Unchained Preppers
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: luis545x39 on July 02, 2012, 02:32:06 PM
-
as some might know mexico had its presidential elections yestersay ( yes i am aware i no longer live there that being said its still my land i belive i am both an american and a mexican or a true mexican/american not an american of hispanic descent) and im sad to say the results didnt surprised me at all there were 3 mayor candidates ill just mention the party to make this simpler
PRI "partido revolucionario institucional" meaning revolutionary institutional party, it got its name by being the first party after the revolution, the revolution was a good thing but after the original leaders got killed captured escaped etc some bastards took advantage of the whole mess just to take power (note= this party was in power for about 72 years in a one "party democracy" where they party itself would choose the next candidate making these "the perfect dictatorship" it was not untill the year 2000 untill they got out of power
PAN "partido accion nacional" meaning national action party finally won the elections on 2000 on 2004 it declared war on drug cartels (PRI just stood idley by as they commited their twisted treachery) election took place again on 2006 (presidential terms last 6 years on mexico) where they won again you guys might remeber that bold guy with the glasses well his name is Felipe Calderon he was actually a relatively good president
and finally PT "partido del trabajo" the workers party just a stupid socialist party which candidate lost in 2006 and kept bitching about it for 3 years making tv adds about it just a big spoiled 58 years old kid
anyway after PRI kept brainwashing the country for over 70 years by making our educational system shit and using their vast resources thet they gathered in such years they took advantage of the poor by doing this shit
(http://hazmeelchingadofavor.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/despensa-pri-yucatan.jpg)
here you can see some groceries an 500 pesos roughtly about 40 bucks its like voting on high school all over again its fucking ridiculous ho by the way they fucking won becouse of that shit i deeply belive this is americas future maybe even present just something to think about
going back to the title the ignorance of our people leed us to this
-
Drug money buys an election. It's amazing how many Americans have no clue about what the impact of this is. PRI gave rise to the Cartels and pretty much ignored their existence. Sure under PRI the government would conduct a drug bust once in a blue moon but by and large it and the cartels that grew up under it stayed in a state of truce. Prior to this election the Cartels (especially Los Zetas) dumped tons of money into PRI.
Now that the era of Mexicos war on drugs is going to pretty much be over that means the cartels are once again going to grow in influence. Expect even more drugs and crime to move north. Even the statement by Nieto shows it pretty clearly:
"The fight against crime will continue with a new strategy to reduce violence and protect the lives of Mexicans," he said. "Let it be clear, with organized crime there will be no pacts or truce."
They'll go back to a once in a blue moon bust and the Mexican people will live in a somewhat safer state. IT's now in our court as to how to contain the problems that are going to be coming north. The obama administration is pretty tone deaf when it comes to border security however unlike Mexico local Sheriffs have a lot of power. IMHO we're going to see a pretty big leap in cross border violence in the next six months.
-
maybe not much violence but definatly way more cartel presence but one thing is certain dark days lie ahead...
-
Decriminalize or Legalize all drugs, and the cartels influence literally disappears over night. It would be greatly reduced.
The reason this will never happen in the United States is that way too many politicians, bureaucracies, (CIA) and probably mainly Police Officers are making WAY too much money off the illegal drug trade to ever let them be decriminalized or legalized.
The "War on Drugs" is going to END one day, either because it is forced, or it can be ended because its the logical thing to do. The choice is ours. Its going to end one day, its just how do you want it to end? By force, or by choice?
-
EJ how would we pay for the astronomical increase in rehab and healthcare? Every country thus far that has legalized has suffered both economically and socially for it.
-
...Every country thus far that has legalized has suffered both economically and socially for it.
Poppycock.
-
...Every country thus far that has legalized has suffered both economically and socially for it.
Poppycock.
agreed. people are going to do it whether it's illegal or not. by legalizing, all you're doing is removing the violent black market element.
this whole debate really is pretty simple, mainly because we have a prime example in modern history. prohibition = Al Capone / war on drugs = Los Zetas. it really is just that simple.
-
...Every country thus far that has legalized has suffered both economically and socially for it.
Poppycock.
OK, name a country.
-
EJ how would we pay for the astronomical increase in rehab and healthcare? Every country thus far that has legalized has suffered both economically and socially for it.
Just ANOTHER reason to end the NANNY STATE! Fuck the Nanny State, Fuck the Welfare State.
I've got news for you Treaded, we are ALREADY paying for it!
Please click this link and read all of it. Then get back at me. http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf (http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf)
-
Already familiar with it. I knew you were going to bring up Portugal because I've had this argument before. The CATO report lacks a few data points and cuts off at a critical point in the data set (2005/2006). Lemme fill in some blanks.
