Victimless Crimes

[SmarterthanYou]

Without the permission of society saying "hey drugs are Ok so long as you are old enough". Just as alcoholism increased with its legalization so shall drug addictions increase with their legalization. It is flat out the wrong thing to do and as I said before nothing more than surrender not a solution.

so you're less conservative and more totalitarian.

 

[Canceled2]

so you're less conservative and more totalitarian.

If you need to lable my opinion go ahead with the hyperbole. I believe that as a society we have a responsibility to do what is right. I believe that drugs are bad for you and cause great harm. I believe that keeping them illegal sends the right message to our children and our culture.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If you need to lable my opinion go ahead with the hyperbole. I believe that as a society we have a responsibility to do what is right. I believe that drugs are bad for you and cause great harm. I believe that keeping them illegal sends the right message to our children and our culture.

for some people, walking, talking, and chewing gum is dangerous also. do we criminalize that also?

i guess maybe a better way to look at this would be, if drugs are illegal because they are bad for you, why are so many people, young and old, still doing them?

 

[Canceled2]

for some people, walking, talking, and chewing gum is dangerous also. do we criminalize that also?

i guess maybe a better way to look at this would be, if drugs are illegal because they are bad for you, why are so many people, young and old, still doing them?

The analogy is silly and does little to serve the debate over legalization of drugs. Gum chewing though possibly hazardous to people you are aquainted with has never harmed anyone I know.

People young and old do all sorts of mischief that's harmful- murder, robbery, rape, but we don't legalize those things either.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The analogy is silly and does little to serve the debate over legalization of drugs. Gum chewing though possibly hazardous to people you are aquainted with has never harmed anyone I know.

People young and old do all sorts of mischief that's harmful- murder, robbery, rape, but we don't legalize those things either.

so to get right down to it, YOU think they are bad, therefore YOU think they should stay illegal because it could hurt the people doing it, so instead of making them take complete responsibility for their irresponsibility. and that's not totalitarian?

 

[Canceled2]

so to get right down to it, YOU think they are bad, therefore YOU think they should stay illegal because it could hurt the people doing it, so instead of making them take complete responsibility for their irresponsibility. and that's not totalitarian?

Children are not legally repsonsible for their actions. As to adults? We have all kinds of laws, that does not make us totalitarian...

I am hardly alone in "thinking" drugs are bad. In fact I rather believe that it is easily provable that they are quite harmful when used recreationally and not in a prescribed manner.

I guess you can lable me totalitarian if that helps you feel better...I'm done.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Children are not legally repsonsible for their actions. As to adults? We have all kinds of laws, that does not make us totalitarian...

I am hardly alone in "thinking" drugs are bad. In fact I rather believe that it is easily provable that they are quite harmful when used recreationally and not in a prescribed manner.

I guess you can lable me totalitarian if that helps you feel better...I'm done.

i do label you totalitarian, simply because you wish to prescribe unconstitutional powers to the government, but thats cool. just don't hide in the closet about it.

 

[Canceled2]

i do label you totalitarian, simply because you wish to prescribe unconstitutional powers to the government, but thats cool. just don't hide in the closet about it.

No, you lable me totalitarian because you think it wins your argument. I am not offended in that I am comfortable holding the view I do. If in your view that makes me totalitarian fine, but it still does not make your opinion any more valid than mine, it just makes you lable giver.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, you lable me totalitarian because you think it wins your argument. I am not offended in that I am comfortable holding the view I do. If in your view that makes me totalitarian fine, but it still does not make your opinion any more valid than mine, it just makes you lable giver.

I label you totalitarian because thats what you are. your position you've clearly stated here is that people are unable to govern themselves and need a nanny state to implement and enforce laws designed to protect them from themselves. tell me that's not what you're doing.

 

[Canceled2]

I label you totalitarian because thats what you are. your position you've clearly stated here is that people are unable to govern themselves and need a nanny state to implement and enforce laws designed to protect them from themselves. tell me that's not what you're doing.

I gave my rationale 7 ways from Sunday. I do believe that Society has a role in making laws that protect us even from ourselves...especially our children. I also believe that taking a stand as a society communicates powerful messages that are beneficial. Drugs are dangerous when misused.

I think you are wrong to want them legalized, but I don't need to label you an idiot or an anarchist because we have different opinions. I think that your labeling me as a totalitarian because I think our rights to vote into law criminal consequences for drug selling and illegal use is lame, but you are entitled to use hyperbole and broad brushes if it makes you feel good. I am not looking to have government "mold the soul" or reign complete control over the private lives of citizens (definition of a totalitarian).

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I label you totalitarian because thats what you are. your position you've clearly stated here is that people are unable to govern themselves and need a nanny state to implement and enforce laws designed to protect them from themselves. tell me that's not what you're doing.

Should we then do away with the laws that prevent children from being exploited??

I mean, why do they need laws to protect them?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I gave my rationale 7 ways from Sunday. I do believe that Society has a role in making laws that protect us even from ourselves...especially our children. I also believe that taking a stand as a society communicates powerful messages that are beneficial. Drugs are dangerous when misused.

I understand your position. I'm just giving it a name.

I think you are wrong to want them legalized, but I don't need to label you an idiot or an anarchist because we have different opinions. I think that your labeling me as a totalitarian because I think our rights to vote into law criminal consequences for drug selling and illegal use is lame, but you are entitled to use hyperbole and broad brushes if it makes you feel good. I am not looking to have government "mold the soul" or reign complete control over the private lives of citizens (definition of a totalitarian).

not complete control, just enough to turn them in to sheeple. a good flock, you might say.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Should we then do away with the laws that prevent children from being exploited??

I mean, why do they need laws to protect them?

'laws' don't prevent shit. laws punish people for committing violative acts. exploiting children is a perfectly acceptable excuse for making a law. criminalizing a natural plant is not, especially when there is no constitutional power granted to congress to do so.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

'laws' don't prevent shit. laws punish people for committing violative acts. exploiting children is a perfectly acceptable excuse for making a law. criminalizing a natural plant is not, especially when there is no constitutional power granted to congress to do so.

But how can it be a "violative act", can if there is no law describing such??

As to the rest of your post; if you truly feel that you're correct, then please let me know when you're going to challange it before the Supreme Court.
I'd like to follow the events, as they unfold; because other wise this is just pissing in the wind, with very lttle result.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

But how can it be a "violative act", can if there is no law describing such??

violative acts are acts that violate the inalienable rights of another human being. knowing you from your posts, this shouldn't be something that you are unfamiliar with, correct?

As to the rest of your post; if you truly feel that you're correct, then please let me know when you're going to challange it before the Supreme Court.
I'd like to follow the events, as they unfold; because other wise this is just pissing in the wind, with very lttle result.

first off, I'm not a drug user anyway, so I won't be challenging these CSA laws because I'll never have standing,

second, to understand the hows and whys that congress now has power to regulate/prohibit drugs like marijuana, you'd need to know about prohibition, its repeal, the war on drugs, and nixons taxing scheme. Then realize how a totally unconstitutional supreme court decision (actually two of them now) has given non-enumerated powers to the US Government.

if you don't want to do that, then answer the simple question of 'does congress have the constitutional power to tell you what you can and can't grow, or how much of what you can, in your own backyard garden?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

violative acts are acts that violate the inalienable rights of another human being. knowing you from your posts, this shouldn't be something that you are unfamiliar with, correct?


first off, I'm not a drug user anyway, so I won't be challenging these CSA laws because I'll never have standing,

second, to understand the hows and whys that congress now has power to regulate/prohibit drugs like marijuana, you'd need to know about prohibition, its repeal, the war on drugs, and nixons taxing scheme. Then realize how a totally unconstitutional supreme court decision (actually two of them now) has given non-enumerated powers to the US Government.

if you don't want to do that, then answer the simple question of 'does congress have the constitutional power to tell you what you can and can't grow, or how much of what you can, in your own backyard garden?

How can it be a violation of the childs right, if the child is in agreement??

You don't have to be involved in something, to argue the point.

Is your persistent question, the only hammer you have in your toolbox??

By the way; it appears that the answer is YES, until it's challanged and overturned.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How can it be a violation of the childs right, if the child is in agreement??

can a 12 year old consent to things like sex? don't argue semantics, it's beneath you. stick to the constitution...you know, that document that we both appreciate.

You don't have to be involved in something, to argue the point.

in the US court system, one must have standing to bring suit. It's the judicial systems way of preventing a clog of the system for suits with no purpose of means of resolution.

Is your persistent question, the only hammer you have in your toolbox??

By the way; it appears that the answer is YES, until it's challanged and overturned.

if you think that congress does indeed have that power, then explain the difference between alcohol and prohibition vs. marijuana and the CSA

 

[USFREEDOM911]

can a 12 year old consent to things like sex? don't argue semantics, it's beneath you. stick to the constitution...you know, that document that we both appreciate.

in the US court system, one must have standing to bring suit. It's the judicial systems way of preventing a clog of the system for suits with no purpose of means of resolution.



which persistent question? If its meaningless to you, I won't ask it of you anymore.

1. Obviously the 12 year old can, if there is nothing to prohibit it.

2. You could always spearhead the attempt, for others.

3. Why ask me what question, if you allready knew what the question was; or else how would you know not to ask it again? I never said it was meaningless; but you're solving nothing by just being in a rut.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1. Obviously the 12 year old can, if there is nothing to prohibit it.

then we should be making our 6 year olds work full time jobs.

seriously, do you really want to pursue the claim that you think 12 year olds are capable of mature thought processes?

2. You could always spearhead the attempt, for others.

I've been supplying legal theories and advice to bring the commerce clause back to its original intent through several gun cases over the last 4 years, but that's guns and not marijuana. Again, I'd have no standing.

3. Why ask me what question, if you allready knew what the question was; or else how would you know not to ask it again? I never said it was meaningless; but you're solving nothing by just being in a rut.

what i'm trying to do is get people to think and realize that their constitution has been subverted already. If congress had to pass an amendment to prohibit the sale, manufacture, and possession of a substance in 1919, how did they get the power to do it without passing an amendment in the 1960s?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

then we should be making our 6 year olds work full time jobs.

seriously, do you really want to pursue the claim that you think 12 year olds are capable of mature thought processes?

I've been supplying legal theories and advice to bring the commerce clause back to its original intent through several gun cases over the last 4 years, but that's guns and not marijuana. Again, I'd have no standing.


what i'm trying to do is get people to think and realize that their constitution has been subverted already. If congress had to pass an amendment to prohibit the sale, manufacture, and possession of a substance in 1919, how did they get the power to do it without passing an amendment in the 1960s?

1. I never said a thing about them being mature enough; but at one time kids younger then 5 were forced to work. But this isn't about maturity, this is about regulations.

2. And yet, you could still start a movement and spearhead it.

3. You could get everyone you know, eveoyone on thiese boards, and who knows how many more people you might influence; but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans, unless it's overturned.