Why is a doper snorting bath salts my problem?

User Forum Topic
Submitted by faterikcartman on January 22, 2011 - 5:05pm

From the schools to society at large everything is being geared to the lowest common denominator. We are doomed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110122/ap_o...

I'm sure drinking motor oil or snorting Ajax cleanser will also cause deleterious effects. If enough people do it will there be calls to ban them to? Given the number of children who die in them every year I can't believe they still make bathtubs.

Submitted by CA renter on January 23, 2011 - 2:46am.

From the link:

In northern Mississippi's Itawamba County, Sheriff Chris Dickinson said his office has handled about 30 encounters with bath salt users in the past two months alone. He said the problem grew last year in his rural area after a Mississippi law began restricting the sale of pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in making methamphetamine.
------------------

Faterikcartman,

Clearly, you do not understand how successful these bans have been.

In order to save everyone from him/herself, we need to prevent **everyone else** from gaining access to all manner of "dangerous" substances, tools, vehicles, sports activities, etc. We'd better get started enacting those bans, because we have a long, long list of products/activities to ban until we are all "safe."

/sarcasm ;)

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 23, 2011 - 8:20am.

As Huey Lewis and the news said many years ago, I want a new drug....

Humans are programmed to take drigs or attempt in some way to alter their consciousness in any one of a million ways. That's what booze love religion sports masturbation and meditation are ... And bath salts are only the latest in the infinite wats we seek to escape ourselves if only for a moment

Submitted by faterikcartman on January 23, 2011 - 12:27pm.

CA renter wrote:
From the link:

In northern Mississippi's Itawamba County, Sheriff Chris Dickinson said his office has handled about 30 encounters with bath salt users in the past two months alone. He said the problem grew last year in his rural area after a Mississippi law began restricting the sale of pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in making methamphetamine.
------------------

Faterikcartman,

Clearly, you do not understand how successful these bans have been.

In order to save everyone from him/herself, we need to prevent **everyone else** from gaining access to all manner of "dangerous" substances, tools, vehicles, sports activities, etc. We'd better get started enacting those bans, because we have a long, long list of products/activities to ban until we are all "safe."

/sarcasm ;)

You're right on the money. I know the political bent on this forum is generally pretty far left, but I always secretly pray that it is just from all the constant brainwashing from the likes of college professors and Keith Olberman. Deep down if we went issue to issue surely people must see that the nanny state is corrosive and ultimately nibbles away at our freedom bite by bite.

Submitted by faterikcartman on January 23, 2011 - 12:33pm.

walterwhite wrote:
As Huey Lewis and the news said many years ago, I want a new drug....

Humans are programmed to take drigs or attempt in some way to alter their consciousness in any one of a million ways. That's what booze love religion sports masturbation and meditation are ... And bath salts are only the latest in the infinite wats we seek to escape ourselves if only for a moment

That was funny stuff Walter: Bath salts -- the natural progression...LOL! Just saw the movie "Extract" last night and there's a scene where the protagonist says he would give up everything just to have a quiet place to masturbate.

Submitted by Cube on January 23, 2011 - 6:09pm.

In terms of absurd things, I had a friend in college who used to snort packets of sweetener and black pepper. I suppose those will be the next to go...

I never thought of this forum as particularly far left. I've been lurking since 2005. In the early days, I'd say that the demographic was reasonably mixed, perhaps with the vocal right being slightly more prolific than the vocal left (if not out-numbering them in users).

In any case, I abhor the nanny state. I heard a serious discussion proposing the shutdown of all pseudoephedrine plants in the world and a complete ban on the substance. I've given the PE (Placebo Edition) a try, and I'm fairly sure it doesn't work as well, at least not for me (haven't done a blind study yet though).

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 23, 2011 - 7:08pm.

methamphetamine is not the problem. human emptiness is the problem. used to be youd just get your rx for your amphetamines in the 60s. MOTHER'S LITTLE HELPER, rolling stones...

Submitted by Arraya on January 23, 2011 - 8:39pm.

Americans in general seem to have an amazingly insatiable appetite for drugs, legal as well.

But, bath salt? Good grief, how tacky, at least get some good drugs

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 23, 2011 - 9:43pm.

you're young, despondent, short on funds, you've heard the bad press on huffing glue, maybe bath salts, what are you to do? I'd recommend going for a 100 mile bike ride. You'll be endorphinized somewhere during the ride, then you'll feel maybe a little crappy at the end. if the authorities could make that feeling illegal, they would. gettin high on the road...

Submitted by CA renter on January 24, 2011 - 1:44am.

faterikcartman wrote:
CA renter wrote:
From the link:

In northern Mississippi's Itawamba County, Sheriff Chris Dickinson said his office has handled about 30 encounters with bath salt users in the past two months alone. He said the problem grew last year in his rural area after a Mississippi law began restricting the sale of pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient in making methamphetamine.
------------------

Faterikcartman,

Clearly, you do not understand how successful these bans have been.

In order to save everyone from him/herself, we need to prevent **everyone else** from gaining access to all manner of "dangerous" substances, tools, vehicles, sports activities, etc. We'd better get started enacting those bans, because we have a long, long list of products/activities to ban until we are all "safe."

/sarcasm ;)

You're right on the money. I know the political bent on this forum is generally pretty far left, but I always secretly pray that it is just from all the constant brainwashing from the likes of college professors and Keith Olberman. Deep down if we went issue to issue surely people must see that the nanny state is corrosive and ultimately nibbles away at our freedom bite by bite.

Actually, I'm probably one of the more "left" posters here, but it has nothing to do with Olberman or college professors, and has everything to do with logic, and a basic understanding of history, sociology, and psychology. I'm an economic (not political) socialist, but also support the right to bear arms, and the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit (barring *real* abuse or neglect, of course). I support gay marriage, and even polygamous marriage, as long as nobody is opposed, and nobody is being hurt by it.

Believe it or not, there are a number of left-leaning types who are greater supporters of individual rights than many right-leaning types. That's the problem with labels and stereotypes, all too often, they reduce arguments and debates to name-calling and childish taunts, rather than debating the facts and explaining the logic behind one's beliefs.

I honestly believe the "two party" rhetoric is used by those in power to maintain their power via "divide and conquer" strategies. The worst thing that could happen to them (and the best thing for middle-class Americans) would be for us to have civil, informed, logic-based, honest conversations about what is best for this country and its citizens. That would really freak them out. ;)

Submitted by faterikcartman on January 24, 2011 - 2:17am.

CAR, the platitudes sound great but the people you vote for vote to suppress the freedom of individuals, silence their opponents, and resort to ad hominem attacks instead of facts while logic and reason are rarely part of the equation. I'm reminded of an old computer acronym: GIGO. If one's facts are wrong in the first instance it only makes sense that their conclusions are also incorrect. Or, frankly, a '40's German saying they love the Jews while supporting Hitler. I'm sure it makes them feel great about themselves, but it sucks for the Jews.

As to your last paragraph. A big part of me wants to embrace that view. The sad reality, however, is too few people are interested. Candidates use attack ads, for example, because they work. If the other side doesn't do the same they are probably in trouble. The voters likely get what they deserve.

And that was the beauty of the original Constitution and why I so resent left-wingers who reject originalism and embrace a so-called "living Constitution". The original system gave the federal government very limited powers. So hippies could have all the greatest ideas in the world and were free to employ them in their own lives without, as they do now, shoving them down the throats of others who have their own ideas.

Submitted by Eugene on January 24, 2011 - 2:48am.

Hold on, let me see if I get this right.

You're complaining that Louisiana and Mississippi are notorious examples of corrosive far-left nanny states. Is that correct?

Would that be the same Louisiana and Mississippi that comprise the heart of the Bible Belt, and where 11 out of 12 congressmen who won the elections last fall were Republicans, or did I fall into some kind of parallel universe?

Submitted by Eugene on January 24, 2011 - 5:09am.

Quote:
nd that was the beauty of the original Constitution and why I so resent left-wingers who reject originalism and embrace a so-called "living Constitution". The original system gave the federal government very limited powers. So hippies could have all the greatest ideas in the world and were free to employ them in their own lives without, as they do now, shoving them down the throats of others who have their own ideas.

The original system gave the federal government very limited powers, but it placed virtually no restrictions on what state governments could do. The concept was of a fairly loose confederacy of independently-governed states with a lot of local self-administration (something in between modern UN and modern EU), rather than a libertarian country where everyone is free to do what they want within minimally restrictive limits.

Do you know that half of all Mississippi counties have a ban on retail sales of alcohol? Is that consistent with the modern right-wing vision of limited government? No, it is not. But that's because the original system was not built with limited government ideas in mind. It was meant to allow puritans in Massachusetts to run their state in one way and catholics in Florida in a different way. If either wanted to ban alcohol, extramarital sex, or bath salts, because of their religious attitudes or for whatever other reason, or even, in principle, mandate weekly attendance of church services, that was perfectly fine with the founding fathers. (No states really mandated attendance of church services, but several, like North Carolina, banned non-Protestants from serving in official positions.)

Many modern restrictions on things that states were allowed to do in the original system were only introduced (in all likelihood, accidentally) by the Fourteenth Amendment, fifty years after the death of the last founding father.

Quote:
CAR, the platitudes sound great but the people you vote for vote to suppress the freedom of individuals, silence their opponents, and resort to ad hominem attacks instead of facts while logic and reason are rarely part of the equation.

Many left wing people are left wing precisely because right wing politicians are far more likely to suppress the freedom of individuals or to use ad hominem attacks instead of logic and reason.

To take the most glaring recent example:

Facts, logic and reason:

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collecti...

During Q3 2010, Obama stimulus boosted real GDP by 1.4% to 4.1%, reduced the unemployment rate by 0.8% to 2.0%, and created 2.0 to 5.2 million jobs.

Right wing politicians:

"As the American people, facing near double-digit unemployment, mark Labor Day by asking, where are the jobs, the White House has chosen to double-down on more of the same failed ‘stimulus’ spending ... If we’ve learned anything from the past 18 months, it’s that we can’t spend our way to prosperity" (John Boehner, House republican leader)

It will take you no more than two minutes than to find similar quotes by McConnell, Palin, or any other prominent Republican politician. It will prove much harder to find anyone on the right willing to acknowledge that stimulus had any positive effect.

Similarly, there are lots of right-wing politicians denying the existence of global warming (in case you missed it, 2010 ended up tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record.) And don't even get me started on intelligent design.

In the end, while I myself wouldn't mind having a party that represents interests of high-income earners and businesses and tries to limit unnecessary income redistribution, I'm certainly not going to vote for a party that seems to be engaged in a war on logic.

Submitted by harvey on January 24, 2011 - 8:09am.

faterikcartman wrote:
the platitudes sound great but the people you vote for vote to suppress the freedom of individuals, silence their opponents, and resort to ad hominem attacks instead of facts while logic and reason are rarely part of the equation.

So who do YOU vote for Cartman?

Name names, and let's check their track record against "suppressing fredom and using ad hominem attacks."

Now let's hear some names - unless of course, you are all talk and no substance.

Submitted by ILoveRegulation on January 24, 2011 - 9:22am.

faterikcartman wrote:

You're right on the money. I know the political bent on this forum is generally pretty far left, but I always secretly pray that it is just from all the constant brainwashing from the likes of college professors and Keith Olberman. Deep down if we went issue to issue surely people must see that the nanny state is corrosive and ultimately nibbles away at our freedom bite by bite.

