Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?”
This conversation is becoming more interesting all the time!
If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
My granny aunt down in Hope, Arkansas used to say only the
Baptists and the bootleggers wanted the county dry. Same desire, different motives, with the Baptists being a tad more straight forward in the matter.
Th power to declare legal and the power to ban is an expression of the same power of government.
“That “all one” argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the “all one” argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.”
As I pointed out, what was once banned even in private in stepwise fashion became tolerated in private to legal in private to legal in public and finally demands for public acceptance and approval.
The argument for the right to do A in private because it was in private is deceptive and false. Do you have an example?
“Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.”
“some acts”? What might those be?
“I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.”
On what basis then do your examples violate these rights (I'll not ask you for a list of them) of the public, these rights being rights created by law?
“BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent “rights”).
Then where did these “rights” of the public come from if not created by the law?
The Founders drew upon men like John Locke, the history of Europe's kings with their claims, from their own religious perceptions, and so on to decide that the rights men had could not be abrogated since men were endowed by their Creator with those rights.
So any right simply recognized by the law and not created by law would predate said law with all other rights being fabricated and in reality nonexistent.
“I'm glad to see you say so.[that marijuana might have a beneficial use] You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.”
I see the problem with the user not the substance. Cocaine, opium, dextroamphetamine and chemically similar drugs, barbiturates, all have legitimate medical uses and misusers.
On the use of pot for medical needs. Colorado recently legalized, with some restrictions, recreational use of marijuana. medical use was already legal with a medical card. The number of card holders went from a high (hee, hee, hee..”high”..Rocky Mountain High in Denver?) from a high of about 128,000 to about 80,000 in a few years.
So either these 48,000 quit using or left the state or simply decided to not worry about medical cards. The latter seems more likely. Now that marijuana use outside of medical need the number of cards will likely drop over the next few years. The great increase and decrease in the legal medical cards makes one wonder just how difficult it was to obtain these cards and how much medical use really was medical.
As to the small percentage, yes the legal users were a small percentage of the five million state population. Legalization should reduce the suffering considerably.
“As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.”
What you said before was that I could quit and the employer could employ whom he wished.
An employer has no obligation or responsibility to honor a right that doesn't exist or that I invented.
Are you now saying that what should be banned is the public or private commission of that which count-your-change disapproves?
This conversation is becoming more interesting all the time!
If you want to speak of personal motives....What I said was that favoring restrictions or banning and disapproval went hand and hand. Others may have their own calculus but I am not that way.
So your calculus excludes limits to governmental authority?
My granny aunt down in Hope, Arkansas used to say only the Baptists and the bootleggers wanted the county dry. Same desire, different motives, with the Baptists being a tad more straight forward in the matter.
Your granny aunt was right - and I'll bet she recognized that the noble motives of the Baptists didn't change the fact that their efforts helped criminal bootleggers. Same applies to the war on drugs.
Th power to declare legal and the power to ban is an expression of the same power of government.
Government does not declare things legal - show me the statute that explicitly allows you to wear plaid shirts. In a free society, everything is legal that does not violate the rights of others, and government's role is to protect rights by banning those acts and only those acts that violate rights.
That “all one” argument is not my argument - nor is one who argues for the right to do A in private thereby logically required to argue for the right to do A in public. If you want to argue against the “all one” argument, go find somebody who makes that argument - it ain't me.
As I pointed out, what was once banned even in private in stepwise fashion became tolerated in private to legal in private to legal in public and finally demands for public acceptance and approval.
That has happened in some but far from all cases - see below.
The argument for the right to do A in private because it was in private is deceptive and false. Do you have an example?
Easy: the right to be naked. Unchallenged in U.S. history as a private right, but never as a public right.
Very simple: in public, some acts can infringe on the rights of others who are also in public, while in private this is not the case.
“some acts”? What might those be?
I don't have a comprehensive list - they would certainly include the already mentioned examples of defacation and lovemaking.
On what basis then do your examples violate these rights (I'll not ask you for a list of them) of the public, these rights being rights created by law?
The rights of the public are not created by law, but are the natural rights of each individual that makes up the public. Each has the right to disallow others from defacating or lovemaking on his property, so the public has that right on public property.
That right to me and obligation to the employer was created by law
BZZZT! As the Founders knew, the law does not create rights but simply recognizes natural rights (or fabricates nonexistent “rights”).
Then where did these “rights” of the public come from if not created by the law?
Answered above.
I'm glad to see you say so.[that marijuana might have a beneficial use] You may have noticed the anti-pot zealots on FR who strenuously deny the possibility of any medical benefit from marijuana.
I see the problem with the user not the substance. Cocaine, opium, dextroamphetamine and chemically similar drugs, barbiturates, all have legitimate medical uses and misusers.
On the use of pot for medical needs. Colorado recently legalized, with some restrictions, recreational use of marijuana. medical use was already legal with a medical card. The number of card holders went from a high (hee, hee, hee..”high”..Rocky Mountain High in Denver?) from a high of about 128,000 to about 80,000 in a few years.
So either these 48,000 quit using or left the state or simply decided to not worry about medical cards. The latter seems more likely.
Why? Maybe they quit using because they got better, or found a better medicine.
Now that marijuana use outside of medical need the number of cards will likely drop over the next few years. The great increase and decrease in the legal medical cards makes one wonder just how difficult it was to obtain these cards and how much medical use really was medical.
I'll bet a lot more people use Tylenol - should that makes one wonder how much Tylenol use really was medical?
As to the small percentage, yes the legal users were a small percentage of the five million state population.
So as I said, we're very far from having evidence that "virtually any adult can pass muster as a sufferer" and it remains true that legal medical marijuana falls far short of full adult legalization.
As I said before, employers have a legal responsibility/obligation to make sure that workers doing jobs with the potential to injure are unimpaired - but that doesn't even come close to your fabricated “right to work beside someone who is not shaking and sweating from the meth he took so he could work eighteen hours straight.
What you said before was that I could quit and the employer could employ whom he wished.
And then I elaborated on that statement. By harping on my initial formulation, you only make yourself look childish.
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.
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