Comments on: Open Letter to My Opponent http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/ Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:58:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Nurse Shirley http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-2041 Nurse Shirley Fri, 02 May 2008 17:27:45 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-2041 In response to Duke's idea that drugs would be easier to obtain if they were legal-- they may be easier for adults, but they would be harder for children. If drugs were legal, one presumably would have to be 18 to buy them, etc., just as we have today for alchohol and cigarettes. I have heard from my kids and their friends that it's hard for them to get alchohol if they wanted it, but every day at school kids try to sell them (currently illegal) drugs. When something is illegal and at a high price point, there is more motivation for someone to break the law and sell it anyway. If it's legal and can be sold in stores for a market price, there won't be dealers. When was the last time someone came up to you on the street and asked if you wanted to go into an alley and buy alcohol from them? Never, for me, and my kids aren't being asked at school if they want to buy alcohol, either. As I mentioned before, drugs are now more potent as well since before the drug war. That means that on average, they are getting cheaper. The drug war is making it easy for kids to buy drugs at school unregulated. In response to Duke’s idea that drugs would be easier to obtain if they were legal– they may be easier for adults, but they would be harder for children. If drugs were legal, one presumably would have to be 18 to buy them, etc., just as we have today for alchohol and cigarettes. I have heard from my kids and their friends that it’s hard for them to get alchohol if they wanted it, but every day at school kids try to sell them (currently illegal) drugs.

When something is illegal and at a high price point, there is more motivation for someone to break the law and sell it anyway. If it’s legal and can be sold in stores for a market price, there won’t be dealers. When was the last time someone came up to you on the street and asked if you wanted to go into an alley and buy alcohol from them? Never, for me, and my kids aren’t being asked at school if they want to buy alcohol, either.

As I mentioned before, drugs are now more potent as well since before the drug war. That means that on average, they are getting cheaper. The drug war is making it easy for kids to buy drugs at school unregulated.

]]> By: Chris Moller http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1997 Chris Moller Thu, 01 May 2008 13:18:33 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1997 In response to Mr Cheston's comments above: You ask "First of all, if drugs were legalized and prices of drugs plummeted, wouldn’t it be easier for people to obtain them?" Yes, of course. But that isn't the point. The point is that under the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government is not permitted to have an opinion, or take action on, that issue. "Aside from constitutionality, should it not be the purpose of any drug laws (let’s say state laws) to discourage drug use?" The question here is the propriety of <i>any</i> level of government to "discourage drug use." As has been repeatedly demonstrated, official government "discouragement" of drug use is causing far more harm to society as a whole than the drug use it's intended to discourage. Drug abuse itself, like alcohol abuse, is an <i>individual</i> problem far more than it is a social problem and thus should be no more subject to legal attention than any other individually self-destructive berhaviour such as smoking or excessive drinking. Certainly the <i>consequences</i> of drug abuse, to the extent that abuse endangers society, merits legal attention, but such laws are, and should be, with respect to the harmful actions themselves. Killing someone while driving a car is illegal regardless of whether you're stoned (or drunk) at the time--it's the <i>action</i> that merits legal consequences, not what you may or may not have ingested prior to taking that action. Simply possessing a drug, or the simple act by an individual of voluntarily ingesting it, has never harmed anyone but that individual, and that's not, or ought not to be, the concern of any government. "I have seen several close friends ruin (or end) their lives not because of mafia-style or gang-related violence but because of the nature of the drugs they were taking." While this is tragic for the individuals involved, and perhaps for you as well, depending on the nature of your relationships, protecting people from the consequences of their own actions is not the proper role of government. Certainly not at the Federal level--the U.S. Constitution is utterly silent on that point. "First, if the DEA and the war on drugs is unconstitutional, does it not follow that the FBI is unconstitutional?" Of course not--the FBI has many, many, responsibilities, some of which may actually <i>be</i> constitutional. :-) "Should we do away with the Federal Income Tax? Is that what you’re getting at? It sounds fine to me, but there is a constitutional amendment that allows for it, though." The implication to that is that if the Federal government intends to pursue the "War on Drugs," it ought first to be necessary to amend the Constitution to that effect. That was exactly what the Eighteenth Amendment was about--and as disastrous is the "War on Alcohol" was, it at least had the appropriate legal underpinnings. In response to Mr Cheston’s comments above:

You ask “First of all, if drugs were legalized and prices of drugs plummeted, wouldn’t it be easier for people to obtain them?” Yes, of course. But that isn’t the point. The point is that under the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government is not permitted to have an opinion, or take action on, that issue.

“Aside from constitutionality, should it not be the purpose of any drug laws (let’s say state laws) to discourage drug use?” The question here is the propriety of any level of government to “discourage drug use.” As has been repeatedly demonstrated, official government “discouragement” of drug use is causing far more harm to society as a whole than the drug use it’s intended to discourage. Drug abuse itself, like alcohol abuse, is an individual problem far more than it is a social problem and thus should be no more subject to legal attention than any other individually self-destructive berhaviour such as smoking or excessive drinking. Certainly the consequences of drug abuse, to the extent that abuse endangers society, merits legal attention, but such laws are, and should be, with respect to the harmful actions themselves. Killing someone while driving a car is illegal regardless of whether you’re stoned (or drunk) at the time–it’s the action that merits legal consequences, not what you may or may not have ingested prior to taking that action. Simply possessing a drug, or the simple act by an individual of voluntarily ingesting it, has never harmed anyone but that individual, and that’s not, or ought not to be, the concern of any government.

“I have seen several close friends ruin (or end) their lives not because of mafia-style or gang-related violence but because of the nature of the drugs they were taking.” While this is tragic for the individuals involved, and perhaps for you as well, depending on the nature of your relationships, protecting people from the consequences of their own actions is not the proper role of government. Certainly not at the Federal level–the U.S. Constitution is utterly silent on that point.

“First, if the DEA and the war on drugs is unconstitutional, does it not follow that the FBI is unconstitutional?” Of course not–the FBI has many, many, responsibilities, some of which may actually be constitutional. :-)

“Should we do away with the Federal Income Tax? Is that what you’re getting at? It sounds fine to me, but there is a constitutional amendment that allows for it, though.” The implication to that is that if the Federal government intends to pursue the “War on Drugs,” it ought first to be necessary to amend the Constitution to that effect. That was exactly what the Eighteenth Amendment was about–and as disastrous is the “War on Alcohol” was, it at least had the appropriate legal underpinnings.

]]> By: Jay Peters http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1991 Jay Peters Thu, 01 May 2008 09:05:56 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1991 Regardless of whether Mr. Cho has filed or not filed, his name is on the ballot and B. J.'s supporters need to vote in the Republican Primary. I am an unaffiliated voter. When I voiced my intention to a precinct worker to vote Republican (I voted early), she looked at me and said "Well you can't vote in the Presidential Race...you know that? Regardless of whether Mr. Cho has filed or not filed, his name is on the ballot and B. J.’s supporters
need to vote in the Republican Primary. I am an unaffiliated voter. When I voiced my intention to
a precinct worker to vote Republican (I voted early), she looked at me and said “Well you can’t vote
in the Presidential Race…you know that?

]]> By: Bill Rousseau http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1985 Bill Rousseau Thu, 01 May 2008 02:09:56 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1985 BJ, the "friendly reminder" comes across as insincere and taunting. I think you should rise above that. Let the FEC fine him and publicize it if they wish. Besides, I am sure the N&O is watching carefully for any shortcoming by a Repubiican and will report it with relish. BJ, the “friendly reminder” comes across as insincere and taunting. I think you should rise above that. Let the FEC fine him and publicize it if they wish. Besides, I am sure the N&O is watching carefully for any shortcoming by a Repubiican and will report it with relish.

]]> By: Justin B. Clark http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1984 Justin B. Clark Thu, 01 May 2008 02:03:36 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1984 I've heard a lot of people say they haven't heard back from him on anything. I think that BJ did the right thing by reminding his opponent publicly to file his reports, Mr. Cho has filed for public office and must answer in the public domain to issues raised. On another note: Congrats on breaking 100k you guys! I’ve heard a lot of people say they haven’t heard back from him on anything. I think that BJ did the right thing by reminding his opponent publicly to file his reports, Mr. Cho has filed for public office and must answer in the public domain to issues raised.

