TLR…which recreational drugs would you like us to have legal access to ?
TLR, I too am an advocate of the government’s not infringing on private acts that do not infringe on the rights of or endanger others. IMHO pot fits this category. I think current “driving under the influence” laws are all that’s needed to control that.
However, there are countless recreational drugs out there that alter realityfor the user and do endanger others. PCP, LSD, meth, heroin, and many that I’m unfamiliar with. These are all of our business. They endanger all of us. And, even more critiically, they endanger our children.
Legalization of these drugs will not render them harmless. Legalized, these drugs would still alter reality for the users and still present a danger to us in general. And to our kids. The function of the criminal justice system is to protect the innocent from those that would endanger us. The laws criminalizing possession and/or sale of these drugs are exactly what the criminal justice system is for, exactly what their function is.
Legalizing recreational drugs in order to tax their use is, IMHO, very dangerous policy. We’d be sacrificing our safety and our children for mere revenue. If one would like to see what the streets would look like if heroin, PCP, LSD, and meth users were common on them, there are, sadly, places one can visit. But I would not want to live there.
Well said “same”.
“Did you not read that an individual must be licensed for ownership for each automatic weapon. That includes the paperwork that you “skipped” over, the fee and the waiting period.”
Oh my goodness. That’s not a license. You have to go through the process for each firearm. It’s like saying you need multiple driver’s licenses for multiple cars, when in fact what you need is multiple registrations.
For Special Occupational Taxpayers the rules are more lax, and they get to keep their guns after giving up their Special Occupational Taxpayer status (with some exceptions).
If you use your Subchapter S corporation to make the purchase, the paperwork is vastly simplified. Many people here no doubt have such a corporation.
Flamethrowers remain completely legal at the federal level.
Your argument seems to be if there is paperwork, the thing that requires the paperwork is illegal. Everyone who gets a job has to fill out paperwork. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Sorry “little mouse”… Just look up the definitions of the word license…please. Sorry this has to be turned into a vocabulary lesson. It is to be given permission. Whether you carry a card around with you, or retain permissioned paper work for inspection is immaterial. , You needed to be licensed or given permission. The difference between filling out paper work for a job, is you are relaying information to perspective employer and he often retains it for that intended purpose. This is not a we’ll have to agree to disagree. You should retain the permission paper work or documentation given to you by the permissioning or licensing legal authority for inspection upon request…as you would a driver’s license. Please don’t think of it as being a laminated card in your wallet as It may just be a “printed document” as defined that is returned to you by permissioning authority giving you a license to own such a weapon. You also are on file with these authorities as a permissioned automatic gun owner with a registered automatic weapon. If that isn’t a license, I don’t know what is by definition.
t. It’s been that way since I think 1934; only the agency in charge that you have to deal with may have changed. I just renewed my CWP license in our state as a former police officer. Now they have cards in our state when prior it was just paper work that you should have on your possession and present upon request if in a position of concealed carry. When I worked, I did not need to carry the CWP paperwork as my police ID card was the institution or agency card. When in the military, my military ID card gave me license, permission if you will, to carry and operate all sorts of things…including I believed, automatic weapons, but only under vary strict temporary guidelines…But, it was not a CWP. Absolutely NO DIFFERENT in intent then permission for an automatic weapon. The only difference in my understanding now, which may be different, is that the paperwork for the private non dealer individual actually discribes and registers the specific weapon which in that way, is more restrictive then a CWP in our state as it just says, handgun with out description. Each license has it’s own operating, possession or ownership restrictions, Including whether permission documents should be in your possession. I’m confident that some informational paperwork, pamphlet or whatever is given to an automatic weapons owner discribing their responsibilities as well as you would any licensed operator or owner.
I continue to agree to disagree. Have a wonderful day.
That’s fine.Thank you… You have good days ahead too. Just in case your day was too busy to look up the definitions. See number one.
From American Heritage Dictionary. You will be disagreeing with the legal community too.
License
n.
1 Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing. See synonyms at permission.
2 A document, plate, or tag that is issued as proof of official or legal permission: a driver’s license.
3 Deviation from normal rules, practices, or methods in order to achieve a certain end or effect.
4 Latitude of action, especially in behavior or speech. See synonyms at freedom.
5 Lack of due restraint; excessive freedom: “When liberty becomes license, dictatorship is near” (Will Durant).
6 Heedlessness for the precepts of proper behavior; licentiousness.
tr.v., -censed, -cens·ing, -cens·es.
