T
taekwondaveI have been hearing about this "spice" stuff. People are smoking it, like weed. The Utah County Sheriff's department has requested that it be made illegal and enforceable like marijuana.
How do they justify this? I've never smoked pot nor have I any interest personally in using spice or any other "drug" but how is it that drug laws and enforcement are so regularly supported by conservatives? If you can illegalize one piece of private property (drugs) you can illegalize another piece of private property (guns).
I don't think people should smoke pot or take other drugs but I fully support their right to do so. Claiming that possession of a "banned" substance is a "crime" is fundamentally incorrect. A CRIME is defined by two components: 1. The breaking of a written law (which possession would be) and 2. Harm, damage, loss (which possession alone cannot prove)
If gun possession were "illegal" it would technically (if you had a good lawyer) still be unenforceable because unless some damage was done by it to another, a crime was not actually committed. Possession does not constitute a crime. If guns were illegalized, would we conservatives support it? How is illegalizing drugs any different? We are not here to protect people from themselves, NOR are we here to protect people PREEMPTIVELY from other people. Our system is fundamentally a system of TRUST. Only when that trust has been violated is any penalty supposed to be enforced. In other words, our system TRUSTS you to have guns and drugs and cars and boats and directv and salad dressing and fried foods and ANYTHING you want UNTIL....(wait for it) UNTIL YOU HARM SOMEONE ELSE THROUGH A WRITTEN ILLEGAL USE OF THOSE THINGS. Possession of those things does not constitute a breach of that trust. If it were, then the moment the cops seized it from you, they could be convicted for the very same crime of possession, seeing as...they now have it in their possession.
So possession alone cannot be considered a crime or else we could throw our entire police force in jail.
People should be aware of this. And Utah County citizens should not be okay with possession of ANYTHING being grounds for confiscation and prosecution, but only the using of those things to harm ANOTHER. If I shoot myself in the foot, you can take me to a hospital if you want, but not a jail. If I shoot another, that is another story. The same should be true for an overdose of drugs. If you force drugs down someone else's throat, or administer drugs to them unknowingly, now we have a crime. But not when you "abuse" them yourself. That's no crime.
Many people don't realize this but we ACTUALLY live in a "no harm no foul" governmental system. The court system itself exists ONLY to protect one individual from the unlawful acts of another THAT HAVE CAUSED THEM PERSONAL INJURY OR LOSS. And I'm sorry, but my next door neighbor can have sixty kilos of coke in his garage for all I care. Unless my dog goes into his garage and licks it up and DIES (in which case, actually I should be responsible for the licked-up coke, not he responsible for my dead dog) then no crime has been committed. (In this case I would have been the party responsible for the harm done)
It's odd to me that so many people that claim conservatism and are for "gun rights" are not for "drug rights" as well. They take away one right from you today, they use it as precedent to take away another from you tomorrow.
How do they justify this? I've never smoked pot nor have I any interest personally in using spice or any other "drug" but how is it that drug laws and enforcement are so regularly supported by conservatives? If you can illegalize one piece of private property (drugs) you can illegalize another piece of private property (guns).
I don't think people should smoke pot or take other drugs but I fully support their right to do so. Claiming that possession of a "banned" substance is a "crime" is fundamentally incorrect. A CRIME is defined by two components: 1. The breaking of a written law (which possession would be) and 2. Harm, damage, loss (which possession alone cannot prove)
If gun possession were "illegal" it would technically (if you had a good lawyer) still be unenforceable because unless some damage was done by it to another, a crime was not actually committed. Possession does not constitute a crime. If guns were illegalized, would we conservatives support it? How is illegalizing drugs any different? We are not here to protect people from themselves, NOR are we here to protect people PREEMPTIVELY from other people. Our system is fundamentally a system of TRUST. Only when that trust has been violated is any penalty supposed to be enforced. In other words, our system TRUSTS you to have guns and drugs and cars and boats and directv and salad dressing and fried foods and ANYTHING you want UNTIL....(wait for it) UNTIL YOU HARM SOMEONE ELSE THROUGH A WRITTEN ILLEGAL USE OF THOSE THINGS. Possession of those things does not constitute a breach of that trust. If it were, then the moment the cops seized it from you, they could be convicted for the very same crime of possession, seeing as...they now have it in their possession.
So possession alone cannot be considered a crime or else we could throw our entire police force in jail.
People should be aware of this. And Utah County citizens should not be okay with possession of ANYTHING being grounds for confiscation and prosecution, but only the using of those things to harm ANOTHER. If I shoot myself in the foot, you can take me to a hospital if you want, but not a jail. If I shoot another, that is another story. The same should be true for an overdose of drugs. If you force drugs down someone else's throat, or administer drugs to them unknowingly, now we have a crime. But not when you "abuse" them yourself. That's no crime.
Many people don't realize this but we ACTUALLY live in a "no harm no foul" governmental system. The court system itself exists ONLY to protect one individual from the unlawful acts of another THAT HAVE CAUSED THEM PERSONAL INJURY OR LOSS. And I'm sorry, but my next door neighbor can have sixty kilos of coke in his garage for all I care. Unless my dog goes into his garage and licks it up and DIES (in which case, actually I should be responsible for the licked-up coke, not he responsible for my dead dog) then no crime has been committed. (In this case I would have been the party responsible for the harm done)
It's odd to me that so many people that claim conservatism and are for "gun rights" are not for "drug rights" as well. They take away one right from you today, they use it as precedent to take away another from you tomorrow.