The Portuguese have had a huge increase in what we would call "misdemeanor" or "civil infractions" through the drug policy. It has driven rehab demands and the requirements to increase the judicial system to handle the load (more $). Digging into Wikipedia brings this: "From 2000 to 2008, the number of people in Portugal receiving substitution treatment increased from 6040 to 25,808 (24,312 in 2007), 75 % of whom were in methadone maintenance treatment." Again more $.
"Reported lifetime use of illicit drugs increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin from 0.7% to 1.1%. It has been proposed that this effect may have been been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use. Statistical trends in neighboring Spain and Italy during the same period also suggested an unclear relation between decriminalization and increased drug use, comparatively"
If you go to the Euro Center for drug monitoring and addiction (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/tre...ortugal#demand (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/tre...ortugal#demand)) it shows that the number of new clients entering treatment in Portugal during the following years: 2007: 5124, 2008: 7019, and 2009: 7643. More $ every year.
One positive the CATO Institute study found that the EMCDDA stats concur with was that the Portuguese drug policy (along with an increase in HIV awareness programs) could be directly tied to a declining number of HIV cases. However the study also recognized an increase in the number of drug related deaths.
What I'd like to see is the cost in $ chart for the increases in rehab. But overall it looks like a mixed bag - more deaths from drugs and a higher # of rehab cases vs. lower HIV deaths.
-
Already familiar with it. I knew you were going to bring up Portugal because I've had this argument before. The CATO report lacks a few data points and cuts off at a critical point in the data set (2005/2006). Lemme fill in some blanks.
The Portuguese have had a huge increase in what we would call "misdemeanor" or "civil infractions" through the drug policy. It has driven rehab demands and the requirements to increase the judicial system to handle the load (more $). Digging into Wikipedia brings this: "From 2000 to 2008, the number of people in Portugal receiving substitution treatment increased from 6040 to 25,808 (24,312 in 2007), 75 % of whom were in methadone maintenance treatment." Again more $.
"Reported lifetime use of illicit drugs increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin from 0.7% to 1.1%. It has been proposed that this effect may have been been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use. Statistical trends in neighboring Spain and Italy during the same period also suggested an unclear relation between decriminalization and increased drug use, comparatively"
If you go to the Euro Center for drug monitoring and addiction ([url]http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/tre...ortugal#demand[/url] ([url]http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/tre...ortugal#demand[/url])) it shows that the number of new clients entering treatment in Portugal during the following years: 2007: 5124, 2008: 7019, and 2009: 7643. More $ every year.
One positive the CATO Institute study found that the EMCDDA stats concur with was that the Portuguese drug policy (along with an increase in HIV awareness programs) could be directly tied to a declining number of HIV cases. However the study also recognized an increase in the number of drug related deaths.
What I'd like to see is the cost in $ chart for the increases in rehab. But overall it looks like a mixed bag - more deaths from drugs and a higher # of rehab cases vs. lower HIV deaths.
that's all assuming that the taxpayer has an obligation to pay for all that crap. the way it should be: you decide to ruin your life with drugs, tough shit. you made your bed, sleep in it.
another thing that you seem to be overlooking is the stats on drug-related violent crime. of course, I've never seen those numbers for that country so they could say anything for all I know, but it's a key piece of the puzzle.
-
Sadly Nola under the current system addiction is grounds for disability and medical treatment sponsored by the state. Can you imagine what the screams from the "free shit army" would be if they tried to change that? I agree, hell I believe we should piss test anyone applying for welfare.
In reality knowing what Americans are like I can't honestly say they would be able to remain responsible. I did a quick Google and came up with this page http://www.rehabinfo.net/drug-rehab/statistics/ (http://www.rehabinfo.net/drug-rehab/statistics/)
There's a lot illustrating how the statistics show almost everything increased dramatically. For ER visits alone from 2004 to 2009:
Emergency room visits for nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals alone: 117 percent increase
Emergency room visits for pharmaceuticals with illicit drugs: 97 percent increase
Emergency room visits for pharmaceuticals with alcohol: 63 percent increase
Emergency room visits for pharmaceuticals used with illicit drugs and alcohol: 76 percent increase
That's a lot. Really a lot.
-
Wait a minute.. being a drug addict is a disability? Like a real recognized disability?
-
i belive we got a bit off topic
-
In a way. Once substance abuse has created irreversible damage that is not expected to improve if the person stops abusing, the condition becomes eligible for disability coverage if it prevents the person from engaging in work. That includes mental conditions.
YUP - BOT. "Pena Nieto said he will maintain President Felipe Calderon's strategy of using the military to target drug cartels and capture top criminals. But he vowed to focus on quickly bringing down the number of killings and kidnappings."
Anyone got a clue of how he intends to do that?
-
Already familiar with it. I knew you were going to bring up Portugal because I've had this argument before. The CATO report lacks a few data points and cuts off at a critical point in the data set (2005/2006). Lemme fill in some blanks.
