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

[Timshel]

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.

Then when I give you something that supports it, you claim I am spinning or trying to divert attention.

The argument is that mj laws violate due process under the doctrines used in Lawrence v Texas and other cases, which is usually called substantive due process doctrine.

I am sorry you are too ignorant to follow the discussion.

Such as a Supreme Court ruling that smoking mj is a right.

lol... There would not be much reason to debate this if that had happened. It's not yet a protected right. Does not mean it is not a right. The right to engage in homosexual sex was not a protected right until the Lawrence decision. That does not mean the argument that it was a right was illegitimate. Obviously the court did not find the argument invalid.
l

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.

lol... you are stupid.

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.

One could use the same argument that the voting populace supported the law in question in the Lawrence ruling. Ditzy uses this VERY argument to support laws against gay marriage.

You and Ditzy don't understand the issues involved. Apparently, you or someone close to you, likes to suck dick and so you believe that right is important, but no one elses. You are a hypocrite and a moron.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The courts ruling reflects their own will, not the will of the people.

Just like all those civil rights protesters need to shut up. Things will change if you just do nothing.




Or they could get laws passed on ballots. Like what CA is doing. Or Detroit. Or Alaska.

So now all the laws we have, are only because the Courts want them and have nothing to do with the populace??
Interesting view; erroneous, but interesting.

Once again, this is not a Civil rights issue; but nothing is going to change, as long as people continue to do this undercover and then whine when they're busted.

Absolutely correct; but has the populace voted these into affect??

 

[Minister of Truth]

Except that slavery was against a certain RACE of people and was found to be unconstitutional and rightly so.

Please tell what RACE is being held in anything akin to slavery, over the issue of mj.

Slavery is infrequently a matter of race, but it is always wrong.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Except that slavery was against a certain RACE of people and was found to be unconstitutional and rightly so.

Please tell what RACE is being held in anything akin to slavery, over the issue of mj.

Huh? I thought it was found unconstitutional because, oh I don't know, maybe it violated basic individual rights? I mean that's a crazy concept it seems, but that's what was argued. Especially since several thousand slaves were white.

Just like drug criminalization laws are violations of basic human individual rights.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Then when I give you something that supports it, you claim I am spinning or trying to divert attention.

The argument is that mj laws violate due process under the doctrines used in Lawrence v Texas and other cases, which is usually called substantive due process doctrine.

I am sorry you are too ignorant to follow the discussion.




lol... There would not be much reason to debate this if that had happened. It's not yet a protected right. Does not mean it is not a right. The right to engage in homosexual sex was not a protected right until the Lawrence decision. That does not mean the argument that it was a right was illegitimate. Obviously the court did not find the argument invalid.
l



lol... you are stupid.



One could use the same argument that the voting populace supported the law in question in the Lawrence ruling. Ditzy uses this VERY argument to support laws against gay marriage.

You and Ditzy don't understand the issues involved. Apparently, you or someone close to you, likes to suck dick and so you believe that right is important, but no one elses. You are a hypocrite and a moron.

Since you're bound and determined to bring a sodomy ruling into this, then here's the bottom line; why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that this is a Civil Right??
As to your constant attempts to denigrate, fuck off.

The FACT is; is that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled this to be a Civil Rights issue and until all you stop whining about the consequences and actually do something, instead of standing around bitching and moaning, nothing is going to change.

Where the fuck are the Pro-Cannibus commercials?
Where are all the Pro-Cannibus Politicians?
Where are all the Pro-Cannibus smoke ins.

The Civil Rights Leadership of the 60's and 70's were willing to openly go to jail for their beliefs and they didn't whine about what they knew was going to happen.

Those who just want to flap their gums and then try to claim that this is a Civil Rights issue, are denigrating all those who suffered for what they believed in.

 

[Timshel]

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 majority acts through the legislature. If the majority feels the law is unjust there will not be much need for a court ruling, unless there is conflict between different majorities (e.g., Cali vs US).

You need to take a class in how the US Government works and quit talking like a brainless idiot.

