugar"
>>>>
>>> weg9 says: Yes. It certainly does. As a libertarian, I believe all
>>> drugs should be legal anyway. So we are already talking about something
>>> that is anti-libertarian to begin with. IOW, we are already halfway
>>> liberal with the anti drug laws that are on the books right now, so it
>>> is impossible to talk libertarianism when there is already no chance of
>>> it on the horizon. In my libertarian world, there would be no laws
>>> against, "Making, possessing, using and killing oneself with crystal
>>> meth or any other drug, It's my body.....Why would you care what I do
>>> with it?
>>
>>
>> Back to the point. I would care because as a humanitarian I would have,
>> at a minimum, the obligation to take care of those who you could not take
>> care of because of your habit and probably even you. IIRC in a prior
>> posting in this discussion you agreed that the government should take
>> care of those who need help through no fault of their own.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> People are not held down and forced to ingest harmful drugs. So, if
> someone is a drug addict, it is not through, "No fault of their own". They
> did it to themselves, and so why would you care? I smoked cigarettes for
> 29 years. I don't blame anyone else for this.....I knew full well that it
> was harmful to my health. So, it was nobody's fault but my own. When I
> spoke of the government helping those who are incapacitated through no
> fault of their own, I was talking about those who are born with
> defects.....No arms or legs, or blind etc......Not those who were born
> perfectly healthy, and choose to screw themselves up with drugs or
> alcohol. (or cigarettes)


I was talking about those dependant on the drug addict.

--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yM2dnemgrI-twdzWnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b4152e6$1$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:jo2dnTB1f4iAtdzWnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4b40db00$1$19493$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:LLKdnVY4fLTTk93WnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4b3f6337$0$19481$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:W72dneX5A8t1WaPWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
>>>>>>>> If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes
>>>>>>>> harm, should that be illegal?
>>>
>>> weg9 says: No. It should not be illegal to deliberately and knowingly
>>> manufacturer a substance that causes harm.
>>>
>>> It should be illegal to take any substance that is capable of causing
>>> harm if misused, and misuse it to harm someone else who doesn't want to
>>> be so harmed.
>>>
>>> Does that answer your question? The answer is "No."
>>
>> Those dependant on you fall squarely within your definition. Are you
>> saying that those that sell, manufacture and distribute this substance,
>> that can be easily misused to cause harm should not be prosecuted?
>>
>> Peter
> You can misuse a hammer.......A carpenter makes his living with it, but
> you could hammer someone to death with it. I don't want the liberals to
> take it away from me because someone else might misuse it. The army uses
> explosives to kill our enemies with. I wouldn't prosecute someone for
> making them just because some AH uses them to kill an innocent person
> with. It's the crime that should be prosecuted, and not the gun, or the
> explosive, or the hammer. Or the person who makes the gun, explosive, or
> hammer. There are legitimate uses for explosives. Construction contractors
> use them to remove buildings and mountains with. Farmers remove stumps
> with them. Please use some common sense here. Put criminals in jail, and
> not the gun manufacturers.


Gun manufacturing is a completely legal activity. Just where did I ever
refer to the armaments industry.

I was clearly talking about distributors of illegal drugs. Face it, we do
legislate morality. You set a standard of harm to innocents as a point where
the government should legislate. I repeat why isn't the family of a drug
abuser innocent. What about his 2 year old child.


--
Peter

From: Bill Graham on

"Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote in message
news:4b41525a$0$3003$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:z7GdnRM9GNEAstzWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> "Jeff R." <contact(a)this.ng> wrote in message
>> news:4b412776$0$3003$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> Suppose the trunk had been full of crystal meth/crack cocaine/heroin.
>>>
>>> Does that constitute an argument to legalise - or even *possess* - said
>>> "pharmaceuticals"?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeff R.
>>>
>> weg9 says: Yes. It certainly does. As a libertarian, I believe all
>> drugs should be legal anyway. So we are already talking about something
>> that is anti-libertarian to begin with. IOW, we are already halfway
>> liberal with the anti drug laws that are on the books right now, so it is
>> impossible to talk libertarianism when there is already no chance of it
>> on the horizon. In my libertarian world, there would be no laws against,
>> "Making, possessing, using and killing oneself with crystal meth or any
>> other drug, It's my body.....Why would you care what I do with it?
>
> Wow.
> Consider myself spanked.
> That's a little further than even I am prepared to go.
>
> OK then (trying to salvage cred, here)
> How a bout if the trunk contained the *means to produce* child pornography
> (cameras, mag. cards, lights etc) and the data on the cards indicated many
> sessions of child pornography production.
>
> Surely that wouldn't imply the necessity to decriminalise the *possession*
> of such gear?
> Would it?
> Should it?
>
> --
> Jeff R.
> (resisting the urge to mention road rules)
>
>
weg9 says: It isn't what the trunk contains that is important here. It's the
fact that I just picked it up, and am transporting it to my house where I
will break into it to see what's in it. I should be prosecuted for
committing crimes, and not for just possessing the ability to commit crimes,
or the evidence that someone else has committed a crime. If the police catch
me with some illegal substance, and arrest me, then I maintain that that
fact, by itself is, or should be unconstitutional. I should be allowed to
make and keep "illegal stuff" for my own use, and as long as I do not harm
someone else, it should not be the business of the police to interfere with
that. If I create child pornography, then presumably, I have harmed a child
in order to do that, so it should be illegal. but if someone else created
it, and I only possess it, then I am not the criminal. The police have a
hard time controlling the drug trade, so they have stepped over the line,
(the constitutional line) in order to make it easier to do their jobs. They
should not arrest people for possessing drugs. They should not arrest people
for using drugs. They should only arrest people for forcing others to use
drugs without their consent, or for getting children to use drugs when they
are under age. Or for doing illegal things while under the influence of
drugs, and even then, they should be arrested for doing the illegal things,
and not for the drugs.....I could care less whether the guy who kills me is
under the influence of drugs or not.....It's the killing of me that I care
about. As a libertarian, why would I give a damn what drug someone else is
under the influence of?

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b4152e6$4$19461$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:YIednQYc-aZmvNzWnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>
>> weg9 says: You don't need the data from that town. You can just
>> compare the data from those towns where carrying a gun is legal, and
>> those where it is not, and you will see that carrying a gun reduces the
>> crime rate. However, the accidental gunshot rate will go up in those
>> towns where more people "carry".
>>
>>
>> But this is normal is it not? In towns where everyone drives, the commute
>> time is lower, but the automobile accident rate is higher.....
>
> Let's take a more statistically significant sample. The entire country.
> Have you compared the crime rate with that of GB?
>
>
> --
> Peter

Yes, but the larger the sample, the less significance to the statistic,
because there are many things involved in, "the crime rate". You have to ask
what is. "a crime", and what significance does the possession of arms have
to do with that crime. A lot of people who die from guns in this country
should have died......Their death was a, "good thing", because they were
harming, or about to harm, others when they were killed. When the police
find a dead body on the street the next morning, they count it as an
"unsolved murder", and the liberals say, "You see? - It's the proliferation
of guns that caused this murder" but I say, "How do you know why this
particular person died? He may have been about to hurt some innocent
person." Maybe Bill Graham shot him in self defense, and then, simply
walked away. (after observing what happened to Bernie Goetz in New York City
several years ago.