Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
Fukkenshredded
New member
At this point, I have to agree with Frackal's observation that rec drug discussion is definitely going to draw more attention that simple steroid discussion. The difference between rec drugs and steroids is obvious--steroids do not get you high.
Now, as far as the DEA is concerned, I would imagine that each agent is different in his or her interpretation of of what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion', and that is why the ruling, in its strictest sense, is in and of itself unconstitutional.
Of course, that means nothing right now.
However, there is a direct correlation between violence and rec drug distribution, and the ratio of violence/rec drug deals to violence/steroid deals is markedly different, with the rec drug category falling into the more violence arena of affairs.
Mr. Ashcroft is not as concerned with the health risks associated with rec drug use as he is with the violence associated with it.
While I certainly am no fan of John Ashcroft, I do not think his motives are what most of you seem to think that they are. However, he still ranks low in my book because he is very rigid and very one-sided, as well as shortsighted, in his views toward drugs in general.
For the drug user, John Ashcroft is a terrifying individual.
The real problem is that drug use, both rec and roid, cannot in all actuality be converted into a crime, according to the constitution (if we delineate strictly). At some point, this fact became obscured by the hysteria imposed on us, primarily by the media, and the resulting lobbyist's success in convincing the politicians on deck that in order to get votes, you have to fight drugs.
Drugs aren't the problem, by and large. It's VIOLENCE that created the fear, which caused the hysterical reaction of unconstitional legislation.
From a standpoint of patriotism, I would fight for anyone's right to take drugs, although I do not condone drug use for anyone. There are drugs that I simply abhore, and some that I used to like quite a lot. Of course at present, I do not take any drugs at all, with the exception of oxandrolone, which was prescribed to me by my doctor.
I actually quit GHB and all other rec drugs a while back as a result of the increasing vice grip of legislation that simply made the risk greater than the pleasure.
So in that sense, Ashcroft's plan is working quite well.
You must understand though that all he is doing is ENFORCING what has been on the books for a long time. He is not actually writing the legislation.
Here is something that most of you will not agree with at all, but is the stone cold truth.
Your best friend in this issue is Clarence Thomas.
Imagine if John Ashcroft had the ability to both write and enforce legislation (he doesn't). Now, THAT would be a virtual nightmare, we can all agree.
Well, that is exactly what the leftist justices are all proposing...that the the legislative and judiciary bodies be slightly overlapped, and that judges be given 'latitude' in their interpretations of legislation.
This is why it is absolutely imperative that strict constructionists maintain the majority in the Supreme Court of the United States.
So guys like Ashcroft can't legislate and punish at the same time.
Suppose that Gore had won the presidency, and the Supreme Court was lined with liberal judges.
Then, imagine that everything that has happened during the Bush years, including Bush becoming elected, succeeding Gore, happened exactly the same, only four years later, 9/11 and all.
In that scenario, you would have an Ashcroft who can 'have some latitude', or 'liberal interpretation' (which is exactly what the term liberal refers to), of any legislation.
Anyone here want to see that day?
So I understand Frackal completely, and I agree with his assessment of the risk involved now. In fact, I posted about this with GHB a while ago, and warned everyone that soon there would be some busts right here on this board.
People actually accused me of being either a Fed or a charlatan.
I am niether.
I served in the Navy, in a rather difficult capacity, and was honorably discharged due to an injury.
I certainly understand the importance of solid leadership, and I have a very thorough understanding of the political/judiciary system, because I study it. I am worried for my children, quite honestly, but not because of Bush or Ashcroft.
I worry because the average citizen has no idea where he lives, or how he got there. He has no concept of his country, and what freedom really is. He has no understanding of the necessity of defense. He only has appetites and opinions.
And that, my friends, is the real problem.
Nice post Frackal, I agree with your idea on this one, even if it is for different reasons.
Now, as far as the DEA is concerned, I would imagine that each agent is different in his or her interpretation of of what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion', and that is why the ruling, in its strictest sense, is in and of itself unconstitutional.
Of course, that means nothing right now.
However, there is a direct correlation between violence and rec drug distribution, and the ratio of violence/rec drug deals to violence/steroid deals is markedly different, with the rec drug category falling into the more violence arena of affairs.
Mr. Ashcroft is not as concerned with the health risks associated with rec drug use as he is with the violence associated with it.
While I certainly am no fan of John Ashcroft, I do not think his motives are what most of you seem to think that they are. However, he still ranks low in my book because he is very rigid and very one-sided, as well as shortsighted, in his views toward drugs in general.
For the drug user, John Ashcroft is a terrifying individual.
The real problem is that drug use, both rec and roid, cannot in all actuality be converted into a crime, according to the constitution (if we delineate strictly). At some point, this fact became obscured by the hysteria imposed on us, primarily by the media, and the resulting lobbyist's success in convincing the politicians on deck that in order to get votes, you have to fight drugs.
Drugs aren't the problem, by and large. It's VIOLENCE that created the fear, which caused the hysterical reaction of unconstitional legislation.
From a standpoint of patriotism, I would fight for anyone's right to take drugs, although I do not condone drug use for anyone. There are drugs that I simply abhore, and some that I used to like quite a lot. Of course at present, I do not take any drugs at all, with the exception of oxandrolone, which was prescribed to me by my doctor.
I actually quit GHB and all other rec drugs a while back as a result of the increasing vice grip of legislation that simply made the risk greater than the pleasure.
So in that sense, Ashcroft's plan is working quite well.
You must understand though that all he is doing is ENFORCING what has been on the books for a long time. He is not actually writing the legislation.
Here is something that most of you will not agree with at all, but is the stone cold truth.
Your best friend in this issue is Clarence Thomas.
Imagine if John Ashcroft had the ability to both write and enforce legislation (he doesn't). Now, THAT would be a virtual nightmare, we can all agree.
Well, that is exactly what the leftist justices are all proposing...that the the legislative and judiciary bodies be slightly overlapped, and that judges be given 'latitude' in their interpretations of legislation.
This is why it is absolutely imperative that strict constructionists maintain the majority in the Supreme Court of the United States.
So guys like Ashcroft can't legislate and punish at the same time.
Suppose that Gore had won the presidency, and the Supreme Court was lined with liberal judges.
Then, imagine that everything that has happened during the Bush years, including Bush becoming elected, succeeding Gore, happened exactly the same, only four years later, 9/11 and all.
In that scenario, you would have an Ashcroft who can 'have some latitude', or 'liberal interpretation' (which is exactly what the term liberal refers to), of any legislation.
Anyone here want to see that day?
So I understand Frackal completely, and I agree with his assessment of the risk involved now. In fact, I posted about this with GHB a while ago, and warned everyone that soon there would be some busts right here on this board.
People actually accused me of being either a Fed or a charlatan.
I am niether.
I served in the Navy, in a rather difficult capacity, and was honorably discharged due to an injury.
I certainly understand the importance of solid leadership, and I have a very thorough understanding of the political/judiciary system, because I study it. I am worried for my children, quite honestly, but not because of Bush or Ashcroft.
I worry because the average citizen has no idea where he lives, or how he got there. He has no concept of his country, and what freedom really is. He has no understanding of the necessity of defense. He only has appetites and opinions.
And that, my friends, is the real problem.
Nice post Frackal, I agree with your idea on this one, even if it is for different reasons.
But the government reasoning behind using the new anti-terrorism laws is just that... it's how they can slide it in under the new warrant tests...
