Hillary and Trump

[ralis]

Joeblast mentioned in a recent post regarding persons who lose their property by being charged with possession of Cannabis. Well what many don't know is that cops and the DEA can seize cash and any other assets without due process or any ensuing charges. It is called 'civil asset forfeiture'. A clear violation of the 4th amendment!

 

The DEA mines travel records looking for one way tickets paid for with cash and assumes there is drug money involved.

 

Will anything change with either Trump or Hillary in office? I seriously doubt it given that these rogue agencies have so much illegal power.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/10/dea-travel-record-airport-seizures/88474282/

 

 

DEA agents have profiled passengers on Amtrak trains and nearly every major U.S. airline, drawing on reports from a network of travel-industry informants that extends from ticket counters to back offices, a USA TODAY investigation has found. Agents assigned to airports and train stations singled out passengers for questioning or searches for reasons as seemingly benign as traveling one-way to California or having paid for a ticket in cash.

The DEA surveillance is separate from the vast and widely-known anti-terrorism apparatus that now surrounds air travel, which is rarely used for routine law enforcement. It has been carried out largely without the airlines’ knowledge.

 

 

 

It is a lucrative endeavor, and one that remains largely unknown outside the drug agency. DEA units assigned to patrol 15 of the nation’s busiest airports seized more than $209 million in cash from at least 5,200 people over the past decade after concluding the money was linked to drug trafficking, according to Justice Department records. Most of the money was passed on to local police departments that lend officers to assist the drug agency.

 

 

“They count on this as part of the budget,” said Louis Weiss, a former supervisor of the DEA group assigned to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. “Basically, you’ve got to feed the monster.”

In most cases, records show the agents gave the suspected couriers a receipt for the cash — sometimes totaling $50,000 or more, stuffed into suitcases or socks — and sent them on their way without ever charging them with a crime.

[joeblast]

That's just a constitutional cop out, it's not about authority but morality. Would you give it to your kids, would you be happy for your airline pilot to be 'just a little chilled ou' or the Doctor performing surgery on your wife to 'have a little weed to calm his nerves' ?

come to think of it, virtually all the issues we find ourselves facing today are because of illegally assumed authority

[Karl]

strawman - it is about authority, or are you in the business of supporting legislation of morality?  slippery slope, bro.

 

my boy's big enough to decide that for himself, I've already taught him well, and of course very sharp items and heavy machinery should not be operated under the influence.

This is where the well gets a bit cloudy. It about the law and justice. I'm trying really hard not to create strawmen but I can't deny that this substance is harmful, it does have impacts even if I have no way of measuring them. I can't agree to ban it, but then I'm not minded to formally legalise it either-other than for medicinal use. I can come up with a million what if's and I have a sense that using recreational drugs is just morally wrong and that we should not be seeking to make it seem acceptable, normal and safe.

 

This does clash quite badly with my philosophy in that I don't require the state to do anything other than provide law and justice-the problem is that we are already in the hell hole of the state deciding morality and denying the need for personal moral responsibility and reason. You are right that people have to make the decision for themselves, but in our current situation I don't think many have that faculty, indeed the state and corporations very much rely on the fact that they don't. If the state regulated atom bombs, Anthrax and nerve agents, you just know there would be a market for them and someone to supply the loan to get them.

 

Amused to death is what flashes through my mind. However, let them kill themselves, but don't let them take me or mine along with them.

[Jim D.]

If the Government and Lobbyist for Nicotine can make money off the sale and taxation of Marijuana, then it will eventually legalized. That does not take the facts out of the equation that Cannabis is a mood/mind altering substance that has addictive and hullucinogenic properties, carcinogenic substances added, and 1600 unidentifiable substances when lite (Governor State University, Dr. Blevins 1992)

[Karl]

come to think of it, virtually all the issues we find ourselves facing today are because of illegally assumed authority

I agree to a degree. I think I mentioned before that I wrote to Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods regarding the principle of non aggression and its relationship with aggressors. I wanted to know how they judged that aggressive defence was appropriate and at what point they applied it. I didn't get an answer and I know why. The entire libertarian philosophy is no better than any other including anarcho capitalism in its underpinnings it is irrevocably flawed.

 

The problem is that we do need an authority, but only in respect of the protection of our inalienable rights and the prosecution of justice with respects to the trespass against those rights. We have to appoint someone to be judge and executioner and we can't get away without doing so. It's this authority that we choose to appoint to others and to thereby give up our own summary judgement to a court/jury.

 

Once we give away that freedom to declare our own justice and provide for our own defence, then we end up with a country not of law, but of men. You could never be entirely sure of each mans idea of law and justice when trading or dealing.

