RE: Drug War Stories: Wrapped in Wise County
you don't understand that there are laws against speeding and that you have to register your vehicle independent of the laws that prohibit drugs?
I am sure Texas has instant online registration, most states do.
I didn't say speeding needed to be illegal, I said it would be, probably because people are not comfortable with people barreling around in sketchy RVs over 65 mph. The public needs to control the roads because the public shares the roads and everyone benefits from them and is also put at risk on them. Driving is one of the most dangerous things you do. You want to live right? It's pretty easy to demonstrate the benefits from speed limits, they reduce pollution and accidents. On the other hand we should do away with all traffic lights and urban traffic controls, that reduces traffic and accidents.
Aren't there no speed limits or something on Autobahn? I am not sure your theories are as settled as you imply?
Or something, of course they have speed limits but they are much more vague on some sections of the Autobahn:
"General speed limits in Germany are set by the federal government. All limits are multiples of 5 km/h. There are two default speed limits: 50 km/h (31 mph) inside built-up areas and 100 km/h (62 mph) outside built-up areas. While parts of the autobahns and many other freeway-style highways have posted limits up to 130 km/h (81 mph) based on accident experience, congestion and other factors, many rural sections have no general speed limit. The German Highway Code (Straßenverkehrsordnung) section on speed begins with the requirement [1] which may be rendered in English:
Speed limits are enforced with a small tolerance. Driving merely 3 km/h (2 mph) or faster above the posted or implied speed limit is considered a punishable infraction in Germany. The speeding fines are set by federal law (Bußgeldkatalog, schedule of fines).[2]"
Note also that they have much stricter requirements to get a drivers license there. So in Germany, and most other places, a cop can just decide that you are driving too fast and pull you over, based on his assessment of the conditions. For example if you are doing 65 in a blizzard on the highway fishtailing away a cop can write you a ticket for speeding and it would likely hold up in court. Even though you and I know that tickets and such are mostly to generate revenue for the state and as a pretext to search and harass people the reason that we won't see these laws done away with is the legitimate safety aspect. At least until a future time when cars all drive themselves and then we won't need speed limits for safety anymore.
Consider this, it's illegal to drink and drive and yet all bars have parking lots. Because in fact you can drink and drive as long as you do so responsibly and don't get so drunk that you are driving impaired.
yea the parking lots just seem like they make a whole joke of the system. Well not sure what you are getting at. Sure slower vehicles are less dangerous but not sure speed limits inherently are necessary?
The point is that you can drink and drive all you want as long as you are responsible, if you can drink a 12 pack and drive in a straight line and do all the other things you are supposed to do then you won't get pulled over right?
That's why bars have parking lots, the expectation is that everyone will be responsible.
Or you could ride around in an RV in Texas with all the drugs you want if you actually followed the posted speed limit.
Personal responsibility is the point.
There is a pretty clear and linier relationship between speed limits and accident rates and fuel consumption. We could decide that the liberty to drive as fast as you want is more important than that and change the laws but we probably won't. Ultimately physics imposes a speed limit either way.
Well I don't know what you want me to say. I think it is despicable nearly 1% of Americans are behind bars, many for nonviolent conduct, like Adam.
Hopefully we will be free someday.
The prohibitions on drugs and most gun control laws were designed to suppress poor minorities and have been extraordinarily successful in their goal, one government program that works exactly as intended. You are right that it is despicable. Speeding is non-violent, its the sudden stops it causes that can be quite violent. Freedom is a state of mind so whether you achieve it is only in your control.
Disagree on freedom being a state of mind. Those who get murdered by drones with no trial might think theyre free but their not very free when the might of the military industrial complex sacrifices their life and liberty in the name of the public good to various private benefits. Free Speech heros can be as free as they want in a jail, but the system that holds one inhibits that persons ability to compete in the economy and compete in the market of ideas.
There is only so much time until the technological singularity so one can sit here and critque optimum strategies. But let's make no mistake it is very morally questionable what has happened to Mr. Kokesh down there. And that is what I want to focus on in this discussion.
Those who get murdered by drones are truly free.
I don't know, this guy seems to be making hay out of it. You can't say his ability to earn was not enhanced, at least in the short term. The only part of it I really have a problem with is the canine search but the video I saw didn't have the initial contact so I don't know what prompted all that. He did seem to be acting the opposite of cool in the video. I think all drugs should be legal but they are not now and for damn sure not in Texas so its not very smart or responsible to speed there with drugs in your sketchy RV.
I do think there is at least some chance the singularity won't care much at all about us, like how we feel bugs, hopefully it has bigger fish to fry than us.
You are greatly misinformed about our supposed "laws"
The Traffic Code, The Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, Hell, everything is commerce related. In other words, if you are not doing something for a profit or gain then these so called "laws" do not apply to you. I guess I need to bring my Facebook notes over here so I can educate idiots like you.
yea I don't understand the ad hominem using the word idiot? I think it best if people make their arguments and stick to the arguments. The tyrants are the ones that try to obfuscate logic and facts.
You seem to have conflated federal and state law for some inexplicable reason. How about instead of posting memes you try to make an argument like a grownup and without any name calling?
Hopefully we can keep a level of decorum here. I'm not planning to institute rules or anything but I don't understand the use of an ad hominem.
It just makes him seem angry and confused. I didn't down vote him but someone will if he keeps on like that. I like that you and I can discuss things civilly.
fuck downvotes. Stupiedest part of steem by leaps and bounds. We should be building people up and catalyzing voluntary association not breaking them down and letting mal contents run wild to harm others arbitrarily.
Idk if ad hominems are necesarily incivil, still using words i'd say is civil. But no point to not keep it to logic. I want to facilitate discussion that realizes truth, not hurts and intimidates people and makes them fear to speak their mind.
Yes, this meme is showing you that at both the Federal and State, the term "Ultimate User" are the same. Also, the state actually is bound by the Federal code. Every state in the union will say something to the effect of "As controlled by the Federal CSA"...
The point is, if you are an "Ultimate User" than you can lawfully use and possess any controlled substance at both the Federal and State levels.
as long as you lawfully obtained it first.
Yes, it is very important to note the use of the word "lawfully" as opposed to "Legally"..
In other words if it is not obtained by force or fraud.
Legal - Form and Appearance of law - no substance
Lawful - Actual Law - Has Substance
and how do you imagine lawfully obtaining a substance that is illegal to purchase or cultivate?
I would imagine that law is so that people like researchers and cops can have illegal drugs in their possession. It is pretty clear that it is not a general loophole that anyone can use.
It is very clear these so-called "laws" are for those engaged in commerce only. These "laws" were never intended to be used against users.
Look, it really simple, Congress only has two basic powers delegated to them in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, to regulate commerce and to regulate the employed militia. Everything in Article 1 Section relates to these two things.
So, its really simple to figure out that this act of Congress is either related to commerce or the militia.
The "Ultimate User" term makes it abundantly clear if the substance is for your own use than it is a lawful activity.