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.

Yeah, like those damn whiners in the underground railroad, Rosa Parks, MLK and other such whiners.

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.

Plenty of people are active on this issue. How do you think this referendum and others made it onto ballots?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The majority acts through the legislature. If the majority feels the law is unjust there will not be much need for a court ruling, unless there is conflict between different majorities (e.g., Cali vs US).

You need to take a class in how the US Government works and quit talking like a brainless idiot.



Yeah, like those damn whiners in the underground railroad, Rosa Parks, MLK and other such whiners.



Plenty of people are active on this issue. How do you think this referendum and others made it onto ballots?

When you're through bending over and sucking my cock, maybe you can reread my posts and put your limited cognitive abilities to use; because now it seems that you're trying to use the excuse that just maybe there isn't such a "majority" in favor of legalizing mj.

If you walked up to MLK and tried to tell him that your denial to smoke mj is the same as Blacks being denied the right to sit in a resturant, drink from a water fountain, attend a specific school, etc; I believe that you would be laughed at and publicly denounced.

Getting it on a refurendum only means that a certain number of signatures have been gathered. It shows nothing about how the "majority" feels.

 

[Timshel]

Since you're bound and determined to bring a sodomy ruling into this, then here's the bottom line; why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that this is a Civil Right??
As to your constant attempts to denigrate, fuck off.

The FACT is; is that the Supreme Court hasn't ruled this to be a Civil Rights issue and until all you stop whining about the consequences and actually do something, instead of standing around bitching and moaning, nothing is going to change.

Where the fuck are the Pro-Cannibus commercials?
Where are all the Pro-Cannibus Politicians?
Where are all the Pro-Cannibus smoke ins.

The Civil Rights Leadership of the 60's and 70's were willing to openly go to jail for their beliefs and they didn't whine about what they knew was going to happen.

Those who just want to flap their gums and then try to claim that this is a Civil Rights issue, are denigrating all those who suffered for what they believed in.

Again, you are an idiot. What you call whining, is an attempt to highlight the injustice of the drug war. At once you claim no one has a right to complain because the damage done to them is not as severe as that done to other oppressed groups while simultaneously arguing that anyone that is damaged deserved it for violating the law. Your arguments are illogical and absurd.

Is the drug war on the same level of evil as Jim Crow and racial discrimination. HELL NO! That's why those things were addressed first.

I don't think it is as evil as the injustice against homosexuals. But homosexuals are a small group. Them and us whiners don't make many people on their side, but we are making progress.

The number of people that have used MJ is substantial and includes, at least, the last three Presidents. But thanks to idiots like you who attack the victims of the drug war, many former users have come to accept unearned guilt and so they are willing to punish those who continue to use. The whiners had to convince them that they were never criminals and should not treat their children as such. Again, we are making progress.

 

[Timshel]

When you're through bending over and sucking my cock, maybe you can reread my posts and put your limited cognitive abilities to use; because now it seems that you're trying to use the excuse that just maybe there isn't such a "majority" in favor of legalizing mj.

Where did I claim that there was a majority?

There may be, but it has shit to do with rights based arguments or those in relation to the constitution. Majority will is not a valid argument in constitutional cases.

If you walked up to MLK and tried to tell him that your denial to smoke mj is the same as Blacks being denied the right to sit in a resturant, drink from a water fountain, attend a specific school, etc; I believe that you would be laughed at and publicly denounced.

Straw man. See latest response. Just because the violation of indivdiual rights is less loathsome does not mean it is not a violation of individual rights.

Getting it on a refurendum only means that a certain number of signatures have been gathered. It shows nothing about how the "majority" feels.

That was not the point, retard. The point was that there ARE people actively pursuing this cause.

 

[Timshel]

If MLK had gone up to Dred Scott and told him that his desire to sit at the front of a bus, drink from the same water fountain or eat at the same lunch counter as whites was the same as Scott's desire to be a free man, do you think Scott would have agreed? Or Mildred Loving's desire to marry a white man vs Scott's?