[ralis]

If the Government and Lobbyist for Nicotine can make money off the sale and taxation of Marijuana, then it will eventually legalized. That does not take the facts out of the equation that Cannabis is a mood/mind altering substance that has addictive and hullucinogenic properties, carcinogenic substances added, and 1600 unidentifiable substances when lite (Governor State University, Dr. Blevins 1992)

 

What are the added substances?

[joeblast]

This is where the well gets a bit cloudy. It about the law and justice. I'm trying really hard not to create strawmen but I can't deny that this substance is harmful, it does have impacts even if I have no way of measuring them. I can't agree to ban it, but then I'm not minded to formally legalise it either-other than for medicinal use. I can come up with a million what if's and I have a sense that using recreational drugs is just morally wrong and that we should not be seeking to make it seem acceptable, normal and safe.

 

This does clash quite badly with my philosophy in that I don't require the state to do anything other than provide law and justice-the problem is that we are already in the hell hole of the state deciding morality and denying the need for personal moral responsibility and reason. You are right that people have to make the decision for themselves, but in our current situation I don't think many have that faculty, indeed the state and corporations very much rely on the fact that they don't. If the state regulated atom bombs, Anthrax and nerve agents, you just know there would be a market for them and someone to supply the loan to get them.

 

Amused to death is what flashes through my mind. However, let them kill themselves, but don't let them take me or mine along with them.

You're contradicting yourself here - you seem to acknowledge the government's proper role, but then its out with the progressive mantra of I dont think very many have the faculties to take care of themselves?

 

You cant have this both ways.  You're either following the constitution here, or you're not.

 

If the Government and Lobbyist for Nicotine can make money off the sale and taxation of Marijuana, then it will eventually legalized. That does not take the facts out of the equation that Cannabis is a mood/mind altering substance that has addictive and hullucinogenic properties, carcinogenic substances added, and 1600 unidentifiable substances when lite (Governor State University, Dr. Blevins 1992)

Added?  lol...the way in which you speak appears to be from the position of a substance abuse counselor that has never walked in the shoes of his patients and generally takes a simple mr mackie view.   Anyone talking about things "cut" or "added" to the plant is going beyond what the plant is (anyone who knows anything about the plant knows that it is at its best when at its most stripped bare simple - even down to nitrogen & mineral content.)  I get what you're saying, but it would help your position if you didnt have to constantly alter the context in order to support the drug addiction counselor standpoint.  (I was married to one and  edited all the grad school papers, not to mention another ex was in the field and had relatives in the field...I know how yall operate...but it gets annoying when logical fallacies start having to be used to support a position.)

 

Bottom line is the bottom line - the federal government has no authority here, plain and simple, all of the other arguments on this are superfluous.

Edited August 11, 2016 by joeblast

[Brian]

You're contradicting yourself here - you seem to acknowledge the government's proper role, but then its out with the progressive mantra of I dont think very many have the faculties to take care of themselves?

 

You cant have this both ways.  You're either following the constitution here, or you're not.

 

Added?  lol...the way in which you speak appears to be from the position of a substance abuse counselor that has never walked in the shoes of his patients and generally takes a simple mr mackie view.   Anyone talking about things "cut" or "added" to the plant is going beyond what the plant is.  I get what you're saying, but it would help your position if you didnt have to constantly alter the context in order to support the drug addiction counselor standpoint.  (I was married to one and  edited all the grad school papers, not to mention another ex was in the field and had relatives in the field...I know how yall operate...but it gets annoying when logical fallacies start having to be used to support a position.)

 

Bottom line is the bottom line - the federal government has no authority here, plain and simple, all of the other arguments on this are superfluous.

Additionally, alterations support bringing production and distribution into public scrutiny rather than pushing it to the black market. When a substance is criminal, only criminals fill the supply lines.

[ralis]

While we are on the subject. The endocannabinoid system in which there are CBD receptors as well as THC receptor sites. This government article is rather lengthy and I just took a quick glance before running out the door.

 

DMT remains a scheduled drug and from my reading, the brain naturally produces it. Why hasn't the DEA removed it from my head for daily use and abuse?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2241751/

[Karl]

You're contradicting yourself here - you seem to acknowledge the government's proper role, but then its out with the progressive mantra of I dont think very many have the faculties to take care of themselves?

 

You cant have this both ways.  You're either following the constitution here, or you're not.

