Posted on 11/12/2012 5:16:33 AM PST by AtlasStalled
And that's why we have courts, to supply such definitions of limits. To restrain a tyrannical government as well as a tyrannical public at large.
So if the courts found a right to drug use, like they've found a right to abortion, you'd think things were working as they ought?
Some courts obviously have discovered a right to drug use
Really? Which courts and when?
and being a law abiding person I have to accept that decision not approve it.
Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings. The point is that you've put forth the courts as the arbitrator of which public acts are and are not tyrannical - although courts have decreed tyrannical anti-abortion laws that you and I would support.
Which reminds me: since you acknowledge the possibility of the public acting "tyranically," what principles determine which public acts are tyrannical? (Note that the-courts-decide is not an answer - that simply recasts the question as: what principles courts should apply to determine which public acts are tyrannical.)
Race is not a moral choice, however the term race be defined.
But marriage is a choice - as is whom to marry. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
The obsession with rights is an obsession that ignores any harm done to others or dismisses it as too trivial to matter.
Or that some harms are simply not the business of government nor the public - such as any harms done by private drug use of a person with no spouse or minors in his care.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
I need only point to California people vs. kelly in 2010 as one of a string of decisions that has made medical marijuana use recognized as a right in California.
In Colorado, Oregon, Washington much the same path has been followed and the laws and court decisions are freely available in the public domain.
Really! If you're interested.
“Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings”
You're attempting to refute an argument that hasn't been made since you've missed the actual one.
Principles of what determines what acts are tyrannical? One or two of many would be the manner of performance of the act, the authority behind it, the treatment of of those might disagree, etc.
“But marriage is a choice - as is whom to marry. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.”
That's O.K. I'm sure.
Really? Which courts and when?
I need only point to California people vs. kelly in 2010 as one of a string of decisions that has made medical marijuana use recognized as a right in California.
That falls well short of your claimed "right to drug use."
and being a law abiding person I have to accept that decision not approve it.
Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings.
You're attempting to refute an argument that hasn't been made
Then why did you introduce the subject of accepting that decision as a law abiding person?
since you've missed the actual one.
Once again, you can explain yourself or be coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why.
Principles of what determines what acts are tyrannical? One or two of many would be the manner of performance of the act, the authority behind it, the treatment of of those might disagree, etc.
You've indicated what those principles might look like but not what they are. "The authority behind it" - what are the limits to the public's authority?
But marriage is a choice - as is whom to marry. I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.
That's O.K. I'm sure.
I didn't realize you were here to talk to yourself.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
Why so? Explain please.
“Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings.”
No scarlet fish here...the point is quite simple...I have to live with laws I don't approve of. Reality vs. the ideal and all that. Understand?
“Once again, you can explain yourself or be coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why.”
I'm quite sure readers are able to understand without being led by the hand. So yes you are attempting to refute a nonexistent argument and even ask I explain that argument. No thanks.
“You've indicated what those principles might look like but not what they are. “The authority behind it” - what are the limits to the public’s authority?”
In the first instance the Declaration and U.S. Constitution sets limits by noting the rights that the Creator endowed men with. I think I've said this before here so why are asking?
That falls well short of your claimed “right to drug use.”
Why so? Explain please.
Simple: only someone with a doctor's recommendation can get medical marijuana.
Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings.
No scarlet fish here...the point is quite simple...I have to live with laws I don't approve of.
That point is irrelevant to any matter under discussion - and thus is a red herring. Understand?
You're attempting to refute an argument that hasn't been made
Then why did you introduce the subject of accepting that decision as a law abiding person?
since you've missed the actual one.
Once again, you can explain yourself or be coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why.
I'm quite sure readers are able to understand without being led by the hand.
What is the basis of your sureness, since 100% of readers who have posted an opinion don't understand?
So yes you are attempting to refute a nonexistent argument
I did my best to interpret your posts according to standard English. You can explain yourself, or be coy and let readers draw their conclusions as to why.
and even ask I explain that argument.
No, the argument I ask you to explain is whatever argument it is you're actually making, which is not clear from your posts.
You've indicated what those principles might look like but not what they are. “The authority behind it” - what are the limits to the public’s authority?
In the first instance the Declaration and U.S. Constitution sets limits by noting the rights that the Creator endowed men with.
