ESPN deserves Michael Irvin

[jaxvid]

"Since I don't use drugs the drug war will not effect me"

Hmmm...sorry friend, but that's a bad road to go down.

"Since I don't hunt, gun control won't affect me."

"Since I'm not a racist, "hate speech" laws won't affect me."

"Since I'm not a terrorist, the (un)Patriot Act won't affect me."

It's not just negros and hop-heads who get hurt by the Drug War, anymore than it was only Italians and speak-easy customers during Prohibition

I did not mean to infer that the drug war does not effect me at all, certainly all of the various abuses of freedom by the government effect me. What I meant to indicate is that the relative value of being effected by the War on Drugs, is for me, much less then many other of the governments "wars".

If this particular drug war falls disproportionally on black males, many with other criminal tendencies, then it may be considered, in light of all other abuses, the lesser of evils. And the lesser of evils is, as we all know, the only choice available.

Imagine if those that were able to end drug prohibition did so but the rest of the state apparatus was maintained. You would have the unfortunate situation that many hardened criminals would be able to roam free with no check upon their worst natures. This may free those unfortunate people that have found themselves behind bars for lesser drug offenses yet would loose those desperate creatures as mentioned above.

I am not in favor if the drug war, and in truth of fact would most actively oppose it in an all white society, as I believe that our race would not suffer the great societal pathologies from drug abuse as our mixed society does now.

In present circumstances however I am forced to admit that the jailing of crackheads is, for myself, a positive result, and one that I must look upon favorably. I cannot see how another commonsense person, such as yourself, would not see it as so.

 

[White Shogun]

I'm in favor of jailing the crackhead when he does something criminal, rather than just smoking crack. Or coke, weed, or too many whiskey shooters.

If the gubment didn't tax tobacco so heavily, smoking would have gone the way of stronger narcotics a long time ago. The only thing that keeps the alcoholo flowing is a) history - remember prohibition, and b) all our senators enjoy the stuff.

The high rate of taxation that everyone here is so against is used, among other things, to support the 20+ billion dollars a year spent on the "war on drugs." If law enforcement wasn't so eager to seize a load of pot, there might be more cops available to patrol the streets looking for muggers, rapists, and car jackers. Or, on the border, to help with one of the real problems in this country, illegal immigration.

What interests me about the Michael Irvin story isn't that he was arrested for having drug paraphernalia. Society being what it is, drugs are illegal and so is the possession of items used to smoke snort or sniff it. No, what is most interesting is watching the politically correct media pussyfoot around the issue of having one of their black co-hosts caught doing a no-no and how they squirm around, trying to figure out what to do with the guy. ESPN's treatment of Rush Limbaugh, compared to Michael Irvin, is telling. It is more of a crime in this country to be un-PC than it is to use drugs.

 

[Bart]

If this particular drug war falls disproportionally on black males, many with other criminal tendencies, then it may be considered, in light of all other abuses, the lesser of evils...

I wouldn't even call it a lesser of evils, it's a cause for rejoicing. I've been in the situation of being in grave danger from drugged up Negroes who tormented me and family members. Thank God after repeated violations they were finally sent away for a long time. Better that than roaming free causing hell on earth for white people.

 

[White Shogun]

Bart,
I sympathize with you. They should have been jailed for tormenting and threatening you and your family, but not necessarily because they had, or used, drugs. It shouldn't have taken repeat violations, either. Problem is you can threaten and harass people in this country, particularly if you are a minority, and nothing can be done about it.

If you don't mind sharing, will you tell us with what crime they were ultimately charged and how you were rid of the problem?

 

[Bart]

White Shogun, I'd rather not blab it to the world but will send you a PM with some details.

 

[White_Savage]

They should have been SHOT by the people they were harassing and tormenting...as they could be if we lived in a free and decent society. Death-by-attempted-victim is the most effective, indeed, the ONLY proven deterrent to crime. Self-Defense is the King of freedoms, ordained by natural law, and is indeed more important than all other freedom issues combined.

 

[JD074]

I'm in favor of jailing the crackhead when he does something criminal, rather than just smoking crack. Or coke, weed, or too many whiskey shooters.

How about drunk diving? That's an extremely dangerous behavior, but doesn't automatically lead to running someone over. It just makes it more likely.

If the gubment didn't tax tobacco so heavily, smoking would have gone the way of stronger narcotics a long time ago.

How so? I've never heard that idea before.

The high rate of taxation that everyone here is so against is used, among other things, to support the 20+ billion dollars a year spent on the "war on drugs."

That's a lot of money that could be spent on other things (like immigration and dealing with violent crime.) Of course, 20B is a drop in the bucket for the government. I'd like to see some measures that would reduce government spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. Letting potheads have their herb could be one of many, many measures to achieve that aim. At the very least, we should differentiate marijuana from the harder substances, since clearly it's not the same as meth, crack, and heroin.

If law enforcement wasn't so eager to seize a load of pot, there might be more cops available to patrol the streets looking for muggers, rapists, and car jackers. Or, on the border, to help with one of the real problems in this country, illegal immigration.

And consequently curbing the flow of drugs, like meth, into our country by those same illegals. From what I've heard, meth is evil stuff, and a lot of white people throughout Middle America are doing it. Unfortunately we have a lunatic president who would rather re-label those illegals "guest workers" and keep the cheap labor (and drug smugglers and gangmembers) streaming through the border. Massive Third World immigration could very well be the gravest threat to the future of our nation.


Edited by: JD074

 

[White_Savage]

"At the very least, we should differentiate marijuana from the harder substances, since clearly it's not the same as meth, crack, and heroin."

We surely should JD. Unfettered cheap access to the harder drugs would remove stupid people acting stupidly from the gene-pool much more effeciently than mere weed.

 

[whiteCB]

I totally agree White Savage weed isn't the problem like the government wants us to believe. Afterall weed has NEVER killed anyone, you can't overdose on weed like you can on alcohol(which is legal), coke, or heroin. Our government needs to educate our young people on the actual dangers of hard drugs to show why not to do them. Instead of preaching how marijuana is a gateway drug which is just a made up opinion some person(probably Nixon) made up since science says if alcohol and tobacco are legal then why isn't pot. I'm tried of seeing my tax dollars go to waste on enforcing stupid marijuana laws that make no sense and these stupid anti pot commercials. We need to categorize drugs into hard(coke, LSD,ect..) and soft(marijuana, tobacco,ect...) and this way we can have laws that justify the penalty for using the substance relative to its harm on someone. There should be absolutly no jail time for 21 and older personal possession of weed. I have many more points to make but I think your guys get my drift.

 

[jaxvid]

"At the very least, we should differentiate marijuana from the harder substances, since clearly it's not the same as meth, crack, and heroin."

We surely should JD. Unfettered cheap access to the harder drugs would remove stupid people acting stupidly from the gene-pool much more effeciently than mere weed.

I can see no possibility of any kind of legalization, certainly for the harder drugs. Consider that our current government has become an all encompasing nanny state that constantly lectures us on the most minute of safety risks and has erected a legal system that punishes anyone with money that can thinly be tied to a "victim".

If, for instance, crack was legalized, who would sell it? How could they possibly recoup enough in sales to avoid the cost in lawsuits. Even if the government was a provider that would just transfer the legal/monetary respnsibility to the taxpayer.

There is no scenario under which America can loosen it's drug restrictions, probably even for marijuana. Look at the difficulty the medicinal use of the drug has encountered. Various states have chosen to legalize it for medical purposes but the Federal government ignores this with impunity and continues to prosecute sick and dying people for mere possestion.

 

[GreatLakeState]

Re. Gary Miller -- Yes, it's very much the same, because he was
also charged with having drug paraphanelia on him.

A high-on talking head pissing on people's heads. A Great
White Brother!

 

[backrow]

How about drunk diving? That's an extremely dangerous behavior

yeah drunk diving can be extremely dangerous

 

[Realgeorge]

Hello Gents ! What an Excellent Discussion ! Michael Irvin ought to get Arrested More Often !

 

[JD074]

How about drunk diving? That's an extremely dangerous behavior

yeah drunk diving can be extremely dangerous

Well, when you snip it like that you make me sound like a simpleton!

But seriously, I was saying that dangerous behavior can be illegal just like actually hurting someone is a crime. If someone went to a public place and started waving a gun around, he won't automatically hurt someone, but it's stupid and he should be arrested. Michael Jackson shouldn't be hanging his kid over a balcony, even though the kid didn't get hurt. Same argument with drunk driving. Why not prevent the actual incidence of hurting another human being if it's a "clear and present danger," so to speak? Libertarians might not like it, but hey, I'm not a Libertarian anymore.

 

[White Shogun]

Same argument with drunk driving. Why not prevent the actual incidence of hurting another human being if it's a "clear and present danger," so to speak?

Then we should ban the sale and consumption of alchohol altogether.

This is what I find annoying about the system of laws we have in this country. Alcohol and smoking kill more people than drugs, but drugs are illegal and the other vices are not.

Lotteries are legal but I can't make a bet with a bookie.

