Michigan Votes Forum

 are we SURE that this guy is a democrat? i thought they were ALL FOR new rules and regulations. i guess that this guy is having a hard time keeping democrats registered if they are all in jail for being a minor in possession.

by the way, it's a MISDEMEANOR, not a FELONY. treat it as such. give the kid a ticket, let his parents handle it from there.

 how about we TRULY step up to the plate and DE-CRIMINALIZE minor in possession entirely?

while we are at it, DE-CRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA, AND ALL OTHER DRUGS. if a person wants to get high and ruin his life, let him.

in fact, the government could make BILLIONS of dollars by taking over the drug trade. pharmaceutical grade drugs at bargain basement prices, taxed of course, but not regulated. if you want to buy a ton of the stuff you crave, just stroke the check and your stuff is in the mail.

how can a dealer on the street succeed at selling crack at ten bucks a hit when the government is selling it at ten dollars a pound?

truth is, they can't., and they aren't going to make a 'hit' on the united states army.

doing this would also end the problem of illegal drugs carried across our borders by illegal imigrants. if the drugs are cheap, plentiful, potent and pure, why buy the trash stuff from the dealer on the corner?

think of all the drug enforcement officers of all departments who have given their lives to fight what USED TO BE LEGAL.

drug laws are patently racist. look up the history for yourselves.

that way, people would have the CHOICE, and be forced to TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY for their actions without government interference.

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of the views of democrats and republicans, or more to the point, liberals and conservatives. I would venture to say more liberal democrats would be in favor of legalizing drugs than would be conservative republicans. As a liberal democrat, I would definitly be in favor of legalizing drugs, and in favor of this bill. Alcohol is a drug, and it's use by minors should be regulated the same as it's use by adults should, and is regulated. Same with all drugs. Regulate their use, not criminalize their use. The crime should be what you do under the influence of drugs, not the use of the drug itself.

"New Zogby data shows a bipartisan consensus that the drug war is a losing battle:

Three in four likely voters (76%) believe the U.S. war on drugs is failing, a sentiment that cuts across the political spectrum – including the vast majority of Democrats (86%), political independents (81%), and most Republicans (61%). There is also a strong belief that the anti-drug effort is failing among those who intend to vote for Barack Obama (89%) for president, as well as most supporters of John McCain (61%).

When asked what they believe is the single best way to combat international drug trafficking and illicit use, 27% of likely voters said legalizing some drugs would be the best approach -- 34% of Obama supporters and 20% of McCain backers agreed."

 sorry j.

libertarians are FOR the legalization of drugs. part of the LIBERTY to choose what you do.

liberals are AGAINST the legalization of drugs. part of that GOVERNMENT CONTROL over what you choose to do.

most CONSERVATIVES don't know that drugs were once legal in this country, and that you could buy cocaine at the drugstore cheaply. we didn't have a DRUG PROBLEM until racism was used to force it into the spotlight. we had no police officers kicking in doors at three in the morning, we had no 'drug courts', it was legal. we had no problems with people driving while intoxicated, or doing anything while intoxicated. we have created all  these problems recently by trying to eradicate the 'DRUG PROBLEM'.

now, what is your problem with people consuming alcohol?

before you say DRUNK DRIVING, remember that drunk drivers only take up thirty six percent of all accidents in the country and a far fewer percentage of the fatalities. the rest are CLEAN AND SOBER drivers driving badly. one would think that stopping those bad drivers would take up a much higher percentage of our enforcement efforts.

it's even gotten so bad that the government has taken to BOOSTING THE NUMBERS of "alcohol related incidents" by stating that if ANY passengers were consuming alcohol, or HAD consumed alcohol, the incident is considered ALCOHOL RELATED. in other words, if you are taking a cab home, and someone talking on a cell phone rear-ends your cab at a stoplight. the accident is alcohol related, even though neither of the drivers had been drinking. all this in an effort to raise funding for a futile and useless war.

now, what is your problem with people taking drugs?

before you say IT BREAKS UP HOMES, realize that half the 'happy homes' in this country will be broken up within the first year of marriage, and the average climbs steadily after that. making long term marriages very rare indeed. now, most of the 'problems' with drugs stem from the illegal import and distribution of drugs.

if drugs were available at the DRUG STORE (that's how they got the name) for a reasonable price, the drug dealer on the corner wouldn't have a clientele. the police department wouldn't have to spend billions enforcing unnecessary drug laws, and far fewer lives would be lost to this war.

it seems that liberals and conservatives of all stripes just can't seem to quit trying to legislate morality. they continue to intrude into the lives and homes of american citizens in order to have them stop doing things that they think they shouldn't be doing.