On another note:

Congrats on breaking 100k you guys!

]]> By: Adam Smith http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1983 Adam Smith Thu, 01 May 2008 01:58:57 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1983 Hey Susan, Augustus Cho is in violation of the FEC filing law from April 17th. The four day period is only to avoid the publication that his Campaign is in violation of FEC statutes. He will be fined from the 17th until he gets his report in. If he does not get the report in today (the 4 day includes Friday as a working day because that is when he would have received the registered next day mail from the FEC) then he could be seriously fined, audited or taken to court over it. The FEC do not care one jot that he has filed his 1st Quarter report. He didn't need to file that at all. He was however supposed to file the Pre-primary and one does not exempt the other. It doesn't matter how you try to spin it, BJ is entirely correct and Augustus Cho IS in violation of the FEC even if he did get his report in since the 25th. Adam Hey Susan,

Augustus Cho is in violation of the FEC filing law from April 17th. The four day period is only to avoid the publication that his Campaign is in violation of FEC statutes. He will be fined from the 17th until he gets his report in. If he does not get the report in today (the 4 day includes Friday as a working day because that is when he would have received the registered next day mail from the FEC) then he could be seriously fined, audited or taken to court over it.

The FEC do not care one jot that he has filed his 1st Quarter report. He didn’t need to file that at all. He was however supposed to file the Pre-primary and one does not exempt the other. It doesn’t matter how you try to spin it, BJ is entirely correct and Augustus Cho IS in violation of the FEC even if he did get his report in since the 25th.

Adam

]]> By: Jeremy http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1982 Jeremy Thu, 01 May 2008 01:56:29 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1982 I have also emailed him a series of questions regarding the stances he has taken on the issues. I did not receive any response. I have also emailed him a series of questions regarding the stances he has taken on the issues. I did not receive any response.

]]> By: BJ Lawson http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1981 BJ Lawson Thu, 01 May 2008 01:22:52 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1981 Susan -- earlier in this campaign, I had previously attempted to contact my opponent on several occasions via email and phone. He never responded, nor even acknowledged my attempts to contact him. Given the lack of common decency he has demonstrated in the past, this method seemed like the most appropriate compromise. Susan — earlier in this campaign, I had previously attempted to contact my opponent on several occasions via email and phone. He never responded, nor even acknowledged my attempts to contact him.

Given the lack of common decency he has demonstrated in the past, this method seemed like the most appropriate compromise.

]]> By: Susan Hemphill http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1980 Susan Hemphill Thu, 01 May 2008 01:16:41 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1980 Now BJ, let's be honest! If you were only trying to help, you would have written or called him personally instead of posting this on your blog and sending out emails to your list. Now BJ, let’s be honest! If you were only trying to help, you would have written or called him personally instead of posting this on your blog and sending out emails to your list.

]]> By: BJ Lawson http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1979 BJ Lawson Thu, 01 May 2008 01:08:22 +0000 http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/#comment-1979 Susan -- It's not a matter of "having" something on Mr. Cho. I just thought I'd give him a gentle reminder so he can file it in time. If I wanted to be mean, I could have waited until the deadline had already passed. Given that he didn't get the message about the Pre-Primary Report in the first place, one must assume there is a reasonable chance he might not respond to the warning letter in time either. Like I said in my email, just trying to help. These rules are really complicated, though. That's the Price of big government! Susan — It’s not a matter of “having” something on Mr. Cho. I just thought I’d give him a gentle reminder so he can file it in time.

If I wanted to be mean, I could have waited until the deadline had already passed. Given that he didn’t get the message about the Pre-Primary Report in the first place, one must assume there is a reasonable chance he might not respond to the warning letter in time either.

Like I said in my email, just trying to help.

These rules are really complicated, though. That’s the Price of big government!

]]>