Speaking of brainwashing and drug bans, are you aware that Ronald Reagan, Patron Saint of The Right, started the War on Drugs?

Nothing like starting a war on a harmless activity to further the cause of individual rights.

Submitted by Ren on January 24, 2011 - 9:24am.

Eugene wrote:
Do you know that half of all Mississippi counties have a ban on retail sales of alcohol?

[mentally placing Mississippi at the bottom of the list of states to move to upon escaping California]

Submitted by Arraya on January 24, 2011 - 9:26am.

Naa, Nixon started the "war on drugs"(Nixon associated drug use with people not liking him and he was mostly correct) and RR took it to a new level of absurdity. Ironically, that was when the CIA was pumping cocaine into south central to fund the Contras.

Submitted by bubba99 on January 24, 2011 - 10:55am.

And here we are, 50 years later still fighting the war on drugs. No end or victory in sight. All we have done lately is move the Narco-terrorists from Columbia to right next door on the border with Mexico.

IMHO, soon the border wars will spill into the south western US. I cant wait to hear the rhetoric on why a shooting war in the south west is better than little Johnnie snorting bath salts.

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 24, 2011 - 11:30am.

ILoveRegulation wrote:

Nothing like starting a war on a harmless activity to further the cause of individual rights.

ROFL!

Tis the problem with rights, your right to be stupid and fillet yourself after snorting chemicals stops at my rights particularly, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Nobody really cares if you snort salts, go insane and kill yourself. We do care, stone heartedly, that you tend not to complete the job, take somebody else with you or foist the left behind mess on the rest of us.

Submitted by bearishgurl on January 24, 2011 - 12:46pm.

bubba99 wrote:
And here we are, 50 years later still fighting the war on drugs. No end or victory in sight. All we have done lately is move the Narco-terrorists from Columbia to right next door on the border with Mexico.

IMHO, soon the border wars will spill into the south western US. I cant wait to hear the rhetoric on why a shooting war in the south west is better than little Johnnie snorting bath salts.

bubba, it's already there. Just start driving east on I-8 and later connect with I-10 in AZ and head towards El Paso, TX. You will find several time-consuming Border Patrol/INS/Customs "checkpoints" in both directions. Even if you are sporting a "US license plate," if you or your passengers even give the appearance of having "1/8 or more Hispanic" blood in them, better to have all your papers handy, including passports (if US, can be expired), "green" card, Sentri-Pass, work permits, etc. These are fairly large temporary installations set up with trailers, dogs, bright lights, "secondary" sections, holding areas, and "Homeland Security" personnel from several agencies. Two in CA, 2-3 in AZ, 2 in NM and 1 in TX, that I am aware of (having stayed on I-10 in TX and thus drove away from the border). I have no doubt that there are now 5-6 of these stations on the TX/MX border.

A state-issued "Driver-License" often won't cut it (depending on the driver's "appearance"). These stations do NOT have license-plate scanners like those on I-5 and I-15 just north of SD. These detainments into "secondary" appear to be based upon appearance of drivers/passengers who don't have proper identification in their possession.

Conversely, if you are a "Caucasian or Asian-looking" foreign driver who has a US-issued driver's license driving a vehicle with a US-issued plate and you do not speak with a noticeable accent, you can probably pass thru these checkpoints with no problems.

Unfortunately, this is just the way it is :={

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 24, 2011 - 1:27pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

Conversely, if you are a "Caucasian or Asian-looking" foreign driver who has a US-issued driver's license driving a vehicle with a US-issued plate and you do not speak with a noticeable accent, you can probably pass thru these checkpoints with no problems.

Unfortunately, this is just the way it is :={

Profiling is good.

Honestly, profiling is good. Profiling only is a problem when profiling becomes blinders.

Now, what percentage of illegal alien traffic coming over the southern border is Asian/Anglo-white?

