Marijuana the legalization of it?

[wkmac]

Wait a minute ... when was the first time?

Must be a bitch having missed such an earth shattering event.

Yeah, I totally missed it too!

 

[moreluck]

One time I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken.

 

[wkmac]

Study: Marijuana legalization doesn’t increase crime

 

[moreluck]

 

[soberups]

San Fran Hippies Trash Golden Gate Park, Leave 5 Tons of Trash Behind After Weed Festival…

moreluck is right again .

Explain something to me, Baba

You and I both agree that the government has no business infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, and that as citizens of a free country the contents of our gun safes are nobody's business but our own.

Why are you OK with that same government being able to kick down the door of an otherwise law-abiding citizen and imprison him simply because he is growing a plant and smoking its leaves in the privacy of his own home?

Are we not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are we not entitled to be free from an oppressive Federal government?

How is it that you condemn "Obamacare" as being a gross violation of a citizens rights and an overreach of Federal authority, yet you approve of that same Federal government controlling what a free person is and is not allowed to ingest into his own body?

 

[wkmac]

Explain something to me, Baba

You and I both agree that the government has no business infringing upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns, and that as citizens of a free country the contents of our gun safes are nobody's business but our own.

Why are you OK with that same government being able to kick down the door of an otherwise law-abiding citizen and imprison him simply because he is growing a plant and smoking its leaves in the privacy of his own home?

Are we not entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are we not entitled to be free from an oppressive Federal government?

How is it that you condemn "Obamacare" as being a gross violation of a citizens rights and an overreach of Federal authority, yet you approve of that same Federal government controlling what a free person is and is not allowed to ingest into his own body?

This is why when you boil it down just as you did, Nice job BTW, not much really separates the big state liberal from the authoritarian state conservative. They both find ways to friend##K you and make your life miserable.

 

[soberups]

Here's a couple more questions for you right-wing conservatives;

Do those of you who oppose federal recognition of gay marriage on the basis of "states rights" also support the right of individual states (such as Colorado and Washington) to decide for themselves whether or not to legalize marijuana?

Do those of you who believe (as I do) that Concealed Handgun licenses should be valid in all 50 states also believe that gay marriage and medical marijuana licenses should be valid in all 50 states?

Or is it more accurate to say that you only support "states rights" when they happen to align with prejudices that mirror your own?

 

[wkmac]

Kill 2 birds with one STONED!

 

[oldngray]

Here's a couple more questions for you right-wing conservatives;

Do those of you who oppose federal recognition of gay marriage on the basis of "states rights" also support the right of individual states (such as Colorado and Washington) to decide for themselves whether or not to legalize marijuana?

Do those of you who believe (as I do) that Concealed Handgun licenses should be valid in all 50 states also believe that gay marriage and medical marijuana licenses should be valid in all 50 states?

Or is it more accurate to say that you only support "states rights" when they happen to align with prejudices that mirror your own?

I believe in states rights in issues like deciding whether marijuana or gay marriage is legal but I reject the concept of judges over riding the will of the majority in that state if they vote no, or force other states that voted no to accept something they had rejected themselves.
As for CCL that would be a 2nd Amendment constitutional issue that would over ride states rights.

 

[wkmac]

I also believe in local supremacy. I fully support gun rights in both directions and that includes the rights of a local community to make it's own choices in the matter and that would include its choice to not have them if they see fit. If a community wants to be armed with fully automatic weapons, then I support them as well.

The hardest part about liberty is supporting it even when it moves in a direction you may not like. If a locale in America chooses to not respect your carry permit, then don't go there. If I prohibit your gun in my home, seems to me you'd consider that good cause to never visit. Personally I have no problems with guns, I strongly favor open carry as opposed to conceal carry as IMO open carry requires nothing of the State nor of the one carrying to specific performance in order to act. But that's me. On a national level, I oppose any law regarding firearms either for or against them and yes that even includes the 2nd amendment.

When it comes to ALL forms of mind altering substances, even the real harmful stuff, I also hold the same POV.

 

[soberups]

I also believe in local supremacy. I fully support gun rights in both directions and that includes the rights of a local community to make it's own choices in the matter and that would include its choice to not have them if they see fit.

So you are saying that the laws of a local community should supersede the US Constitution?

There's no such thing as rights in "both directions." If we take your logic to its ultimate conclusion then local communities should also be free to ban churches, censor the press, do away with jury trials, or even deny blacks the right to vote if that is what "local supremacy" so dictates.

I usually agree with you wkmac, but you are WAY wrong on this one!!!

 

[wkmac]

So you are saying that the laws of a local community should supersede the US Constitution?

BINGO! Go one step further, at the least abolish the Constitution and return to the Articles of Confederation.

Sober, your rights only ever go to that magical spot that your fist comes in contact with my nose and vice versa. Yes, rights can and do go in both/many directions.

I usually agree with you wkmac, but you are WAY wrong on this one!!!

No offense but your opinion of this point means nothing to me but you have the right to it. See, just proved rights do go in different directions.

 

[soberups]

BINGO! Go one step further, at the least abolish the Constitution and return to the Articles of Confederation.

Sober, your rights only ever go to that magical spot that your fist comes in contact with my nose and vice versa. Yes, rights can and do go in both/many directions.



No offense but your opinion of this point means nothing to me but you have the right to it. See, just proved rights do go in different directions.

So are you saying that you advocate abolishing the Constitution and reverting back to the Articles of Confederation as the core legal framework that defines our rights as citizens?

Do you believe that "local supremacy" should allow a majority vote of white citizens to make slavery legal again, as it was during the Articles of Confederation? You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I personally am grateful for the existence of a Constitution that specifically enumerates my God given rights rather than allowing them to be subject to the whims of "local supremacy" which is another way of describing the Tyranny of the Majority.

There is an important distinction between "democracy" and "liberty" that you should keep in mind. "Democracy" is four wolves and a lamb voting on what will be served for dinner. "Liberty" is a heavily armed lamb disputing the results of the election.

 

[Babagounj]

I also think everyone should have the right to open carry .
And that people who shop for like minded judges to over ride the vote of the people have no place within this society .
I also believe that the whole gay marriage issue was conceived by lawyers to maintain other lawyers financially .
It's your body ; love it or kill it is solely your choice .

 

[Babagounj]

moreluck was right about nothing good comes out of San Fran .

 

[wkmac]

So are you saying that you advocate abolishing the Constitution and reverting back to the Articles of Confederation as the core legal framework that defines our rights as citizens?

Do you believe that "local supremacy" should allow a majority vote of white citizens to make slavery legal again, as it was during the Articles of Confederation? You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I personally am grateful for the existence of a Constitution that specifically enumerates my God given rights rather than allowing them to be subject to the whims of "local supremacy" which is another way of describing the Tyranny of the Majority.

There is an important distinction between "democracy" and "liberty" that you should keep in mind. "Democracy" is four wolves and a lamb voting on what will be served for dinner. "Liberty" is a heavily armed lamb disputing the results of the election.

Abandon the logical fallacies, reform the question and we'll have a conversation. Even in my original proposition did I ever suggest an abandonment of morality? No!

The fact that I respect every individual in their person and their rights would suggest that slavery under any form, even the one you advocate for you own self interests by state edict and declaration are abhorrent. How can you in Oregon dictate local community interests and standards across the breath of a land continent and in a place you are likely to never even visit? Same applies to them in respect to you.

Abandonment of the Constitution and return to the Articles of Confederation IMO would just be a start and not a conclusion. Better yet, panarchy might be well served here where you could keep your Constitution, others keep the Articles of Confederation, others still Marx's manifesto or in the case of other, they may choose to flush it all and move to something else entirely.

As to the definition of democracy, Wow imagine that. You are assuming I mean to use a pure majority rule approach. Be careful in such assumptions.

 

[wkmac]

I also think everyone should have the right to open carry .
And that people who shop for like minded judges to over ride the vote of the people have no place within this society .
I also believe that the whole gay marriage issue was conceived by lawyers to maintain other lawyers financially .
It's your body ; love it or kill it is solely your choice .

I agree on open carry. As to marriage, State intervention and it's entanglement in tax law has created the gay marriage dilemma. Historically marriage was as much a private act as it was the aristocracy using the institution for the sake of progeny, political and economic power. The organized church first took control of this natural law action and then from the church did the State take control. Return it to it's station as a private function and leave the state completely out of it. Let private affairs be private affairs.

 

[soberups]

As to the definition of democracy, Wow imagine that. You are assuming I mean to use a pure majority rule approach. Be careful in such assumptions.

Its not an assumption. You stated in a previous post that you support "local supremacy" and, in regards to gun control, the right of "local communities" to "make their own choice" as to whether guns are allowed in that community or not. That sound like the very definition of majority rule to me and if I am interpreting your statements incorrectly then by all means enlighten me. I have a real problem with the idea of a "local community" having the legal ability to deny certain fundamental rights (guns, religious freedom, jury trial, habeas corpus, freedom of speech and press etc.) to citizens based upon a simple voting majority.

 

[soberups]

The fact that I respect every individual in their person and their rights would suggest that slavery under any form, even the one you advocate for you own self interests by state edict and declaration are abhorrent. How can you in Oregon dictate local community interests and standards across the breath of a land continent and in a place you are likely to never even visit? Same applies to them in respect to you.

Abandonment of the Constitution and return to the Articles of Confederation IMO would just be a start and not a conclusion.

"Local community interests" would involve responsibility for the water or sewage system, funding and maintaining city parks, and creating local ordinances in regards to traffic control, licensing dogs, and operating police and fire services etc.

Fundamental human rights such as the right to keep and bear arms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and due process of law should not be subject to the whims of majority rule on a community level. Were this the case, you would probably still see areas of the Deep South where slavery or Jim Crow laws were still legal...you would see fundamentalist religious communities that would sentence homosexuals to death for "sodomy"....or others that would prohibit the free practice of any faith other than the one "allowed" by the majority. It is for these reasons that our rights are enumerated by a Constitution rather than voted on by a City Council.

 

[wkmac]

Sober, I've already addressed the morality question.

As to suppression of what you call fundamental rights, if they agree to those terms as a community and have no desire to force them on me or others outside of those who agreed to the terms, what should I care for? This is the life they choose to live under via the principle of liberty. Are you asserting that only your definition on proper lifestyle is what fits under the concept of liberty?

When it comes to people and their interactions with one another, I agree with much of the principles of voluntaryism. If people voluntarily agree to such arrangements, who am I to tell them they can't do that?

I don't see it that way and we'll just agree to disagree.

A simple majority rule is not the only form of democracy. There are forms of participatory democracy that operate which require a near unanimous or total unanimous agreement of the group or society before any idea or command of specific performance is required. Simple democracy of majority rule in not the only form. Even our own Senate in some cases require a type super majority to pass an issue.