The Portuguese have had a huge increase in what we would call "misdemeanor" or "civil infractions" through the drug policy. It has driven rehab demands and the requirements to increase the judicial system to handle the load (more $). Digging into Wikipedia brings this: "From 2000 to 2008, the number of people in Portugal receiving substitution treatment increased from 6040 to 25,808 (24,312 in 2007), 75 % of whom were in methadone maintenance treatment." Again more $.
Don't make me laugh. If you legalize drugs, why would there be an increase in judicial cost? Sounds like that makes an argument that all out legalization is much better than just decriminalization. Do you have ANY idea how much money we spend on the War on Drugs? The Militarization of our police that has occurred, and the cost this has had to our Liberty and Freedom as they SWAT family homes in the middle of the night, kill two dogs, and drag the screaming children out of their beds and the parents, all just to find a ONE JOINT of weed? Not to mention the FINANCIAL cost that is directly on the back of the taxpayers. You know that has a cost all on its own, and has a huge PRICE Tag. If we end the War on Drugs, we'll have the money for rehab, and if you can't already imagine it, the War on Drugs has ALREADY had a huge cost to our judicial system. Its a quid pro quo.
"Reported lifetime use of illicit drugs increased from 7.8% to 12%, lifetime use of cannabis increased from 7.6% to 11.7%, cocaine from 0.9% to 1.9%, ecstasy from 0.7% to 1.3%, and heroin from 0.7% to 1.1%. It has been proposed that this effect may have been been related to the candor of interviewees, who may have been inclined to answer more truthfully due to a reduction in the stigma associated with drug use. Statistical trends in neighboring Spain and Italy during the same period also suggested an unclear relation between decriminalization and increased drug use, comparatively"
Big deal, 10 percent more people started smoking marijuana? Good, I'm sure it chilled them out. :o
If you go to the Euro Center for drug monitoring and addiction ([url]http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/tre...ortugal#demand[/url] ([url]http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/tre...ortugal#demand[/url])) it shows that the number of new clients entering treatment in Portugal during the following years: 2007: 5124, 2008: 7019, and 2009: 7643. More $ every year.
End the ridiculous war on drugs and we get our FREEDOMS and liberty back, as well as all the horrible case law that has all but DESTROYED our 4th amendment rights because of the War on Drugs, and we'll save tons of money that can be spent on rehab. Quid pro quo.
One positive the CATO Institute study found that the EMCDDA stats concur with was that the Portuguese drug policy (along with an increase in HIV awareness programs) could be directly tied to a declining number of HIV cases. However the study also recognized an increase in the number of drug related deaths.
Its called freedom, the opposite of a Nanny State, which is what we currently have.
What I'd like to see is the cost in $ chart for the increases in rehab. But overall it looks like a mixed bag - more deaths from drugs and a higher # of rehab cases vs. lower HIV deaths.
I don't give a damn if it does cost 10 percent more money, when we take the money that we now spend on the militarization of police, he extra judicial spending, rehab, whatever, WE WILL HAVE OUR FREEDOMS BACK. It will be one more step to destroying the ever increasing fascist nanny state that we have and are always adding to as well. No thanks, I'll have my freedoms and liberty, thank you.
-
Sadly Nola under the current system addiction is grounds for disability and medical treatment sponsored by the state. Can you imagine what the screams from the "free shit army" would be if they tried to change that? I agree, hell I believe we should piss test anyone applying for welfare.
In reality knowing what Americans are like I can't honestly say they would be able to remain responsible. I did a quick Google and came up with this page [url]http://www.rehabinfo.net/drug-rehab/statistics/[/url] ([url]http://www.rehabinfo.net/drug-rehab/statistics/[/url])
There's a lot illustrating how the statistics show almost everything increased dramatically. For ER visits alone from 2004 to 2009:
Emergency room visits for nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals alone: 117 percent increase
Emergency room visits for pharmaceuticals with illicit drugs: 97 percent increase
Emergency room visits for pharmaceuticals with alcohol: 63 percent increase
Emergency room visits for pharmaceuticals used with illicit drugs and alcohol: 76 percent increase
That's a lot. Really a lot.
That's why we need to END the Nanny State. Like Nola said, we need to change all the laws. You destroy your life with drugs, and tough shit, deal with it. You're not going to STEAL my money, and give it to some loser, because he made poor choices, no different than this Too Big To Fail bullshit. They fucked up and should pay the consequences. Why are the taxpayers given the bill for someone else's shitty choices?
At its essence, this is what is wrong with America, as well as the fascist, trying to use all these BS excuses to limit our freedoms and liberties.
-
EJ you'll be lucky if you get any semblance of the freedoms you've lost in the last ten years back during your lifetime. This brings to mind a famous quote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Alexander Tytler.
We are in the midst of such a transformation now. We will not be regaining those freedoms until said dictatorship is done and gone. The process has yet to finish playing out but history has shown it indeed will. And when the majority of people wake up and remember one of the inalienable rights is the Right to Revolution and topple said dictator or monarch then and only then does restoration of the republic stand a chance.
-
EJ you'll be lucky if you get any semblance of the freedoms you've lost in the last ten years back during your lifetime. This brings to mind a famous quote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Alexander Tytler.
We are in the midst of such a transformation now. We will not be regaining those freedoms until said dictatorship is done and gone. The process has yet to finish playing out but history has shown it indeed will. And when the majority of people wake up and remember one of the inalienable rights is the Right to Revolution and topple said dictator or monarch then and only then does restoration of the republic stand a chance.
so in a pretend dream world where we DO manage to reverse course in this country, then what's your stance on legalization?
-
EJ you'll be lucky if you get any semblance of the freedoms you've lost in the last ten years back during your lifetime. This brings to mind a famous quote: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy." - Alexander Tytler.
We are in the midst of such a transformation now. We will not be regaining those freedoms until said dictatorship is done and gone. The process has yet to finish playing out but history has shown it indeed will. And when the majority of people wake up and remember one of the inalienable rights is the Right to Revolution and topple said dictator or monarch then and only then does restoration of the republic stand a chance.
No crap, and to add to that, I've used that quote 100 times before, and it has never been properly documented who said that quote, and it simply cannot ever be proven if Tytler ever wrote it or said it.
-
OK at best the Tytler quote is apocryphal. But clear in it's reasoning nonetheless. Legalization? I am thoroughly against it on the grounds of increased addiction rates. Drug and alcohol addiction is a societal cancer. It destroys families, lives, and tears at the very fabric of the morals, ethics, and values of any culture. Regardless of what banner people live under (freedom, democracy, theocracy, etc..) addicts are a problem. If I even began to believe people could be responsible in their use of a substance maybe. But statistics don't lie and Americans addiction rates have risen despite illegality. And as illustrated in Portugal and Holland legalization leads to higher addiction rates. I'm ashamed to say it but Americans are highly irresponsible when it comes to moderating their own behavior and that hasn't gotten better over the years. Quite the opposite. And it'd be foolish to think that's going to change.
-
I'm ashamed to say it but Americans are highly irresponsible when it comes to moderating their own behavior and that hasn't gotten better over the years. Quite the opposite. And it'd be foolish to think that's going to change.
Personally im for legalization but the list of downsides would indeed be long. And i think your sentence sums up pretty well "why" things would get immediately worse.
Usually i'd throw up something like "It was social stigma that kept addiction rates down in the early 20th century" but then again we are not the same country we were in the 20's and 30's. I think if all drugs were legalized it would create a permanent underclass of addict for whom there is no real chance at rehab or treatment.
That being said, there are ZERO good reasons Cannabis should not be fully legalized.
-
RS I used to think the same thing about Cannabis until I worked for a week with a few guys that enjoyed a "one blunt lunch" - and some of the shit I saw those cats do was downright scary. Where and how would we draw the line at what constitutes impairment? And how would we test for it? Field "sobriety" tests? Think about this as well: You'll get more government to establish standards and enforce them, taxes, and costs. Want a glimpse into what'll happen? Take a look at what moonshiners go through - it's still illegal in the US to distill whiskey without a license - because of tax revenues. You think unca sugar is going to let you grow something he can't tax the shit out of? Awww hell no. So the IRS grows, the EPA grows, the DoJ grows, the FDA grows and we get bent over for the cost. Welcome to the world of the $20 joint.
-
RS I used to think the same thing about Cannabis until I worked for a week with a few guys that enjoyed a "one blunt lunch" - and some of the shit I saw those cats do was downright scary. Where and how would we draw the line at what constitutes impairment? And how would we test for it? Field "sobriety" tests? Think about this as well: You'll get more government to establish standards and enforce them, taxes, and costs. Want a glimpse into what'll happen? Take a look at what moonshiners go through - it's still illegal in the US to distill whiskey without a license - because of tax revenues. You think unca sugar is going to let you grow something he can't tax the shit out of? Awww hell no. So the IRS grows, the EPA grows, the DoJ grows, the FDA grows and we get bent over for the cost. Welcome to the world of the $20 joint.
Shit did i work with you at some point?
Anyways, as far as the taxable revenue is concerned i can't argue with you there.
Impairment? Field sobriety tests work for people who are way to damn high too.
Would you say moonshining-based crime and violence increased or decreased after prohibition? If you say increase i will slap your face right through this computer screen. :))
-
OK at best the Tytler quote is apocryphal. But clear in it's reasoning nonetheless. Legalization? I am thoroughly against it on the grounds of increased addiction rates. Drug and alcohol addiction is a societal cancer. It destroys families, lives, and tears at the very fabric of the morals, ethics, and values of any culture. Regardless of what banner people live under (freedom, democracy, theocracy, etc..) addicts are a problem. If I even began to believe people could be responsible in their use of a substance maybe. But statistics don't lie and Americans addiction rates have risen despite illegality. And as illustrated in Portugal and Holland legalization leads to higher addiction rates. I'm ashamed to say it but Americans are highly irresponsible when it comes to moderating their own behavior and that hasn't gotten better over the years. Quite the opposite. And it'd be foolish to think that's going to change.
And you believe that its the GOVERNMENT'S job to outlaw and ban certain chemicals to decrease these addiction rates, even alcohol, because it destroys families, lives, tears moral fabrics, ethics and values? So since you see Americans as highly irresponsible its the GOVERNMENT'S job to 'keep them from harming themselves?"
So you support the Government Nanny State?
Sugary Drinks, Fast Food and Junk Food probably kill more people by cutting their lives short more than any other thing or accident in this country, do you think its the GOVERNMENT'S job to CRIMINALIZE those that would drink Coke, Eat Fast Food and Junk Food?
Cigarette's kill tons of people every year. Do you think its the GOVERNMENT"s job to CRIMINALIZE cigarettes because they harm people and families as well?
Since you see alcohol as such a horrible world destroying drug, do you think its the GOVERNMENT's job to CRIMINALIZE alcohol as well to save the people from their own choices and substances they have in their possession and put inside their body? You know so the people don't HARM themselves and their families?
How about FIREARMS? Since people are killed by firearms everyday, and the harm done to families and individuals, would you agree with the government doing away with the 2nd amendment, and then the Government to CRIMINALIZE firearms because of all the irresponsible and hateful acts that are committed with firearms everyday? IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB AS WELL?
The Government's job is to treat every citizen like they are a CHILD, and to CRIMINALIZE substances, food, and items that IRRESPONSIBLE Americans might HARM themselves with, and do untold harm to their families?
I'm sorry, but I find your argument completely disgusting, fascist, and RIDICULOUSLY AUTHORITARIAN.
I simply cannot believe that you have been so brainwashed by the Conservatives in this country that you support THE NANNY STATE and The WAR on Drugs.
-
Take a look at what moonshiners go through - it's still illegal in the US to distill whiskey without a license - because of tax revenues.
Well that's blatantly FALSE. You are free to make a large personal amount of alcohol for personal and family and friend's use, you can make moonshine, drink all of that moonshine, and you have done NOTHING illegal.
All the government cares about is its TAX. If you sell the moonshine you MAKE, you have to pay the government TAX on it. There are plenty of people out there doing it.
You can make and consume all that you want of that large personal use amount of moonshine all day long and you have broken NO LAW.
20 dollar joint? Fine by me. The government withholds the authority and the power to Tax.
-
RS I used to think the same thing about Cannabis until I worked for a week with a few guys that enjoyed a "one blunt lunch" - and some of the shit I saw those cats do was downright scary. Where and how would we draw the line at what constitutes impairment? And how would we test for it? Field "sobriety" tests? Think about this as well: You'll get more government to establish standards and enforce them, taxes, and costs. Want a glimpse into what'll happen? Take a look at what moonshiners go through - it's still illegal in the US to distill whiskey without a license - because of tax revenues. You think unca sugar is going to let you grow something he can't tax the shit out of? Awww hell no. So the IRS grows, the EPA grows, the DoJ grows, the FDA grows and we get bent over for the cost. Welcome to the world of the $20 joint.
bro, I understand where you're going with your argument. I don't disagree 100% BUT... doesn't it sound eerily similar to "guns are too dangerous for people to be allowed to own"? or "people can't be trusted to grow and sell their own organic foods/raw milk, etc..."
for all the reasonable points you've made in support of prohibition, ask yourself this: do you own your body? presumably, you'll say yes. ok, we've established that you own your body, it's your own private property. now, who has the constitutional authority to tell you what you can and can't put in your body? I'm not arguing the pros vs. cons of legalization, I'm just bringing the debate back to it's root. Just the same way the recent SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare set a new precedent for what the fed gov can force upon you, prohibition of controlled substances sets the precedent that you don't truly own your body/life because the state has the (supposed) authority to dictate what you can and can't do to it. what's next? some dumb kid gets HepC from a tattoo and then... what?... tattoos are illegal? they're DANGEROUS, after all.
drug prohibition (IMHO) is not one bit different from any other nanny-state program. like I said before, I'm not arguing the pros vs. cons, surely some of the negative side effects that you've listed would manifest. I don't argue that. but an old friend and mentor of mine once said:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-
Alright kiddo straight from the federal law: http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml (http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml) - note it makes no difference whether the spirits are for personal use or sale - the law is the law.
