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

USFREEDOM911 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ummm, I can't speak for any other generation, as they've been pretty spectacular failures, but in the past 5 years MY generation has put forward more legalization effort then any other.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
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!!"
Click to expand...

What has that to do with your evasion of the question and your attempt to divert attention from your contradiction? Answer the question and then we can move on to that.

What right was violated by the challenged law in Lawrence? Why shouldn't similar standards be applied to mj?
 
RStringfield said:
What has that to do with your evasion of the question and your attempt to divert attention from your contradiction? Answer the question and then we can move on to that.

What right was violated by the challenged law in Lawrence? Why shouldn't similar standards be applied to mj?
Click to expand...

And yet, you still are trying to spin this the direction you want it to be.
Are you now saying that somone smoking a joint, with someone else, is the same at one of them sodomizing the other one??
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
Are you retarded? You think laws just go to the USSC overnight and then they make the correct decision? Or that billed get passed as laws in a single congressional session?
Click to expand...

freedumb is using another of Ditzy's retarded arguments on gay marriage. It's been 40 years since Loving... the laws prohibiting gay marriage still stand... they must be okay and the precedent can not be extended.

:palm:
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
Are you retarded? You think laws just go to the USSC overnight and then they make the correct decision? Or that billed get passed as laws in a single congressional session?
Click to expand...

My; but a lot of people seem to have short fuses today!!
It's probably the heat.

Anyway; my query is why, with all this support, haven't the laws been changed??
One would certainly think that with the will of populace, that this issue would be at the forefront of numerous suits; in order to have current laws ruled illegal.

By the way, it isn't only the USSC that can rule on this.
There are lesser Supreme Courts that have the ability and the right to rule on this.
 
RStringfield said:
freedumb is using another of Ditzy's retarded arguments on gay marriage. It's been 40 years since Loving... the laws prohibiting gay marriage still stand... they must be okay and the precedent can not be extended.

:palm:
Click to expand...

I've not brought up anything, regarding gay marriage or anything of that nature, on any of these threads.

If you've read something that would suggest such, could you please show me?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And yet, you still are trying to spin this the direction you want it to be.
Click to expand...

You challenged the argument that it was a right. You seem to get how targeting homosexuality is not a legitimate use of police powers, so I used that as an example. It's not "spin."

USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you now saying that somone smoking a joint, with someone else, is the same at one of them sodomizing the other one??
Click to expand...

As far as the law should be concerned, yeah. Or smoking it by themselves is the same as masturbating. There is no violation of anyone's rights involved and the act is consensual. Why should either be illegal? How are they significantly different? What legitimate state interest is involved in outlawing either?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
My; but a lot of people seem to have short fuses today!!
It's probably the heat.

Anyway; my query is why, with all this support, haven't the laws been changed??
One would certainly think that with the will of populace, that this issue would be at the forefront of numerous suits; in order to have current laws ruled illegal.

By the way, it isn't only the USSC that can rule on this.
There are lesser Supreme Courts that have the ability and the right to rule on this.
Click to expand...
So by the basis that the law stands, the law is correct? Or by the basis that the majoritty wants something, the majority is correct?
 
Ice Dancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

LOL... Did you even read this?
 
RStringfield said:
You challenged the argument that it was a right. You seem to get how targeting homosexuality is not a legitimate use of police powers, so I used that as an example. It's not "spin."



As far as the law should be concerned, yeah. Or smoking it by themselves is the same as masturbating. There is no violation of anyone's rights involved and the act is consensual. Why should either be illegal? How are they significantly different? What legitimate state interest is involved in outlawing either?
Click to expand...

My challange was not that it isn't a right; but was instead against those that FEEL it's a right and haven't been able to provide anything that supports it.
Such as a Supreme Court ruling that smoking mj is a right.

Since you feel this way; it appears to be safe to draw the conclusion that when your sucking on that joint, you're fantasizing about somone's "johsnson".
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

The voting populace has determined that the State has a legetimate interest in this, otherwise the voting populace would have voted to have it removed.
Therefore; the State is supporting what the voting populace has found necessary.
Since there has been no ruling that says this is a violation of anyones rights, it's not in violation.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What's this thread's op about?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The voting populace has determined that the State has a legetimate interest in this, otherwise the voting populace would have voted to have it removed.
Therefore; the State is supporting what the voting populace has found necessary.
Since there has been no ruling that says this is a violation of anyones rights, it's not in violation.
Click to expand...
You could apply the same argument to slavery. Word for word.
 
Bender Bending Rodriguez said:
So by the basis that the law stands, the law is correct? Or by the basis that the majoritty wants something, the majority is correct?
Click to expand...

Not always; but since the assertion is that the "majority" feel that this is a violation, why hasn't there been a court finding of such.

The laws that rule the US have been in constant flux, since it's beginning.
Over time, unjust laws have been ruled unconstatutional and eventually this one may be found to be so also; but until then, people need to stop whining when they choose to violate it and then get busted.

If people truly feel this stongly, then they need to organize "smoke ins", elect officials that agree with them, and push for legislation that would make the changes.
Sitting at home, with a bong, and getting high, isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
 
Ice Dancer said:
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.
Click to expand...

The people are not the children of the government. We haven't been since we threw off colonial rule. Back then, the Parliament frequently used the mother-child analogy to governing us, but no longer.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Not always; but since the assertion is that the "majority" feel that this is a violation, why hasn't there been a court finding of such.
Click to expand...
The courts ruling reflects their own will, not the will of the people.

The laws that rule the US have been in constant flux, since it's beginning.
Over time, unjust laws have been ruled unconstatutional and eventually this one may be found to be so also; but until then, people need to stop whining when they choose to violate it and then get busted.
Click to expand...
Just like all those civil rights protesters need to shut up. Things will change if you just do nothing.

If people truly feel this stongly, then they need to organize "smoke ins", elect officials that agree with them, and push for legislation that would make the changes.
Sitting at home, with a bong, and getting high, isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
Click to expand...


Or they could get laws passed on ballots. Like what CA is doing. Or Detroit. Or Alaska.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top