The other candidates debate tonight

• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1308744 wrote:The answer is based on what you define as "working". It comes full circle. Punishing those who break the law is an obligation of those in law enforcement. The "war on drugs" punishes those they catch. Yes, those who are caught are punished. Yes, it continues to work.
  
  I don't understand what you and others mean by "drug problem". Can you help me understand that usage a little better?

  Our jails and prisons are overcrowded with non-violent drug offenders. We are wasting billions of dollars a year investigating, prosecuting, and imprisoning these non-violent offenders. Lives are being ruined over a harmless drug like marijuana. Sure, harder drugs can ruin lives on their own, but the people doing them are going to do them whether they are illegal or not. Why not spend the money on treatment and rehabilitation instead of prosecution and imprisonment? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper and make a hell of a lot more sense.
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1308803 wrote:We are born with the right to our property. If someone or some group of people can determine that your property is "illegal" then it is no longer a right, but a privilege granted to us by the group that rules over us. Many people believe that we don't have the right to our property, so you are not alone. Just try to not to use the term "individual sovereignty" if you don't believe the individual is sovereign.

  Hmmm, I appreciate your willingness to clarify that we indeed do disagree.
  
  Dd I use the term individual sovereignty? I'll have to go back and look.
  
  There are multiple court cases that support the actions of right to property not being unlimited or defined to certain degrees. There are many examples of items and objects that we can't own. With the stance of unlimited right to property would you say that anyone can own anything without the scrutiny or oversight of law?
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1308810 wrote:Our jails and prisons are overcrowded with non-violent drug offenders. We are wasting billions of dollars a year investigating, prosecuting, and imprisoning these non-violent offenders. Lives are being ruined over a harmless drug like marijuana. Sure, harder drugs can ruin lives on their own, but the people doing them are going to do them whether they are illegal or not. Why not spend the money on treatment and rehabilitation instead of prosecution and imprisonment? It would be a hell of a lot cheaper and make a hell of a lot more sense.

  There are many laws that are non-violent that are prosecuted. Drug possession and commerce is no different. The jails being overcrowded with these offenders is simply the affirmation to to me that the efforts of law enforcement are impacting those who break the law.
  
  The question of why to no spend resources on rehabilitation or education can be applied to other non-violent crimes also. It's worth discussion but not at the expense of reducing enforcement in my opinion.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1308814 wrote: There are multiple court cases that support the actions of right to property not being unlimited or defined to certain degrees. There are many examples of items and objects that we can't own. With the stance of unlimited right to property would you say that anyone can own anything without the scrutiny or oversight of law?

  I don't know how citing court cases hurts my argument. They are part of the group that rules over us. Of course our rulers would prefer we have fewer rights so they may exert more control over their subjects.
  
  Of course the right to own property is unlimited as long as it doesn't violate the property of someone else. That's what a right is. If I were to own a nuclear weapon and irradiate your property then I shouldn't be able to own such a thing. If I want to own a tank and I don't steal it then there is no reason I shouldn't be able to.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1308816 wrote:There are many laws that are non-violent that are prosecuted. Drug possession and commerce is no different. The jails being overcrowded with these offenders is simply the affirmation to to me that the efforts of law enforcement are impacting those who break the law.
  
  The question of why to no spend resources on rehabilitation or education can be applied to other non-violent crimes also. It's worth discussion but not at the expense of reducing enforcement in my opinion.

  Sure, drug users aren't the only non-violent offenders in prison. But they're the only non-violent offenders that didn't infringe on the rights of someone else. Or am I missing something?
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1308830 wrote:Sure, drug users aren't the only non-violent offenders in prison. But they're the only non-violent offenders that didn't infringe on the rights of someone else. Or am I missing something?

  Laws are not entirely existent based on infringing on others rights.
• Con_Alma

  Cleveland Buck;1308822 wrote:I don't know how citing court cases hurts my argument. They are part of the group that rules over us. Of course our rulers would prefer we have fewer rights so they may exert more control over their subjects.
  
  Of course the right to own property is unlimited as long as it doesn't violate the property of someone else. That's what a right is. If I were to own a nuclear weapon and irradiate your property then I shouldn't be able to own such a thing. If I want to own a tank and I don't steal it then there is no reason I shouldn't be able to.

  I didn't suggest court cases do hurt your argument.
  
  We cannot own anything as long as it doesn't infringe on anther's rights. Your nuclear weapon example is one such case.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1308834 wrote:Laws are not entirely existent based on infringing on others rights.

  This did not answer my question.
• Con_Alma

  Sorry I thought the explanation as opposed to the direct response would answer your question.
  
  I don't believe drug users are the only non-violent offenders of the law that don't violate the rights of others.