One of those Creator-endowed rights is liberty - yet you assert that the public can deny the liberty to use marijuana. So where's the limit to the public’s authority?
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
“Simple: only someone with a doctor’s recommendation can get medical marijuana.”
Which can be obtained for a few dollars.
No scarlet fish here...the point is quite simple...I have to live with laws I don’t approve of.
“That point is irrelevant to any matter under discussion - and thus is a red herring. Understand?”
I decided it was relevant to the discussion as I understand quite well.
Do you have anything further to add to the discussion?
That falls well short of your claimed “right to drug use.”
Why so? Explain please.
Simple: only someone with a doctor's recommendation can get medical marijuana.
Which can be obtained for a few dollars.
So it's your contention that nobody who has ever sought a medical recommendation for marijuana has failed to obtain one? Can you provide any reason for anyone to believe this?
Red herring - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings.
No scarlet fish here...the point is quite simple...I have to live with laws I don't approve of.
That point is irrelevant to any matter under discussion - and thus is a red herring. Understand?
I decided it was relevant to the discussion
Your decision was erroneous - nobody here has said one should act contrary to court rulings.
Do you have anything further to add to the discussion?
Since I've refuted every argument you've clearly stated, and exposed your steadfast coyness about those you haven't, I suspect not.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
“Your decision was erroneous...”
I see.
“Since I’ve refuted every argument you’ve clearly stated, and exposed your steadfast coyness about those you haven’t, I suspect not.”
Don’t put yourself down, you’ve made all the standard arguments in favor of sodomy, etc., privacy, as well as having a drug sodden society destroy its self under the guise of freedom and liberty.
I suspect not too.
I've made no arguments in favor of anything but the freedom of consenting adults to do as they choose in private.
privacy, as well as having a drug sodden society destroy its self
Of course I don't favor that - nor have I seen any reason to expect it if drugs are legalized. When Prohibition ended, an alcohol sodden society destroy itself.
Your craven misrepresentations of my posts are duly noted.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
You said you suspect you have nothing to add and I think you’ve done a fine job of it.
Thank you and good day.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
If you have nothing to add then you have nothing to add. We’ve agreed upon that already and you’ve made that point well....again. And upon that note of agreement the discussion ends....unless you feel you have more nothing to add.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
Submitted for your consideration - someone who seems to accept the "in private" argument:
'Has nothing whatsoever to do with “bedroom behavior.” It’s the public in your face and down our kids throats behavior that is intolerable. Keep it off our public squares, out of our playgrounds, out of our parks, out of our public restrooms, off our streets, out of our schools, out of our churches, off of our TV, out of our movies, out of our judiciary, out of our military, out of our government and out of our faces!! Take it back to your private bedrooms. Thankyouverymuch!!'
- Jim Robinson, 05/26/2011
And? When you have nothing to add, adding a quote that neither supports your contentions nor is understood by you is still nothing.
But no fears, we’ve plenty of room for nothing here.
When every argument you’ve clearly stated has been refuted, and your steadfast coyness about those you haven’t has been exposed - change the subject to "adding."
adding a quote that neither supports your contentions nor is understood by you
Two more unsupported claims by you ... talk about nothing.
the fact that alcohol is often used to impair judgment and ability leaves you with a very thin reed on which to hang your claimed distinction from other drugs - particularly when one notes that impairment was the whole purpose of alcohol use when that mind-altering drug was illegal.
Not so, not so. Wine at meals and celebrations has been a tradition long before there was a U.S. or Prohibition.
Getting drunk dates back as far - your reed remains thin.
Did you think those people suddenly headed to a speakeasy to get drunk just because of Prohibition?
No, I know they were acting on the age-old tradition of getting drunk - your reed remains thin.
“...talk about nothing.”
Thank you, I have been since we agreed that nothing is what you have to offer and have done so in a very large way.
It is afterall you who said you suspected you had nothing to offer in conclusion and certainly those suspicions have been proven so. The “adding” is your subject not mine.
The “adding” is your subject not mine.
Wrong as usual - you dragged in that red herring in post #66.
More nothing from you. While this sparring with your nothingness has been fun I’m off to deal with something.
You’ll just have to save the nothing for another time. Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.