19 Replies to “The World Is Being Run By Crazy People”

  1. Brian Lilley is incorrect that free heroin is a libertarian position. The libertarian position is that it is nobody’s business, and the user has to bear the costs himself. He is confusing libertarian with libertine.

  3. The left wouldn’t understand. It’s all proceeding according to plan. All normal to a enlightened society. No one questions what the end result should be or what the final objective should look like. A drug addled society riddled with perversions and brainwashed citizens with no moral standards does not look like the bond that will go down well in history. We aren’t there yet but we certainly seem hell bent on getting there. Nature abhors a vacuum and activists never quit. Dangerous combination. When they’ve ridden one cause into the ground they simply change horses and carry on to the next cause. We just watch them ride by and wonder why our leadership continues to allow the erosion of common sense, freedom and stability of the nation. The answer my friends is simple. There are just as many leaders on the left than on the right and the normal center is silent and complacent. The left is well organized in attack, the right is weak in defence and the vast majority in the middle is too busy working for a living and trying to keep up with escalating bills and debt to give a damn. Just my opinion of course and we all know what opinions are worth. Other opinions required for a good debate.

  4. It has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime.
    The political right has fractured between conservatives and libertarians and if they don’t smarten up, the lunatics will not only run the world, they will destroy it as well. As a social and financial conservative I can work with a guy like Ed above and ‘hard core’ libertarians that walk the walk. If they can live with the idea of putting teens on chain gangs because of drug related crime, bringing back the death penalty to deal with prison crowding, – so can I, I guess. However, for me…my rights are not violated one iota because some stupid teenaged twit can’t legally smoke pot. I also feel my rights ARE being protected when it is illegal for homosexuals to pack their fudge in public – I don’t think our young ones need to see stuff like that. I have serious problems with turning a blind eye to pedos and perverts because they’re gay and dealing with them might ‘offend’ the usual politically correct bullies and bring about their wrath and retribution. I say this as a father of a rancid, resentful gay daughter too – I have skin in this and you cannot sell me your gay koolaid. Here in the real world the gay agenda is what it is, and these people are who they are.
    The battle has been lost. My plans now are to see to my own independence as far forward as time and old age will allow – these millenials and Gen Yer’s are pretty much casualities as a result of this culture war…and they will not be looking after us in our final years. We are all going to pay for the progtards and their agenda for decades to come – starting with our own retirements. It will be nice to see the elderly progtards relying on the gov’t and society they created look after them in their golden years, though.

  5. It is becoming more apparent from the open hypocrisy of progressivist idealism enacted into law that the mentality behind said idealism is the product of abnormal capacity to reason – psycho-neurotic complexes acted out into the public policy arena.
    It’s an old saw but I’m convinced that dogmatic/partisan/activist leftis IS a mental disorder – the evidence is too overwhelming to make any other conclusion.
    Example – On my way here this AM my new computer needed to book mark this site so I did a sear engine search for “small dead animals” – What came up was rather eye opening – there was Kate’s site of course, but there were many well traveled thread to Kate’s detractors( the usuals suspects) where the thread title was some defamatory slur against Kate personally and the SDA posters in aggregate and so-called “conservatives” in general. Ready a few of these blog’s threads and what became obvious to me was that this was less about spirited partisan debate over viewpoint as it was about ventin inner hated and focusing it at some imaginary demon (Kate and the mythical other/evil side). Aside from being vulgar and sympathetic of criminal/immoral acts, the smears would be a major workload for clinical psycho-analysts who could diagnose dozens of neurotic disorders in the writers.
    As I say, I’m convinced dogmatic leftist activism is the result, and a refuge for, mentally damaged individuals.

  6. The continuation of The War on Drugs, pot, is the worst place for conservatives to stand their ground. It has been a complete failure. It hadn’t discouraged use. It isn’t harder to obtain. It’s been expensive in both legal system resources and unnecessarily ruining the lives of users. It corrupted the police – see assets forfeiture abuse, unreasonable searches, unlawful cavity probes. Sadly impressive misuse of time and money for a substance, pot, that really is no more dangerous than alcohol. The biggest problem: most people under 50-55 either used pot or had friends and family who did. These people know it is not demon weed or a gateway drug for the majority of people. Treating addiction, not use, as a medical condition makes a lot more sense as it would have been less expensive while protecting people’s rights.
    “Baiting the right” is absolutely correct in the sense that social conservatives consistently persist in fighting the wrong battles. Inevitably their fringe starts to sound racist and sexist, alienating potential voters. Sticking to economic issues is their only option given their nutter and vocal fringe.
    BTW, Lilley may not have noticed but libertarians in the US are the only group that is consistent on economic and individual freedom. They are also the only ones who aren’t preaching doom and hopelessness, except when it comes to government corruption and incompetence. Conservatives and progressives are both statist at heart and owned by special interests (unions, defence industry, finance, agriculture,etc.). That’s why I’d predict that libertarianism will grow as progressives and conservatism declines.