The degree is different, without a doubt. So?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Again, you are an idiot. What you call whining, is an attempt to highlight the injustice of the drug war. At once you claim no one has a right to complain because the damage done to them is not as severe as that done to other oppressed groups while simultaneously arguing that anyone that is damaged deserved it for violating the law. Your arguments are illogical and absurd.

Is the drug war on the same level of evil as Jim Crow and racial discrimination. HELL NO! That's why those things were addressed first.

I don't think it is as evil as the injustice against homosexuals. But homosexuals are a small group. Them and us whiners don't make many people on their side, but we are making progress.

The number of people that have used MJ is substantial and includes, at least, the last three Presidents. But thanks to idiots like you who attack the victims of the drug war, many former users have come to accept unearned guilt and so they are willing to punish those who continue to use. The whiners had to convince them that they were never criminals and should not treat their children as such. Again, we are making progress.

And again, you're a cocksucker who enjoys blowing anyone that's availabe.
Not that there's anything wrong with this.


Getting busted at home for using, getting busted on a street corner for selling, getting busted for having mj in your car, etc; are forms of highlighting an injustice!!

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Please tell me what injustice you're highlighting, by getting busted at home, in your car, or on a street corner??

So this is an admission that not as many people are for this, as was previously suggested??

Now you want to fall back on the "unearned guilt" as the reason attempts to legalize have failed.

Congratulations.
You've stepped up from being pathetic to at least being amusing.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Where did I claim that there was a majority?

There may be, but it has shit to do with rights based arguments or those in relation to the constitution. Majority will is not a valid argument in constitutional cases.



Straw man. See latest response. Just because the violation of indivdiual rights is less loathsome does not mean it is not a violation of individual rights.



That was not the point, retard. The point was that there ARE people actively pursuing this cause.

Where did I infer that you referenced anything as a "majority".
There have been others who have responded, on this subject, and it appears that I made the mistake of believing you had read their posts also.

You and others are the ones trying to tie this into a civil rights issue that rivals what occured in the 60's and 70's. It's not my fault that it was attempted and failed miserably.

I never said or infered that there aren't people working on this.
I wondered how come there weren't more and why more hasn't occured over all these years.

 

[Timshel]

And again, you're a cocksucker who enjoys blowing anyone that's availabe.
Not that there's anything wrong with this.

Getting busted at home for using, getting busted on a street corner for selling, getting busted for having mj in your car, etc; are forms of highlighting an injustice!!

WTF RU talking about???

If done in large numbers, I guess it could be. Who is arguing we should go out and get busted on our own to demonstrate the injustice?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Your straw man really is not all that funny. It's just sort of a headscratcher.

So this is an admission that not as many people are for this, as was previously suggested??

Who suggested what? I did not say a fucking thing about how many people support legalization. The OP is about a poll in Cali. I seriously doubt it would do as well in other states where retards like yourself tend to dominate.

Now you want to fall back on the "unearned guilt" as the reason attempts to legalize have failed.

Congratulations.
You've stepped up from being pathetic to at least being amusing.

You are still approaching pathetic, not yet at coherent but satisfying absurd.

I am tired of beating dead horses. I gave you the argument for why this is a right. I have pointed out that regardless of your claims otherwise, many are active in this cause. I have demonstrated that your claims of "whining" are just ad-homs intended to silence speech against the injustices of the drug war.

You have yet to make a valid point, explain your contradictions or show that you have the slightest clue about rights or the constitution.

You should strike up another gay marriage thread to see if Ditzy will reclaim his dunce cap.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

WTF RU talking about???

That you're a cocksucker.
I thought that was obvious!!

If done in large numbers, I guess it could be. Who is arguing we should go out and get busted on our own to demonstrate the injustice?

If you really believe that people getting busted at home, is accomplishing anything, or convincing anyone that changes need to be made, then please continue; because it does show the idea of futility.

Your straw man really is not all that funny. It's just sort of a headscratcher.

