Yes on Prop 19 Winning 52%-36%; Majority Supports Legalizing Marijuana

Your attemt is a strawman diversion; because this discussion is about mj laws and the Supreme Court struck down the law.
Has the Supreme Court had the chance to strike down any of the mj laws??
The answer here is yes and yet, states still have mj laws.
Now, why is that??

Your non-responsive answer is an evasion and an attempt to divert attention from your self contradictions.

Again...

What is your opinion on the Lawrence v Texas ruling? Is it permissible for the state to outlaw homosexual acts? Why or why not?
 
You are a fucking idiot. What you call "crying" is an attempt to get others to see the unjust nature of the law in the hopes that they will help to change it.

What legitimate state function do laws against marijuana serve? Are the laws narrowly tailored to achieve this?

Smoking and dealing in mj is an attempt to show the "unjust nature of the law"??

NO; organizing large "smoke ins" would get others to see this.
All the supporters are doing is hoping to get away, without getting caught.

The function they serve, is to support the will of the people.
And no, this does not mean that the will of the people is always correct; as can be seen in our not so recent past.
 
Your non-responsive answer is an evasion and an attempt to divert attention from your self contradictions.

Again...

What is your opinion on the Lawrence v Texas ruling? Is it permissible for the state to outlaw homosexual acts? Why or why not?

Your attempt to spin this in a direction you desire, is an evasion and an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you aren't able to stay on track.

Again...

Your attemt is a strawman diversion; because this discussion is about mj laws and the Supreme Court struck down the law.
Has the Supreme Court had the chance to strike down any of the mj laws??
The answer here is yes and yet, states still have mj laws.
Now, why is that??
 
Your statement shows just how out of touch you really are with this subject.

Please show how I'm out of touch with the idea of genocide, seeing as how that was what my reply was to.

By the way; what happened in Rwanda and is continuing to occur in some countries, is an example of genocide.
Arresting people to stupid, or to stoned, to not get arrested for mj usage, is not genocide.
 
Last edited:
Please show how I'm out of touch with the idea of genocide, seeing as how that was what my reply was to.

By the way; what happened in Rwanda and is continuing to occur in some countries, is an example of genocide.
Arresting people to stupid, or to stoned, to not get arrested for mj usage, is not genocide.

I guess you're trying to make a point.

You have no clue as to all the death, and suffering that goes along with prohibition,,, do you?
 
Smoking and dealing in mj is an attempt to show the "unjust nature of the law"??

NO; organizing large "smoke ins" would get others to see this.
All the supporters are doing is hoping to get away, without getting caught.

The function they serve, is to support the will of the people.
And no, this does not mean that the will of the people is always correct; as can be seen in our not so recent past.

Sit-ins are whining.
 
I guess you're trying to make a point.

You have no clue as to all the death, and suffering that goes along with prohibition,,, do you?

And since it has been supported that this is not an addictive drug, that means that this is a voluntary situation that people put themselves in.

People make choices and need to be adult enough to live with those choices.

Lots of laws create situations, when people choose to go against them, that may end up in death and suffering.

Are we now to choose which laws are "legitimate"; by the amount of death and suffering, caused by those who choose to disobey those laws, are responsible for??
 
Smoking and dealing in mj is an attempt to show the "unjust nature of the law"??

NO; organizing large "smoke ins" would get others to see this.
All the supporters are doing is hoping to get away, without getting caught.

I rarely hear any dealers leading the charge for legalization. Maybe some of those involved in medical mj.

The function they serve, is to support the will of the people.
And no, this does not mean that the will of the people is always correct; as can be seen in our not so recent past.

You just stole Ditzy's argument. Your answer demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. The law in the Lawrence ruling is assumed to be the will of the people. You have just argued that all laws pass the rational basis test.
 
I rarely hear any dealers leading the charge for legalization. Maybe some of those involved in medical mj.



You just stole Ditzy's argument. Your answer demonstrates that you don't know what you are talking about. The law in the Lawrence ruling is assumed to be the will of the people. You have just argued that all laws pass the rational basis test.

I see that you suffer from the same condition as some of the other posters, on this board.
Once you find something in a post, that you can latch onto; you fail to read the rest of the post.

So Sad. :palm:
 
Are we now to choose which laws are "legitimate"; by the amount of death and suffering, caused by those who choose to disobey those laws, are responsible for??

Well,,, I guess we could go back to 1938 Germany and ask that question about the jews.

I guess you think that making people criminals, is justification for supporting prohibition. I mean sense it's already a law, it must be right. Prohibition that is.
 
Well,,, I guess we could go back to 1938 Germany and ask that question about the jews.

I guess you think that making people criminals, is justification for supporting prohibition. I mean sense it's already a law, it must be right. Prohibition that is.

Nicely typed reply; but failed to answer the question.
Would you care to take a deep breath and try again??
 
Your attempt to spin this in a direction you desire, is an evasion and an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that you aren't able to stay on track.

Again...

Your attemt is a strawman diversion; because this discussion is about mj laws and the Supreme Court struck down the law.
Has the Supreme Court had the chance to strike down any of the mj laws??
The answer here is yes and yet, states still have mj laws.
Now, why is that??

Spin??? You challenged the idea that there was a right to smoke mj.

It's not a strawman retard as legal precedents have significant impact on other cases. The SC in Lawrence argued that the law in question did not serve a legitimate interest and deprived the arrested individuals of their liberty, though not enumerated, without due process.

You are just evading and hoping that no one notes your contradictory positions.
 
The function they serve, is to support the will of the people.
And no, this does not mean that the will of the people is always correct; as can be seen in our not so recent past.
There are so many things wrong with this statement it's mind boggling. State laws, and laws in general (as they pertain to the United States), are to protect individuals and individual rights. Laws concerning marijuana currently do not do this.
 
Spin??? You challenged the idea that there was a right to smoke mj.

It's not a strawman retard as legal precedents have significant impact on other cases. The SC in Lawrence argued that the law in question did not serve a legitimate interest and deprived the arrested individuals of their liberty, though not enumerated, without due process.

You are just evading and hoping that no one notes your contradictory positions.

Then why haven't all the laws been overturned??
Or better yet; why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that all these laws are unconstitutional??

"WHERE HAVE ALL THE FLOWERS GONE!!"
 
There are so many things wrong with this statement it's mind boggling. State laws, and laws in general (as they pertain to the United States), are to protect individuals and individual rights. Laws concerning marijuana currently do not do this.

You're wrong:

Top 5 reasons Laws Exist

1. The Harm Principle
Laws created under the Harm Principle are written to protect people from being harmed by others. Laws against violent crime and property crime fall into this category. Without basic Harm Principle laws, a society ultimately degenerates into despotism--the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent. Harm Principle laws are essential, and every government on Earth has them.

2. The Parental Principle
In addition to laws intended to discourage people from harming each other, some laws are written to prohibit self-harm. Parental Principle laws include compulsory attendance laws for children, laws against neglect of children and vulnerable adults, and laws banning the possession of certain drugs. Some Parental Principle laws are essential to protect children and vulnerable adults, but even in those cases they can be oppressive if they are not narrowly written and sensibly enforced.

3. The Morality Principle
Some laws are based not strictly on harm or self-harm concerns, but also on promoting the personal morality of the law's authors. These laws are usually, but not always, grounded in religious belief. Historically, most of these laws have something to do with sex--but some European laws against Holocaust denial and other forms of hate speech also appear to be motivated primarily by the Morality Principle.

4. The Donation Principle
All governments have laws granting goods or services of some kind to its citizens. When these laws are used to control behavior, however, they can give some people, groups, or organizations unfair advantages over others. Laws promoting specific religious beliefs, for example, are gifts that governments extend to religious groups in hopes of gaining their support. Laws punishing certain corporate practices are sometimes used to reward corporations that are in the government's good graces, and/or to punish corporations that are not. Some conservatives argue that many social service initiatives are Donation Principle laws intended to buy the support of low-income voters, who tend to vote Democratic.

5. The Statist Principle
The most dangerous laws are those intended to protect the government from harm, or to increase its power for its own sake. Some Statist Principle laws are necessary--laws against treason and espionage, for example, are essential to the stability of government. But Statist Principle laws can also be dangerous--laws restricting criticism of the government, such as flag burning laws that prohibit the desecration of symbols that remind people of the government, can easily lead to a politically oppressive society full of imprisoned dissidents and frightened citizens who are afraid to speak out.
 
There are so many things wrong with this statement it's mind boggling. State laws, and laws in general (as they pertain to the United States), are to protect individuals and individual rights. Laws concerning marijuana currently do not do this.

Let me point this out, for all the Dead Heads that are having problems with their cognitive abilities.

I have never said that I agree with the laws.
I am saying that smoking mj, getting busted, and then whining about it, isn't going to convince anyone to change anything.

If so many people find this law unjust, then what happened to all the flower children from the 60's, the rebels from the 70's, the "whatever they were" from the 80's.
All of those people are of VOTING age and I've yet to see many inititives being placed on State ballots.
With the supposed number of individuals supporting change, then where are the thousands of petitiions to get this changed??

I now return you to the obligatory whining.
 
Back
Top