chollie

So the names Bill Clinton, Cindy Mccain, George W. Bush and Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas and Newt Gingrich are unfamiliar to you?

Bart

*****

pmocek

That's right. At issue here is drug use, not specifically illegal drug use.

You wrote:
Ibuprofen, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, THC (the primary psychoactive substance in flowers of the cannabis plant), and MDMA are all drugs, and using them is drug use. Of those, the most dangerous (low ratio of effective dose to lethal dose, physically-addictive, etc.) are nicotine and alcohol. Caffeine is dangerous in sufficient quantity. MDMA isn't dangerous at moderate dosage, but is frequently adulterated with dangerous substances as a result of the black market we create by way of our policy of prohibition, not of the drug itself. It was prescribed by doctors until the 1980's. THC is not dangerous at any dosage (has been used safely for centuries, never killed anyone, and is only addictive like bon-bons, cheeseburgers, sex, and thrill rides are). I don't know much about ibuprofen, but like aspirin, it's safe at the right dosage, and because we regulate it instead of prohibiting it, purity is very predictable.

Most drug addicts I come into contact with are addicted to nicotine. You probably know and associate with quite a few drug addicts. Look just outside the doors of your place of employment to find them huddled there getting their fix every few hours. If you work alone, you can find them at the cancer ward of any hospital.

Sort of. Items aren't really illegal, possession of them is. But I agree with what I suspect you meant to write. And what is illegal posession in some places and situations is legal in others. Medicinal cannabis use, allowed in 13 states, is a good example. For instance, what a cancer patient does here in Washington State to counter the side-effects of his chemotherapy, using one of the safest drugs available (remember, never killed anyone, not physically addictive), an herb that can be grown at home without lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, is illegal in other places. The fact that it is illegal somewhere (and has been at various times in various places) doesn't in my eyes make it immoral for someone to use it here, where it's now legal, or elsewhere, where it may be illegal, regardless of whether they use it to deal with pain, to reduce intraocular pressure from glaucoma, to relax, or to increase their enjoyment of art, food, or nature. It certainly doesn't cause me to question the integrity of that person. It would be foolish of me to allow it to.

Not with me, it doesn't. Why does it with you?

In your opinion, does commission of other victimless crimes bring people's integrity into question? Like betting on card games or the company NCAA tournament pool? Consenting adults exchanging cash instead of dinner and a movie for sex? Ingesting prescription drugs prescribed to a family member or spouse with the other person's permission?

Any drug use? Or just use that is presently unlawful in some places? What about drug use that was previously illegal but is now legal (like alcohol, for instance)?

Do you really judge someone's moral character based on the substances he chooses to ingest? Even if he ingests them in a responsible manner?

That calls your character into question.


Bingo!

ND Sol

Because the TSA says that they are still searching for prohibited objects and are not done during the time the LEO is being summoned and arrives.

If a TSO found $10,001 in my bag and wanted to refer or talk to me about it, I would request that be done after the screening is complete for aviation related prohibited items. Once the TSO makes the statement that the search for prohibited items is over, that should be the end of the administrative search and I should be permitted airside without further delay.

You've trained your TSO's to tell the difference if an iPod does or does not contain illegally downloaded material? That was the premise of the issue raised.

Perhaps someone does need to "try again."

Deeg

For what it's worth, marijuana is still illegal to possess in Washington State. And California, and New Mexico, and everywhere else in the United States. It's a federal crime, regardless of state laws.

The question wasn't addressed to me, but yes. To all of that. I am a federal employee with a security clearance. I can't choose which laws to follow and which to disregard. I personally wouldn't mind seeing some of those legalized (to include marijuana use). But while they remain against the law, those given special trust by the government must abstain.

pmocek

Many of us don't base our morals on the whims of legislators. The difference between licit and illicit substances is largely political.

Deeg, how does civil disobediance fit into your view of things? What do you suppose you would have to say about the integrity of Mahatma Gandhi and Rosa Parks were they still alive today?

When it comes to personal integrity, how does the responsible use of cannabis by adults compare to jaywalking?

ralfp

The latter is far worse; it might result in damage to my automobile. The former would probably cause them to stay home, provide less competition in the job market, and die sooner (saving me tax dollars).

You sure can... and do... everyday. You may choose to follow the laws, but you make that choice quite often.

Of course actually never breaking the law is basically impossible. It would not surprise me if, every day, a majority of people in the US committed violations of the law technically serious enough to justify arrest.

Deeg

In my moral system, there is right and wrong. Something illegal is almost never right. Legality is a starting point for morality.

I can respect civil disobediance when it's being done to promote a good cause and done without hurting other people. But there is no way that you can equate smoking a joint with the civil rights movement.

Jaywalking in most places isn't a crime. It's a civil infraction, much like traffic tickets. But, even in those places where it is a crime, it is a petty one. While possession of cannabis might be a misdemeanor, its sale is a felony. Its production is a felony. Both are also associated with lots of other criminal activity, such as gang activity and weapons violations.

That said, "responsible" cannabis use isn't the end of the world in my book, either. And the adjudicaton guidelines for security clearances don't disqualify a person for using it in the past. But it must be in the past.

Deeg

True. But you know what I meant.

Okay, I'll bite. What could I have been arrested for today?

ralfp

If you drive to work you probably committed enough traffic violations to result in an arrest (in some states it only takes one violation to permit an arrest); even the best drivers do not follow all of the laws. For example, anyone legally taking a controlled substance ("any trace" being the threshold) can be arrested for driving in IL (and other states). Did you cover your naughty bits before stepping out of the shower near a window with a view outside? If you didn't, you probably committed a sex-crime. Did you take a second dose of Tylenol before 4 hours was up? The list goes on and on.

Deeg

As I said before, in most states, traffic violations such as speeding are not arrestable. Many states do allow an arrest, however, if the driver refuses to sign the citation.

You are wrong about the threshold for driving under the influence of controlled substances in Illinois. In fact, the statute is very clear. 625 ILCS 5/11-501 only criminalizes it if the driver is under the influence "to a degree that renders the person incapable of safely driving".

Second, I have curtains in my bedroom. I don't think my neighbors need to see my "naughty bits".

And, finally, there is no crime committed if you take excessive amounts of Tylenol. The labeling is regulated by the FDA, but not the way you decide to take it.

Combat Medic

But then the question shifts to "Do the feds have the authority to write and enforce those laws?" I say they do not. However I still chose not to partake.

Combat Medic

Umm....no.

Laws are based on morality, not the other way around.

Deeg

Seriously? You don't feel the federal government has the authority to make and enforce drug laws? Good thing the Supreme Court disagrees!

Combat Medic

Seriously.

It isn't an enumerated power so the feds do it under Interstate Commerce even when everything stays within the same state.

But then, laws are just for the peasants.