Durango P-51 Crash - Med Tests Show Pilot Was Stoned on Marijuana

History has shown that there are only two successful ways to manage drugs/self destructive behavior.

1. Decriminalize everything:
2. Impose the death penalty on abusers.

Pursuing anything in between is a fool's folly.

Our current war on drugs serves only two purposes:
1. It attempts to protect big pharma's monopoly on addictive drugs.
2. It lines the pockets of the private prison industry.
 
timwinters said:
History has shown that there are only two successful ways to manage drugs/self destructive behavior.

1. Decriminalize everything:
2. Impose the death penalty on abusers.

Pursuing anything in between is a fool's folly.

Our current war on drugs serves only two purposes:
1. It attempts to protect big pharma's monopoly on addictive drugs.
2. It lines the pockets of the private prison industry.
Click to expand...

The death penalty doesn't detour jack chit, just puts your country into a club filled with dictators and 3rd world countries. Murdering someone because they want to put some substance into their body, that's some hard core puritanical extreamist thinking.
 
GlennAB1 said:
I believe there is a stark difference between afflicted and affected/effected.
Click to expand...

True. Just look at the guy who got himself shot in Charlotte 10 days ago. Life is hard if you are high.
 
weilke said:
True. Just look at the guy who got himself shot in Charlotte 10 days ago. Life is hard if you are high.
Click to expand...

Maybe the police should pull over a bunch of pirus and escalades in the burbs and shoot all the unarmed house wives in the back, who are gorked out on prescription meds.

Life ain't hard when you're "high", it's hard when you're poor.
 
James331 said:
Maybe the police should pull over a bunch of pirus and escalades in the burbs and shoot all the unarmed house wives in the back, who are gorked out on prescription meds.
Click to expand...

If they get out of the car with a gun in their hand and refuse to drop it when told to, sure.
 
First off doubt it, it would be negotiators and all that, if you're poor, yeah put them down and get home before your favorite TV show.

As for the guy in question, thought they said he wasn't armed?
 
GlennAB1 said:
If alcohol were deemed illegal, it is more than likely, many law abiding citizens that would have become afflicted with alcoholism, would not. That would affect/effect alcohol's overall detriment on society.
Click to expand...

Or folks like my grandfather during prohibition would simply be paid to bring the stuff to illicit locations for the makers and distributors and drop it off for willing black market buyers, and govt wouldn't get their tax stamp money.

There was no shortage of alcohol when it was banned, it's far too easy to make since nearly everything made of organic material ferments eventually.

Frankly for easier to grow stuff like marijuana, I've never seen any particular difficulty in finding that stuff either, judging by all the suburbanites I've seen smoking it over a lifetime. It's not particularly hard to make and distribute either until one decides to provide entire neighborhoods with the stuff.

Others: Harder. Depending on which ones you're talking about of course.

Of course with pot being "legal" here, the commercial model is this, nearly everywhere:

Strip mall, with businesses that always consist of:

Fast food joint (no pun intended), payday loan usury place, dollar store of whatever type, pawn shop, dispensary. All in a convenient little row.

Most also have a gas station and convenience store out front but not all.
 
James331 said:
Maybe the police should pull over a bunch of pirus and escalades in the burbs and shoot all the unarmed house wives in the back, who are gorked out on prescription meds.

Life ain't hard when you're "high", it's hard when you're poor.
Click to expand...
Life is hard for a lot of reasons, it can just be hard. My Father-in-law was a career law enforcement officer, a man if integrity, respected by many. Police are human. Some make mistakes, just like people that choose to disobey their orders. Life is hard when you make mistakes.
 
GlennAB1 said:
If alcohol were deemed illegal, it is more than likely, many law abiding citizens that would have become afflicted with alcoholism, would not. That would affect/effect alcohol's overall detriment on society.
Click to expand...

I can see this perspective.

I don't drink. Sure, on a special occasion, I might have literally one drink (I'm a lightweight, that's enough).

If a new campaign were launched today, to make alcohol illegal, would I support it?

Yes, because I don't need any more of you drunks sharing the sky with me. No legal alcohol = less access to it, potentially, so less people using it and flying. That's better for me, so I should support this.

Yes, because potentially less drunk drivers out there. Do I want less drunkies out there driving? YES. It keeps my family safer. We don't want to die because you can't control yourself. In 2014, drinking and driving killed 9,967 people in the United States! Holy crap! (source: http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

Yes, because my family is potentially less likely to develop alcoholism. Some alcoholics lie, cheat, and steal to get their booze.

Yes, because I don't use it, so why would I care if it were illegal? I don't buy it now that it's legal. Take it away, it does nothing but improve the safety of the people close to me.

No, because I believe in individual liberty. Do I want to stop the responsible people who enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, just because I know there are people who will become addicted, will drive and fly after using, and will kill people as a result?

In the end, I don't want the bad apples to spoil the good that other people enjoy, even if it's something that I don't approve of. If you have had alcoholism in your family, you too may not approve of the consumption of alcohol. I don't dig it, but I respect responsible people's right to put that in their body, if they so choose, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

So that's why I think drinking and driving should stay illegal (the behavior that is actually harmful to society), but just the act of drinking is OK by me, even if I disapprove of it.
 
StevieTimes said:
I can see this perspective.

I don't drink. Sure, on a special occasion, I might have literally one drink (I'm a lightweight, that's enough).

If a new campaign were launched today, to make alcohol illegal, would I support it?

Yes, because I don't need any more of you drunks sharing the sky with me. No legal alcohol = less access to it, potentially, so less people using it and flying. That's better for me, so I should support this.

Yes, because potentially less drunk drivers out there. Do I want less drunkies out there driving? YES. It keeps my family safer. We don't want to die because you can't control yourself. In 2014, drinking and driving killed 9,967 people in the United States! Holy crap! (source: http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html)

Yes, because my family is potentially less likely to develop alcoholism. Some alcoholics lie, cheat, and steal to get their booze.

Yes, because I don't use it, so why would I care if it were illegal? I don't buy it now that it's legal. Take it away, it does nothing but improve the safety of the people close to me.

No, because I believe in individual liberty. Do I want to stop the responsible people who enjoy a glass of wine with dinner, just because I know there are people who will become addicted, will drive and fly after using, and will kill people as a result?

In the end, I don't want the bad apples to spoil the good that other people enjoy, even if it's something that I don't approve of. If you have had alcoholism in your family, you too may not approve of the consumption of alcohol. I don't dig it, but I respect responsible people's right to put that in their body, if they so choose, as long as it doesn't hurt others.

So that's why I think drinking and driving should stay illegal (the behavior that is actually harmful to society), but just the act of drinking is OK by me, even if I disapprove of it.
Click to expand...

Yep! Just pass another law and people will obey it.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.ebaumsworld.com%2Fpicture%2FDeekor%2FBull****.jpg&f=1
 
GlennAB1 said:
Life is hard for a lot of reasons, it can just be hard. My Father-in-law was a career law enforcement officer, a man if integrity, respected by many. Police are human. Some make mistakes, just like people that choose to disobey their orders. Life is hard when you make mistakes.
Click to expand...

Sometimes being a citizen means not following orders, calling that a mistake is foolish and pays a disservice to history.

NUREMBERG-articleLarge.jpg
 
weilke said:
The one in Charlotte was. The one in Tulsa wasn't.
Click to expand...

I've watched all the Charlotte vids a dozen times or more, numerous times in Slo-mo. Granted, the quality sucks, but I never see a gun.

What makes me extremely suspicious is that the Charlotte cops keep saying "a loaded gun was found at the scene" and that is a very, very carefully calculated statement.

I'm sorry, but had he been carrying it, I'm sure they'd be saying "we found a loaded gun on his body" and not just at the scene.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
I've watched the Charlotte vid a dozen times or more, numerous times in Slo-mo. Granted, the quality sucks, but I never see a gun.

What makes me extremely suspicious is that the Charlotte cops keep saying "a loaded gun was found at the scene" and that is a very, very carefully calculated statement.

I'm sorry, but had he been carrying it, I'm sure they'd be saying "we found a loaded gun on his body" and not just at the scene.
Click to expand...

Those cops had loaded guns. They didn't say who the "loaded gun found at the scene" belonged to.
 
I thought their PD chief said there was no gun in his initial statement.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Not following orders of those having authority has proven foolish, and a mistake. Good luck.
Click to expand...

Our founding fathers would beg to differ.

As would a few nazis we sent swinging.
 
GlennAB1 said:
Not following orders of those having authority has proven foolish, and a mistake. Good luck.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn't recognize the photo of the Nuremberg war crimes trial.
 
GlennAB1 said:
We're talking about following simple orders from police, so the officer doesn't feel threatened , don't make it out as something else.
Click to expand...
You wrote "Not following orders of those having authority has proven foolish, and a mistake." Stating it as a generality like that expands the scope of the discussion.
 
What the Nuremberg trials have to do with drug or alcohol abusers is a real mystery. Without laws there is no democracy. This country is very lax on drinking and driving. It's easy to look up the penaltys in other country's. Much tougher. Today, too many druggies, nut cases with guns with nothing to lose. The police have begged for tougher gun laws for years! The majority of them are decent people who want to enforce the stated laws and go home without being shot themselves. They are very jumpy, justifiably so. The society has changed today . Yesterday four teenagers here in Baltimore held up a man at gun point reading on a park bench. Took his wallet , phone, etc. later caught one said, " how my gonna eat if I don't steal?! You never heard of anything like this thirty years ago.
 
weilke said:
I guess this qualifies as an application of Godwins law of the internet.
Click to expand...
Could be, but I interpreted James331's point in posting the photo to be that there are circumstances in which not following orders of those in authority is the only moral thing to do. Maybe that point is applicable to the situations under discussion and maybe it isn't, but I don't think it should be off limits to raise the issue.
 
Palmpilot said:
Could be, but I interpreted James331's point in posting the photo to be that there are circumstances in which not following orders of those in authority is the only moral thing to do. Maybe that point is applicable to the situations under discussion and maybe it isn't, but I don't think it should be off limits to raise the issue.
Click to expand...
 
Palmpilot said:
Could be, but I interpreted James331's point in posting the photo to be that there are circumstances in which not following orders of those in authority is the only moral thing to do. Maybe that point is applicable to the situations under discussion and maybe it isn't, but I don't think it should be off limits to raise the issue.
Click to expand...
How anyone how anyone can compare this country to hitlers Germany needs to sign up for a history class. No maybe . Germanys morals under hitler were non existent. It's what happens when a nut case takes over. We should learn from this quickly.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
What the Nuremberg trials have to do with drug or alcohol abusers is a real mystery. Without laws there is no democracy. This country is very lax on drinking and driving. It's easy to look up the penaltys in other country's. Much tougher. Today, too many druggies, nut cases with guns with nothing to lose. The police have begged for tougher gun laws for years! The majority of them are decent people who want to enforce the stated laws and go home without being shot themselves. They are very jumpy, justifiably so. The society has changed today . Yesterday four teenagers here in Baltimore held up a man at gun point reading on a park bench. Took his wallet , phone, etc. later caught one said, " how my gonna eat if I don't steal?! You never heard of anything like this thirty years ago.
Click to expand...


Tougher gun laws wouldn't help.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Tougher gun laws wouldn't help.
Click to expand...
That's right out of the nra handbook . Herd mentality. Of course tougher gun laws would help. its important to know that the nra started out as a gun safety club. It became out of control as lobbyists, gun company's and greedy congressmen got involved and started all the" regulated militia" type garbage. We have this. It's called the national guard. Four teenagers with a pistol , holding up a fellow reading in a park , all under 16 years old in broad daylight , means things must change.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
That's right out of the nra handbook . Herd mentality. Of course tougher gun laws would help. its important to know that the nra started out as a gun safety club. It became out of control as lobbyists, gun company's and greedy congressmen got involved and started all the" regulated militia" type garbage. We have this. It's called the national guard. Four teenagers with a pistol , holding up a fellow reading in a park , all under 16 years old in broad daylight , means things must change.
Click to expand...

But criminals don't follow the law.

The CA shooting was case point for how gun laws don't work, the firearms they had here 100% illegal in CA (as were the murders they committed), yet mad men willing to give their lives to kill others will always find a way, criminals don't care about laws. Life isn't fair, chit happens, taking a dump on the constitution doesn't help at all.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
How anyone how anyone can compare this country to hitlers Germany needs to sign up for a history class. No maybe . Germanys morals under hitler were non existent. It's what happens when a nut case takes over. We should learn from this quickly.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "It can't happen here" argument. :rolleyes1:
 
James331 said:
But criminals don't follow the law.

The CA shooting was case point for how gun laws don't work, the firearms they had here 100% illegal in CA (as were the murders they committed), yet mad men willing to give their lives to kill others will always find a way, criminals don't care about laws. Life isn't fair, chit happens, taking a dump on the constitution doesn't help at all.
Click to expand...
Murders still happen, therefore murder laws should be repealed.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
That's right out of the nra handbook . Herd mentality. Of course tougher gun laws would help. its important to know that the nra started out as a gun safety club. It became out of control as lobbyists, gun company's and greedy congressmen got involved and started all the" regulated militia" type garbage. We have this. It's called the national guard. Four teenagers with a pistol , holding up a fellow reading in a park , all under 16 years old in broad daylight , means things must change.
Click to expand...

Yep! All law abiding citizens should be armed.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
That's right out of the nra handbook . Herd mentality. Of course tougher gun laws would help. its important to know that the nra started out as a gun safety club. It became out of control as lobbyists, gun company's and greedy congressmen got involved and started all the" regulated militia" type garbage. We have this. It's called the national guard. Four teenagers with a pistol , holding up a fellow reading in a park , all under 16 years old in broad daylight , means things must change.
Click to expand...
I'm not a member and have never bothered to read any of the nra's ********.

I'm just saying that criminal do not care about gun laws. Law abiding citizens do care about gun laws. More regulation on firearms restricts access to firearms for the people in our population that don't commit crimes.

No law you get passed does anything to stop those four kids from robbing people. What must be done is addressing the underlying social problems that caused those kids to want to be there and fix that problem.

Wasting time demanding gun control or tougher sentencing policy for criminals takes valuable social energy and time away from dealing with the true issues. Dealing with the true issues is much harder for our society and it's politicians. So rather than being honest and actually doing something about our societies issues all we hear about is low hanging fruit like gun control, border fences, black lives matter, all lives matter etc.

Might reassess who in this discussion is running full speed ahead with their head stuck up someone else's butt hole.
 
ircphoenix said:
Murders still happen, therefore murder laws should be repealed.
Click to expand...
Not quite the same. Murder is an act. A gun is an inanimate object with no inherent good or evil. It's just a tool.

To me the argument about gun control reducing crime would be the same as trying to regulate knives after a stabbing. It isn't the knife, gun, car or drugs. It the people. Meaning the society.
 
James331 said:
And swing and a miss!
Click to expand...

Sorry. Anarcho-libertarians that say "laws don't work because criminals don't obey them" have a flawed basis for their logic to begin with.


Tarheelpilot said:
Not quite the same. Murder is an act. A gun is an inanimate object with no inherent good or evil. It's just a tool.

To me the argument about gun control reducing crime would be the same as trying to regulate knives after a stabbing. It isn't the knife, gun, car or drugs. It the people. Meaning the society.
Click to expand...

I can certainly see that argument. But I can also certainly see that extremely onerous gun regulation does have a chilling effect on gun crime. People like to point to gun regulation in Chicago as being an example of failed gun legislation... reality is that the guns are coming from immediately next door where the rest of the gun regulations in Illinois aren't nearly the same as Chicago's laws. But saying that gun laws don't work is ludicrous. How many fully automatic weapons are used in gun crime? And how much of a pain are they to acquire? 'Nuff said.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top