Replies

You're advocating the power of officials to enact & enforce unconstitutional prohibitions.

I've never advocated any such thing.

Belied by your post #158:

"-- I'm still missing your point. Mine is that the citizens of the states effected have the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc."
158 posted on 10/25/2006 5:17:04 AM PDT by SampleMan

I'm advocating that the federal government has overreached and that the People of the states should decide the law,
to you I am a prohibitionist. Why?

Because you insist that the citizens of the states effected have "the authority to prohibit or legalize pot, as well as polygamy, incest, etc." -- Thats why.

Having a disagreement about the issue of harm does not make one an enemy of the state, as you emphatically insist.
This is the MOST persuasive form of argument.
In the last 20 years, I've brought easily over 100 people to the conservative mind set with it, and I'm not a social guy.

Having every level of gov't in the USA ignoring the constitution is far worse than just "Having a disagreement", imo..
Majority rule prohibitionists are indeed enemies of our rule of constitutional law, just as Senator Reed put it nearly 80 years ago.
--- Our prohibitionary 'wars' against drugs, guns, vice, etc - are tearing this country apart.

Who is your divine being that is always right, that knows when everyone else is wrong about "harm", but that you are right? If you have God there with you, willing to make these judgments in the stead of the Republic, I'm ready to turn it over to Him. If its someone with a law degree, I'm not.

Your continual charges of "majority rule" are disingenuous. I've never advocated that the People ignore the Constitution, just that they are the only entity that should be administering it. Are you advocating minority rule, in that you would have a minority of the pure overrule the judgment of the People?

Sadly, I wasted my last post on you. That's a shame, a real shame, and not for me.