PDA

View Full Version : Trump gives permission to law enforcement for racial-descrimination


mattsmith48
August 26th, 2017, 11:00 AM
Not what he literally did, but it's the message is sending with what he did yesterday.

President Donald Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio on Friday, sparing the controversial former Arizona sheriff a jail sentence after he was convicted of criminal contempt related to his hard-line tactics going after undocumented immigrants.
The move drew outcry from civil rights groups, which accuse Arpaio of violating the Constitution in his crackdown on illegal immigration.
During last year's presidential campaign, Arpaio was a vocal proponent of Trump's candidacy, and used his national notoriety to advocate for Trump's similarly aggressive stance on border security and deportations.

In a brief statement released late Friday evening, the White House praised Arpaio's career.
"Throughout his time as sheriff, Arpaio continued his life's work of protecting the public from the scourges of crime and illegal immigration," the statement read. "Sheriff Joe Arpaio is now 85 years old, and after more than 50 years of admirable service to our nation, he is (a) worthy candidate for a Presidential pardon."
Arpaio thanked Trump on Twitter.
"Thank you @realdonaldtrump for seeing my conviction for what it is: a political witch hunt by holdovers in the Obama justice department!," he posted...

Arpaio, who was sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona, until last year, was found guilty of criminal contempt last month for disregarding a court order in a racial-profiling case. His sentencing had been scheduled for October 5.
"Not only did (Arpaio) abdicate responsibility, he announced to the world and to his subordinates that he was going to continue business as usual no matter who said otherwise," US District Judge Susan Bolton wrote in a July 31 order finding him guilty.
However, civil rights groups and others pushed back against the possibility of Arpaio's pardon, and slammed the decision on Friday.
"Once again, the president has acted in support of illegal, failed immigration enforcement practices that target people of color and have been struck down by the courts," the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a statement. "His pardon of Arpaio is a presidential endorsement of racism."
"Joe Arpaio illegally targeted and terrorized Latino families. Our community voted him out of power. Donald Trump can't change that," wrote Greg Stanton, the Democratic mayor of Phoenix, which sits in Maricopa County.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon/index.html

PlasmaHam
August 26th, 2017, 01:18 PM
So, I didn't realize Obama permitted treason by soldiers when he pardoned Pvt. Manning. :rolleyes:

Thus is the nature of the presidential pardon, nothing special about Trump. There has been controversy regarding its usage since the days of Washington, when he pardoned two men convicted of treason after the Whisky Rebellion. It has been a hot-button issue throughout administrations, you aren't anything special by getting on Trump about it. And honestly, Trump's pardon here is really a non-issue compared to most other high-profile pardons. A man was doing his job to protect America, but went slightly over the line with it. Nothing at least compared to pardoning a terrorist and treasonous solider like the prior president.

Porpoise101
August 26th, 2017, 04:05 PM
So, I didn't realize Obama permitted treason by soldiers when he pardoned Pvt. Manning. :rolleyes:

Thus is the nature of the presidential pardon, nothing special about Trump. There has been controversy regarding its usage since the days of Washington, when he pardoned two men convicted of treason after the Whisky Rebellion. It has been a hot-button issue throughout administrations, you aren't anything special by getting on Trump about it. And honestly, Trump's pardon here is really a non-issue compared to most other high-profile pardons. A man was doing his job to protect America, but went slightly over the line with it. Nothing at least compared to pardoning a terrorist and treasonous solider like the prior president.Sorry man. Comparing Obama's mass commutations/pardons is a false equivalence. Let's go through the differences/similarities, shall we?

Similarities:

Use of the power to pardon
Controversy as a result
Manning and Arpaio are high-profile people, and have become politicized

Differences:

All of Obama's people who received pardons and commutations had served time (the terrorist served 30 years). Arpaio hasn't even been sentenced
Arpaio violated Constitutional protections (4th amendment)
Arpaio was an arm of the state, while Obama's pardons were private citizens. Pardoning a member of the executive branch seems a tad like overreach to me.
Obama's pardon went through the typical bureaucratic and legal channels (office of the pardon) while Trump rushed this to annoy liberals
Arpaio is reviled and is an extremist, sends a different sort of message to the public than Obama's pardons (who were mostly petty drug offenders who served time already)

smells like another false equivalence from the right

mattsmith48 couldn't you have made the title more neutral?

PlasmaHam
August 26th, 2017, 04:32 PM
All of Obama's people who received pardons and commutations had served time (the terrorist served 30 years). Arpaio hasn't even been sentencedArpaio at most would have faced 6 months in jail. It isn't like he was going to do nearly as long of sentences as these terrorists, and rightly so.
Arpaio was an arm of the state, while Obama's pardons were private citizens. Pardoning a member of the executive branch seems a tad like overreach to me.Bradley Manning was convicted in a military court as a soldier. The military is technically a part of the executive branch, just like you can argue county police organizations are part of the executive branch. Am I missing anything here?

Either way, it is an "overreach" to assume that pardoning relatively minor figures who are technically a part of the executive branch is an "overreach"
Obama's pardon went through the typical bureaucratic and legal channels (office of the pardon) while Trump rushed this to annoy liberals Okay. So Obama went through the bureaucratic route, Trump went direct. Isn't really an argument against the final result.
Arpaio is reviled and is an extremist, sends a different sort of message to the public than Obama's pardons (who were mostly petty drug offenders who served time already) Except of course Obama's pardoning of terrorists and treasonous trannies. And to say that Arpaio is "reviled" and "an extremist" is a "overreach" if I've ever seen one.

mattsmith48
August 27th, 2017, 12:38 AM
So, I didn't realize Obama permitted treason by soldiers when he pardoned Pvt. Manning. :rolleyes:

I don't know much on the subject of what happen or why Obama pardon her, but you could send that defense to Don Jr.'s lawyers. ;)

ShineintheDark
August 27th, 2017, 10:19 AM
PlasmaHam misgendering and slandering Chelsea manning does not change the fact that she was pardoned.

Porpoise101
August 27th, 2017, 08:13 PM
Arpaio at most would have faced 6 months in jail. It isn't like he was going to do nearly as long of sentences as these terrorists, and rightly so.The point is that Trump rushed this for political purposes.
Bradley Manning was convicted in a military court as a soldier. The military is technically a part of the executive branch, just like you can argue county police organizations are part of the executive branch. Am I missing anything here?The difference is that Manning was expressly going against the interest of government (which is to expand its own power) while Arpaio was acting directly in the interest of the state through his breaches of Constitutional protections. One furthered the agenda of statism and government overreach and the other went against it.

This comparison is so ridiculous I'll give you an analogous, hypothetical example: a President pardoned a batch of FBI agents who randomly searched citizens without suspicion or warrants and a President pardoned a batch of soldiers who mutinied. Now right wing commentators say this: "these two things are the same and I can't tell which serves the state's interest :confused: :confused:"
Okay. So Obama went through the bureaucratic route, Trump went direct. Isn't really an argument against the final result.No, it is just more evidence that it was rushed to help out a political ally and cause a fuss among the left. It's proof of posturing rather than policy.
And to say that Arpaio is "reviled" and "an extremist" is a "overreach" if I've ever seen one.Much of Arpaio's justification for his actions came from the psuedo-legal Sovereign Citizen Movement, which holds the sheriff as the highest office in the land. The fact that he was using these ideas shows he is an extremist. As for his public opinion; the guy is hated in a widespread way. It's telling that some federal Republicans have come out against Trump's move and that many more Arizonans done so as well.

Stronk Serb
August 27th, 2017, 09:58 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

Where was the outcry when Obama deported two and a half million illegals during his administration? He depirted more illegals than the all presidents in the last century combined. I find this to be cherry-picking.

Babs
August 28th, 2017, 01:39 AM
thread title reminds me of this image

https://pics.onsizzle.com/i-was-so-ready-to-see-kylie-jenner-eat-a-3326356.png

Dmaxd123
August 28th, 2017, 09:33 AM
i think old joe did more good than harm, his sentience would have been 6 months probably released early so in the grand scheme of things a pardon of someone for a 6month sentence isn't really news worthy except the media is anti-trump

media was often pro-obama so we didn't hear about a lot of the lower level pardons that he granted because it didn't fit their agenda

mattsmith48
August 28th, 2017, 12:12 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

Where was the outcry when Obama deported two and a half million illegals during his administration? He depirted more illegals than the all presidents in the last century combined. I find this to be cherry-picking.

Deportation is not really the point here, but just to be clear I criticized Obama constantly about that.

i think old joe did more good than harm, his sentience would have been 6 months probably released early so in the grand scheme of things a pardon of someone for a 6month sentence isn't really news worthy except the media is anti-trump

He only racially-profiled people and put them in jail accusing them of being undocumented immigrants without any evidence beside the colour of their skin and continued after the court told him to stop, but he didn't do something really terrible like trying to use the wrong bathroom. What in what he did was good?

Also don't forget Trump pardoned him one week after he said they were fine people with the Nazis and refused to condemn white supremacist, like we need more evidence he's racist, this pardon is basically telling all law enforcement if you want to racially profile Hispanics or keep murdering unarmed black people I'll protect you.

Dmaxd123
August 28th, 2017, 12:22 PM
Arpaio took his inmates of all races and put them to work and put them living in tents vs air conditioned cells with cable tv, he let inmates know they effed up

is pulling over a hispanic for the color of their skin wrong... yes, is putting an illegal immigrant in jail legal... as far as I know. when I drive I carry my ID so if I get pulled over the officer knows I am who I say I am and that I am legal.


i also like how you use the term "we" Trump isn't your president lol, I personally don't care if he is racist, I don't feel he is but it doesn't change his job. the US isn't a dictatorship Trump has limited powers and as far as i'm concerned going off topic: Trump was right to condemn both sides it wasn't JUST the white supremacists in the wrong... refer over to your free speech thread, just because something is wrong (racism) doesn't mean that you or I can be violent towards them

mattsmith48
August 28th, 2017, 12:51 PM
Arpaio took his inmates of all races and put them to work and put them living in tents vs air conditioned cells with cable tv, he let inmates know they effed up

is pulling over a hispanic for the color of their skin wrong... yes, is putting an illegal immigrant in jail legal... as far as I know. when I drive I carry my ID so if I get pulled over the officer knows I am who I say I am and that I am legal.


Putting them in jail with out any evidence, but based on what they look like there is a small chance they could be. There is a lot of reason someone might not have an ID with them or at all beside not living there legally. Personally unless I am driving or going somewhere I might get carded, like a bar or casino I almost never have it with me.

Porpoise101
August 28th, 2017, 03:32 PM
I personally don't care if he is racistAt least you are honest

Dmaxd123
August 28th, 2017, 04:07 PM
At least you are honest

he was hired to do a job, not to give out participation trophies to everyone and I can respect his goals and his position even if he isn't someone I could see myself being friends with

any job with power/authority is going to end up pissing people off. POTOS, governor, Prime Minister, mayor

I don't think trump is as racist as many want him to be, but even if he wanted to go back to the blacks in the back of the bus and unable to vote it isn't going to happen because of the checks & balances and the constitution of our country


i still don't see how many think he is racist for condemning both sides of the protests in charlottsville as well as pardoning someone who has done more service than dis-service (guy served in the military, spent a lot of time as a public servant... yes apaio did some questionable stops BUT he is a bit like a president... there are courts with judges and juries to seal the deal on a sentence, so if he keeps pulling people over and the judge & juries keep giving them prison sentences then he must be getting the right people somehow)

Stronk Serb
August 29th, 2017, 07:59 AM
Putting them in jail with out any evidence, but based on what they look like there is a small chance they could be. There is a lot of reason someone might not have an ID with them or at all beside not living there legally. Personally unless I am driving or going somewhere I might get carded, like a bar or casino I almost never have it with me.

In Serbia if you are 16 and older, you must have your ID on your person at all times. No excuses. I almost got taken in once because I didn't have my ID card. Justifying people nkt carrying their IDs us stupid.

Living For Love
August 29th, 2017, 11:03 AM
KB2tvmtP1po

mattsmith48
August 29th, 2017, 11:39 AM
I don't think trump is as racist as many want him to be, but even if he wanted to go back to the blacks in the back of the bus and unable to vote it isn't going to happen because of the checks & balances and the constitution of our country

Well for the taking away the voting rights of black people part Trump is kinda late to that party.

i still don't see how many think he is racist for condemning both sides of the protests in charlottsville as well as pardoning someone who has done more service than dis-service (guy served in the military, spent a lot of time as a public servant... yes apaio did some questionable stops BUT he is a bit like a president... there are courts with judges and juries to seal the deal on a sentence, so if he keeps pulling people over and the judge & juries keep giving them prison sentences then he must be getting the right people somehow)

About what happen after Charlottesville it was more about refusing to condemn or even mention white supremacist and saying they are fine people with the Nazis. That's the part that makes him look and should confirm to people who still had doubts that he is racist. Back on subject now the court ordered Arpaio to stop racially profiling people, no matter if he caught undocumented immigrants by doing this it is wrong and illegal.

In Serbia if you are 16 and older, you must have your ID on your person at all times. No excuses. I almost got taken in once because I didn't have my ID card. Justifying people nkt carrying their IDs us stupid.

Not to go to off subject but that's a little excessive.

KB2tvmtP1po

How is that owning a reporter? He ask what he was saying to his critics on this and Trump just answered the question.

Living For Love
August 29th, 2017, 11:52 AM
How is that owning a reporter? He ask what he was saying to his critics on this and Trump just answered the question.
Most of the critics of his decision state what you've stated in this thread, that by pardoning Arpaio he seems to be condoning racial discrimination etc., and Trump then cites a number of other controversial pardonings in which the crimes the people pardoned committed kind of pale in comparison to Arpaio's crimes. Basically, just one more example of leftish hypocrisy.

mattsmith48
August 29th, 2017, 12:16 PM
Most of the critics of his decision state what you've stated in this thread, that by pardoning Arpaio he seems to be condoning racial discrimination etc., and Trump then cites a number of other controversial pardonings in which the crimes the people pardoned committed kind of pale in comparison to Arpaio's crimes. Basically, just one more example of leftish hypocrisy.

I don't know the context of Clinton or Obama's controversial pardoning Trump mention or why they pardon those people. I don't want to comment on them because I don't know much about them. But if they are comparable to this pardoning from Trump wouldn't the hypocrisy be from the ones criticizing Clinton and Obama's pardons, but then using those pardons to justify Trump's. What they did was wrong, but sense they did it when Trump does the exact same thing it makes it fine. Aren't those people the hypocrites?

Living For Love
August 29th, 2017, 12:31 PM
I don't know the context of Clinton or Obama's controversial pardoning Trump mention or why they pardon those people. I don't want to comment on them because I don't know much about them. But if they are comparable to this pardoning from Trump wouldn't the hypocrisy be from the ones criticizing Clinton and Obama's pardons, but then using those pardons to justify Trump's. What they did was wrong, but sense they did it when Trump does the exact same thing it makes it fine. Aren't those people the hypocrites?
Could be, but the hypocrites you mentioned in the thread (ACLU, for instance) supported (https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/transgender-rights/after-seven-years-custody-chelsea-manning-will-soon-be-free) the pardoning of Bradley Manning (for instance), yet they are against the pardoning of Arpaio. No one is justifying Trump's pardoning with Clinton's or Obama's pardonings, Trump only made a comparison between all those pardonings and his own pardoning.

Babs
August 29th, 2017, 12:40 PM
the man's 85, who cares if he's pardoned. his clock is ticking, just let him go feed some ducks.

mattsmith48
August 29th, 2017, 03:35 PM
Could be, but the hypocrites you mentioned in the thread (ACLU, for instance) supported (https://www.aclu.org/blog/lgbt-rights/transgender-rights/after-seven-years-custody-chelsea-manning-will-soon-be-free) the pardoning of Bradley Manning (for instance), yet they are against the pardoning of Arpaio. No one is justifying Trump's pardoning with Clinton's or Obama's pardonings, Trump only made a comparison between all those pardonings and his own pardoning.

It depends on the context like what did he do or why the president pardon him. If you take Chelsea Manning as an example, from what I understand she found confidential information that her country was doing something wrong and decided to leak it. Is that comparable to a racist sheriff racially profiling people and put them in jail accusing them of being undocumented immigrants without any evidence beside the colour of their skin and continued after the court told him to stop?

the man's 85, who cares if he's pardoned. his clock is ticking, just let him go feed some ducks.

By that logic any old person who commit a crime should be pardoned because they don't have much time left.

