Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: tacticalogic
Is it any more encouraging that some allow other people's drug use, either real or imagined, to be the dominant influence in theirs?

I wouldn't know. I'm not the one who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking and posting about drugs. I don't attempt to inject drugs into unrelated threads. I have made a conscious decision to make sure drugs are just not that relevant to my own lifestyle. You decide.

93 posted on 11/25/2003 1:54:06 PM PST by presidio9 (Islam is as Islam does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies ]


To: presidio9
I'm not the one who spends an inordinate amount of time thinking and posting about drugs. I don't attempt to inject drugs into unrelated threads. I have made a conscious decision to make sure drugs are just not that relevant to my own lifestyle. You decide.

Okay, but I'll need a little more information. Judging by this thread, I'm going to assume you support an "enduring document" view of the Constitution. Do you believe that the substantial effects doctrine is consistent with that view? Does the fact that the WoD is dependent on the substantial effects doctrine influence your view of that doctrine? Would you think differently if there was a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing the WoD, and there was no substantial effects dependency?

96 posted on 11/25/2003 2:23:04 PM PST by tacticalogic (Controlled application of force is the sincerest form of communication.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson