Posted on 08/01/2002 5:16:08 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
Edited on 05/07/2004 8:00:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
As we endeavor toward a more lucid and informed discussion of substance abuse, let's deconstruct the mystique of marijuana and recognize it for the dangerous drug that it is.
Marijuana is a substance that's worthy of our concern. It is the most prevalent of all illicit drugs used in the country. The 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 34 percent of Americans have used marijuana in their lifetime and 5 percent are current users.
(Excerpt) Read more at theithacajournal.com ...
I believe that there is a difference between someones personal property at home and a business where people are employed. One has the right to not invite (fill in the race, religion, sexual orientation here) people to their homes. However I believe that business should not be able to discriminate against these people at the workplace.
Frankly, I think discrimination based on generalization of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age are to the discriminator's disadvantage. That the competitive marketplace will limit the businesses growth due to the discriminators irrational choice. That said...
Discrimination laws are political agenda laws.
Main Street's brick and mortar businesses are private property For if they were public the police wouldn't need a search warrant. Police need warrants only for private property. If a private property owner decides he wants to invite strangers in from the street he can do that and the guest must follow the property owner's rules.
What's wrong with this picture?
Read the Fourth Amendment. Sheesh, we can't even trust our "employees" -- government officials -- to let them into our homes and businesses without a search warrant if we don't want to let them in. But somehow a business is forced to trust a total stranger with an open door policy. A person/business owner can refuse to allow a government agent -- his servant -- access to his property but not a total stranger! And get this, it is the government -- the servant -- that can't be trusted that is telling property owners -- the master -- that they must trust total strangers.
Discrimination laws must be repealed. And hold accountable the members of congress that created discrimination laws at the cost of violating property owners private property rights.
Granted I do NOT have to accept an invite to someones home if that invitation is dependant on the host rifling thru my ladies purse and my pants pockets
Do you have to invite a person into your home if they are only going to sit their and breathe? No. Do you have to invite them into your home if they want to talk about your favorite hobby? No.
BUT there generally is no financial harm in refusing an invitation to visit someone's home.
That is true for both the door-to-door salesman and the homeowner/ property owner.
However, in order to work one MUST (except those who are self employed) go to the work site.
Where is the door-to door salesman's work site? Other people's property.
The fact that one must enter the property on threat of unemployment/poverty/hunger, IMHO puts that property under public domain as far as the BoR goes.
Then you'd also think that a business can't set their own rules about who they will and will not have as customers. For example, when you go to the grocery store you're under the "threat" that they will not have you as a customer. You are against free association and instead champion forced association. Personally, Ron Paul is the only member of congress I would have as a customer.
The Bill of Rights puts limits on the government, not the citizens.
Let me make an example ... lets say that the police have been privatized, since they are now under the auspicies of a private company are they now exempt from the BoR ? I certainly hope not.
They must, acting as a government agent paid by taxpayers get a search warrant if they want to enter onto a property without the property owner's permission.
If businesses were left without ANY control it is also my opinion we would quickly return to the days of sweatshops and child labor.
Technology advancements are quickly out-competing the need or desire for sweat hops. Your assumption is that the business community would move towards backwards technology.
Get government off of people and businesses' backs and out of their wallets and the economy would boom and there would be no need for children to work to provide for family necessities. Instead they'd work for the joy of being creatively productive. Nobody would need to take a job in sweatshops.
Politics and government regulation is not the solution, it's the problem.
P.S., you forgot to use "Hopped-up on goofballs".
OH ??? !!! perhaps you should tell that to the Discovery Bay homeowners. They just recently purchased a "block" of roads from Contra Costa County for the new gated community.
The irony here is that the pro marijuna guy is the one displaying the Webbish lack of humor.
See, it comes down to the fact that individuals have rights, the government does not. The governments responsiblity is to protect rights. One individual does not have the right to force another to let them be employed by them(which is the same as having a right to that individual's money and property).
When "employed" by the State(government), and each person has the equal right to seek such a position, discrimination based upon race, sex, religion or handicap is an infringement upon individual rights. An individual has the right to seek "life, liberty and happiness", which is limited by every indiduals equal right to do so also. That gives an individual EVERY right to determine who they employee and how much they pay them. Governments(the State) is not an individual. It is composed of individuals. There is a strict devider between "public" and "private". Public only applies to matters directly and only funded by the public(taxes).