  7. You gotta love a guy like that,though I think you would quickly tire of him, had you to work with him on a daily basis.

  8. pot, that really is no more dangerous than alcohol.
    ********************************
    So answer me this. If Cig’s are bad for your lungs, why isn’t pot?
    No smoke is good for the lungs.
    30+ years in the medical field. (me)

  9. http://www.alternet.org/story/151635/ten_years_ago_portugal_legalized_all_drugs_–_what_happened_next
    For those looking for clues about how the U.S. government can tackle its domestic drug problem, the figures are enticing. Following decriminalization, Portugal eventually found itself with the lowest rates of marijuana usage in people over 15 in the EU: about 10%. Compare this to the 40% of people over 12 who regularly smoke pot in the U.S., a country with some of the most punitive drugs laws in the developed world. Drug use of all kinds has declined in Portugal: Lifetime use among seventh to ninth graders fell from 14.01% to 10.6%. Lifetime heroin use among 16-18 year olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%. And what about those horrific HIV infection rates that prompted the move in the first place? HIV infection rates among drug users fell by an incredible 17%, while drug related deaths were reduced by more than half. “There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal,” said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, at a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

  10. Sorry, my last comment is on the wrong page, a sign of the growing baby-boomer population, and alzheimer sufferers which L.C. Bennett will be joining at some time (no doubt favoured by the progressive or libertarian right, along with the Right to Die clique, which will soon become the duty to die) and thus become a statistic thereof. If that reads convoluted, and I’m quite sure it does, it is yet another sign of what lies ahead in the very near future.

  11. Smoking pot or cigarettes is not good for you, of course, but there are differences. Well, for one, pot smokers generally don’t smoke the equivalent of a pack or two a day. You also do not have to smoke pot to get high. Both nicotine and THC can be “vaped”, e-cigs, which remove most of the harmful substances.
    The other thing to remember is that, unlike alcohol, you cannot OD on pot alone. In my experience as a sober observer, pot users are not as aggressive and uncoordinated as drunks. Less violent is a big deal IMO. Also, no hangover.
    The one question that seems obvious but is rarely mentioned is – if pot had not been aggressively prohibited, would the more exotic and dangerous drugs have had a market or been necessary. Would the legalization of softer drugs cause users, potential drug users and addicts to pass on meth, crack, etc. for the same reason people no longer seek out unregulated, extremely potent moonshine. Less risk, better quality control.
    People with problems are going to self medicate and social use of mood changing substances has been around since pre-historic times. There’s a case to be made for legalizing the least dangerous and medical treatment of addicts regardless of their narcotic of choice.

  12. Brian is wrong when he describes Libertarians as being ok with legalization of pot, but are silent on the creeping tyranny of other displays of government power.
    As a conservative that leans libertarian, I fight back on all state intrusions into my everyday life and I vociferously disagree with those that call for it.

  13. @ L.C…..But the pot of today is not (for the most part) the pot of the 60’s, 70’s and even the 80’s. Now most pot is laced with meth, LSD, cocaine or something far more addicting. Also, now the pot dealer is also a dealer in meth, LSD, cocaine or heroin. Back in the day most pot dealers just sold pot – and it wasn’t laced with more addictive drugs.
    I really don’t care if someone gets hooked on drugs, but my tax dollars shouldn’t be paying for them to shoot up considering it is now apparently far more heinous to drive a fraction of a point over the legal impaired limit – and not harm anyone – than it is to be a crack or heroin addict who more often than not robs people and assaults them to get their fix. There are many people with drinking problems that have full time jobs and have never stolen from someone or assaulted someone to appease their habit. There aren’t as many crack, meth or heroin addicts that can say the same.
    Off this topic…But maybe MADD should modify their name to Mother’s Against Doing Drugs instead of Drunk Drivers. As statistics bear out the vast majority of “drunk drivers” from all walks of life (because we know the upstanding citizens like teachers, lawyers, nurses and other professionals also drink a little too much sometimes) do not kill people while driving. When they do they should bear the full extent of their crime but penalizing a driver caught at .0801 upwards of ten thousand dollars for the first offence is punitive to say the least – particularly when you can literally beat the crap out of someone (for the first time) and get off with probation and perhaps a fine of 1500 bucks( or nothing). I know because I testified in such a case.
    It’s also shown that many drunk drivers (the very drunk ones) have been caught numerous times (some times over 20 times) and finally killed someone and then we wonder why. Well if you’re caught drunk driving more than once the penalty should be stronger and a third time should lead to prohibition from driving (as in your car is locked for the duration of your penalty).
    But I digress. If the liberal/socialists want society to pay for addicts to shoot up or raving alcoholics to get drunk let them donate their own money – not mine. Because these people still steal and rarely gain meaningful work. Why should society work to save their life when they don’t want to work to save their own life.

