You are the one who promotes the instrument used in their deaths.

Really? Kind of a stretch for you to blame pot for the child's death.

Of course we can all see the real cause of death by reading your article.

Did you bother reading it yourself?

“The death was caused by Buckley on a defenseless 17-month-old child, with what we claim was quite senseless violence, by shaking him and forcing him against a chair,”

The death was caused by Buckley

Oh no ... not this same old shit again!

It's the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument ... eh?

Your deduction in this case: "Drugs did not cause the death of the child, Buckley caused the death of the child."

It is no surprise to me that your ignorance far exceeds the ignorance continually displayed by hondo ... and that is a high compliment to hondo.

It's the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument ...

Exactly.

Knowing your liberal political bent, it's easy to see why you would blame something other than the person who committed the crime.

Chloe Thomas, 25, and her boyfriend Sean Buckley, 28, are accused of repeatedly beating 17-month-old Finley Thomas, the Daily Mail reported. Buckley is accused of killing the child.

Are you going to claim that the "drugs" magically beat the child?

The court was shown a video of how the meshing on the chair Buckley allegedly used to kill the infant matched the marks on the child’s scalp.

I Repeat : "Drugs did not cause the death of the child, Buckley caused the death of the child."

“The death was caused by Buckley on a defenseless 17-month-old child, with what we claim was quite senseless violence, by shaking him and forcing him against a chair,” Roger added. “We submit there was great tension in the household, over money, tension between each other over Buckley's habits, and claims about other women.

Are you going to claim that the "drugs" magically beat the child?

Nope, I am alleging that the "drugs" were the cause of his beating the child!

Is that correct, Gatlin?

Of course anything and everything that might be used to kill someone else should be outlawed.

Is that correct, Gatlin?

Nope.

Of course anything and everything that might be used to kill someone else should be outlawed.

Is that correct, Gatlin?

I have been thinking about this.

In January 2013, police were called to a trailer park in Snohomish County, Washington after residents heard fighting from a neighbor’s home. When police arrived, they found 192-lb Lange apparently passed out on her 175-lb boyfriend—with her chest completely smothering his face. Although some might consider death by breasts the best way to go, it seems the boyfriend did not enjoy his final moments, as witnesses heard him screaming for Lange to get off, and investigators discovered clumps of her hair in his dead hands. Lange was charged with second-degree murder.

I am alleging that the "drugs" were the cause of his beating the child!

And none of this was a factor?

“We submit there was great tension in the household, over money, tension between each other over Buckley's habits, and claims about other women.

The fact is - this would have happened with or without drugs being involved.

Of course anything and everything that might be used to kill someone else should be outlawed.

Is that correct, Gatlin?

And the there is this:

Friends and family of Derrick Birdow said he was “out of his head” in the days before he drove a car into a Baptist church and then beat a pastor to death with an electric guitar he had picked up in the church’s music room. Birdow’s widow told authorities he was paranoid that someone had injected him with drugs, and he had tried in vain to get help from a medical center. While he was never professionally diagnosed, she believed he was mentally ill.

Of course, no one will ever know for sure what was going through Birdow’s mind when he assaulted a beloved member of the community with a stringed instrument, since he died at the scene while in a patrol car. Officers used a stun gun to restrain him before placing him in the car, but when they went to check on him 10 minutes later, they discovered he had no pulse.

As it turns out, someone (probably the deceased himself) had injected Birdow with drugs, as toxicology reports from February 2013 showed Birdow was high on PCP on the day of the incident. PCP is a hallucinogenic known to cause mood disorders, paranoia, hostility, and feelings of physical strength and invulnerability.

Wait, it is. PCP is illegal. PCP is a Schedule II substance under the Controlled Substances Act.

But if libertarians have their way, everyone will be able to pick up some at the local convenience store.

And none of this was a factor?

“We submit there was great tension in the household, over money, tension between each other over Buckley's habits, and claims about other women.

The chicken or the egg" dilemma.

I go for the chicken, in this case ... meaning the drugs.

I certainly don’t believe that electric guitars should be outlawed. I believe that PCP should be outlawed.

Wait, it is. PCP is illegal. PCP is a Schedule II substance under the Controlled Substances Act.

But if libertarians have their way, everyone will be able to pick up some at the local convenience store.

Good post. There was also a case in Colorado where a guy ate some sort of pot candy, went berserk and killed his wife. And now he's trying to use pot for a Twinkies defense. Libertarians make a lot of noise about personal responsibility, but in this case you see how they try to evade personal responsibility.

Deckard (#5) --- The death was caused by Buckley (not his drug use)

Oh no ... not this same old shit again! --- It's the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument ... eh? ---- Gatlin

Of course anything and everything that might be used to kill someone else should be outlawed. ----- Is that correct, Gatlin? ---- pingunite

Gatlin will deny it, but that's been exactly the style of agit-prop he's been pushing for years now..

He is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing...

There was also a case in Colorado where a guy ate some sort of pot candy, went berserk and killed his wife. And now he's trying to use pot for a Twinkies defense. Libertarians make a lot of noise about personal responsibility, but in this case you see how they try to evade personal responsibility.

Next you'll be agreeing with gatlin that: 'since gun use can kill people, guns should be banned'.

I haven't checked that thread this morning, -- was your Kanary Klan application accepted?

I certainly don’t believe that electric guitars should be outlawed.

Explain why. You haven't done that.

Why should some things that are used to kill be outlawed, but other things not.

Is it because some things are evil?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you need a rationale for determining what things should be outlawed and what things shouldn't. The "But it's evil" argument doesn't work for me but maybe you're okay with it.

Next you'll be agreeing with gatlin that: 'since gun use can kill people, guns should be banned'.

You could say that if he had reached the conclusion that electric guitars should be outlawed, but he had the exact opposite conclusion. And he employed the electric guitar as an analogy to guns. His argument was well reasoned.

Next you'll be agreeing with gatlin that: 'since gun use can kill people, guns should be banned'.

You could say that if he had reached the conclusion that electric guitars should be outlawed, but he had the exact opposite conclusion. And he employed the electric guitar as an analogy to guns. His argument was well reasoned.

Here was his reasoning after Deckard (#5):

--- The death was caused by Buckley

(not his drug use)

Oh no ... not this same old shit again! --- It's the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument ... eh? - --- Gatlin

This is NOT well reasoned argument, it is gun bashing bull.

He is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing...

Nope, not any damn thing. Just what the laws

He is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing...

Nope, not any damn thing. Just what the laws

You didn't complete your reply, -- run out of bull?

And in any case, it's just what the Constitution allows, not what opinions about our Constitutional laws allow.

There is NO 'power to prohibit' mentioned in our Constitution.

Or it is the same power to prohibit drugsthat is the same power to prohibit pedophiles. You going to dodge this or tell me the power granted in the constitution to prohibit pedophiles?

Explain why. You haven't done that.

Why should some things that are used to kill be outlawed, but other things not.

Is it because some things are evil?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you need a rationale for determining what things should be outlawed and what things shouldn't.

The "But it's evil" argument doesn't work for me but maybe you're okay with it.

He is convinced that gov'ts have the power to prohibit. -- Any damn thing...

Wrong.

I am convinced that governments have the power to enforce lawsthey enact -- All damn laws they enact...

There is NO 'power to prohibit' mentioned in our Constitution.

Okay, let's go there ...

The Constitution Does Not Prohibit Gender Discrimination.

Not allowing men in ladies restrooms and locker rooms ... is that prohibiting?

Do you believe men should be allow to go there.

Wrong. --- I am convinced that governments have the power to enforce lawsthey enact -- All damn laws they enact...

Our gov'ts are restrained by our Constitution, which you insist gives them the power to prohibit.

Okay, let's go there ... The Constitution does not permit ANYTHING to be “stamped top secret” and kept from the PEOPLE.

Good point, one that argues against having secrecy laws, -- except that they're obviously necessary in a military sense.

So maybe we should restrict them to military/wartime usages?

Okay, let's go there ... --- Not allowing men in ladies restrooms and locker rooms ... is that prohibiting?

Nope, it's, a reasonable regulation based on the fact that there are a lot of sexual weirdos running around in canary clan land.

Do you believe men should be allow to go there.

No, and I don't like women in the men's room at football games, either... --- But if you gotta go----

Because some things like biological weapons, chemical weapons, fission bombs, fusion bombs, boosted fission weapons, neutron bomb, napalm bomb, pure fusion bombs, radiological weapons and toxicological weapons are just too inherently dangerous for ownership by private citizens while other things are not.

And you think the natural plant cannabis falls into the same category as nuclear weapons?

Is it because some things are evil?

Yes.

The "But it's evil" argument doesn't work for me but maybe you're okay with it.

It doesn’t work for me either.

But you just said some things ARE evil.

And you think the natural plant cannabis falls into the same category as nuclear weapons?

You did not ask that question, you asked:

Why should some things that are used to kill be outlawed, but other things not.

I answered your question

But you just said some things ARE evil.

Yes, I did.

Electric guitars do not cause people to commit crimes

Does marijuana "cause" people to commit crimes? Does alcohol?

Does marijuana "cause" people to commit crimes? Does alcohol?

If “cause” is to mean that the "use of drugs and alcohol" are implicated in approximately 80% of the arrests and incarcerations, then the answer is probably … yes.

I will add that it should be important to note that an estimated 60% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drug use.

it should be important to note that an estimated 60% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for illegal drug use.

What percentage of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for alcohol?

And it's no less important to note that an estimated 100% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for O2 and H2O.

And it's no less important to note that an estimated 100% of those arrested and incarcerated for most types of crimes test positive for O2 and H2O.

If there were such a tests ...

Edit:

The internationally accepted standard for such testing is a GC-MS (gas chromatography, mass spectrophotometry) device. This piece of equipment is capable of isolating and identifying a wide range of drugs, including prescription drugs and illegal (contraband) drugs. It does this by matching the digitally produced peaks appearing on a graph-like sheet of computer paper. The computer tracks the time of the introduction of the sample and the exit of the sample from the device and then identifies the substance based on the retention time (how long it took the substance to pass through a column packed with inert material).

Maybe, maybe not ... on the O2.

Among violent crimes, with the exception of robberies, the offender is far more likely to have been drinking than under the influence of other drugs." - https://www.ncadd.org/about-addiction/alcohol-drugs-and-crime

ConservingFreedom posted on 2016-06-03 15:48:51 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#41. To: ConservingFreedom (#40)

Your point, please.

Gatlin posted on 2016-06-03 19:08:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

#42. To: Gatlin (#41)

Like things should be treated in like manner; IF currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations it also ought to be outlawed.

Alcohol cannot be prohibited again, not only because it's unconstitutional, -- but because gatlin uses it, just as most of us do.

Naturally the canary leader will not admit this, but it's true.

Poor retard prohibitionists, -- hoisted on their own petard.

Like things should be treated in like manner; IF currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations it also ought to be outlawed.

That’s one view point. Another would be that if alcohol is legal and causes the majority of crimes, then if currently outlawed drugs were made legal …would that crime rate increase to the level of alcohol with more drugs easily accessible?

I am aware of what has happened in Portugal with the decriminalized all drugs 16 years agi and many drug advocates for decriminalizing or legalizing illicit drugs have gloried in Portugal's success. They said it works. Buy some social scientists have other factors were involved in the decrease of overdoses, disease and usage.

Alcohol -- but because gatlin uses it, just as most of us do.

Nope. I don't touch alcohol. I drink Gerstel.

You really stop making assumptions and unproven accusations.

No tobacco or illegal drugs either.

so
does
marijuana

paranoid
schizoidmania
too

keep
America
sane
great
again

love
boris

Naturally the canary leader will not admit this, but it's true.

Poor retard prohibitionists, -- hoisted on their own petard.

Nope. I don't touch alcohol. I drink Gerstel.

I've seen your crazy cocktail hour posts in the past, so you'll have to pardon my doubt. -- But if you've taken the pledge, on the wagon, congrats, it's about time you sobered up.

"Like things should be treated in like manner; IF currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations it also ought to be outlawed."

That’s one view point. Another would be that if alcohol is legal and causes the majority of crimes, then if currently outlawed drugs were made legal …would that crime rate increase to the level of alcohol with more drugs easily accessible?

If that were true (and it's an empirical hypothesis for which there's no evidence currently on the table) it wouldn't contradict what I said.

Do you hold that currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations? If so, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations, as I have shown, do you hold that it also ought to be outlawed?

Do you hold that currently outlawed drugs ought to remain outlawed because they are implicated in arrests and incarcerations? If so, then since alcohol is likewise implicated in arrests and incarcerations, as I have shown, do you hold that it also ought to be outlawed?

I hold that the bastards who want to overindulge and overdose and kill themselves should be freely allowed to do that … and the sooner the better for society. During one year in the recent past, there were 80,000 drug and alcohol overdose deaths … good riddance. I do have grave concern for those innocent folks who are killed or maimed in accidents and criminal activities caused by those under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

I do not hold that alcohol should be outlawed, that was tried and did not work. I anticipate that the reported number of 9.9 million Americans who drove during one recent year while under the influence of illicit drugs will grow in number with legalizing cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs … and this will result in an increase in accidents and deaths.

I can foresee that perhaps the legalization of drugs will increase the use in the general population and lead to the use of more drugs by young folks. I can see the possibility this will exacerbate the existing deleterious effects that drug use already has on our society. I am aware that with drug legalization will come more government subsidization of the addicts and this would be a drag on our economy … why should I have to pay for that?

Teenage pregnancy rates are at an all time low

Teenage pregnancy rates, or is it really "teenage birth rates"?

The easier access to abortion has artificially lowered that number, methinks.

I hold that the bastards who want to overindulge and overdose and kill themselves should be freely allowed to do that

Hear, hear! And those who want to use to a moderate degree should be freely allowed to do that.

I do not hold that alcohol should be outlawed, that was tried and did not work.

It's not clear that outlawing other drugs is working for anyone but the cartels and criminals who reap the profits inflated by the law-created oligopoly.

I anticipate that the reported number of 9.9 million Americans who drove during one recent year while under the influence of illicit drugs will grow in number with legalizing cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs

Doesn't add up - people who didn't do drugs when they were illegal will continue to not drive under the influence, which will remain illegal.

I can foresee that perhaps the legalization of drugs will increase the use in the general population and lead to the use of more drugs by young folks.

The available evidence points the other way: young people for years have reported that they can get illegal-for-all marijuana more easily than legal- for-adults-only beer or cigarettes.

The easier access to abortion has artificially lowered that number, methinks.

Abortion rates have also been dropping for many years.

The available evidence points the other way ...

I have seen different "studies" and "reports" that allege this.

During my 82 years on God's earth, I have learned there are parties on both sides of an issue who will falsify data to support their agenda and attempt to sway people to their cause. Unfortunately, it is often times effective.

I understand that happens, but it will not preclude me from keeping on with my reading. In doing so, I just keep on learning. I am skeptical by nature, and by professional training. I read those reports and while I will not dispute them, I have no way of validating them to my satisfaction.

It should be noted that the skepticism in my posts are not noticed and it is mistaken as either approval or disapproval. I continue to chuckle when one LF member consistently posts what I am thinking without ever asking me to explain my thoughts.

These last comments really do not fit into the discussion, it is merely a thought that reoccurred to me as I was composing this post and I just felt like including it, since I was thinking it. Thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.

I have seen different "studies" and "reports" that allege this [that young people for years have reported that they can get illegal-for-all marijuana more easily than legal- for-adults-only beer or cigarettes].

During my 82 years on God's earth, I have learned there are parties on both sides of an issue who will falsify data to support their agenda and attempt to sway people to their cause.

I trust you don't think that this makes it a valid argument to reject data solely on the basis of who provides it - that's the millenia-old fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, however you dress it up.

In the case of the data currently under discussion, that fallacy is unavailable - the data is from www.casacolumbia.o rg/download/file/fid/640, provided by an organization whose mission statement is, "CASAColumbia informs Americans of the economic and social costs of addiction and risky substance use and its impact on their lives; assesses what works in prevention, treatment and disease management; and encourages every individual and institution to take responsibility to reduce these health problems." - www.casacolumbia.org/about

Thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.