 

 

Added?  lol...the way in which you speak appears to be from the position of a substance abuse counselor that has never walked in the shoes of his patients and generally takes a simple mr mackie view.   Anyone talking about things "cut" or "added" to the plant is going beyond what the plant is (anyone who knows anything about the plant knows that it is at its best when at its most stripped bare simple - even down to nitrogen content.)  I get what you're saying, but it would help your position if you didnt have to constantly alter the context in order to support the drug addiction counselor standpoint.  (I was married to one and  edited all the grad school papers, not to mention another ex was in the field and had relatives in the field...I know how yall operate...but it gets annoying when logical fallacies start having to be used to support a position.)

 

Bottom line is the bottom line - the federal government has no authority here, plain and simple, all of the other arguments on this are superfluous.

Not progressive. What you do in your own home is up to you, but where it impacts my life then we have an issue. You want to buy a big dog, fine, but let it crap in my garden and bite the kids, then I'm getting a shotgun. It's about boundaries. I tried explaining that about NAP, it doesn't work. Do I want to walk through a pile of drunken teenagers standing outside my gate, pissing on the fence, shouting abuse then leaving the path strewn with smashed glass, spit and vomit ? But hey, they weren't on my property were they ? They were just minding there own business on a public footpath ? I should just shut up and accept it because they weren't doing any harm ?

 

I'm not a drug counsellor either. Far as I'm concerned people can dope themselves to death, drink themselves to cirrhosis or whatever, that's there right, as long as it doesn't spill into my rights at any point.

[Karl]

Additionally, alterations support bringing production and distribution into public scrutiny rather than pushing it to the black market. When a substance is criminal, only criminals fill the supply lines.

That's also true, used that argument a million times myself. Prohibition proved to be a catastrophic failure.

 

I don't think we are arguing from the same view point. I would argue the same thing about alcohol as I do cannabis. It is potential harmful, not just to the self, but to others and that's where things get murky.

 

If a drunken driver smashes into your family car and kills himself and your wife and kids, then do you just shrug ? Maybe you have to ? Maybe that's just life and alcohol is part of that picture ? It's a tragedy, it happens every day, but, the man driving wasn't the victim of some predetermined action, he made a decision, he chose to purchase, consume and then drive. How should we regard drinkers in that light, as potential murderers ?

 

I said I don't have an answer, it really is an open debate on my behalf.

[joeblast]

Not progressive. What you do in your own home is up to you, but where it impacts my life then we have an issue. You want to buy a big dog, fine, but let it crap in my garden and bite the kids, then I'm getting a shotgun. It's about boundaries. I tried explaining that about NAP, it doesn't work. Do I want to walk through a pile of drunken teenagers standing outside my gate, pissing on the fence, shouting abuse then leaving the path strewn with smashed glass, spit and vomit ? But hey, they weren't on my property were they ? They were just minding there own business on a public footpath ? I should just shut up and accept it because they weren't doing any harm ?

 

I'm not a drug counsellor either. Far as I'm concerned people can dope themselves to death, drink themselves to cirrhosis or whatever, that's there right, as long as it doesn't spill into my rights at any point.

hm....well, I hope you can see the myriad conflations here...

[Karl]

hm....well, I hope you can see the myriad conflations here...

As I said, murky. I find it difficult.

[Jim D.]

Joeblast, I speak as a professional and past abuser of Marijuana. Pharmacology was my strongest interest at the Master's level because there no gray areas to argue. Research and experimentation can be argued with additional trials, yes. But the fact still remains the same, THC is a mood/mind altering chemical. The additional substances are unidentifiable. It is something the grower and/or the distributor adds to it. So to those that think it is really cool to get high on a blunt, let's talk about it 40 years from now when you are dying from COPD.

 

I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. You have a right to your body, mind, and soul and what you want to do to it and with it. But if you are a service provider, health provider, a person that works on machinery, or drives a car, or has any contact with another person you are working for, it won't be me. I won't put my life in your hands.

 

I have a carpenter doing some work around the house. He came to work looking dragged out. I asked him what was the problem. He told me that he was messing around with his Rx Adderall...meaning adusting his script down against medical advise (AMA). He said that he had smoked Marijuana the night before is coming to work for me. I confronted this issue immediately. I responded that I was now questioning his ability to be reasonable and objective. At first he thought I was kidding, but soon figured out I was serious about my concern. I said, look this is not personal its business. He was so messed up he took the rest of the day off. I am to pay him $2,000 at the completion of the project. If he comes back again high, he's gone. He has completed enough for someone else to come in an complete it.

 

I had a new client come to my session under the influence of illicit Xanax. He nodded out. I confronted him by asking him if he was tired or under the influence of something. He admited it and asked if it was going to hurt our relationship. I said no, but that I wanted him to be alert at our next appointment. He did not return.

