The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I have lived in a dozen states, DC area most of my adult life, as well as several foreign countries including Russia and Panama...
I know a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich, especially if they want to prevent riots or be politically correct...
Yes, I know that East Berlin no longer exists
My point was that there are levels where government breaks down to the point that essential freedoms are missing. We don't have that here. We have other issues, but not that yet.
Ask the guy who suggested it. I'm just a translator in that conversation. Though it is true that the forbidden fruit tends to look sweeter.
ADDIT: for the record, that I was TOLD no and it was forbidden were 2 reasons I became a smoker as a child. Had my mother expressed concern instead of laying down the law I might not be here on this site.
Sent from my device.
Last edited:
You understood incorrectly, which is insulting and offensive, to say the least.
You got this (apparently) from my saying: But making it illegal really (and I mean really really) takes away that education and truly amounts to 'don't get caught.' Moreover, it allows ANTZ an inroad to do their own version of education leaving us adults who are battling ANTZ to address their junk science, while they get to pretend everyone is on their side when it comes to such matters. So, a kid wonders what's so wrong with this, no one bothers to tell them the truth (pros and cons) and they have to discover it on their own, in secret.
So, I ask you, would a good parent that is teaching responsibly present the pros and cons about say smoking, to accurately present to their child what they are up against?
Then let's consider less than good parenting, or average parent, and then let's consider what bad parent may do.
I am saying that because something is law (and that law equals forbiddance) a parent may resort to "because I said so" or "because that's just the way it is" type rhetoric to 'win the discussion.' Do, I think all parents will do this? No! But I think many do, and that we here, as children, have experience of smoking and not getting caught by the adults of our time, because for at least some of us, we were only told of the cons, and that was consider righteous education which ought to deter us from smoking. We learned otherwise, and we chose differently. To think a good parent can deter a child from smoking because of laws that seek to punish based on education that seeks to only make note of cons, is what I find ridiculous. And I am up for this sort of discussion with adults that do actually care, for as long as there is a desire for reasonable, honest discussion.
Yes.
Except for the part where "parents tell them not to do it." If it were 'all legal' then the notion of guidance that presents pros and cons, that may include warnings, that may even invoke parental forbiddance, wouldn't be done away with. Won't magically disappear. But the hypothetical of 'it's all now perfectly legal for everyone' won't happen in 1 day. And in reality is seemingly entirely unlikely to happen in our lifetime. So, there would be lots and lots of discussion of why would we go in this direction, what do we stand to gain, and to lose? And perhaps in that movement, the side that stands up loudly, only pointing to cons, only sticking their fingers in their ears when pros come up and ignores the other side of the equation, wins the day. As they are 'winning' right now. And yet, that side is seeing a whole lot of 'delinquents' who have the audacity to disobey what 'everyone' agrees is a sound and just way of doing things, even while kids have ALWAYS been in a place of disobeying discriminatory and unbalanced laws against them, just as many adults may do.
The same allure is there right now for adults, but because we have the kid thing so mucked up and for a half dozen other reasons, we show up rather ineffective with adults that give into the allure and who develop a problem with substances. We currently have half the population that rather see substance abusers (or even users) as criminals deserving punishment first, and maybe ask questions later, while another portion sees them as through eyes of compassion and desire to assist overcoming both the plights of addiction and the stigmatization. Methinks, with children our compassion factor would go way up, which could likely impact how we treat fellow adults going through similar situations.
Plus, the peer to peer aspect that kids do visibly share would be impacted if kids aren't made to hide out, and aren't set up in cliques of delinquents and cool, privileged people. How this looks exactly, I dunno. I don't have that experience, even while I know from own experience that peer to peer was way more valuable to me as an adolescent than whatever meaningless diatribe that adult figures came up with at the time. Especially when asking, "what makes it so right that you get to use this substance you are admonishing me for?" And being met with blank stares or righteousness laced with very visible hypocrisy that even my teen self knew was a farce.
