Don't let the potheads ruin freedom

The Prometheus Institute ^ | 9/5/2006 | Editorial

[tang0r]

Generally, there are two types of marijuana users. First is the most commonly stereotyped “stoner,” depicted in the media of movies (e.g. Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High) and television (e.g. Shaggy from Scooby Doo). These are the dead-end job, ambitionless abusers who ingest marijuana to escape their already dismal lives. They represent the image which is most often associated with marijuana use. Certainly, the average American high school is teeming with similar directionless pot-smoking losers, further cementing this public perception.

[Zon]

but that your hammer is now unfit to pound or pull nails, either.

That's why they invented oxy-acetylene torches. I suppose it's also why congress used the amendment process to prohibit alcohol and the amendment process to repeal the XVIII amendment. The most effective tool for the job is to strictly adherer to the original intent of the constitution.

[Zon]

Thanks. Having rehashed the same'ol arguments from rp eventually I post something terse.

[tacticalogic]

That's why they invented oxy-acetylene torches.

If you took the claw hammer away from him and handed him one, he'd beat on the muffler with it and complain that the claw hammer worked better.

[aligncare]

Thank you for the opportunity to extend my remarks. I am interested in reducing marijuana use without resort to prohibition.

There are health issues with chronic use. Respiratory, cardiovascular, endocrine, psychological, perhaps others. But, those problems will remain at roughly similar levels post decriminalization.

[Zon]

LOL!!!

Too funny.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Marijuana is a chemical warfare agent... it FEMINIZES men...

And since the 1960's, this is what the cultural Marxists are after...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Marijuana is a chemical warfare agent... it FEMINIZES men...

And since the 1960's, this is what the cultural Marxists are after...

[Mojave]

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

Yep. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another.

Words have meaning. Except to Neo-Tech cultists.

[Mojave]

When the court rewrites the law and orders remedial action, that's called "legislating from the bench".

Stop it, they're salivating.

[Mojave]

"The use of marijuana is linked to breast growth in boys and men."

http://www.eapsa.org/parents/breast_disorders.cfm

[William Terrell]

Gosh, if I've seen this canard once, I've seen it a hundred times.

The use or administering of drugs. As in pharmacy. What kind of drugs? The Greek pharmacopoeia at that time was extensive. It contained many herbs and potions to relieve various illnesses. Were all those who administered a drug (herb) as, say, diuretic denied the kingdom of Heaven?

Is alcohol a drug? It certainly alters the mind. If so, was Jesus guilty of "witchcraft"? He certainly drank wine, and administered it.

Do you realize that cannabis was in the pharmacopoeia in many parts of the world, and most likely in that part of the world? It is in the English and American today as well? Poppy was used, too, (from the north, I guess) as a physician administered substance. Were the physicians in Israel and Europe denied the kingdom of Heaven?

You've got four meanings for the use of the Greek word. The first two are related and the first describes a benign use, the second a malevolent use. The second two are related and the third describes the actual acts of idolatry, the fourth metaphorical use to give another act that color.

None of it has to do with taking herbs and potions that have the effect of altering your mind. The reference to witchcraft in Galatians means two and three, obviously, as poisoning another or denying God and faith by using rickety old rituals to directly affect the world and others.

One could have said in Greek, referring to a well respected physician, "He practices witchcraft", "witchcraft" being pronounced "pharmakeia".

We know what Jesus taught. One of the things that He taught was the things that go into a man don't defile a man, but what comes out of a man defiles the man.

The rest here is your experience. My experience was quite different.

Were you, at first, neutral to or positive toward cannabis, then became aware of the hidden meaning of the word "witchcraft", thereupon you slapped your forehead and said, "Ohmygosh, cannabis is the route to Satan", and were against it at that point?

Or did you have already have the bias, maybe generated by finding out it was wrong for you, and were glad to have something from the Bible against it to justify denying it to others?

Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies

You might note that we're both guilty of the fifth transgression.

[robertpaulsen]

The original intent and meaning of the CC was to regulate which doesn't mean nor intend to prohibit.

Wrong. I already told you. President Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, used the power of "to regulate" commerce with foreign nations to prohibit trade with Europe in 1807 and used the power of "to regulate" commerce with the Indian tribes to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indians in 1802.

These are the Founding Fathers. Madison wrote the Commerce Clause. They would have known better what "to regulate" meant than either you or I.