This is less about the pardoning it self, but more the message it sends to potentially racist members of law enforcement, Trump telling them I got your back. While it is bad enough he won't face any consequences for a crime he did commit, the message Trump is sending is much worst.

Devinsoccer
August 29th, 2017, 07:40 PM
I'm supprized that no one said that O'bama pardoned lots of drug dealers at the end of his reign as president. Anyway I think trump did this right thing there because illegal immagration is a problem and we need cops to take the law seriously. Yes there is some gray parts to the law, but we need to be serious on this and show that illegal immagration should be ended. A lot of mexicans and latinos are freaking out because trump wants to 'deport mexicans'. He means the illegal ones. People who come to the US legally, to work and make a difference in society, will always be acepted here. The ones that come here illegally and offect the potential jobs of legal immagrents and natual US citizens arnt.

mattsmith48
August 30th, 2017, 12:25 AM
I'm supprized that no one said that O'bama pardoned lots of drug dealers at the end of his reign as president.

Said what? That by pardoning them Obama was condoning drug dealers? Probably because he was at the end of his term and was not gonna protect and/or keep pardoning drug dealers because he was leaving soon. With Trump we are only eight months in and there is still a strong possibility that he still has three years to go so plenty of time to keep pardoning racists who abused their power.

Anyway I think trump did this right thing there because illegal immagration is a problem and we need cops to take the law seriously. Yes there is some gray parts to the law, but we need to be serious on this and show that illegal immagration should be ended. A lot of mexicans and latinos are freaking out because trump wants to 'deport mexicans'. He means the illegal ones. People who come to the US legally, to work and make a difference in society, will always be acepted here. The ones that come here illegally and offect the potential jobs of legal immagrents and natual US citizens arnt.

They are ways to stop illegal immigration and undocumented immigrants without doing anything illegal yourself. And on that subject I just want to add, with the amount of people who have been crossing your northern border lately, your focus should be more on trying to keep people in than keeping people out.

Stronk Serb
August 30th, 2017, 09:07 AM
I've seen some reccomended solution to America's illegal immigrant problem which would be viable and which would appease both sides. Build the wall to curtail illegal crossigs of the border to the minimum, and after the wall is done, give illegals in the US residency or citizenship. That way you get rid of illegals entering the country while not going through the pain to deport the current ones. This isn't executing the law, this is making a practical solution. Getting the illegals out is a pain in the damn ass and most if them aren't criminals, if you don't count crossing the border illegaly.

Snowfox
August 30th, 2017, 09:43 AM
I've seen some reccomended solution to America's illegal immigrant problem which would be viable and which would appease both sides. Build the wall to curtail illegal crossigs of the border to the minimum, and after the wall is done, give illegals in the US residency or citizenship. That way you get rid of illegals entering the country while not going through the pain to deport the current ones. This isn't executing the law, this is making a practical solution. Getting the illegals out is a pain in the damn ass and most if them aren't criminals, if you don't count crossing the border illegaly.

Deporting those who are criminals should be one priority. And by criminals I mean felony types. Also when it comes to those who are social security burden deportation should be possible.
USA or any other country is not responsible to take care of others than its own citizens. USA or any other country should priorise whom they help and whom they let in. There is no obligation to be global social security office.

mattsmith48
August 30th, 2017, 11:50 AM
I've seen some reccomended solution to America's illegal immigrant problem which would be viable and which would appease both sides. Build the wall to curtail illegal crossigs of the border to the minimum, and after the wall is done, give illegals in the US residency or citizenship. That way you get rid of illegals entering the country while not going through the pain to deport the current ones. This isn't executing the law, this is making a practical solution. Getting the illegals out is a pain in the damn ass and most if them aren't criminals, if you don't count crossing the border illegaly.

There is just a small problem with the wall thing, that problem is that a majority of illegal immigrants cross the border legally by plane and over stay their visa.

Porpoise101
August 30th, 2017, 03:57 PM
I've seen some recommended solution to America's illegal immigrant problem which would be viable and which would appease both sides. Build the wall to curtail illegal crossings of the border to the minimum, and after the wall is done, give illegals in the US residency or citizenship. That way you get rid of illegals entering the country while not going through the pain to deport the current ones. This isn't executing the law, this is making a practical solution. Getting the illegals out is a pain in the damn ass and most if them aren't criminals, if you don't count crossing the border illegaly.This was pretty much the Obama solution to this problem, but the Republicans wanted to have no 'amnesty', and then pursued a policy of non-cooperation with the administration. In fact, the only difference I can see from what you've posted here is the lack of a wall in Obama's plan because we already have fences and barriers in place on much of the border. I am always surprised to learn that what many right wing people want they can get if they supported the left...

Babs Justice should be blind to age, especially nowadays. People live longer and have saner lives in their old age. The whole "let the old go because they're old" meme is tired because of modern medicine. He is what a 40-50 year old was 100 years ago, yet we use the standards of 100 years ago to drive our emotional judgement. In many ways, we need to stop letting the elderly slip away so young. Side note: I think I will make a thread about this.

Stronk Serb
August 30th, 2017, 04:08 PM
Deporting those who are criminals should be one priority. And by criminals I mean felony types. Also when it comes to those who are social security burden deportation should be possible.
USA or any other country is not responsible to take care of others than its own citizens. USA or any other country should priorise whom they help and whom they let in. There is no obligation to be global social security office.

Yes, I agree. Still, with the problem the US has with illegals, it's more worthwile to keep the docile ones as residents or citizens than to ship them off. I mean the numbers for relocation would number those during the Holocaust or in the gulag system. It takes manpower and mone to find illegals and deport them. Grant them residency and if they fuck up, ship them back

There is just a small problem with the wall thing, that problem is that a majority of illegal immigrants cross the border legally by plane and over stay their visa.

Still, the land border is a source of smuggling drugs and humans etc. Having it under protection means that will be decreased.

This was pretty much the Obama solution to this problem, but the Republicans wanted to have no 'amnesty', and then pursued a policy of non-cooperation with the administration. In fact, the only difference I can see from what you've posted here is the lack of a wall in Obama's plan because we already have fences and barriers in place on much of the border. I am always surprised to learn that what many right wing people want they can get if they supported the left...

I hardly see Obama as a leftist, I see him as a bloodthirsty man and a hypocrite.

Porpoise101
August 30th, 2017, 05:04 PM
I hardly see Obama as a leftistNeither do I. But when his opposition called him a communist or socialist, I think it is fair to consider him relatively left-wing in the American political environment.

mattsmith48
August 31st, 2017, 03:09 PM
Still, the land border is a source of smuggling drugs and humans etc. Having it under protection means that will be decreased.

They'll always find a way, if you really want to stop people from smuggling drugs across the border there is a simple solution to that, legalize those drugs.

I hardly see Obama as a leftist, I see him as a bloodthirsty man and a hypocrite.

Not the words I would've used, but finally found something we agree on.

Neither do I. But when his opposition called him a communist or socialist, I think it is fair to consider him relatively left-wing in the American political environment.

In any other country he would be considered centre-right.

Stronk Serb
September 2nd, 2017, 09:53 AM
They'll always find a way, if you really want to stop people from smuggling drugs across the border there is a simple solution to that, legalize those drugs.



Not the words I would've used, but finally found something we agree on.



In any other country he would be considered centre-right.

Yes, you cannot eliminate smuggling, but you can reduce it to a minimal level. Walling off the border would do that. Lower it to a smaller and more manageable level.

mattsmith48
September 4th, 2017, 12:50 AM
Yes, you cannot eliminate smuggling, but you can reduce it to a minimal level. Walling off the border would do that. Lower it to a smaller and more manageable level.

Yes you can eliminate it, by legalizing those drugs that are being smuggle.

Stronk Serb
September 5th, 2017, 05:47 AM
Yes you can eliminate it, by legalizing those drugs that are being smuggle.

All those drugs were legal at one point or another. You know why they were criminalized? Because people used them uncontrollably. As far as I would go is to legalize weed, but ecsasy, cocaine, heroin, LSD? Those are dangerous drugs. They should remain illegal.

mattsmith48
September 5th, 2017, 11:32 AM
All those drugs were legal at one point or another. You know why they were criminalized? Because people used them uncontrollably. As far as I would go is to legalize weed, but ecsasy, cocaine, heroin, LSD? Those are dangerous drugs. They should remain illegal.

I'm not going to continue this discussion because it's not on subject, if you want to talk more about it I invite you to take a look at the thread I started on this a last months :)