To: Zon
Wake up! They are the parasites. We are the host. We don't need them. They need us.
Exactly what the Marxist ideologues tell the so-called wage-slaves about the thieving robber-baron bosses. LOL!
378 posted on 8/1/02 2:56 PM Eastern by Cultural Jihad
The so called Robber Barons fueled the industrial revolution. The Marxists were 180 degrees wrong. I champion the market-entrepreneur job-creators. That you so readily take a quote out of context (which I have often see you do) is testament to your dishonesty. Or am I mistaken and you actually think it is funny (as denoted by your "LOL" acronym) what the Marxist do?
Platted, but non-constructed roads(or abandoned) I presume. If not, then its just another example of government abuse of power under the color of law.
ALL retail stores have formed a coalition in that they will not let anyone on their property who does NOT have the ID chip embedded and 666 tatooed to their head. Granted I could grow my own food BUT the real estate company / title companies are also part of this coalition so I can't buy property and the seed store won't let me buy seed for the same reason ... oh and that private water company .. they won't let me have water without that chip either ... NOW WHAT!!!!
Your extremely unrealistic hypothetical wherein initiation of force is not permitted would be a fantastic opportunity for much less restrictive companies to gain market share. That's how free market competition unfolds. The main problem with you hypothetical is that you thought it exists in a vacuum.
You know, I think that's the first thing I've ever read of yours that I totally agree with. Simply heartwarming.
Reading betweent the lines...
Somebody received a government grant to play computer games while stoned. Sweeeeet. Oh well, your tax dollars at work. Can they pay me to try to duplicate the results? Don't scientific studies require peer review? Oh come on, please?
If the roads were owned by the County, then its illegal. Plain and simple. The county can not sell public roadways. I'd contact the State Auditor General's office or the State's Attorney's office.
But, I must assume I have all the information here.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that the child labor laws and the monopoly laws were past because SOME businesses could not police themselves.
Here's the "police":
Congress has created so many laws that virtually every person is assured of breaking more than just traffic laws. Surely with all this supposed lawlessness people and society should have long ago run head long into destruction. But it has not.
Instead, people and society have progressively prospered. Doing so despite politicians creating on average, 3,000 new laws each year which self-serving alphabet-agency bureaucrats implement/utilize to justify their usurped power and unearned paychecks. They both proclaim from on high -- with complicit endorsement from the media and academia -- that all those laws are "must-have" laws to thwart people and society from running headlong into self-destruction.
Again, despite not having this year's 3,000 must-have laws people and society increased prosperity for years and decades prior. How can it be that suddenly the people and the society they form has managed to be so prosperous for so long but suddenly they will run such great risk of destroying their self-created prosperity? Three hundred new laws each year is overkill, but 3,000 is, well, it's insane.
Wow! As I've read down this thread, your obvious ignorance is getting more and more difficult to ignore!
Here, why don't you just say this nad be done with it:
"Hey, your arguments are invalid 'cause everyone knows that anyone who smokes pot is just worthless to EVERYONE - the DEA says so! Oh yeah, the sky is falling and there's global warming too! Anyone who smokes dope is EEEEVIL!!! They're all wife-beaters and child-neglecters and work-place slackers!"
Yeah? And they'll clean out your supply of Twinkies in a heartbeat if you don't keep an eye on them!
That ...my friend is my point. We have rights given by God. These are NOT rights given by God when only dealing with the government. Example ... I have the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure ... not just from the government but from my employer or ANYONE else too. If one refuses a drug test or a credit report or a driver record exam at a company, that word gets around to the other companies and that person will not work in that industry. This requesting of "unrelated to the position" information is becoming more and more prevalent in the electronics industry. This is from my sister-in-law who is a VP of HR at a major semiconductor company. So you do NOT really have the right to work elsewhere. Granted a person with a twenty year electronics engineering career might be able to get a job at Micky Dee's but I hear they are drug testing too. So ... where does it stop ... geneologies, voting records ...
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.