If we are to enact a series of laws to protect the citizenry from themselves then we need to ban fast food, high fructose corn syrup, the use of hormones and pesticides in food products, on and on ad nauseum. Who decides whats a clear and present danger?

Personally, I think old people with cataract glasses shouldn't be allowed to drive, either.

 

[White_Savage]

JD:
Your examples are misleading. Waving a gun around public would be equivalent to drugged up driving, not merely possessing or using drugs.

Remember there are those who want to ban firearms because they think THEY constitute a "clear and present danger..." Need I go on?

 

[JD074]

White Shogun, you missed my point. I brought up drunk driving because it can lead to someone being run over. That's violence. Someone destroying their own health through cigarettes, high fructose corn syrup, and fast food, or their finances through gambling, is not the same as running someone over with your car.

Then we should ban the sale and consumption of alchohol altogether.

Purchasing alcohol is not a clear and present danger. Driving while impaired is.

Who decides whats a clear and present danger?

Me.

Personally, I think old people with cataract glasses shouldn't be allowed to drive, either.

If someone cannot see while driving, that's a clear and present danger. Perhaps older people (say, over 60 or 65) should take driving tests and/or vision tests every couple of years.

JD:
Your examples are misleading. Waving a gun around public would be equivalent to drugged up driving, not merely possessing or using drugs.

That's precisely my point.

Remember there are those who want to ban firearms because they think THEY constitute a "clear and present danger..." Need I go on?

They're wrong if they think that merely buying/ possessing a firearm is a clear and present danger. We should resist them. But driving while impaired, or waving a gun in a public place, are unacceptable.

 

[White Shogun]

Someone destroying their own health through cigarettes, high fructose corn syrup, and fast food, or their finances through gambling, is not the same as running someone over with your car.

I understand what you mean about a 'clear and present danger,' but once you give legislature the power to regulate what is essentially a moral decision, you've begun the slide down the proverbial slippery slope.

So now, we have helmet laws because motorcycle recklessly endanger the taxpayer with higher insurance rates and higher medical costs. Same with seat belts. You have gun control because obviously not everyone can own a gun responsibly, so therefore gun ownership itself ultimately becomes a clear and present danger.

I'm really surprised that cigarette smoking hasn't been banned yet because of the high cost of medical treatment for smoking related ailments, like emphesema. Not to mention the risks associated with second hand smoke.

Its illogical to ban marijuana but not cigarettes and alcohol. Its illogical to ban sports gambling but have a lottery. Its illogical to ban polygamy but allow adultery and other sex 'sins.' Its illogical to allow abortion but ban stem cell research and certain forms of contraception. Its illogical that you can be charged with a crime if you run over a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, but she can abort the baby herself. Its illogical to fight a war for freedom in Iraq and pass laws like the Patriot Act on your own soil. Its illogical to guard the border of Syria and Iraq to stop the flow of terrorist insurgents but not guard your own borders to stop the flow of terrorist insurgents.

Need I go on?

 

[GWTJ]

How many absurd statutes must hit the books before we do something about it. In NJ, these are some of the laws we must follow while driving. 1).You must wear your seat belt. 2.) You are not allowed to use a cell phone. 3).If you have been awake for more than 24 hours you are not allowed to drive and if you do drive and you hurt or kill someone you can be charged with vehicular manslaughter. In parts of CT, you can get fined for eating a ham sandwich, shaving, or just about anything the cop feels is distracting you.

 

[JD074]

I agree about the helmet and seat belt laws since those are about protecting people from themselves, rather than from others. There's a big difference between some dumb*ss riding his Harley without a helmet, and getting drunk and falling asleep at the wheel and crashing into another car, killing the person in that car. (By the way, I know two people who did those exact things: the former became brain damaged when he crashed his motorcycle, and the latter served five years in prison on a manslaughter charge.)

As for anyone using their cell phone while driving... they should be punched in the face. What morons.

Sorry if I sound fascist, but driving is more of a privilege than a right. Haven't we all suffered due to auto accidents? I know my family has. It's not the same as eating or drinking oneself to death. If you act stupid while driving, I have no problem with you losing that privilege. Screw you for endangering the rest of us.

 

[White_Savage]

Driving is not a privilege, it is a pseudo-right, at long as my tax money has payed for .2 square inches of roadway somewhere. Now on Acme Friendly Private Toll Highway, driving would indeed be a privilege.

And obviously driving anything I want anyway I want is my absolute right in my back forty.

Hurting/endangering others is a CRIME, of course, whether you do it with a car or a gun. By violating the rights of others and breaking ye olde social contract, you can indeed loose your rights.

That's the sensible way to look at it.