Searches of homes to be like searches of cars.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:59:06 -0800, Helen A. Handbasket
> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:50:48 +0000 (UTC), in rec.autos.driving Brent
> wrote:
>
>>What
>>people put in their own bodies is of their concern only. Period. That's
>>the issue. Do we own ourselves or are we property of the state?
>
>Your argument might make sense if it weren't for the collateral
>damage. When Puff the Dangerous Driver tokes his bong before his
>morning commute because he just can't face the day without getting
>high, maybe it'll be your car he crashes into (or breaks into
>searching for spare change and/or easily fenced items).

In all my years of driving, I have *yet* to have any type of encounter
with, "Puff the Dangerous Driver." OTOH, I have had the unpleasant
experience of my car being ransacked by racist jack booted fascists
wearing a badge and gun who were on fishing expeditions to pad their
resumes with arrests in the so-called, "war on drugs," that was
brought to the forefront by that addlebrained piece of **** ronald
reaganand his puppeteer george hw bush in the '80's.

>When drug-addled fools start to affect others with their intoxicated
>behavior, it becomes society's concern. Period.

Soceity's real concern should be the fascist police state that america
(sic) is becomming because the propaganda machine in this nation keeps
beating the mantra of the non existent threat of, "drugs."

>Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Sieg Heil!

--
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin

On 2011-01-24, Helen A Handbasket > wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:50:48 +0000 (UTC), in rec.autos.driving Brent
> wrote:
>
>>What
>>people put in their own bodies is of their concern only. Period. That's
>>the issue. Do we own ourselves or are we property of the state?

> Your argument might make sense if it weren't for the collateral
> damage. When Puff the Dangerous Driver tokes his bong before his
> morning commute because he just can't face the day without getting
> high, maybe it'll be your car he crashes into (or breaks into
> searching for spare change and/or easily fenced items).

There are countless legal chemicals and substances one can put in his
body and then be unlikely to unable to drive properly. This is not a
reason to outlaw substances and as a result create a vast criminal
enterprise along with the violence associated with it. Then there are
the great violations of individual rights that go along with the effort
to ban a substance.

If you are worried about unsafe drivers, go after bad driving. Trying to
ban and punish every possible contributing factor to bad driving is not
workable.

Keep in mind that the government cannot even prevent drugs it bans from
getting into the prisons. Do you want to live in conditions more
controlled than a convicted felon in prison? Have your home shook down
randomly to make sure you don't have contraband? If you're not willing
to live like that and worse, forget stopping people from using drugs.

> When drug-addled fools start to affect others with their intoxicated
> behavior, it becomes society's concern. Period.

But your drugs of choice or medical need remain legal of course. That's
a question of personal responsibility. Someone else's drugs get banned
outright.

> Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

I don't smoke anything. Unlike many americans I don't have a desire to
run other people's lives or make them live like I do.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:59:06 -0800, Helen A. Handbasket
> wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 21:50:48 +0000 (UTC), in rec.autos.driving Brent
> wrote:
>
>>What
>>people put in their own bodies is of their concern only. Period. That's
>>the issue. Do we own ourselves or are we property of the state?
>
>Your argument might make sense if it weren't for the collateral
>damage. When Puff the Dangerous Driver tokes his bong before his
>morning commute because he just can't face the day without getting
>high, maybe it'll be your car he crashes into (or breaks into
>searching for spare change and/or easily fenced items).
>

There's not the slightest evidence there is such a problem.


>When drug-addled fools start to affect others with their intoxicated
>behavior, it becomes society's concern. Period.
>
>Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.