Posted on 03/07/2012 12:16:09 PM PST by AnTiw1
It started last summer, when it seemed that Mexican President Felipe Calderón had understandably reached the end of his rope. After 52 innocent people were massacred in August by drug gangsters who set fire to a Monterrey casino – 52 added to the almost 50,000 drug-related murders in Mexico since 2006 – an angry Calderón said that if Americans were so “determined and resigned to consume drugs, then they should seek market alternatives in order to cancel the stratospheric profits” fueling the ghastly narco-bloodshed. Everyone agreed that by “market alternatives,” Calderón meant some sort of drug legalization.
(Excerpt) Read more at globalspin.blogs.time.com ...
And for most of those centuries when it was busy not catching on, it was legal - so where's the worry in relegalizing it?
One of those cultures looks and lives like spaced out stoners
How so?
Not re-legalise.
Like all laws, the law doesn’t get written until the problem arises.
Not re-legalise.
Like all laws, the law doesn’t get written until the government claims that a problem arises.
There, now that's correct.
If you think America has always been a dictatorship, or whatever you think led to laws, such as the anti-polygamy laws in the distant past.
Polygamy is a better example, I don’t think that we have made “global warming” illegal, yet.
Probably true in most cases - but how does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that? Any action is legal before a law against it is passed.
75 years or so a law was passed because a problem was growing among American youth, it was reaching into the mainstream youth and it finally had to be addressed, I don't know why you phrased it that way, as though it had merely been suddenly "observed".
I don't know that homosexual marriage was legal before it is made illegal.
Probably true in most cases - but how does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?
75 years or so a law was passed because a problem was growing among American youth, it was reaching into the mainstream youth and it finally had to be addressed,
If you're referring to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, it's very much open to debate that there was in fact a "problem" rather than simply Reefer Madness hysteria. We can agree that marijuana was in fact being used and was known to be in use.
You still haven't answered the most important question: How does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?
I don't know why you phrased it that way, as though it had merely been suddenly "observed".
I meant simply that for activity X to be known to be a problem, it must first be known to be taking place.
Any action is legal before a law against it is passed.
I don't know that homosexual marriage was legal before it is made illegal.
Bad example - civil marriage is an act of government, and as such no kind of civil marriage (homosexual, polygamous, whatever) is legal unless and until government says so. The use of marijuana, which was/is an act of individuals rather than government, certainly was legal until government said otherwise.
That was a stoner’s post.
Even Western Civilization has known about the use of marijuana “taking place” for thousands of years, we just didn’t indulge, and we condemned it. Fringes and dregs of Western culture have been indulging in such drugs since ancient times, it just never entered the mainstream until recently.
As far as homosexual “marriage”, in America we have had both religious, and civil marriage for centuries, we never needed to address making laws against this homosexual agenda, until recently.
Probably true in most cases - but how does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?
75 years or so a law was passed because a problem was growing among American youth, it was reaching into the mainstream youth and it finally had to be addressed,
If you're referring to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, it's very much open to debate that there was in fact a "problem" rather than simply Reefer Madness hysteria. We can agree that marijuana was in fact being used and was known to be in use.
You still haven't answered the most important question: How does your claim "Not re-legalise" follow from that?
*STILL* no answer to this simple question.
Any action is legal before a law against it is passed.
I don't know that homosexual marriage was legal before it is made illegal.
Bad example - civil marriage is an act of government, and as such no kind of civil marriage (homosexual, polygamous, whatever) is legal unless and until government says so. The use of marijuana, which was/is an act of individuals rather than government, certainly was legal until government said otherwise.
Even Western Civilization has known about the use of marijuana “taking place” for thousands of years,
So we agree on that point.
we just didn’t indulge, and we condemned it.
Yet there were no laws against it, so it was by definition legal.
Fringes and dregs of Western culture have been indulging in such drugs since ancient times, it just never entered the mainstream until recently.
As far as homosexual “marriage”, in America we have had both religious, and civil marriage for centuries, we never needed to address making laws against this homosexual agenda, until recently.
We still haven't passed any laws AGAINST homosexual marriage (although we have passed laws against state courts forcing it on states, and against states being forced to recognize other states' homosexual marriages). As I said, no kind of civil marriage is legal unless and until government says so.
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.