Started By
Message

re: Judge gives guy 50 years no parole for drug charge

Posted on 3/16/16 at 11:56 pm to
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
299716 posts
Posted on 3/16/16 at 11:56 pm to
quote:

So you trust the nanny state government to regulate the production of heroin, but you don't trust them to make laws that are profitable for the wellbeing of the populace?


I really don't think you understand what Nanny State means.
Posted by chattabama
12essee
Member since Jun 2012
19315 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:01 am to
quote:

I really don't think you understand what Nanny State means.



It's a question and I want you to answer it, not create more questions. How do you trust the government to regulate heroin production but not trust the government to do what governments are supposed to do, make laws for the benefit of the people?
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
Member since May 2012
60684 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:01 am to
you don't get it

passing laws that are "profitable for the wellbeing of the populace" is "nanny state" governance
Posted by chattabama
12essee
Member since Jun 2012
19315 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:04 am to
quote:

passing laws that are "profitable for the wellbeing of the populace" is "nanny state" governance



What about regulating production of an illicit drug? Would it not be "nanny state" for the government to dictate to the heroin producer the arbitrary limits?
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
299716 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:04 am to
quote:


It's a question and I want you to answer it, not create more questions. How do you trust the government to regulate heroin production but not trust the government to do what governments are supposed to do, make laws for the benefit of the people?


I trust the government to regulate heroin FAR more than I trust them to make decisions about what you or I can put into our own body and to take freedom away for voluntary transactions.

The Nanny State is one that makes those decisions for you. You're all in for the Nanny State.

Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
299716 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:06 am to
quote:

Would it not be "nanny state" for the government to dictate to the heroin producer the arbitrary limits?



Not necessarily. Nothing on the level as telling you what you can take recreationally
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
Member since May 2012
60684 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:09 am to
if youre an anarchist, I suppose.

but no, I don't think the FDA regulating heroin would be an instance of "nanny state."

Banning it altogether is nanny state.

Posted by jg8623
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2010
13533 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:11 am to
quote:

So you trust the nanny state government to regulate the production of heroin, but you don't trust them to make laws that are profitable for the wellbeing of the populace?



We trust them to regulate alcohol and tobacco sales don't we?
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
Member since May 2012
60684 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:11 am to
yeah, i guess if the laws said you could only posses some small, arbitrary amount it would be an overreach. obviously that is an improvement over status quo, but overreach nonetheless.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
299716 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:14 am to
quote:

yeah, i guess if the laws said you could only posses some small, arbitrary amount it would be an overreach. obviously that is an improvement over status quo, but overreach nonetheless.


well, I just think on the scale of total freedom to nanny state, prohibition is about as close to nanny state as you can get.

Interesting during the original alcohol prohibition, supporters thought jails would close, people would be safe and crime would drop. None of that happened. In fact, crime and incarceration as well as homicide increased. Were just seeing a repeat with drug prohibition.
Posted by chattabama
12essee
Member since Jun 2012
19315 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:14 am to
quote:

I trust them to make decisions about what you or I can put into our own body and to take freedom away for voluntary transactions.



Do you trust the person in the car next to you to be responsible? What about your child's bus driver or the semi truck driver who drives next to you on the interstate and is looking for something harder than caffeine to make it through his shift? Do you trust his judgment?
We've agreed that legalization leads to easier access, and easier access, in turn, leads to greater use. Would you agree that more users equals a greater chance that you will encounter a user in your everyday life?
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
299716 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:17 am to
quote:

Would you agree that more users equals a greater chance that you will encounter a user in your everyday life?


Well, that's certainly a possibility. I don't necessarily think that the government is there to protect people's delicate sensibilities however.
Posted by GreatLakesTiger24
Member since May 2012
60684 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:17 am to
if he's going from caffeine to heroin to stay awake, he's going to have a bad time
Posted by jg8623
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2010
13533 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:19 am to
quote:

What about regulating production of an illicit drug?


Why are u acting like this would be the first time in history we decide to regulate an illicit drug

We have examples readily available that shows we currently do that exact thing

And as far as safety, the drug itself would become safer as opposed to buying it illegally from dealers who get it thru cartels in Mexico, Afghanistan and wherever the hell else. We would be able to state the exact potency of said drug along with its added ingredients. Such as marking liquor 80 proof, 100 proof etc.

I want to make clear that I'm not stating that heroin itself should become legal tomorrow. Just stating that we've already gone thru this crap with alcohol and I don't hear anyone complaining about it. I don't know why this topic causes so many people to think irrationally and with a clear bias. Why do people just assume that because something is legal that all of a sudden people will be walking down the street with needles and snorting heroin or cocaine or whatever at their work desk
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
299716 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:20 am to
quote:

What about your child's bus driver or the semi truck driver who drives next to you on the interstate and is looking for something harder than caffeine to make it through his shift


Hate to tell you chief, people use drugs right now. Even truckers, bus drivers...

I worry more about drunk drivers than any other form of influence.
Posted by jg8623
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2010
13533 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:22 am to
quote:

Do you trust the person in the car next to you to be responsible? What about your child's bus driver or the semi truck driver who drives next to you on the interstate and is looking for something harder than caffeine to make it through his shift? Do you trust his judgment?
We've agreed that legalization leads to easier access, and easier access, in turn, leads to greater use. Would you agree that more users equals a greater chance that you will encounter a user in your everyday life?


I have no idea the point you're trying to make here

Yes, legal means more people will probably try the drug and more will end up using long term I assume. Ok? And?

ETA: do you think alcohol should be made illegal again? Because that sure as hell endangers drivers on an everyday basis
This post was edited on 3/17/16 at 12:24 am
Posted by jg8623
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2010
13533 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:24 am to
quote:

worry more about drunk drivers than any other form of influence.



If given a choice, I'd much rather a truck driver be on meth than alcohol. By far
Posted by chattabama
12essee
Member since Jun 2012
19315 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:28 am to
quote:

Well, that's certainly a possibility. I don't necessarily think that the government is there to protect people's delicate sensibilities however.


I think, in some ways, they are, for we cannot depend on the individual conscience to decide what is legal and what should be illegal.

I think I am safe when going twenty plus MPH over the speed limit. I could even argue that I have yet to be involved in a major accident as proof that I am safe when driving way over the speed limit. Why should a police officer tell me that I can't go 85 in a 65? Is it because my actions affect others? If I did heroin, that would absolutely affect others even if i did it in the privacy of my own home. My family, children, neighbors, job, etc. could all be affected by this choice.
Posted by chattabama
12essee
Member since Jun 2012
19315 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:29 am to
quote:

Hate to tell you chief, people use drugs right now. Even truckers, bus drivers...



Obviously. But legalization of drugs would lead to this occurring even more than it already does.
Posted by jg8623
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2010
13533 posts
Posted on 3/17/16 at 12:31 am to
quote:

If I did heroin, that would absolutely affect others even if i did it in the privacy of my own home. My family, children, neighbors, job, etc. could all be affected by this choice.


Could is the key word there

You have yet to answer any of my questions regarding alcohol regulation. Alcohol affects family, children, neighbors, job, etc every day of the week. So I'm just curious on your feelings about alcohol being legal
This post was edited on 3/17/16 at 12:32 am
Jump to page
Page First 9 10 11 12 13 ... 16
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 11 of 16Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram