Activist Adam Kokesh's home raided by paramilitary team/ thread 2

Maybe you could be his VP running mate in 2020.

Hey I know a great slogan

"A shroom in every pot"

LOL

 

No thanks. I don't want to help perpetuate the authoritarian voting rituals that mobs use to justify coercion and theft against peaceful individuals. And why so self-righteous? Never ingested a drug before? Never had any friends and loved ones who did? I guess you are so special that you get to decide which drugs are okay and which are not. No doubt you have a rigorous understanding of the chemistry and biology underlying drug use upon which to base this self-granted authority.

Wouldn't be the first time.

 

Yep, certainly easier to whine that the system is no fair than it is to work to try to make things better isn't it.

 

That's pretty funny. You should send his campaign staff an e-mail.

 

America is premised on the idea of "government by the consent of the governed."

I (and most rational people) do not consent to being governed (actually mis-governed) by lunatics like Kokesh. If we did, his kind would be running the show already. He is just acting a fool because nobody is going along with him, so he has to rally the un-thinking lunatic fringe to his cause, even if it gets people hurt along the way.

 

I don't consent to be governed by the Obamas, Bushes, and Romneys of the country. So why am I forced to anyway?

 

Likewise, I did not consent to be governed by lunatics like Obama and McCain. They are both corporate cronies who work for the financial and legal sectors.

 

I guess you think the only way to "make things better" is to run for political office. Luckily, I am not afflicted with such narrow-mindedness.

 

What you personally consent to is irrelevant since we are a republic not a demcracy.

 

That's nice, but I was talking to lefty, as he's the one that (accurately) pointed out that our government was founded on the "consent of the governed."

 

And only a piddling handful of people are dim enough to think that people like Kokesh are leaders worthy of trust.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, what he is advocating is anarcho-nihilism.

 

Not much to trust, really. He'd never win, and if, by some miracle, he did, if he did as he said it would be fine and if he didn't, nothing he could do could be worse than what we have already had.

Who, Kokesh? Or me?

 

Seems like that is exactly what you were doing.

The opinion of some junkie like Kokesh has a lot less relevance to me than what the law's been decided on in practice. The key is to changing the laws, not pretending you 'have a right' to violate established laws by holding up a printed out copy of the Bill of Rights - you don't, and saying you has about as much meaning as a guy downloading child porn, then holding up a constitution saying it's protected by the 1st Amendment when the feds come to his door.

You're saying that Kokesh's assertion of his rights "has about as much meaning as a guy downloading child porn". This is an obvious attempt to conflate possessing magic mushrooms with facilitating child rape and exploitation. Shameful...

Kokesh is accused of possessing hallucinogenic mushrooms. Small detail, I know, but important nonetheless.

At least you will admit that. Some prohibitionists won't even go that far. That is how ignorant they are of chemistry and biology, yet they have the audacity to presume some moral authority over their manufacture and possession.

It is? Do you have an ethanol spring in your back woods? Is it more "natural" than mushrooms growing out of the dirt?

Why can't these "hard drugs" also be used in "moderation"?

Magic Mushrooms Can Erase Fear in Mice

USF researchers find magic mushrooms may help with PTSD

Hallucinogen Shows Promise In Helping Cancer Patients Cope

Technically, everyone who became addicted to alcohol did so after their first drink. And what you've "heard of" is irrelevant. I'm more interested in medical and scientific literature. I noticed you haven't produced any.

The analogy only holds up if you cannot see the obvious difference between drugs/firearms and child porno.

 

I don't disagree with your comparing alcohol to drugs at all, but that argument would more lead to making alcohol illegal rather than making drugs legal.


It's a tough question , how do we balance public safety with personal rights? Especially when ALL of these substances (alcohol and weed included) have a tendency to render a person unable to act responsibly?

 

Constitution education starting at the 1st grade.......................

 

Which really answers nothing because as I pointed out, these drugs tend to make people at least temporarily irresponsible. Surely we can all agree that the answer isn't to just tell people they have to deal with the consequences of those who do things wrong while on drugs while they themselves are not held responsible b/c well they were temporarily incompetent due to drugs.

Your answer in fact is an example of the reason I wish to keep them illegal. Because those who defend drugs almost universally share you opinion that "hey I have a right, end of discussion", and no it's not the end of the discussion. Your rights end where mine begin. I have a right to drive on drunk and drug free drivers, or at least as free as possible. Just as one example.

 

Alcohol prohibition was a miserable failure that caused even more problems than alcohol abuse. Same thing is happening with contemporary prohibition schemes. I suspect that within the next two decades, prohibitionists will be looked at like flat-earthers, individuals in denial.

It's not a tough question at all. If someone is being peaceful, then you leave them alone. If they become violent, you arrest them. If there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they are ABOUT to become violent, then make a judgment call and let the court system sort it out afterwards. There is no need to, or benefit from, prohibiting the mere possession or use of a drug. It substitutes reasonable discretion for a totalitarian, one-size-fits-all standard that completely ignores the nuances and diversity of REALITY.

1. Can you quantify this "tendency" in some way? If I take one sip of beer, or if I inhale some secondhand marijuana smoke, has my "tendency" to "act irresponsibly" increased? By how much has it increased?
2. How are you defining "act responsibly"?
3. I thought we were talking about criminal activity, not "irresponsible" behavior. If you want to stop people from acting irresponsibly, then you're going to have to outlaw a lot more than just some drugs.

 

No I can't quantify it and that is what makes it such a tough question. You behaving like a child and pretending like there is one simple answer isn't helping anyone

 

the Constitution is a drug????? wow, just wow..............

 

LOLWUT?

You do understand that SCOTUS has ruled repeatedly that the COTUS gives the federal government the authority to outlaw drugs, right? Thusly you have NO right to use drugs.

 

The truth is always "irrelevant" to Obama's sheeple. It just gets in the way.

 

The SCOTUS also ruled at one point in time that slavery was legal and constitutional. Let's not act like they are always the brightest nine individuals in the U.S.

 

At the time they ruled that way, it WAS constitutional. It took an Amendment to the COTUS to make it unconstitutional at which time the Court stopped ruling it legal.

The same thing could be done with drugs. It won't be, but it could be.

 

I'm sure the Prohibitionists of the 20s thought the same way, that their cause was unassailable.

 

Hey, I happen to believe you have EVERY right to try to get the current laws changed I don't however believe you have the right to break the current laws and then scream that they are unconstitutional.

I don't believe you'll ever get the votes needed to change said laws.