 

So yes Joeblast, I have been there and done that. I hold a Masters in Health Science with a track in Substance Abuse(1992) which is my specialty. I am also a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor in private practice since 2000 but in the field of mental health since 1990. I am on 9 Managed Care Panels, and I am published.

 

And yes, in History and Systems class we discussed how it is that certain controled substances get to be FDA approved while others don't. We also discussed how it is that the United Kingdom as a socialized view of controling the distribution of Heroin, and how it reduced the persence of crime because of availablity. But distribution of Herion is still controled by the government.

 

Maybe your history of divorce and seperation from your x was a matter of Substance Abuse Joeblast. You sound like you have a resentment for both parties which will confound your view of Substance Abuse facts and data.

[Karl]

It seems always in 'a perfect' world for libertarians. The state shouldn't.......this/that/the other and I agree totally. The state should not prevent the sale of drugs, in a world in which the Government isn't already doing a million other things it shouldn't be doing either. It's like this gets plonked into the mix contained in an anti-government bomb casing. That the state can do all these other things, but hell, it ain't going to stop us taking recreational drugs.

 

Let's say, that for everyone who decides to effectively opt out of the state services, they are welcome to buy and consume recreational canabis. If they get sick, get hooked, get into trouble then the state turns its back, just like an insurance company will if it finds you have driven your car under the influence of alcohol. You get into any bother and you go straight to the slammer, you get fired from work, ejected from your rented accommodation and have no rights of appeal if you are a confirmed user. No addiction centres, free health workers, your on your own.

[Kar3n]

***MODERATION NOTICE***

 

Please refrain from disparaging remarks and unfounded opinions regarding personal lives of TBD members. If you wish to offer professional opinions, please do so in a private message.

 

 

******

[ralis]

@ Jim D

 

What are the growers and distributors adding to it? Please cite a reference. COPD references please.

 

The quote below made by you in a recent post is completely unfounded and way out of line!

 

 

 

Maybe your history of divorce and seperation from your x was a matter of Substance Abuse Joeblast. You sound like you have a resentment for both parties which will confound your view of Substance Abuse facts and data.

Edited August 11, 2016 by ralis

[Karl]

While we are on the subject. The endocannabinoid system in which there are CBD receptors as well as THC receptor sites. This government article is rather lengthy and I just took a quick glance before running out the door.

 

DMT remains a scheduled drug and from my reading, the brain naturally produces it. Why hasn't the DEA removed it from my head for daily use and abuse?

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2241751/

Give them time. If they don't remove it they will likely tax it.

[Jim D.]

Notice: If you find that my acknowledging that your defense is confounded by your personal defenses, then tell me how it hasn't. I can make comments only based on what you disclose personally. This is my Post. I started it with the Title Hillary and Trump. But now we are talking about Pot. I did not ask for this diversion. But it happened anyway. But when you disclose a personal oppinon about Substance Abuse Counselors and my convoluting the data to suit my argument, and you cite a divorce and a X, you have made it personal regarding me...and you.  So, if those are the rules, don't whin to the moderator about hurt feelings. O.K. keep your personal life, and personal opinions out of it, and I will leave you out of it.

 

But if you did not complain to the Moderator Ms. Karn, than my comments and your comments are her issue which confounds her ability to be objective, in my opinion. O.K. gentlemen let's get back on track.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jim D.

[joeblast]

Joeblast, I speak as a professional and past abuser of Marijuana. Pharmacology was my strongest interest at the Master's level because there no gray areas to argue. Research and experimentation can be argued with additional trials, yes. But the fact still remains the same, THC is a mood/mind altering chemical. The additional substances are unidentifiable. It is something the grower and/or the distributor adds to it. So to those that think it is really cool to get high on a blunt, let's talk about it 40 years from now when you are dying from COPD.

 

I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home. You have a right to your body, mind, and soul and what you want to do to it and with it. But if you are a service provider, health provider, a person that works on machinery, or drives a car, or has any contact with another person you are working for, it won't be me. I won't put my life in your hands.

 

I have a carpenter doing some work around the house. He came to work looking dragged out. I asked him what was the problem. He told me that he was messing around with his Rx Adderall...meaning adusting his script down against medical advise (AMA). He said that he had smoked Marijuana the night before is coming to work for me. I confronted this issue immediately. I responded that I was now questioning his ability to be reasonable and objective. At first he thought I was kidding, but soon figured out I was serious about my concern. I said, look this is not personal its business. He was so messed up he took the rest of the day off. I am to pay him $2,000 at the completion of the project. If he comes back again high, he's gone. He has completed enough for someone else to come in an complete it.

 

I had a new client come to my session under the influence of illicit Xanax. He nodded out. I confronted him by asking him if he was tired or under the influence of something. He admited it and asked if it was going to hurt our relationship. I said no, but that I wanted him to be alert at our next appointment. He did not return.

 

So yes Joeblast, I have been there and done that. I hold a Masters in Health Science with a track in Substance Abuse(1992) which is my specialty. I am also a Licensed Clinical Professional Counselor in private practice since 2000 but in the field of mental health since 1990. I am on 9 Managed Care Panels, and I am published.

 

And yes, in History and Systems class we discussed how it is that certain controled substances get to be FDA approved while others don't. We also discussed how it is that the United Kingdom as a socialized view of controling the distribution of Heroin, and how it reduced the persence of crime because of availablity. But distribution of Herion is still controled by the government.

 

Maybe your history of divorce and seperation from your x was a matter of Substance Abuse Joeblast. You sound like you have a resentment for both parties which will confound your view of Substance Abuse facts and data.

its something the grower or distributor adds to it? *facepalm*

 

look, I think its about time you stopped talking out your ass as if you know anything about the production of...

 

oh wait, how many times again are you going to change the context?   enough's enough here, I've had far more than my share of psychology and such crap rammed down my throat over the years.

 

 

I've got thick skin, it wasnt me that complained.  I've already tried getting the thread back on track once or twice, and if substance abuse was part of my divorce, it was her substance issue that caused drastic changes.  but more like, we had absolutely nothing in common,  did nothing but go out to eat together, had our friends completely segregated with her not liking my friends, I didnt care for hers either,  and her running me up $10k in credit card debt before we got divorced didnt help either

[zerostao]

http://www.laweekly.com/news/medical-marijuana-states-see-big-drop-in-drug-prescriptions-and-medicare-spending-7168951

 

imagine that

but wait is it do to lethargy or better health

[Jim D.]

Joeblast, thanks for your honesty. I respect your talking to me like a man. And I respect and appreciate your persoanl disclosure. My second wife took me through Bankruptcy because she was a compulsive spender. In the end, I lost two homes, two dogs, two cars, one unpaid joint student loan, and she skipped out. Couldn't find her even with a Personal Investigor, and insider information from the Captain of the Sheriff's Police Department.  

 

I only know what I have been taught at the Master's Level of which I took my degree in 1992. I have not kept up with the monographs since then. So, my information is 24 years old. But I understand that THC potentcy has increased.

 

But here is what I know: There are 400 identified Cannabinoids in Marijuana. Other constituents of the cannabis plant are: nitrogenous compounds (27 known), amino acids (18), proteins (3), glycoproteins (6), enzymes (2), sugars and related compounds (34), hydrocarbons (50), simple alcohols (7), aldehydes (13), ketones (13), simple acids (21), fatty acids (22), simple esters (12), lactones (1), steroids (11), terpenes (120), non-cannabinoid phenols (25), flavonoids (21), vitamins (1) [Vitamin A], pigments (2), and elements (9).

 

There is something about bringing a flame to the above that creats the additional 1600 unidentifiable chemicals. This is the most scary part of the equation...unidentifiable.

 

So, I apologize for the assumption that they were additives.

 

Additionally, it is a matter of research that THC is fat soluable, is stored in the body for long periods of time, is mood altering, and mind altering, affects the lungs and other body systems and organs.  

 

In sumary, nothing much has changed accept the potentcy of Marijuana. So, we can agree to disagree. O.K.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Getting back to politics, Trump seems to be loosing it. He is short on impluse control. What concerns me is if Trump is fried by his party, who will step up to replace him? And if the legal system of our government does follow through with arresting Hillary, what happens next. It is possible that we may go through another year of Obama, and another year of a new Presidential Candidates race.
 

[Karl]

Well vote for Gary Johnson he has some views on weed. :-)

[Miffymog]

 

Getting back to politics, Trump seems to be loosing it. He is short on impluse control. What concerns me is if Trump is fried by his party, who will step up to replace him? And if the legal system of our government does follow through with arresting Hillary, what happens next. It is possible that we may go through another year of Obama, and another year of a new Presidential Candidates race.

 

 

I have enjoyed reading all these differing opinions on cannabis, but it's nice to get the thread back on track. In England, we've just had a very interesting referendum on whether to leave the EU. And it's now nice sitting back and reading what you guys have to say on what is another interesting vote coming up on your side of the Atlantic. Papers always tend to have agendas, but what's written here gives insight into what you guys actually think - which is why I like the thread tending back to its original topic

Edited August 11, 2016 by Miffymog

[Jim D.]

Karl, do you have citizenship here in the U.S. It sounds as though you do?