Replies

Gee, it sure seemed like your comment I was responding to:

To: dirtboy
I think its stupid to legalize the possession of small amounts. It should either be legal or illegal. To legalize small amounts is like making stealing $5 legal.

I'm OK with a state legalizing pot if the majority of that state decides to, but I'm not OK with the concept that its a constitutional right.

I'm also OK with employers, including government (the electorate), having very broad rights in who they hire and fire, or otherwise hand out money to. If a man doesn't want to employ someone who smokes pot or drinks alcohol or smokes, that should be his business. Same goes for how government funds are spent.

Do what you want, but bare the consequences, might indeed be the best alternative to drug use.
37 posted on 10/23/2006 6:43:11 PM PDT by SampleMan (Do not dispute the peacefulness of Islam, so as not to send Muslims into violent outrage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

dwcusmc, There's a bit of confusion here. Someone else posting my reply to you, and answered it as though it were to them. In my reply to that, I included you in the addressee line, because you had been involved in the whole confusing issue.

My apologies for the confusion. Is there an issue concerning my position that I could clarify for you. Not withstanding my first post to you, I feel obligated at this point. Especially to a Marine.

I'm rapid fire trying to give due responses to several individuals, so if I myself have gotten confused with my responses to you, please accept my apology.

I reread your original post to me, and the reason I responded as I did, is because I didn't think you understood that I wasn't questioning the concept of unenumerated rights, but rather addressing the means and authority of the people to put curbs on behavior (murder, inciting a riot, etc.).

In this, the question becomes, "Is the behavior harmful to others?"

Now my position is that it must be harmful to others if a law restricting it is to be constitutionally correct. However, we have no divine being that walks among us to make that decision with perfection, so the People through their representatives must be the entity to make the decision. All other options are full of perils far worse than the People misjudging the harm. I'll acknowledge that hypotheticals could probably be made to the contrary, but given that the People are the ones most harmed by any bad decisions and the worse the decision the greater the harm, I don't think those hypotheticals are realistic. Whereas I think the evils of the alternatives are real, frightening, and not self-correcting.

My words:
I'm OK with a state legalizing pot if the majority of that state decides to, but I'm not OK with the concept that its a constitutional right.

I should have said "uninfringable right". I have a right to speech, but not to scream in your ear, as the People have decided that it does harm to you.

More of my words:
I'm also OK with employers, including government (the electorate), having very broad rights in who they hire and fire, or otherwise hand out money to. If a man doesn't want to employ someone who smokes pot or drinks alcohol or smokes, that should be his business. Same goes for how government funds are spent.

I stand by that. Employers can put contractual requirements on employees. Working for them is voluntary. If I don't want someone that smokes pot, smells bad, or has blue eyes, that's my business, even if its unwise.

What of a state employer? A state job is not a right. If the People decide they want certain limits on employment that is fine. As the government should always try to be fair, the People should not be arbitrary. Genuine arguments of unfairness, tend to bring the People about. You can take it to court, but then you are putting it before 12 People vice the entire electorate, or 1 person.

Again, we have no divine entity that always rules correctly to decide these things for us, and the most dangerous thing we could do is seek one out.