Spirits
You may not produce spirits for beverage purposes without paying taxes and without prior approval of paperwork to operate a distilled spirits plant. [See 26 U.S.C. 5601 & 5602 for some of the criminal penalties.] There are numerous requirements that must be met that also make it impractical to produce spirits for personal or beverage use. Some of these requirements are paying special tax, filing an extensive application, filing a bond, providing adequate equipment to measure spirits, providing suitable tanks and pipelines, providing a separate building (other than a dwelling) and maintaining detailed records, and filing reports. All of these requirements are listed in 27 CFR Part 19.
Spirits may be produced for non-beverage purposes for fuel use only without payment of tax, but you also must file an application, receive TTB's approval, and follow requirements, such as construction, use, records and reports."
There's the law. Don't believe me? Call 1-202-453-2000 and ask 'em.
RS I'm hearing you. I agree with the stance the branches of government have no right to tell you what to do to your body. And if we took all the morality and ethics out of government and made it a purely mechanical system then yeah, it'd work. It would also require the premise that you do no harm to others in your actions - which is about as feasible as flying moose in our society. But that's not going to happen - the politicians are never going to completely wipe away social programs under the current system. I'm not a libertarian nor am I conservative or liberal - I'm a realist. And that mis-quoted phrase attributed to Tytler is a reality we are faced with. Social handout programs aren't going away. Social security won't go away. We're not going to get rid of medicare, medicaid, subsidized student loan programs and grants, subsidized housing, nada. We're stuck with it. Until the cycle completes and the people get tired of sucking the burden it's not going to change. Libertarians will never gain traction in this country until it's too late simply because the average person is more worried about things like Ipods, TV, facebook, and all the other breads and circuses .gov and our culture dishes out so handily. That's a reality. The sheeple are still asleep.
There's a fine line between pure liberty and anarchy. Pure liberty requires people to self-govern. Do you really think that people in this country could self-govern themselves? The answer is no. That's why we end up with looting in disasters, mobs beating people when a court ruling doesn't go their way, etc. The mentality of the average American isn't mature enough to self-govern hence they act like savages and animals given the chance.
-
I'll take my chances with Anarchy over Tyranny Treaded.
-
I'll take my chances with Anarchy over Tyranny Treaded.
Don't worry it's coming. The republic is dead. The first nail was driven in during Hamilton's administration and they keep getting pounded in more every year. Tyranny is the next step and we're seeing the initial stages of it even now. It may not happen during our lifetimes but the die is cast. Even getting guys like Ron Paul or Johnson in office will not prevent it - it may delay it but the die has been cast. Are you aware of what has historically normally risen out of anarchy? Communism, collectivism, or theocracy. If there's not a great die-off of the ever increasing free shit army when things collapse or anarchy sets in then that's what we're bound for. They may call it a "democracy" but in reality that's what we have now - we are no longer a constitutional representative republic founded on democracy but an almost pure democracy in which the majority of people vote in their selfish interests and those elected pander to such without regards to liberty or freedom or equality.
We are not in the majority. Despite how vocal we may be the artificial oligarchy that currently exists (there's the monarchy in the equation) in DC gives not a care for how loudly we scream about the constitution and the law. A good example is the "targeting list". Execution without due process of American Citizens. Even when the left, center, and right coalesce into one voice on the subject it made no difference. Politicians on every side came out in support of it with few dissenting voices among them.
Like I stated - nothing is going to stop the cycle. What comes out the other end is going to be influenced by the majority. And until that majority wakes up to the tyranny already in their face nothing is going to move in a positive manner at all.
-
....
-
Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that criminalizing these substances creates more problems than it solves. Plus the whole ownership of one's body is a cut & dry issue with me. That's all I have to say about that.
-
like I said before Treaded, not a single point that you've brought up is invalid. they're all fantastic points, and you put up a strong argument. my one major problem with your whole argument is that you don't seem to believe in individual liberty, you'd rather allow the state to take the reins and dictate these things to us because "people are incapable of self-governance". this is the ideology of a liberal. (I'm not calling you a liberal, just pointing out that most of the points you make, at their core, are music to a liberal's ears)
-
like I said before Treaded, not a single point that you've brought up is invalid. they're all fantastic points, and you put up a strong argument. my one major problem with your whole argument is that you don't seem to believe in individual liberty, you'd rather allow the state to take the reins and dictate these things to us because "people are incapable of self-governance". this is the ideology of a liberal. (I'm not calling you a liberal, just pointing out that most of the points you make, at their core, are music to a liberal's ears)
Ya need to reread what I've said. The people I'm talking about being incapable of self governance are those that are already on the public teat or those that will go on it at first chance. I'm against creating conditions that will increase those numbers. Don't get me wrong - if I could legalize cannabis and cut any kind of government funded rehab and treatment out and tell 'em "you screwed up, you suffer" I would in a heartbeat. I'm also for kicking kids off food stamps and welfare. fuck 'em. You had them, you feed them. I also am strongly against any kind of college student loans subsidization. You want a liberal arts degree - pay for it yourself. Federal unemployment? Same thing. Foreclosure - fuck it you should read the fine print next time. The free shit army IS one of the primary contributing causes to the death of this republic.