Because things currently aren't drastically enforced, we could do all of this now, and to some degree we already do. But when I come to a thread where someone says, "I hope that mother is punished," it has me sit up and take notice, and may even lead me to present a wall of text where I choose to present a different way that things could be done. Right now.
I'm not going to disagree with you that we could do things a lot differently and that there would better results, like public health information and safety. I also agree that criminal charges are probably not the best idea. However, I will say this. I think you are over attributing the allure of these acts to their taboo nature. Although I don't disagree that something of an illicit nature attracts people to some extent, I think that there are other factors that play a bigger role. For example, when talking about nicotine and other things, I think that there is a natural inclination to use these substances because they alter our state of consciousness. This is a desire that people have always had. Even animals will eat some plants that alter the mind, like mushrooms and catnip (I'm pretty sure that catnip does, but I could be wrong). Even small children have fun doing this, like when they spin around to make themselves feel dizzy. So, regardless if it's caffeine, nicotine, or something more drastic, I think there's a good argument that we have a natural inclination to imbibe these substances.
The next reason is self-medication. A lot of people smoke cigarette or drink to help them relax, right? The same goes with more intense substances. Addicts use them because it helps get rid of stress and pain. Since there is a natural tendency to use these, I don't know if simply allowing them to be legal and talking about them would have any substantial effect on their use. A lot of teens would still use nicotine and other substances for reasons besides peer pressure or a desire to defy authority.
As far as punishing the mother, we have a legal, and I believe moral, duty to take care of our children. Unlike other people, you have a duty to rescue and you can't sit by while your child suffers or dies. I know that this is all a matter of degree. In other words, it's obvious that you have to intercede if your child is being abused by your partner or spouse. You can be held criminally liable if you don't. On the other hand, there are situations where it is not so clear if a duty is being violated. Providing tobacco and alcohol is probably one of those. I've known people who buy tobacco for their children because they believe their children will steal it otherwise and could be at risk of criminal charges. Likewise, some people provide alcohol in their homes to those underage because they don't want them trying to buy alcohol illegally and/ or drinking and driving in the process. I think that these may be valid reasons. At the same time, there is a counter argument that providing these substances exposes your children to health risks and addiction, if addiction is not already present. It's a complicated question, but I don't think we should just dismiss either side without some consideration of the issues at stake.
As a former store owner I assure you that if I had sold a single pack of cigarettes with just one tax stamp missing (state, county, city, it varies by jurisdiction how many are on each pack) that is considered a black market transaction.
Same applies to copyright infringement. Any transaction that bypasses the legal requirements is considered a black market transaction.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Ya I flipped my lid when this store owner sold me a can of Copenhagen that clearly said "not for individual resale" on the side of it. He ripped the buy two get one free packs apart and sold the free ones. ...... me off. If I'm paying taxes to purchase that item you are paying to sell it.
Not really unless your Capitalization is coincidence of sentence structure. If I said Law is law, this is not true. What the social extremists have been slowly trying to convince the masses (its working btw) is that law is Law, which is not true either.
Its just one of those things that keeps getting repeated enough and the complexity grows to incomprehensible magnitudes and the masses just give up and say whatever, here's some "money" leave me be.
Example A: A well known "Constitutional Scholar" executive often tells us the state of affairs in "our democracy". Over and over. It's completely false and if you are an average joe and say this you are considered very ignorant, yet there it is every day.
Example B: some congressperson thinks "the money" is backed by gold still in 2014 and votes with full power of the purse to legislate away at any number of things, never stopping once to consider that a bill is actually a bill just like the one you get after dinner at your favorite restaurant, weather that bill is a paper note for a dollar or its a legislative statute awaiting approval. Then they go ask why is China now the largest economy and what does that weird Austrian mean by QE infinity?
Unfortunately, the only thing that tends to get heard, and therefore considered, is the 'But it's mind-altering' argument in some fashion, as if this is the only reason in and of itself to prohibit it. The rest is just fear-mongering to justify their moral position that anything mind-altering is completely and always bad.
I would love to see society have a reasoned discussion on the "let's make it all legal" position.
Just finished reading Christopher Snowden's book The Art of Suppression: Pleasure, Panic and Prohibition since 1800 and I think he makes some very good points about fixing the problem by making it all legal. It would be a good place for society to start this discussion if everyone was willing to listen to the arguments from both sides.
I have been leaning towards making everything legal for a while as an answer to the failed drug war and all it's unintended consequences, and after reading this book, it has pushed me off the fence tumbling down on his side. He makes a statement at one point that if alcohol were suddenly invented today, it would never be allowed to be legal.
This forum will not allow us to discuss illegal substances, but so much of its history is very relevant to our fight today against would-be nicotine prohibitionists.
Um, Okay, but my point wasn't abstract examples of governmental interpretation. My point was that using tobacco products by minors is illegal in 42 of 50 states in the US. Whether it's enforced is an entirely different subject.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let's ponder this for a moment. Obviously the wall fell in the 80's but comparing us to these two is saying much at all? Right to a fair trial, I looked both ways ran a stop sign and got a fine. The prosecution is the state, the judge is the state and the "injured party" is the state. Oh that's fair.
Milam refused lawful money citing that gold and silver was the only such thing and the Ninth Circuit fails to explain the accounting behind the note exchange and simply notes that the specie exchange window has been closed as per Julliard; never explains why Remedy is preserved in the statutes and why the demand to exchange a fed note, even if for another fed note; removes obligation. Sure that's fair.
Because "ignorance of the law is no excuse" right? Even thought there are literally one million "laws" on the book. So according to the utopian great thinkers, am I expected to study these for a decade or more to get the full story? Do I get a government(s) check(s) while I am doing this or am I expected to fight inflation and ever encroaching government, while working 2 jobs and raising a family while studying these million laws? Oh yeah that's fair.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm said:
Be honest with yourself. How many of these can you just put a check mark beside in the good old US right now? How many check are works in progress right now?
Ever grow tobacco? It is a great pest control product. What if* junior is helping me harvest this insecticide?
Last edited:
Well, the injured party is the state. The prosecution represents the state. The judge is an objective party. Both the judge and the prosecution have particular roles that they fill and must conform to ethical standards. I don't see what the issue is with this system as long as the judge is insulated from the state. Really, I don't even see any option. Would you rather the there be no judge? You will always need a mediator and someone has to pay for it. If it was privately paid for, like in arbitration, people would claim that the system favors those with money. If it's paid for by the state, people claim that the judge is biased against the defendant. If you have a better idea, share it.
I don't know what case you're talking about but I'm guessing this is going back to the who thing about exchanging currency for gold. Honestly, what's the point? Most of the people who go on about this are just cranks. I have yet to hear one cogent reason why the government should start giving out gold or why we should back our money with gold. There are a number of policy reasons that the government wanted to move away from gold. I don't see the hard they are causing.
Which great thinker said you need to know every law that's out there? No one can do that, it's too vast. When society becomes a certain size, it becomes impossible to become a person who is an expert in any particular field, mainly because of the time devotion. Fortunately for all of us, there's no need for us to become experts on everything. We have lawyers that know about areas of law. Also, most of these things will never apply to us as individuals. Go read through the CFR and see how many things you will at some point need to deal with. Think you'll ever have to do something like evaluate a grant of a right of way to see if the Department of the Interior complied with the proper procedures? Probably not unless you work in a specific field. This is the same with vast majority of the law. The only important things that I can think of are, for the most part, common sense, like criminal statutes. You'll probably be OK if you don't devote your life to this.
What's your point? That the state of affairs in America does not meet the goals of the Marxists?
So what if you did grow tobacco and junior helped you? Does that mean junior actually possessed or used what you grew? I believe you, as the parent would likely be the owner of the crop on your land. That's hardly an apples to apple analogy of a minor using tobacco products. Nor would what you questioned be a crime.
Now if junior took some of the crop he helped dear old dad harvest and rolled some up and ignited it, inhaling the smoke into his lungs, now that would be illegal in 42 states (maybe not your state, but in most states). Yes it would.
- Status
Similar threads