1 To give or yield permission to or for.
2 To grant a license to or for; authorize. See synony
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/license#ixzz1dybcpVaA
One might suggest that the relevant thing is what does the BATF call a license, but it would be pointless not to concede your point. Sometimes my overly precise use of language gets me in trouble.
IMHO pot fits this category.
I would rate it with alcohol.
Both result on a drain of public funds so I am in favor of taxing it to the point that the net income is equal to the total cost.
I’d agree with that, Joseph.
If pot is legalized, then in what form ? It becomes an inhaled product, subject to the same scrutiny as cigarettes with perhaps similar health outcomes. I don’t know of any long term studies on it’s effects on lung tissue and the circulatory system. It can’t be good. I’m agin it on that basis alone…another untested, unhealthy recreational drug. It has a plethora of negative effects including forgetfulness, change in judgement which affects driving a car, irritates the lungs .( with no long term cancer causing relation, it still contains cancer causing agents. I believe health care cost will subtly begin to rise if legalized. I can hear it now…second hand pot smoking concerns.
…I vote NO and rate it’s harmful effects more in line with smoking then drinking.
Another govt. agency may be needed to monitor the production, sale and distribution of this potentially unhealthy drug. Unhealthy in ways we can only guess. How many really healthy pot heads does anyone know ?
I’ve seen long term studies of the long term health effects and they’re not good. They contain the same carcinogens etc. as cigaretts, but in much higher concentration. The biggest difference in the ingestion of toxic compounds is that a cigarette smoker often smokes 20 or more a day, whereas a pot smoker does not.
Regarding its legality, I guess since pot alters reaction times I’d still put it in the same category as alcohol, but arguments can be made both ways.
What differs pot from Alcohol is that if you drink…ONLY you can drunk…But if you smoke pot…other people around you can also get high. Same problem with cigarettes…second hand smoke is very dangerous.
“How many really healthy pot heads does anyone know ?”
Willie Nelson? Bill Mahr? Snoop Dogg?
Have you seen Willie Nelson lately?
There’s lots of people who were prettier corpses.
You want good looking?
How about George Clooney & Jennifer Aniston?
“circuit smith” I’m impressed that you know these guys/gal, get me some autographs.
It’s one word, like “blacksmith” or “silversmith”.
One doesn’t need to “know” these people to learn about their habits.
I don’t think pot is any more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, so why treat it so differently?
I tried it in my ‘youth’, but lost interest in its effects, just as I lost interest in getting drunk after doing it a few times.
There are lots of long term stoners who were none the worse from it, especially jazz musicians like:
Louis Armstrong, Gene Krupa, Lester Young
Many of them fared far worse from the effects of alcohol and tobacco.
Let’s change the question to how many really healthy 50 or 60 year olds do you know.
I’ve seen Willie Nelson lately (on the teevee) but I know that he’s old enough to look as old as he looks, fine for his age.
Don’t forget Buddy Rich (RIP) and Carl Sagan (RIP), and Arnold Schwarzenegger - wait that’s pot and steroids. Do we count him twice? Apparently he’s still getting the job done, nudge nudge.
Oh, and Paul McCartney. See, the problem is you can only use celebrities because we don’t all know the same people.
Or you could be straight edge and look like Penn Gillette.
I think that marijuana is likely similar to tobacco in that they cause similar health problems. I haven’t read anything in the last 20 to 30 years, but many moons ago, it appeared that marijuana was not addictive, but there was no real way to assess health problems because long term users were from places (like Jamaica), where the users also smoked tobacco. It was impossible to separate the health issues caused by one because the other was used as well. I do think that marijuana would cause pulmonary problems just as cigarettes would, and possibly lung and throat cancer as well.
But it is difficult to decide as a society whether it is appropriate to legalize pot. I really don’t see users as a particularly dangerous bunch. Legalizing it would set standards in a similar manner as they have been for alcohol consumption. Legalization would also make it more difficult for organized crime to participate in distribution. But the health problems from use of marijuana are probably very much like those of tobacco cigarettes. Legalization would, IMO, signal a societal acceptance of those risks as acceptable in order to remove the other negatives mentioned above. Health care is already expensive. Legalizing marijuana could make it more expensive for all of us. How would we handle it? I suppose we could create a drug use clause, just as there is a tobacco clause in health care insurance now. You lie, you get caught, and you lose. Your insurance, that is. Still, I am concerned that all of us might subsidize health care for marijuana users, and I pay enough as it is. What do you think?