The bottom line is I don't want a condition created that grows the free shit army any larger than it already is. We've already got 8 million on disability alone in this country. That's more than the population of the majority of individual states. I'm a realist in telling you that you aren't going to get rid of the social programs - the majority ain't going to let it happen. So why would we do something that increases the rolls? It's not liberal, it's not conservative - it's reality. You can call a mule a zebra 100 times but it's still a mule.
-
like I said before Treaded, not a single point that you've brought up is invalid. they're all fantastic points, and you put up a strong argument. my one major problem with your whole argument is that you don't seem to believe in individual liberty, you'd rather allow the state to take the reins and dictate these things to us because "people are incapable of self-governance". this is the ideology of a liberal. (I'm not calling you a liberal, just pointing out that most of the points you make, at their core, are music to a liberal's ears)
Ya need to reread what I've said. The people I'm talking about being incapable of self governance are those that are already on the public teat or those that will go on it at first chance. I'm against creating conditions that will increase those numbers. Don't get me wrong - if I could legalize cannabis and cut any kind of government funded rehab and treatment out and tell 'em "you screwed up, you suffer" I would in a heartbeat. I'm also for kicking kids off food stamps and welfare. fuck 'em. You had them, you feed them. I also am strongly against any kind of college student loans subsidization. You want a liberal arts degree - pay for it yourself. Federal unemployment? Same thing. Foreclosure - fuck it you should read the fine print next time. The free shit army IS one of the primary contributing causes to the death of this republic.
The bottom line is I don't want a condition created that grows the free shit army any larger than it already is. We've already got 8 million on disability alone in this country. That's more than the population of the majority of individual states. I'm a realist in telling you that you aren't going to get rid of the social programs - the majority ain't going to let it happen. So why would we do something that increases the rolls? It's not liberal, it's not conservative - it's reality. You can call a mule a zebra 100 times but it's still a mule.
honestly bro, I really can't disagree with you there. often times I battle with myself inside my head about what I truly believe in. on one hand, I'm the same realist (pessimist) that you are, and on the other hand, I don't want to "give in" to the system, so-to-speak. I don't want to just accept the "way things are" because IMO that's exactly how we got in this mess in the first place. But to fight for principal truly is a futile effort (as you've stated, and I agree). It's a pipe-dream. So what does one do? Where do you plant your feet in the ground and draw the line? Of course, it's an open-ended question. I don't know the answer to it. I think it's exactly the same reason why so many people run their keyboard-commando mouths about revolution, but as soon as the youtube video ends, they go right back to being the keyboard-commando that they really are. it's because no one wants to become a martyr all by themselves. you join an established rebel force, and you're a freedom-fighter, but you go shoot a banker or a politician on your own and you're a terrorist. (I'm NOT condoning or supporting anything here!!!! just making a point!)
all I'm really saying is that the attitude you have, while probably the most realistic, is also the most defeatist, and that won't get us anywhere. Fighting for principal may be futile, but which side of that isle do you want to tell your grandchildren you stood on? Your guy won't get elected if everyone says "my vote doesn't count, so I'm not going to bother", just like "fighting for your principals is a pipe dream because the rest of society is so fucked up"... sure, society is fucked up, and you have a choice. fight for principal, or stand by the wayside and let it all burn down. it may likely burn down regardless of your efforts, but like I said before, what side of that isle do you want to stand on?
-
Defeatist maybe. Aww fuck it. I guess I'm through arguing it. >:D
yeah right ;) Now seriously - voting has nothing to do with what I'm writing about. Yeah I still vote and still campaign against jacked up stuff but in the same instance I'm doing what I know I need to do - prep me and mine for the shit that is going to happen. Strategically the situation is inevitable. So by delaying it and keeping my taxes as low as they can my money goes further towards what I want to invest it in. If the free shit army grows and my taxes go up because of it that impedes my ability to get shit done.
OK now you stated my attitude won't get us anywhere. Where the hell do you want to go? Lexington Green? Fuck that. I ain't giving my life away that easily. You wanna play "G" and have your wife tell your grandkids Granddaddy got slaughtered wholesale by the big bad wolf? Go right ahead. I hosted a local mini Patcom and the consensus was things aren't bad enough yet. Bottom line: nobody has the balls to step offa the porch at this time. There's been guys that have and not a damn soul one reached out to join up.
