Posted on 09/05/2006 8:16:10 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
Why do you think it's easier for teens to get pot than alcohol?
When you put forth an analogy, I think it's fair to ask if you know enough about what you're using for comparison to know what that hell you're talking about.
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.
I've not restricted nor reframed the debate to that. I've included the violation of the constitution that occurs when an object is prohibited. Such as would be the case had congress not obeyed the constitution by passing an amendment as the proper way to prohibit alcohol. I've included the discussion arguing against the constitution being a living document, which your ideology is that it is a living document. This could be no clearer than the necessity of congress to use the amendment process to prohibit alcohol in order to obey the constitution and, unconstitutional drug-prohibition laws passed by congress without the necessary amendment.
You enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate harm/force on persons that have harmed no one. You do that under the color of law. You enlist government agents to be your mafia-like strong-arm muscle which you personally cannot commit the initiation of harm/force or you'd be held liable for paying restitution to you victim and criminal charges against you. That depends on how your victim wants to deal with you and your criminal act against him. That is, chose to take you to civil court and/or press criminal charges.
Ain't gonna happen.
Because, as I said in the post you just replied to: "You can't explain because you haven't been harmed. When you do respond it's typically your authoritarian and/or communitarian twisted logic and perversion of honest justice." I add to those, rationalization.
Whaaaa! Alcohol is legal so pot has to be too!
Dope is fungible and the trade in illicit drugs extends across state lines and affects other states.
You shot down your own argument.
You peddling half-truth. Again.
Much appreciated. Thank you.
Unlike truth that has many gray areas and often changes from context to context, honesty has none. Something/someone is either honest or it/they are not.
They prohibited the commerce of an object(s). The definition of "to regulate", therefore, includes "to prohibit".
So they're saying that Congress may not regulate commerce that does not extend to or affect other states. I agree. This means, therefore, that Congress may regulate commerce that extends to OR AFFECTS other states.
Thank you for making my "substantial effects" case for me.
In all fairness to Shaggy and Scooby, they were the ones being chased by the ghosts all episode long. That takes a lot of physical exertion for a pothead.
In the meantime, Fred and Daphne are off somewhere for the whole episode, and don't show up until after Vera's solved the mystery and the bad guy's been caught. Of course, Fred is the one who talks to the cop afterwards on behalf of the group and gets thanked by the police.
It sounds to me like Fred is a Democrat.
A suit w/o a tie? VERY unprofessional. How about suit & tie, wingtips w/o socks?
You don't stop at affecting other States. The standard you set is that it affects Congress's ability to enforce whatever regulations they pass. "Affecting other States" is a dodge.
Why is that important? Why is that even an issue? Who cares?
For you, getting alcohol is easier than getting pot -- just go to the store. Is that significant? Does that mean anything?
What's important is what teens use. And teens use alcohol 2:1 over marijuana. I say that's due to the legality of alcohol -- society has said that alcohol is legal and it's OK to use. Legalizing marijuana will increase teen use for the same reason.
In my opinion.
Congress used the power of the Commerce Clause to write a federal law prohibiting the sales of alcohol to the Indians in 1802. No amendment was required.
You're saying that Congress, President Thomas Jefferson and his Secretary of State, James Madison, violated the U.S. Constitution in 1802 by doing so?
"You enlist government agents to act on your behalf to initiate harm/force on persons that have harmed no one broken the law." Yes I do. Break the law, pay the price. Your choice.
Reading this is giving me the munchies..
[crickets]
YOU quoted it.
According to a Congressional finding, in-state marijuana growing, possession, and use has a substantial effect on the commerce prohibited among the several states. It, therefore, "affects other states". It, therefore, falls under Congressional purview.
Primary Source Document
Francis Walker Gilmer, a lawyer and author, was one of Jefferson's numerous correspondents in the years after 1812. In the following letter to Gilmer of June 7, 1816, Jefferson discoursed on the extent to which natural rights must be relinquished in civil society, and expressed his profound disagreement with the Hobbesian view that justice is conventional only, and not natural. The letter reflected Jefferson's abiding faith in Republican government, the main if not the sole function of which was, in his view, to preserve those rights that man has, ideally, in the state of nature.
"I received a few days ago from Mr. Du Pont the enclosed manuscript, with permission to read it, and a request, when read, to forward it to you, in expectation that you would translate it. It is well worthy of publication for the instruction of our citizens, being profound, sound, and short.
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their powers; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. 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. Every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him. And, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right. The trial of every law by one of these texts would lessen much the labors of our legislators, and lighten equally our municipal codes.
"There is a work of the first order of merit . . . by Destutt Tracy on the subject of political economy. . . . In a preliminary discourse on the origin of the right of property, he coincides much with the principles of the present manuscript; but is more developed, more demonstrative. He promises a future work on morals, in which I lament to see that he will adopt the principles of Hobbes, or humiliation to human nature; that the sense of justice and injustice is not derived from our natural organization but founded on convention only. I lament this the more as he is unquestionably the ablest writer living, on abstract subjects..."
Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to American Presidents
According to the power-hungry federal government. It gave the feds the power to regulate, in order to ensure that we essentially have a free trade zone between the states, so that states could not become protectionist (but they do of course, and that's upheld for some reason).
The Commerce Clause has been stretched so thin that it really has no original meaning anymore. It's just a catch-all to allow the feds to pretend that the individual states don't exist.
Indeed I did.
According to a Congressional finding, in-state marijuana growing, possession, and use has a substantial effect on the commerce prohibited among the several states. It, therefore, "affects other states". It, therefore, falls under Congressional purview.
YOU tried to twist into saying something it doesn't say, about a subject it doesn't address.
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.