In a landmark case, Gibbons v Ogden, 1824, presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall (another Founding Father) it was stated in the opinion:

The 'power to regulate commerce,' here meant to be granted, was that power to regulate commerce which previously existed in the States. But what was that power? The States were, unquestionably, supreme; and each possessed that power over commerce, which is acknowledged to reside in every sovereign State. The definition and limits of that power are to be sought among the features of international law; and, as it was not only admitted, but insisted on by both parties, in argument, that, 'unaffected by a state of war, by treaties, or by municipal regulations, all commerce among independent States was legitimate,' there is no necessity to appeal to the oracles of the jus commune for the correctness of that doctrine. The law of nations, regarding man as a social animal, pronounces all commerce legitimate in a state of peace, until prohibited by positive law. The power of a sovereign state over commerce, therefore, amounts to nothing more than a power to limit and restrain it at pleasure. And since the power to prescribe the limits to its freedom, necessarily implies the power to determine what shall remain unrestrained, it follows, that the power must be exclusive; it can reside but in one potentate; and hence, the grant of this power carries with it the whole subject, leaving nothing for the State to act upon."

Geez Louise. What don't you get?

[rightgrafix]

Pull over! Mr.sticky buds.

[zek157]

I guess we can agree to disagree. Alcohol is a drug by any definition of the term. Moderation is encouraged, overindulgence is chastised. Look what happened to Noah's son over Noah's falling down drunk episode. It's been busting families from the dawn of human history.

[robertpaulsen]

"There isn't a high school kid in the country who couldn't get a bag of pot by the end of the week if they so chose (and just about half of them will choose before they graduate.)"

True. It's easier for them to obtain than alcohol. Every teen survey says that. Yet they use hard-to-get, legal, regulated alcohol 2:1 over easy-to-get, illegal, unregulated marijuana. And now you wish to legalize and regulate marijuana also, thinking that it will be different.

"Enforcement is inconsistent and in many cases marginal to the point of virtual nonexistance."

Recently, with these politically correct and inane "medical marijuana" laws, decriminalization, and "marijuana enforcement as lowest priority" movements among the states, we've seen an increase in marijuana use. (Surprise!)

So, I'll agree with that one.

"An illogical, malum prohibitum law criminalizing victimless behavior which occasionally ruins someone's day but is otherwise broken without consequence by millions of Americans every day. If that isn't a BS law, what is?"

Illogical?

What it IS is a society setting standards by which they will live. It's too bad that an individual's character, self-esteem, and morality no longer keep them from doing drugs and that these laws are even necessary. And that's made even worse by the fact that 5% of Americans continue the activity, though illegal.

We are always going to have drug use. Just like we will always have burlaries, assaults, DUI's and murder. The law is an attempt to minimize the behavior, not eliminate it.

"Laws like this are why many people don't respect any law."

Well, as I said, only 5% of the population smokes marijuana on a monthly basis, meaning the other 95% respects the law. And that 95% is quite content with the law and has no desire to change it.

[robertpaulsen]

"I've asked you several times to explain how drugs in a person's home harms you."

And I responded that our laws are not limited to those which prohibit harm to others. You wish to reframe and restrict the debate to behavior which harms others.

Ain't gonna happen.

[robertpaulsen]

"What is important is the original meaning, not the original intent.
Says who?"

Justice Scalia, for one.

"Original meaning was made popular by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. It contends that the terms of the United States Constitution should be interpreted as meaning what they meant when they were ratified, which is to say, it asks the question: "What would a Reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?"

"The theory stands in equal opposition to interpretivist theories like Original intent and legal realist theories like living documentarianism."

Get that, tacticalogic? In opposition to interpretivist theories like Original Intent.

YOU'RE the one making the Constitution a living document, not me.

"You don't own or use tools much, and haven't ever had to rely on them for you livelihood, have you?"

Changing the subject? Lacking an argument? Trying to personalize the issue?

[Zon]

Wrong. I already told you. 

You say a lot of things. Most of them in wrong and in error. So again, surprise you're wrong this time.

President Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, used the power of "to regulate" commerce with foreign nations to prohibit trade with Europe in 1807 and used the power of "to regulate" commerce with the Indian tribes to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indians in 1802.

tpaine explained this to you at least a few times. In short, they regulated commerce -- they didn't prohibit an object.

These are the Founding Fathers. Madison wrote the Commerce Clause. They would have known better what "to regulate" meant than either you or I.

For sure they know better than you. That's why they regulated commerce yet didn't prohibit an object.

[tacticalogic]

Also from Ogden v Gibbons:

It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States. Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.

You peddling half-truth. Again.

[tacticalogic]

"Original meaning was made popular by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. It contends that the terms of the United States Constitution should be interpreted as meaning what they meant when they were ratified, which is to say, it asks the question: "What would a Reasonable person living at the time of ratification have understood these words to mean?"

Unless you're claiming the Founders were unreasonable, they would have understood those words to mean what they intended to convey.

"The theory stands in equal opposition to interpretivist theories like Original intent and legal realist theories like living documentarianism."

Get that, tacticalogic? In opposition to interpretivist theories like Original Intent.

I get that there is a difference between "interpretivist theories like Original intent" and "legal realist theories like living documentarinaism" and that characterizing my position as supporting livining documentarianism is an outright lie.

YOU'RE the one making the Constitution a living document, not me.

YOU'RE a low life lying scum.