Ya know what happens to people that stay in an position that's guaranteed to get overrun with the notion they can continue to hold off without making plans to shag? They die - in place. The position that Libertarians, the TEA party, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Hell even Sowell will be able to reverse the course this monster's headed is that position. Brother I'm already on the next ridge line waiting to engage. Don't kid yourself. Get your shit together and get up here or else get stuck in that ruination.
-
Defeatist maybe. Aww fuck it. I guess I'm through arguing it. >:D
yeah right ;) Now seriously - voting has nothing to do with what I'm writing about. Yeah I still vote and still campaign against jacked up stuff but in the same instance I'm doing what I know I need to do - prep me and mine for the shit that is going to happen. Strategically the situation is inevitable. So by delaying it and keeping my taxes as low as they can my money goes further towards what I want to invest it in. If the free shit army grows and my taxes go up because of it that impedes my ability to get shit done.
OK now you stated my attitude won't get us anywhere. Where the hell do you want to go? Lexington Green? Fuck that. I ain't giving my life away that easily. You wanna play "G" and have your wife tell your grandkids Granddaddy got slaughtered wholesale by the big bad wolf? Go right ahead. I hosted a local mini Patcom and the consensus was things aren't bad enough yet. Bottom line: nobody has the balls to step offa the porch at this time. There's been guys that have and not a damn soul one reached out to join up.
Ya know what happens to people that stay in an position that's guaranteed to get overrun with the notion they can continue to hold off without making plans to shag? They die - in place. The position that Libertarians, the TEA party, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Hell even Sowell will be able to reverse the course this monster's headed is that position. Brother I'm already on the next ridge line waiting to engage. Don't kid yourself. Get your shit together and get up here or else get stuck in that ruination.
I'll say this, and then gracefully bow out: even if our fate as a nation is inevitable (I believe it is), there's no reason why you can't actively prep and gear up for that fate AND fight the good fight at the same time. I'm not kidding myself, I'd bet there's a 99% chance of disaster, but I'll still fight for that 1% chance WHILE I prep for the more likely scenario.
-
I plan on making it thru the mass culling and I suspect that those who do will be of a different mindset than the current population. Just gotta remember to nip the dictators in the bud but I suspect a more constitutionally aware (and active if necessary) military might help with that.
-
Alright kiddo straight from the federal law: [url]http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml[/url] ([url]http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml[/url]) - note it makes no difference whether the spirits are for personal use or sale - the law is the law.
Spirits
You may not produce spirits for beverage purposes without paying taxes and without prior approval of paperwork to operate a distilled spirits plant. [See 26 U.S.C. 5601 & 5602 for some of the criminal penalties.] There are numerous requirements that must be met that also make it impractical to produce spirits for personal or beverage use. Some of these requirements are paying special tax, filing an extensive application, filing a bond, providing adequate equipment to measure spirits, providing suitable tanks and pipelines, providing a separate building (other than a dwelling) and maintaining detailed records, and filing reports. All of these requirements are listed in 27 CFR Part 19.
Spirits may be produced for non-beverage purposes for fuel use only without payment of tax, but you also must file an application, receive TTB's approval, and follow requirements, such as construction, use, records and reports."
There's the law. Don't believe me? Call 1-202-453-2000 and ask 'em.
Ohh so you can only make beer and wine for personal use? Ok, cool, whatever. I don't like liquor anyway. Cool beans. [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at
-
Alright kiddo straight from the federal law: [url]http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml[/url] ([url]http://www.ttb.gov/spirits/faq.shtml[/url]) - note it makes no difference whether the spirits are for personal use or sale - the law is the law.
Spirits
You may not produce spirits for beverage purposes without paying taxes and without prior approval of paperwork to operate a distilled spirits plant. [See 26 U.S.C. 5601 & 5602 for some of the criminal penalties.] There are numerous requirements that must be met that also make it impractical to produce spirits for personal or beverage use. Some of these requirements are paying special tax, filing an extensive application, filing a bond, providing adequate equipment to measure spirits, providing suitable tanks and pipelines, providing a separate building (other than a dwelling) and maintaining detailed records, and filing reports. All of these requirements are listed in 27 CFR Part 19.
Spirits may be produced for non-beverage purposes for fuel use only without payment of tax, but you also must file an application, receive TTB's approval, and follow requirements, such as construction, use, records and reports."
There's the law. Don't believe me? Call 1-202-453-2000 and ask 'em.
Ohh so you can only make beer and wine for personal use? Ok, cool, whatever. I don't like liquor anyway. Cool beans. [img]http://www.arrse.co.uk/at
yeah man, i make "farm wine" all the time LOL