  14. From what I have read and my experiences as a teen and young adult (after the mid 8os) the laced pot stories are mostly a myth. Pot users will buy from dealers they trust so if they are being sold crap they’ll find a new dealer.
    THC levels are higher in some strains but the question is if that would change after legalization. Like alcohol, would consumers want a variety of choices of strengths and flavors? Not everyone wants to get stoned stupid with couple puffs; they may just want a nice relaxing after supper buzz. Put another way, did prohibition cause the demand for stronger strains because the consumer is skewed towards heavy users?
    As for your other points. Prohibition is a major cause of drug violence just like alcohol prohibition fueled bootlegger violence. I doubt a libertarian would argue that violent addicts should be allowed to mug people any more than they’d excuse a drunk assaulting someone. You are responsible for your violent criminal behavior regardless of your excuses. But is the legal system the best way to deal with non-violent addicts and users — the failed drug war is evidence that it is not.
    My only comment on drunk driving is that there should be a scientific basis that determines limits.

  15. I’m running into filter problems so I’m going to post individual paragraphs separately to find the problem.
    From what I have read and my experiences as a teen and young adult (after the mid 8os) the laced pot stories are mostly a myth. Pot users will buy from dealers they trust so if they are being sold crap they’ll find a new dealer.
    THC levels are higher in some strains but the question is if that would change after legalization. Like alcohol, would consumers want a variety of choices of strengths and flavors? Not everyone wants to get stoned stupid with couple puffs; they may just want a nice relaxing after supper buzz. Put another way, did prohibition cause the demand for stronger strains because the consumer is skewed towards heavy users?

  16. As for your other points. Prohibition is a major cause of drug violence just like alcohol prohibition fueled bootlegger violence. I doubt a libertarian would argue that violent addicts should be allowed to mug people any more than they’d excuse a drunk assaulting someone. You are responsible for your violent criminal behavior regardless of your excuses. But is the legal system the best way to deal with non-violent addicts and users — the failed drug war is evidence that it is not.
    My only comment on drunk driving is that there should be a scientific basis that determines limits.

  17. There were no shortage of people in the 60’s who would tell you with complete certainty that the pot being sold at the time was laced with meth, cocaine or heroin. Glad to hear from old Sporty that those guys were full of it.
    Actually, I suspect that it was about as true then as it is now. Which would be, not very. As a matter of business, you’ll make more money selling the hard stuff to knowing willing buyers than you will by giving it away to the unaware. And as a matter of self-preservation, a drug dealer needs to be more careful than most about pissing off the customer.

  18. In the absence of a painful medical condition, self-medicating is primarily the result of poor coping skills and the internalizing of messages that devalue individuals worth, which results in the degradation of character over time.
    Persons that truly recognize their value, worth and potential and that of others, don’t habitually self harm in the myriad of forms available to do so in what we call the modern and post-modern era of society. Slavery in any form is not true freedom of choice or liberty.
    Several factors are involved in developing healthy coping skills; of which most have been systematically deconstructed within society over the last hundred years.
    In an attempt to counteract the internalizing of devaluing messages in individuals, society has responded by producing a pseudo value system (moral relativism)that has no regard or respect for character development or the development of healthy coping mechanisms in individuals. The reality is that moral relativism does not exist-actions have consequences. A mirage is not reality and moral relativism is a just a mirage.
    For instance, instead of recognizing that a boy who thinks he’s a girl despite his DNA and biological equipment and correcting the messages that he has internalized that makes him believe he has more value or worth as a girl than a boy, society is now responding by ignoring his utter lack of value in who he really is and his seemingly lack of ability to cope with or accept and embrace his male identity and are replacing his innate value with a pseudo value that is not based in reality or congruent with the definitive and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A lie does not become the truth simply because increasing numbers begin to embrace the lie. Suicide rates among GID persons, with or without, gender re-assignment surgery remains very high. Changing our perception of reality does not change reality, or dissipate the consequences of ignoring it.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation