Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FSP] Re: Request for help

Expand Messages
  • Alan R. Weiss
    The assumption of unsavoriness of drug customers is probably unwarranted. A very large number of criminals are such because of the Drugged War itself. A
    Message 1 of 22 , Aug 26, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      The assumption of unsavoriness of drug customers is probably unwarranted. A very large number of "criminals" are such because of the Drugged War itself. A fair fraction are marijuana political prisoners.

      In the Free State, drugs are NOT free - you have to pay for them in money or currency - and since people will likely be ARMED it is unlikely druggies will try robbery. They will, however, try smuggling back into the other 49 crypto-fascist states - but that is not necessarily "our" problem.

      As for the likelihood of hard drugs being created in neighborhood meth labs, its HIGHLY unlikely. First of all, INSURANCE companies will doubtlessly be more vigilant about inspecting homes before they insure, and they won't write policies for meth labs at home. Second, meth labs are AT home these days because its illegal to have them, and people don't want to risk setting up shop in office parks and such. Third, you have to TRUST in people's innate sense of reason - and taking crystal meth is a VERY damaging thing to do. Marijuana farms are very likely - the plant has 25,000 uses, after all, including recreational ones - but hard drugs are unlikely to be preferred. Not in a state where if you don't work, or have other income, you starve. Hard drugs tends to interfere with all that after awhile.

      YMMV,

      Alan


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Dave Hitt
      To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:45 AM
      Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Request for help


      At 09:32 AM 8/26/2003 -0400, you wrote:
      > >> You have no right to impose your personal morality on others ... you only
      > >> have a right to live your life as you choose.
      >
      > > While I wholeheartedly agree with this principle, there's also the
      > > matter of people whose families might have lived in the chosen State for
      > > generations who might not be too thrilled with meth labs in the
      > > neighborhood, no matter how safely the stuff is brewed. This Free State
      > > process is going to take time, dedication, perseverance, balance and
      > > lots of good sense.
      >
      >When drugs laws are repealed the financial incentive for this kind of
      >stuff largely disappears. Cries like this are simply FUD spread by
      >those whose interests are served by the status quo.

      Not necessarily. If/when drug laws are repealed, we'll have lots and lots
      of visitors from other states coming to pick up supplies, and many of them
      will not be the most savory of characters. This will also give the feds an
      excuse to come barging in.

      I suspect the biggest problem for the FSP is not going to be the locals,
      but the feds. They are NOT going to like this one little bit, and are
      likely to make big issues out of little issues in order to come stomping in.
    • Dan the Man
      Well, let s see - the federal government is supposed to be concerned with the protection of life, liberty and property. Most of what you see them doing is
      Message 2 of 22 , Aug 26, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, let's see - the federal government is supposed to be concerned with the protection of life, liberty and property. Most of what you see them doing is just the opposite of what I would call protection. The state laws are supposed to supersede fed and local over and above state. Believe me, FSP is/will be in opposition to many fed laws. But they were unconstitutional way before we came along. I guess, to caricature the impending scene - it's like a frog in a blue heron's mouth with his front feet in a strangle hold on the heron. Who's gonna win?

        Jay <jay@...> wrote:> I suspect the biggest problem for the FSP is not going to be the locals,
        > but the feds. They are NOT going to like this one little bit, and are
        > likely to make big issues out of little issues in order to come stomping in.

        Why the feds? All were supposed to be doing is promoting a liberty-oriented
        political party/system...right? Obviously if we start opposing federal laws
        there is going to be problems, and of course the flack from the main two
        political parties in power.



        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Dave Hitt
        ... I was refering to the unsavoriness of drug dealers. If drugs are freely avaliable in The Free State, then dealers will come looking for wares to bring
        Message 3 of 22 , Aug 27, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          At 05:29 PM 8/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
          >The assumption of unsavoriness of drug customers is probably
          >unwarranted. A very large number of "criminals" are such because of the
          >Drugged War itself. A fair fraction are marijuana political prisoners.

          I was refering to the unsavoriness of drug dealers. If drugs are freely
          avaliable in The Free State, then dealers will come looking for wares to
          bring back home.

          >In the Free State, drugs are NOT free - you have to pay for them in money
          >or currency - and since people will likely be ARMED it is unlikely
          >druggies will try robbery. They will, however, try smuggling back into
          >the other 49 crypto-fascist states - but that is not necessarily "our" problem.

          But it becomes our problem, because that makes it interstate comerence, and
          that gives the feds the excuse to get involved.

          >As for the likelihood of hard drugs being created in neighborhood meth
          >labs, its HIGHLY unlikely. First of all, INSURANCE companies will
          >doubtlessly be more vigilant about inspecting homes before they insure,
          >and they won't write policies for meth labs at home. Second, meth labs
          >are AT home these days because its illegal to have them, and people don't
          >want to risk setting up shop in office parks and such. Third, you have
          >to TRUST in people's innate sense of reason - and taking crystal meth is a
          >VERY damaging thing to do. Marijuana farms are very likely - the plant
          >has 25,000 uses, after all, including recreational ones - but hard drugs
          >are unlikely to be preferred. Not in a state where if you don't work, or
          >have other income, you starve. Hard drugs tends to interfere with all
          >that after awhile.

          Most folks, given the choice, avoid hard drugs. Whenever anyone rallys in
          support of the War on Some Drugs, I always ask them if cocaine became legal
          tomorrow, would they run out and buy some? They answer "of course
          not." "Why, then, do you assume everyone else will? The people who will
          are those who are *already* buying it on the black market, and if they can
          get it safely, for a reasonable price, then *you* are safer, because they
          won't have to hit you over the head to get enough to support their
          habit." But the argument never works, because those who have swallowed the
          governments rhetoric on it are religious in their anti-drug fervor, and are
          therefore immune to logic or reason.
        • Alan R. Weiss
          ... From: Jay To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Request for help ... Why the feds? All were
          Message 4 of 22 , Aug 27, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Jay
            To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:58 PM
            Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Request for help


            > I suspect the biggest problem for the FSP is not going to be the locals,
            > but the feds. They are NOT going to like this one little bit, and are
            > likely to make big issues out of little issues in order to come stomping in.

            Why the feds? All were supposed to be doing is promoting a liberty-oriented
            political party/system...right? Obviously if we start opposing federal laws
            there is going to be problems, and of course the flack from the main two
            political parties in power.


            The War on Drugs, or as I call it, The Drugged War, is a Federal matter. It has resulted in the greatest destruction of civil liberties since Lincoln, except for the PATRIOT Act. RICO, illegal search and seizure, and CORRUPTION result. Corruption? Of course: Feral Gummy Mints give money and resources to those local police departments that crack down on drugs. This money buys new squad cars, nicer guns, and other goodies and toys. The incentive to enforce the Bill of Rights is destroyed in favor of Feral drug laws.

            The federalization of drug enforcement is a disaster and an abomination against the Bill of Rights.

            Alan


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Alan R. Weiss
            ... From: Dave Hitt To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 8:58 AM Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Request for help ... I was refering to
            Message 5 of 22 , Aug 27, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Dave Hitt
              To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 8:58 AM
              Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: Request for help


              At 05:29 PM 8/26/2003 -0500, you wrote:
              >The assumption of unsavoriness of drug customers is probably
              >unwarranted. A very large number of "criminals" are such because of the
              >Drugged War itself. A fair fraction are marijuana political prisoners.

              I was refering to the unsavoriness of drug dealers. If drugs are freely
              avaliable in The Free State, then dealers will come looking for wares to
              bring back home.


              Yes, perhaps. But in the Free State, its unlikely that drugs will be "freely available." It IS true, however, that the TWO biggest triggers for armed invasion by the Feral Gummy Mint criminals will be to enforce the Drugged War, and Income Taxes.

              We may very well see another "Whiskey Rebellion", but if you think liberty is going to come cheaply, you may - or may not - be right. My greatest wish is that Divine Providence intercedes and prevents bloodshed, and that common sense prevails.

              Note: I do NOT speak for the FSP in these discussions, just myself.



              >In the Free State, drugs are NOT free - you have to pay for them in money
              >or currency - and since people will likely be ARMED it is unlikely
              >druggies will try robbery. They will, however, try smuggling back into
              >the other 49 crypto-fascist states - but that is not necessarily "our" problem.

              But it becomes our problem, because that makes it interstate comerence, and
              that gives the feds the excuse to get involved.

              Yes, that's exactly right. We can hope that drug sellers bind their clients by contract to NOT distribute in The Other 49 but we'll just have to deal with this as it comes up. People will be free to make their own decisions.


              >As for the likelihood of hard drugs being created in neighborhood meth
              >labs, its HIGHLY unlikely. First of all, INSURANCE companies will
              >doubtlessly be more vigilant about inspecting homes before they insure,
              >and they won't write policies for meth labs at home. Second, meth labs
              >are AT home these days because its illegal to have them, and people don't
              >want to risk setting up shop in office parks and such. Third, you have
              >to TRUST in people's innate sense of reason - and taking crystal meth is a
              >VERY damaging thing to do. Marijuana farms are very likely - the plant
              >has 25,000 uses, after all, including recreational ones - but hard drugs
              >are unlikely to be preferred. Not in a state where if you don't work, or
              >have other income, you starve. Hard drugs tends to interfere with all
              >that after awhile.

              Most folks, given the choice, avoid hard drugs. Whenever anyone rallys in
              support of the War on Some Drugs, I always ask them if cocaine became legal
              tomorrow, would they run out and buy some? They answer "of course
              not." "Why, then, do you assume everyone else will? The people who will
              are those who are *already* buying it on the black market, and if they can
              get it safely, for a reasonable price, then *you* are safer, because they
              won't have to hit you over the head to get enough to support their
              habit." But the argument never works, because those who have swallowed the
              governments rhetoric on it are religious in their anti-drug fervor, and are
              therefore immune to logic or reason.

              It is utterly imperative that the Free State have excellent communication and public relations skills of Franklinesque magnitude to convince other nations to express outrage at intervention in the Free State's internal policies. It is also quite important that individuals not provoke the Feral Gummy Mint's aardvarks to come a-lookin' ...
              No one wants another Waco based on defending a drug lab. A concerted campaign to undermine the Drugged War using the free press would seem called for by those IN that business (I am not).

              Alan
            • Gary Snyder
              ... The unsavoriness of drug dealers is due to its illegality. Are bartenders unsavory? ... Drugs won t be freely available in the FS UNTIL and ONLY until an
              Message 6 of 22 , Aug 27, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave wrote:
                >
                > you wrote:
                >>
                >> The assumption of unsavoriness of drug customers is probably
                >> unwarranted. A very large number of "criminals" are such because of
                >> the Drugged War itself. A fair fraction are marijuana political
                >> prisoners.
                >
                > I was refering to the unsavoriness of drug dealers.

                The "unsavoriness" of drug dealers is due to its illegality.

                Are bartenders unsavory?

                > If drugs are freely avaliable in The Free State, then dealers will
                > come looking for wares to bring back home.

                Drugs won't be freely available in the FS UNTIL and ONLY until an
                agreement is made with the feds.

                Gary
              • Dave Hitt
                ... Excellent point. But if drugs are easier to obtain in the Free State, but not in others, those unsavory (i.e. criminal) elements are going to be visiting
                Message 7 of 22 , Aug 27, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 12:44 PM 8/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:
                  >Dave wrote:
                  > >
                  > > you wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> The assumption of unsavoriness of drug customers is probably
                  > >> unwarranted. A very large number of "criminals" are such because of
                  > >> the Drugged War itself. A fair fraction are marijuana political
                  > >> prisoners.
                  > >
                  > > I was refering to the unsavoriness of drug dealers.
                  >
                  >The "unsavoriness" of drug dealers is due to its illegality.
                  >
                  >Are bartenders unsavory?

                  Excellent point. But if drugs are easier to obtain in the Free State, but
                  not in others, those unsavory (i.e. criminal) elements are going to be
                  visiting to pick up their merchandise. The supporters of the WSOD will use
                  this as an argument against any kind of a reasonable drug policy.



                  > > If drugs are freely avaliable in The Free State, then dealers will
                  > > come looking for wares to bring back home.
                  >
                  >Drugs won't be freely available in the FS UNTIL and ONLY until an
                  >agreement is made with the feds.

                  That will never happen. The feds have way to much at stake in this battle,
                  and they never, ever, want it to end. The best we can hope for is that
                  they'll leave us alone, but I think that's a vain hope.
                • Gary Snyder
                  ... If these unsavory (i.e. criminal) elements are not hurting people, I fail to see the problem. ... We ve seen them use everything. ... Maybe. But I
                  Message 8 of 22 , Aug 28, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave wrote:
                    >
                    >> you wrote:
                    >>> Dave wrote:
                    >>>
                    >>> I was refering to the unsavoriness of drug dealers.
                    >>
                    >> The "unsavoriness" of drug dealers is due to its illegality.
                    >>
                    >> Are bartenders unsavory?
                    >
                    > Excellent point. But if drugs are easier to obtain in the Free
                    > State, but not in others, those unsavory (i.e. criminal) elements
                    > are going to be visiting to pick up their merchandise.

                    If these unsavory (i.e. criminal) elements are not hurting people,
                    I fail to see the problem.

                    > The supporters of the WSOD will use this as an argument against any
                    > kind of a reasonable drug policy.

                    <shrug> We've seen them use everything.

                    >>> If drugs are freely avaliable in The Free State, then dealers will
                    >>> come looking for wares to bring back home.
                    >>
                    >> Drugs won't be freely available in the FS UNTIL and ONLY until an
                    >> agreement is made with the feds.
                    >
                    > That will never happen. The feds have way to much at stake in this
                    > battle, and they never, ever, want it to end. The best we can hope
                    > for is that they'll leave us alone, but I think that's a vain hope.

                    Maybe.

                    But I can imagine the Feds agreeing to "stand down" within our borders.
                    Without local cooperation, waging their war within a FS's borders
                    would not only be expensive (impossible?), IMO it'd be a PR nightmare.

                    At the VERY least, we'd raise the debate.

                    Gary
                  • Mike Lorrey
                    ... Depends. In Vermont, for example, a felon is on trial now for posession of a firearm in Federal court, even though it is his right under Vermont law. This
                    Message 9 of 22 , Aug 28, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Gary Snyder <gary@...> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > That will never happen. The feds have way to much at stake in
                      > this
                      > > battle, and they never, ever, want it to end. The best we can
                      > hope
                      > > for is that they'll leave us alone, but I think that's a vain
                      > hope.
                      >
                      > Maybe.
                      >
                      > But I can imagine the Feds agreeing to "stand down" within our
                      > borders.
                      > Without local cooperation, waging their war within a FS's borders
                      > would not only be expensive (impossible?), IMO it'd be a PR
                      > nightmare.
                      >
                      > At the VERY least, we'd raise the debate.

                      Depends. In Vermont, for example, a felon is on trial now for posession
                      of a firearm in Federal court, even though it is his right under
                      Vermont law. This is raising no hackles among the gun owning Vermont
                      public, so far as I can see.

                      =====
                      Mike Lorrey
                      "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                      - Gen. John Stark
                      Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.zblogger.com
                      Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
                      Pro-tech freedom discussion:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

                      __________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
                      http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
                    • Gary Snyder
                      ... Vermont doesn t contain 20,000 libertarian activists visibly protesting the prosecution, a libertarian Governor and state legislators using their
                      Message 10 of 22 , Aug 28, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Mike wrote:
                        >
                        > --- Gary Snyder <gary@...> wrote:
                        >>
                        >> Maybe.
                        >>
                        >> But I can imagine the Feds agreeing to "stand down" within our
                        >> borders. Without local cooperation, waging their war within a FS's
                        >> borders would not only be expensive (impossible?), IMO it'd be a PR
                        >> nightmare.
                        >>
                        >> At the VERY least, we'd raise the debate.
                        >
                        > Depends. In Vermont, for example, a felon is on trial now for
                        > posession of a firearm in Federal court, even though it is his right
                        > under Vermont law. This is raising no hackles among the gun owning
                        > Vermont public, so far as I can see.

                        Vermont doesn't contain 20,000 libertarian activists visibly protesting
                        the prosecution, a libertarian Governor and state legislators using
                        their bully-pulpits to condemn it, and libertarian Senators and
                        Congressman doing the same.

                        Gary
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.