by the way, drugs weren't criminalized because of people overdosing on the streets. it was criminalized because some newspapers trumped up charges that black men were raping white women under the effects of cocaine.

california had LEGAL opium dens. they were taxed. many states had LEGAL brothels. they were taxed. every state had drugstores that sold legal, cheap, pure, safe drugs over the counter with no controls whatsoever. they were taxed.

this money from taxes obviously wasn't enough for the politicians, and they used SCARE-MONGERING to drum up new taxes for new bureaucracy, new laws and new prisons to house all the 'new' criminals.

think of the billions we could save if we just minded our own business and allowed those that CHOOSE to take drugs to take them, suffering the consequences ALONE and in private. people would be forced to treat someone who takes drugs the same way the treat someone who is an alcoholic. as an ADDICT and not as a CRIMINAL.

we haven't won the drug war, we've just extended it. prohibition doesn't work, it didn't work with alcohol, it doesn't work with drugs. it's just taking us much longer to give up this particular prohibition.

the left harps on about sending our young people off to fight the war on terror, but raises billions to fight the war on drugs. more people die fighting drug wars than die fighting terrorism.

more constitutional rights have been violated in the name of drug interdiction than have been violated because of terror eradication. in fact, more court time has been spent on sorting out the public abuses of alcohol legislation alone than has been spent on all other crimes combined.

the cure for all this needless spending?

mind our own business. get government out of our private lives. if a woman has the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to abort a baby, then we have the RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether or not to use drugs or alcohol.

it's the SAME RIGHT TO CHOOSE.

You don't even understand that I agree with the legalization of drugs, do you? You get so enamoured of your own rants that you lose sight of the discussion.

And from what orfice do you pull all of these statements you make as fact from? How about quoting someone, providing a reference, or at least saying these are your opinions, rather than indisputable fact.

The original subject was decriminalizing minor's in possession of alcohol. I'm for it. How about you?

 there are no FACTS about what you believe should be done to a minor in possession of alcohol. in some cultures, it's considered normal for minors to be in possession of alcohol.

here, we treat it as a taboo. so much so that some of us are willing to make felons out of minors in possession of alcohol.

i am in favor of TOTALLY decriminalizing it, i am also in favor, if decriminalization should not come to pass, as treating it like the misdemeanor that it is, and not as the felony some wish it to be.

the truly ironic part of all of this is that most of the people who are in favor of making minor in possession a felony started drinking early themselves. if this law had been around when they were young, they would be incarcerated felons.

by the way, there are VERY FEW indisputable facts. especially when we are talking about opinions. if this site were to discuss only indisputable facts, there would be nothing to discuss. but as the list of indisputable facts is incredibly short, there is plenty.

instead of FACTS, you should be looking for REASONS.

facts are things you hold to be true, whether they are or not.

reasons are the motivational drivers of life, of decisions, and of politics.

there are no FACTS as to why you agree or disagree with this discussion. and there are no facts that will change your mind. but the REASON you support this bill can be many and varied.  your REASONS for supporting this bill are based, i presume, on your experiences, your education, your upbringing, your views on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and your political leanings.

all these things meld together to form your opinion.

all we may do is look to find where others of similar opinions have tried what we are suggesting, to see whether or not they have been successful, to guide us toward or away from trying what is being suggested here.

even history is not FACT, as much of it is in dispute. but there are enough nuggets of TRUTH there to help us to decide our way wisely.

look at it this way...

the FACT is that this legislature thinks it's a good idea to criminalize the fact that minors are sometimes in possession of alcohol.

the FACT is that some disagree with the METHODS of that criminalization. the deprivation of rights, the harassment, and the assumption of guilt over innocence.

the FACT is that some disagree whether or not it is the JOB OF GOVERNMENT to even busy itself with this activity.

the FACT is that the state is simply using what some consider taboo to raise revenue and keep political power to themselves.

the FACT is that many consider whether or not a minor should or should not be allowed to be in possession of alcohol to be the job of that particular minor's parents, and not the state.

the FACT is that many believe that the state should get out of anything which it has no business doing. the state is not our parent, it is not our guardian, it is not our nanny. those are facts. any member of state government who is trying to mold the state into those jobs is wasting our time and our money.

i'm sure that there are others who agree with us, and i'm sure that there are many who will oppose us, and each will hold true it's own set of facts.

the true test of this bill is whether or not it is the job of the state to decide for me whether or not my child may or may not be in possession of alcohol.

the FACT is, it is NOT the job of the state to make that decision, it is MINE.