Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Click Here to Login

Reply
Old 12-20-2010, 02:13 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
I'd have to disagree; I don't think it's flimsy at all - after all, it's held up since 1913, when none other than California become the first state to outlaw marijuana.

Unfortunately, I just can't take an argument to legalize all drugs seriously.

I do realize that there are some chemicals that can be huffed to get high; or over the counter drugs that can be combined to make other things. And pretty much all of those are in the process of being taken behind-the-counter or being ID'ed before you buy them. Move to control those, don't just move to say screw the entire system and legalize everything - that's a good way to kill a lot of people.
__________________

__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 03:25 PM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
I'd have to disagree; I don't think it's flimsy at all - after all, it's held up since 1913, when none other than California become the first state to outlaw marijuana.
How long an illegal federal law has been in effect is irrelevant. Is it illegal? Then repeal it. If we're talking about a state law and the state constitution specifically permits the state legislature to draft laws of this sort, then fine. No harm, no foul.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
Unfortunately, I just can't take an argument to legalize all drugs seriously.
Can we agree at least that the federal government should not have a say in the issue one way or the other?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
I do realize that there are some chemicals that can be huffed to get high; or over the counter drugs that can be combined to make other things. And pretty much all of those are in the process of being taken behind-the-counter or being ID'ed before you buy them. Move to control those, don't just move to say screw the entire system and legalize everything - that's a good way to kill a lot of people.
See, where I sit, that sounds very similar to the gun-banner's argument. Because XYX is (perceived as) harmful, we will ban it for your own good even though we don't necessarily know anything about it and even though we don't have legal authority to ban it. "Assault rifles" are banned in several states even though they are significantly less powerful than hunting rifles that are not banned. Today, we learned the BATFE regards anything bigger than a .22 as "high powered". Once the precedent is set that something "should be banned", then anything and eventually everything will be banned. Or, at least they'll try to track, register and/or regulate it.

My purpose in posting in this thread is not to defend hard drugs or those who use them. Far from it. My purpose in posting here is to try to get across the idea that the federal government does not have the right to tell us what we may or may not ingest. Either you agree with that, which means you are 100% against federal drug restrictions, or you are for the government telling you what you may and may not breathe, eat and drink. There really is no middle ground. Once we allow the government to mandate to us once on one subject, they will (and have!) do it again on other subjects. Precedent is set. Stare decisis is established. And we're screwed.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 01:15 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
We're digressing. The government isn't even attempting to control what you ingest. They charge you on what you possess - an illegal drug. I'm not sure what you meant by what we drink or eat - this isn't drinking a soda and eating a burger down the road, this is smoking a harmful, impairing drug.

I'm afraid I can't agree that the government has no right in regulating drugs - they have all the right, and they should. If the government protecting us from my kids growing up with drug-store-access to dangerous, addictive drugs is "being screwed," then I guess I'm Uncle Sam's really gonna screw me over.

Your proverbial "line in the sand" was based on an idea, the government is trying to control what we ingest, that is just not the facts, so I guess I don't know what side I'm on. If a druggie wants to go live somewhere where all drugs are free and open and he can do them all day, let them leave the US borders to do it, and I'll be a happy man.
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 05:37 PM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
We're digressing. The government isn't even attempting to control what you ingest.
Sure they are, and they're doing it through prohibition. It's the same as the 18th Amendment: they didn't bust you for being drunk, they busted you for having booze. The objective was to deny people their right to drink what they wanted to drink.

But at least back then, people understood the federal government doesn't have the right to ban ownership of substances; they went through the paces to amend the constitution. Too bad we can't be troubled with trifles like that today. We think something is a good idea and (unintentionally?) poop on the law out of expedience and/or ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
They charge you on what you possess - an illegal drug. I'm not sure what you meant by what we drink or eat - this isn't drinking a soda and eating a burger down the road, this is smoking a harmful, impairing drug.
It doesn't matter how harmful it is. It matters what rights are being taken from individuals and usurped by the federal government that has no legal right to do so.

It is not the job of government to protect me from myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
I'm afraid I can't agree that the government has no right in regulating drugs - they have all the right, and they should.
Whether they should or not is a matter of philosophical debate. Whether they do or not is a legal issue. You say they have that right.

Show me where the constitution grants the federal government the authority to ban the private ownership of any property. You're welcome to look, but I'll save you some time: it isn't in there. If you believe the constitution is a set of boundaries within which the federal government must operate, then we're square. If you think otherwise, then we're not going to see eye-to-eye on much of anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
If the government protecting us from my kids growing up with drug-store-access to dangerous, addictive drugs is "being screwed," then I guess I'm Uncle Sam's really gonna screw me over.
Respectfully, my son was taught by me why drugs are to be avoided. I didn't rely on the government to keep him safe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
Your proverbial "line in the sand" was based on an idea, the government is trying to control what we ingest, that is just not the facts, so I guess I don't know what side I'm on.
By denying access to a thing designed to be ingested, the government has de facto control over what we ingest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
If a druggie wants to go live somewhere where all drugs are free and open and he can do them all day, let them leave the US borders to do it, and I'll be a happy man.
I would prefer that those who prefer to remain stoned and worthless leave the U.S. But if a hardworking, otherwise-upstanding individual wants to have a joint after work or snort a couple lines of coke, he should not be labeled a criminal.

Crimes should be based on what an individual does to another individual, not on whether he possesses substance the government deems "harmful" or "controlled". If someone gets high and hurts someone or damages their property, then you have a crime. Prosecute it in the same way you would prosecute a DUI.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 06:36 PM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
Hah after pages and pages of debate, I don't think we're going to come to any type of understanding on this. I respect your opinion; I think we're both just a little too hard headed! Touche, good sir.

Now someone else start arguing! If you give me too much time, I'll start thinking about this more and a few more pages will have to occur!
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 07:48 PM  
ɹoʇɐɹǝpoɯ ɯnɹoɟ
 
VaporLung's Avatar

VA
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 728 | Kudos: +47
Images: 2
LOL Jake, I love having your perspective here in this debate! I mean, I get almost the identical arguments within my household, but with you I can just click the little 'X' to close the window and come back later (But seriously, I value your input)

One thing that gets me about all of this is Cannabis's kissing cousin - Hemp.
Hemp has NO THC, CBD, CBN, or otherwise intoxicating chemicals that are normally associated with 'the evil weed' yet, this plant remains in the schedule I category nonetheless. This is a plant with INDUSTRIAL potential galore - fiber, paper, food, fuel (etc) and sure we have 'Hemp approved industry' in various states, but how many are actually devoting further research to it?

Jake, if you havent already read the book 'The Emperor Wears No Clothes' just take a gander at it. Im not necessarily trying to change your views, just give you more information to help further guide them
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 12:54 AM  
Senior Member
 
Jake7's Avatar

Honolulu, Hawaii
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,294 | Kudos: +135
Images: 45
Thanks - I'll look into it tonight on the kindle!
__________________
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!


https://luckylucy.scentsy.us/Scentsy/Buy
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 02:42 PM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
Hah after pages and pages of debate, I don't think we're going to come to any type of understanding on this. I respect your opinion; I think we're both just a little too hard headed! Touche, good sir.
Hard-headed? Huh. I wonder how you might feel if I had called you hard-headed. I'm trying to base my argument on legal precedent and the principles of individual liberty. What are you basing your argument on? That's still not clear.

Look, I mean no disrespect, but if political discussion and debate is to be had here (per the name of this subforum), it might mean you put up more of an argument than you have. You claim "the government has all the right [to regulate drugs], and they should" and rather than defend your position rationally with facts, you dropped it and implied I should do the same.

Respectfully, "proof by vehement assertion" is not a particularly sound method of debate.

No worries. I'll drop it.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 04:26 PM  
Moderator Emeritus
 
Austin's Avatar

Texas
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,990 | Kudos: +90
Images: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake7 View Post
Hah after pages and pages of debate, I don't think we're going to come to any type of understanding on this. I respect your opinion; I think we're both just a little too hard headed! Touche, good sir.

Now someone else start arguing! If you give me too much time, I'll start thinking about this more and a few more pages will have to occur!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian View Post
Hard-headed? Huh. I wonder how you might feel if I had called you hard-headed. I'm trying to base my argument on legal precedent and the principles of individual liberty. What are you basing your argument on? That's still not clear.

Look, I mean no disrespect, but if political discussion and debate is to be had here (per the name of this subforum), it might mean you put up more of an argument than you have. You claim "the government has all the right [to regulate drugs], and they should" and rather than defend your position rationally with facts, you dropped it and implied I should do the same.

Respectfully, "proof by vehement assertion" is not a particularly sound method of debate.

No worries. I'll drop it.
Outsiders perspective, I see what he said as good natured and not at all an attack. I would like the debate to stay open, and you both to stay involved, we are all friends, lets keep it that way.
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 04:38 PM  
Senior Member
 
Brian's Avatar

Rochester, New York
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 262 | Kudos: +47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin View Post
Outsiders perspective, I see what he said as good natured and not at all an attack. I would like the debate to stay open, and you both to stay involved, we are all friends, lets keep it that way.
Truth be told, I didn't really take it as an attack. I have a much thicker skin than that. But I do wonder how Jake would have reacted if I had implied he was hard-headed.

I'm fine with keeping the discussion going. But Jake, being a moderator, may call the shots around here, and that's cool. If he wants us to drop it, consider it dropped.

Of course, if there are lurkers out there with observations and opinions, please chime in -- the more the merrier!!
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   CityProfile.com Forum - Local City and State Discussion Forums > General Discussion > National Politics / Debate
Bookmark this Page!

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Suggested Threads

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.