Replies

It happens to have an effect on the rest of society. And our right to live how we want to live, our right to raise children in an environment we desire, trumps your right to engage in selfish, immoral hedonistic behavior.

You are quite the spinmeister. One question, though. Why does your right to live how you want to live trump someone else's right to live how they want to live?

Whenever I think of our drug war here, I am constantly reminded of a book I read called The Gulag Archipelago. Since these people are not being imprisoned for harming others, but for choosing a lifestyle many find disagreeable, they are really the same as a political prisoner was in the Soviet Union. It is kind of similar to say outlawing scruffy beards, and says more about the people outlawing it than the people being targeted.

And if you look like people like Karen Tandy and John Walters, they are actively trying to suppress any speech that would be pro-legalization like they did in Montana.

This century will someday be classified as the Era when Men Declared War on Inanimate Objects (pot, guns, suvs, etc). Too bad Don Quixote is no longer around to lead the way.

You are quite the spinmeister.

It's hard to believe, but we're being told that in our constitutional republic, legislators are delegated the power, (reflecting the will of the people) to decide precisely which of our rights to life, liberty or property will be protected and to what extent.
-- Nothing in our Constitution can even remotely justify this belief, of course.

Incredibly, it is said our right to live how we want to live can be trumped by the 'majority wiil'; that our right to raise children in an environment we desire can be trumped by such legislative 'decisions'. - That you have no right to engage in whatever your peers decree to be selfish, immoral or hedonistic behaviors.

Are we at DU?

This century will someday be classified as the Era when Men Declared War on Inanimate Objects (pot, guns, suvs, etc). Too bad Don Quixote is no longer around to lead the way.

Well put.

One question, though. Why does your right to live how you want to live trump someone else's right to live how they want to live?

Good luck in getting a rational answer from a mind contaminated with the socialistic dogma we see above.

"Why does your right to live how you want to live trump someone else's right to live how they want to live?"

In general? It doesn't. Now if you want to get into specifics, then maybe I could answer your question.

"Since these people are not being imprisoned for harming others, but for choosing a lifestyle many find disagreeable."

Disagreeable. I like that. Kinda like "harmless weed".

There are many who say drug use harms the user and those around them. So I think it goes beyond disagreeable.

"And if you look like people like Karen Tandy and John Walters, they are actively trying to suppress any speech that would be pro-legalization like they did in Montana."

Suppressing speech? How about "telling the other side"?

"The same complaint was filed in Nevada two years ago against John Walters .... Nevada officials decided a few months later not to take action against Walters because he was carrying out the duties of his office, which include combatting marijuana legalization efforts. They cited an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court decision that federal officials are immune from state action when exercising the functions of their offices."