In response to:

Missouri Takes Lead Reducing Gun and Domestic Violence

JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 8:53 AM
Nearly half of gun-related violence is associated with substance abuse at the time of the offense. Lovely, yet more of the politics of the group over the individual. Per capita, black Americans are far more likely to commit violent crimes than white Americans. Shall we allow a 'declaration' of those people as black and suspend their rights unless they "seek recovery?" This law, and this article, are the stuff of so many past fools. And charlatans who seek ever more power by fooling those fools.
David R. Usher Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 12:04 PM
Blacks are not going to discriminate against each other. If substance abuse becomes a major problem in a relationship, the responsible spouse will have the ability to pull the relationship out of disaster. There is nothing "nanny" about this legislation. We oppose the nanny state in every regard.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 2:04 PM
I said before, the ANALOGY (having to do with people losing legal protections not by crimes committed but by virtue of a group label, like black, or strict-constructionist, or whatever) has nothing to do with married couples.

(But of course, IF one so was doggedly determined to consider how it might, all one need imagine is an interracial marriage.)
David R. Usher Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 9:27 AM
This bill does not give government any power to do anything. It is self-balancing. Substance abuse is a major driver of marital disruption, divorce, and nonmarriage. The vast majority of school shootings involve children of divorce (Adam Lanza went downhill quickly after his parent's divorce ). When substance abuse causes major family disruption, it gives the responsible spouse a power tool to pull the family back together. It has not been reported on yet, but I suspect from the odd behavior of the mother, that she was a pill popper and very difficult to live with.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 9:57 AM
"This bill does not give government any power to do anything."

Well then, what does it do? If it does nothing, clearly it is not needed.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 10:01 AM
From your statement below ("Our form gives the abuse center the ability to say that the petitioner is the one with the substance abuse problem. ") it sounds as if it either creates a new government power to give an end-run around the courts, OR even worse, a NON-GOVERNMENT power to give an end-run around the courts.

Either sounds horrible. Classic modern liberal-insanity. Find a way to circumvent the protections of the law that have taken so long to establish.
michigander4 Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 11:22 AM
David, RE: "This bill does not give government any power to do anything."

How can that be? If the bill passes the legislature and becomes law, violation of said law will result in some sort of punishment, will it not?
michigander4 Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 11:24 AM
On second thought, maybe Missouri doesn't punish violators of the law.
helioquois Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 9:14 AM
My worry is that the application of the law will be parsed along racial lines and be declared racist, or that false claims will be filed. Additionally, the law can be perverted if "substance" abuse is not narrowly defined. Will it include cigarette and cigar smokers? What if it includes obesity? How will these states square this with new laws permitting the use of marijuana? Once again, this gives power to the state to determine if your physical and mental health is a danger to your family and others so that you are rendered incapable of exercising your rights protected by law. At its base, it is a form of its worst, it is the nanny state formally sending you to your room--I fear the politicization of this power.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 9:23 AM
Yes, any attempt to correlate criminality (or anything else that comes with a taking of individual rights) to something OTHER THAN an actual crime that merits that taking, is a VERY dangerous thing.
David R. Usher Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 9:29 AM
Regardless of race, when substance abuse is driving marital disruption, the responsible spouse will have a power tool to apply that can get the other spouse into recovery. the state has no power to do anything -- race cannot possibly be a factor in how this statute will work.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 9:55 AM
Ummm, Mr. Usher, the mention of race was a metaphor. The point is that attempts to TAKE LIBERTIES FROM people based upon anything but actual criminal actions or direct threats are, and always have been, dangerous end-runs on liberty.

WHO DECIDES what constitutes a "substance abuser?" WHO DECIDES what substances are a problem, and how much, and how that is even measured?

If you cannot see how the potential for abuse greatly exceeds the alleged benefit you are hopelessly naive.

What is wrong with going to the court for an injunction and a divorce, offering all the corresponding protections of the court for both sides? Rather than handing all due process over to some magical "DECIDER?"
JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 10:06 AM
BTW, since it was not recognized that the mention of race was a metaphor, it is worth explaining the analogy it provides.

What is happening here is that the law is providing a new criterion for taking away liberties of a citizen: the label of "substance-abuser." This is done by claiming a (far-less-than 100%) correlation between substance abuse and domestic violence and other crimes, RATHER THAN simply using the crimes and threats themselves.

This is the SAME logic one might apply to strip blacks of rights, by showing the very real statistics that show blacks are more likely to commit violent crime, per capita, than whites. Rather than using the actual crimes as a basis for stripping away the rights of individuals, all that is...
JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 10:08 AM
needed is to establish the "blackness" of the individual, at which point he is considered a much higher-risk, worthy of having his freedoms revoked.

This is a VERY dangerous thing. Thoroughly despicable by those who know better and are using it as a power grab, and dangerously sad by those who are fool enough to think the abuses won't outweigh any benefits.
David R. Usher Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 10:22 AM
Black wives and husbands will not discriminate against each other along racial lines.

JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 10:31 AM

It has been noted that Mr. Usher fails not only to recognize the analogy, but also fails to understand the analogy even when it is pointed out and explained.

Let's try ONE MORE TIME, shall we? The RACE analogy is not about married couples.

It is to illustrate what happens when the force of law USES A GROUP LABEL to deprive individuals of liberties rather than CITING PROVEN ACTIONS OF THAT INDIVIDUAL to use force against that individual to deprive him of liberties.
JustMC Wrote: Feb 11, 2013 10:35 AM
There is a saying in sales: "lose early." Its wisdom lies not in some magical desirability of loss, but rather in prioritization. Far better to recognize a loser early and cut one's losses, to move to greener pastures, than to waste great amounts of time and energy only to get nothing in return.

As an aspiring pundit, Mr. Usher has done us all a favor with today's persistent inanity and shallowness of understanding. He has allowed us to lose early on him as a pundit.

When I see his name, I now know not to bother. As should all.

For that, we may all be thankful.

Missouri House Bill 402 is a major step forward reducing gun violence, domestic violence, and other forms of serious violence. For decades, federal and state policy attempting to impact these growing problems failed because the policies were pointed in the wrong direction.

Substance abuse in the family is the leading factor and primary driver of many kinds of gun-related crimes, domestic violence, and other offenses.

Substance abuse is tightly bound to domestic violence. Three-quarters of serious domestic violence is associated with substance abuse at the time of violence (Fig 3). This statistic does not include substance abusers who...