It's a circular argument to say the system is biased if it catches 90% of one ethnic group if in reality, the ethnic group is 90% of the violators.

Submitted by UCGal on January 24, 2011 - 1:43pm.

I don't think they should ban them. But if you act badly on them the charges should include "under the influence".

Let darwinism work. If idiots want to fry themselves with bath salts - let them.

You ask why a doper snorting bath salts is your problem... It's only your problem if you let it be your problem. I choose to ignore the issue. It's not my problem unless I want to snort bath salts.

Submitted by harvey on January 24, 2011 - 2:31pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
It's a circular argument to say the system is biased if it catches 90% of one ethnic group if in reality, the ethnic group is 90% of the violators.

So should the FBI use profiling to investigate white-collar crimes?

Since a single demographic commits at least 90% of financial crimes, why shouldn't we have a program of regular audits for businesses owned by white males?

Heck, we could even use religion...

Submitted by bearishgurl on January 24, 2011 - 2:39pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

Conversely, if you are a "Caucasian or Asian-looking" foreign driver who has a US-issued driver's license driving a vehicle with a US-issued plate and you do not speak with a noticeable accent, you can probably pass thru these checkpoints with no problems.

Unfortunately, this is just the way it is :={

Profiling is good.

Honestly, profiling is good. Profiling only is a problem when profiling becomes blinders.

Now, what percentage of illegal alien traffic coming over the southern border is Asian/Anglo-white?

It's a circular argument to say the system is biased if it catches 90% of one ethnic group if in reality, the ethnic group is 90% of the violators.

no_such_reality, these "checkpoints" are NOT set up on highways to/from the US/MX border. They are set up on an E/W bound US interstate where we, as Americans, have a God-given right to freely travel them to other points in this "great country" of ours.

I think the SW border of the US has become a "police state," due to the "drug wars" that we will never win. These checkpoints don't have sophisticated computers like the ones in CA. They depend on the eyes/ears of the officers, the noses of the dogs and phones/dispatch.

Here's a recent night-driving example on eastbound I-10 in AZ:

HSO: Hi, ma'am, can I see your driver's license? (FWIW: I don't give the "appearance" of being "Hispanic.")

Me: gives it to him. (Meanwhile large dog is slowly walked around my vehicle by second HSO.)

HSO: Is this your current address?

Me: Yes.

HSO: Is this your vehicle?

Me: Yes.

HSO: Where are you headed?

Me: TX.

HSO: Oh, where are you headed in TX?

Me: San Antonio.

HSO: Shines light in my vehicle on the four seats in it (pass seat with ice chest & back seats with kid and dog carrier. Kid asleep but now jolted awake). Young lady, is she your mom?

Kid: (groggily) Yes.

HSO: (goes around car and shines light in dog carrier). Is that a dog in the carrier?

Carrier: (Grrrr)

Me: Yes.

HSO: Okay, drive safe. Turn to the right of those cones and you're on your way.

*********************************************

Other time going thru with small U-haul trailer:

HSO: (ID checked . . . blah, blah.) What's in the trailer?

Me: Oh, that's my Aunt Mabel's dresser and vanity that I promised to take to her this summer.

HSO: Where does she live?

Me: Ft. Smith, AR.

HSO: Why are you on I-10 instead of I-40?

Me: Well, because we're going to take some big tools we borrowed last summer back to Uncle Fester in Wichita Falls first and stay there the weekend.

HSO: Ma'am, open up the trailer, please.

Me: (Opens it.)

HSO: Stand back please.

Me: (watch HSO shine a light in there and other HSO bring a dog in there.)

HSO: Okay, ma'am. You can close it. Stay in the right lane and drive safe.

*******************************

Piggs, it's not that these agents are particularly interested in where you are going or what your "story is." They DO speak Spanish but first attempt to engage you in a brief conversation in English to hear your English (unless you can't speak English very well or at all).

The combination of your "profile" in their eyes and your brief "story" (answered without hesitation) has to make sense to them. If it does, they won't ask for much more than your license.

Now, if I had given the appearance of being "Hispanic," did not have a US driver license, could not readily access the proper documents or spoken broken or no English, I might be pulled into "secondary," where I could search for my documents or my DL would be called into my home state (to see if it had been reported lost/stolen). Sure, NSR, this IS profiling but since it's our Federal Gov'mt doing this, I'm not sure a citizen can do anything about it.

Comm'l vehicles undergo a slightly different procedure.

Again, I've traveled by road ALL MY LIFE and the SW corner of the nation has become a "police state," IMO :={

Submitted by scaredyclassic on January 24, 2011 - 2:50pm.

Is the tea party into the 4th am.?

I think the appropriate response to all these questions is I am asserting my right to remain silent. May I leave?

Submitted by bearishgurl on January 24, 2011 - 2:59pm.

walterwhite wrote:
Is the tea party into the 4th am.?

I think the appropriate response to all these questions is I am asserting my right to remain silent. May I leave?

No, sir!

Here's your number. Just follow the officer and pull over on the right side of the trailer marked "B." You can search for your documents there. There are restrooms and free water directly to the left of Trailer "B." Thank you, sir. Hopefully, we can have you out of here in no time :={

Submitted by bearishgurl on January 24, 2011 - 3:03pm.

scaredy, not sure you are aware of this, but much of I-8/I-10 in CA/AZ/NM lies within 0-5 miles from the US/MX border.

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 24, 2011 - 3:17pm.

bearishgurl wrote:

no_such_reality, these "checkpoints" are NOT set up on highways to/from the US/MX border. They are set up on an E/W bound US interstate where we, as Americans, have a God-given right to freely travel them to other points in this "great country" of ours.

Minor nit, you don't have a right to drive.

There are many places where you can be checked for things from airports to courthouses to high schools.

BTW, what was unreasonable about your interactions with the officers in question? What was onerous in view of the other national concerns around trafficking? Remember, the I-8/I-10 are major trafficking corridors.

Submitted by harvey on January 24, 2011 - 3:26pm.

Answer this: When does any search become "unreasonable?"

Or are you saying that any government search is reasonable, and that the 4th Amendment should be ignored?

Submitted by bearishgurl on January 24, 2011 - 3:32pm.

no_such_reality wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:

no_such_reality, these "checkpoints" are NOT set up on highways to/from the US/MX border. They are set up on an E/W bound US interstate where we, as Americans, have a God-given right to freely travel them to other points in this "great country" of ours.

Minor nit, you don't have a right to drive.

There are many places where you can be checked for things from airports to courthouses to high schools.

BTW, what was unreasonable about your interactions with the officers in question? What was onerous in view of the other national concerns around trafficking? Remember, the I-8/I-10 are major trafficking corridors.

nsr, I never stated here that I was treated "unreasonably." However, if I gave the "appearance" of being "Hispanic" yet was born in the US but had a bit of an "accent," I might think otherwise.

These "checkpoints" on the interstate came about after the US DOJ agencies merged into the "Dept of Homeland Security" (since 9/11).

FWIW, I've even seen a carload of five Japanese tourists (in a rented Mercedes) sent into "secondary" to search for their documents.

The "profiling" they do is designed to weed out Americans from non-Americans and target vehicles carrying "suspicious" loads. But probably sometimes innocent "real" Americans end up getting treated "unreasonably."

Submitted by no_such_reality on January 24, 2011 - 3:34pm.

DUI checkpoints are not unreasonable. It's just a PITA. Non-random stops to subject just you to a DUI screening with no reason is unreasonable.

Given the state of the issues, is it any different than a DUI checkpoint?

Do we all agree we have a trafficking problem in the Southwest?

IMHO, we do, and given such, the main corridors to large populations centers will experience the bulk of the traffic.

Is it a PITA? Yes. So is the screening line at the airport.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.