SUPREME COURT RULING: You can arrest those using marijuana for medical purposes

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Per Fox News:

The Supreme Court has ruled Medical Marijuana as illegal.

[eleni121]

It's beyond boring responding to the druggies here but let me say this. To a certain extent some marijuana liberalization has taken place but I see signs that this phase is stalling and we may be coming back to sanity. You will never get the legalization of drugs - cocaine, heroin, et al in either user or natural form legalized in this nation. Libertarians and Greens and other left wing legalizing groups have never broken the 1% electoral vote. You can probably get the Dems to go for it and that is what scares me.

As for the Marxian primer you so diligently post - LOL.

[eleni121]

There are times when authoritarianism is far better than anarchy: with growing children, with addicts, with dangerous criminals. But Libertarins don't bother with the sordid stuff of reality do they?

[eleni121]

Most states thankfully do have laws that punish drug users and cultivators. This SC ruling concerned the sale and dstribution across state lines and fortunately logic defeated emotion.

Amazing isn't it with all the Soros and other left wing masses of money - there has not been any movement toward liberalization of marijuna laws. I guess the people have spoken and less than 1% are interested in decriminalizing pot. Keep em running scared is what I say.

Even Holland is reconsidering its lenient drug policy thankfully.

[ActionNewsBill]

There are times when authoritarianism is far better than anarchy:

Erich Fromm, in his classic "Escape From Freedom," defines authoritarianism as "the tendency to give up the independence of one's own individual self and to fuse one's self with somebody or something outside of oneself in order to acquire the strength which the individual self is lacking."

He equates authoritarianism with the sado- masochistic personality, and also points out that this personality type was typical of the lower middle class in Germany. One ex-member said to me, "Nazism did not just spring up out of nowhere. It was all there before Hitler, who just brought it to fruition."

[4KennewickMan2Invent]

I wish to clarify my position of decriminalization of drugs and the Supreme Court ruling.

I detest the use of any substance to escape or cope with reality. Regardless of excuse, it has no justification. It won't fix anything or make things better. But I also don't see a reason to criminalize it.

If one is not allowed to do something to their body, where is the line drawn? How far can one go to justify it. One could argue of jailing pregnant women who drink. You could lower the speed limit to 30 MPH, since it will reduce harm and save lives. (I'm aware of the economic damage as well.) And all sorts of "life" saving procedures.

No one (not even government) has a right to use force upon you if you have not infringed upon another's rights. Get in a car while high, attacking in a rage, etc. are all illegal regardless of what "made" someone do it.

The Supreme Court ruling allows government to further infringe upon liberties and freedoms. The States can ignore Federal laws at times, but that's only if checks and balances are used.

An analogy would be this:
You use a free house sitting service. They will only "use" the bathroom if necessary, and water the lawn. You leave them the keys and full access to your house. They don't have a license, aren't bonded, and have immunity from arrest (but they are the only service available). The person in there now, you trust, but what happens when you're gone and another person comes in. They have access to ALL of your property, but you only want them in designated areas. Was it worth it?

This is very similar to the drug war regarding individual freedoms. The barrier is down and eventually little by little more and more rights can disappear. As long as the ends justify the means.

I don't like that people do stupid things, but I don't agree with being told what I can and cannot do with my body. As well as I cannot force people to do or not do something with their bodies. To do so would violate their rights. Whether one person does it or a group of people that call themselves "government" does, it is still violating rights. What happens in worst case scenario; such as Hillary Clinton and several other socialists get control of the government and the "keys" to your house? What a nightmare.

Drugs are horrible, but I am not willing to give up some rights and conveniences for "security".

[mugs99]

You can say what you want about Culture wars and I can say plenty more about the whackos who support legalization of drugs. So there

ROFL!
Of course you can, but when you base your argument on hysterical religious dogma, you lose credibility.
We have nothing to debate. You refuse to acknowledge Constitutional rights or historical and scientific fact. You desire only to force your religious view on others...You are an excellant example of why so many have turned against the religious right and are demanding a secular government.
...

[4KennewickMan2Invent]

Well said, mugs99. Though watch out, facts are not something eleni121 can handle.

[mugs99]

LOL...I've noticed that!

[eleni121]

The facts are what most people insist on, not the propaganda from NRML or Soros or the Greens that you and others like you worship in your little secular world.

[mugs99]

you and others like you worship in your little secular world

ROFL!
When you decide to use your own brain to present a credible argument, instead of letting Jones do your thinking for you, let me know.

If your hero wants to challenge me, let him come on FR and debate me on this forum...You are not doing a very good job of it.
...

[eleni121]

Avoidance behavior seems like a hallmark of drug activists.

At this point, I think I'll avoid you. But you have my permission to talk about me behind my back. Oh wait - you don't need my permission. You are a Libertarian.

[Sandy]

There are times when authoritarianism is far better than anarchy...Libertarins don't bother with the sordid stuff of reality do they?

Which is relevant how? This thread is about the medical marijuana law in California, not anarchy or Libertarians.

If your position is that authoritarianism is preferable to loose marijuana laws, then say so, and defend your position on the basis of reality and not based on some silly hobgoblins that you just pulled out of your ass.

[P_A_I]

Ah, the dreaded tyranny of free people. Spoken like a true authoritarian.
1,117 Sandy

______________________________________


There are times when authoritarianism is far better than anarchy: with growing children, with addicts, with dangerous criminals. But Libertarins don't bother with the sordid stuff of reality do they?
1,122 eleni121


____________________________________


ActionNewsBill wrote:

Erich Fromm, in his classic "Escape From Freedom," defines authoritarianism as "the tendency to give up the independence of one's own individual self and to fuse one's self with somebody or something outside of oneself in order to acquire the strength which the individual self is lacking."
He equates authoritarianism with the sado- masochistic personality, and also points out that this personality type was typical of the lower middle class in Germany.

---

Sandy, Bill, -- Well done.

[MileHi]

This SC ruling concerned the sale and dstribution across state lines and fortunately logic defeated emotion.

Um, it exactly didn't involve sale across state lines. That is why the ruling is flawed. But it does preserve illegitimate Federal POWER to shove your views down everyone Else's throat. So overbearing, overreaching government is good in this case, right?

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

"I'm coming closer and closer to moving to another country."

By the time you decide to do it, you won't be able to.

[mugs99]

you have my permission to talk about me behind my back. Oh wait - you don't need my permission. You are a Libertarian

I don't need your permission and I also don't need to talk behind your back. Show a post where I have talked behind your back or behind the back of any other FReeper.

I am up front, blunt and to the point. If my replies rattle your dogma, stop posting to me.

You are a Libertarian

Thank you, I'll take that as a complement. Actually, I am a registered Republican and have been for over forty years.
...

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

"Hey, if you want your drugs you'll accept no argument against it."

Wow, you really are stupid! YOU DON'T HAVE AN ARGUMENT. All you have are unreasoned prejudices backed by no evidence or logic whatsoever. And you can't see that even when it is pointed out to you.