You're showing that you're cognitive abiliies are sorely lacking; because I presented no straman, but was instead laughing at your attempt to do so.
This really was a nice attempt, on your part, to try and spin this away from your stupidity.

[quote}Who suggested what? I did not say a fucking thing about how many people support legalization. The OP is about a poll in Cali. I seriously doubt it would do as well in other states where retards like yourself tend to dominate.[/quote]

You're embarassing yourself now; because as I've said before, there are more posters who have responded on this thread; then just you and I.

You are still approaching pathetic, not yet at coherent but satisfying absurd.

It now appears that I've offended you, by laughing at your "earned guilt" comment, and you've had to try to regain your manhood, by claiming ignorance of what transpired.

I am tired of beating dead horses. I gave you the argument for why this is a right. I have pointed out that regardless of your claims otherwise, many are active in this cause. I have demonstrated that your claims of "whining" are just ad-homs intended to silence speech against the injustices of the drug war.

You have yet to make a valid point, explain your contradictions or show that you have the slightest clue about rights or the constitution.

You should strike up another gay marriage thread to see if Ditzy will reclaim his dunce cap.

Just because I was able to present facts, that you don't agree with, does not mean that I've been unable to present valid points.
From past observations of your behavior, this is nothing more then the same excuse you always fall back on; after you've been soundly spanked.

 

[Timshel]

Since you are STILL lying...

Your straw man.... getting busted advances the cause. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ACCOMPLISHES ANYTHING. I went back in the thread to several posts before my comments. I don't find where anyone argued that. Apparently, you just made it up.

Violating the law in a mass demonstration can be effective and is done frequently.

As far as someone else arguing that a majority support legalization, I don't know where that is either. But YOU demanded that I make an admission that a previous claim was incorrect. I did not make any claim about how many support legalization and do not know to what claim you are referring. If you want me to comment on someone elses claim (which is what you are NOW back pedaling to) then you need to tell me WTF UR talking about. Who claimed this? In what post?

I still stand by the claim that many have been propagandized into the idea that their drug use was wrong but somehow different from that of their children. That's not working anymore as the Xers already heard that bullshit from their ex-"hippie" parents and are not about to adopt it.

The point of that was only about why this issue is moving ahead while there are greater injustices, e.g., those against homosexuals. That is, there are a hell of a lot more current and ex pot smokers then there are homosexuals and so this issue has gained steam at a faster pace.

You have not presented a single fact and your points (the coherent ones) have been discredited. It's a right (same as your cherished right to suck cock, though not yet recognized), there are people fighting for it and they are not just "whining" about the drug wars impacts on them.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Since you are STILL lying...

Your straw man.... getting busted advances the cause. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ACCOMPLISHES ANYTHING. I went back in the thread to several posts before my comments. I don't find where anyone argued that. Apparently, you just made it up.

Violating the law in a mass demonstration can be effective and is done frequently.

As far as someone else arguing that a majority support legalization, I don't know where that is either. But YOU demanded that I make an admission that a previous claim was incorrect. I did not make any claim about how many support legalization and do not know to what claim you are referring. If you want me to comment on someone elses claim (which is what you are NOW back pedaling to) then you need to tell me WTF UR talking about. Who claimed this? In what post?

I still stand by the claim that many have been propagandized into the idea that their drug use was wrong but somehow different from that of their children. That's not working anymore as the Xers already heard that bullshit from their ex-"hippie" parents and are not about to adopt it.

The point of that was only about why this issue is moving ahead while there are greater injustices, e.g., those against homosexuals. That is, there are a hell of a lot more current and ex pot smokers then there are homosexuals and so this issue has gained steam at a faster pace.

You have not presented a single fact and your points (the coherent ones) have been discredited. It's a right (same as your cherished right to suck cock, though not yet recognized), there are people fighting for it and they are not just "whining" about the drug wars impacts on them.

And now that you've reiterated comments that you have been continually repeating, would you care to show what is being done to bring the mj issue to the forefront??

 

[Timshel]

And now that you've reiterated comments that you have been continually repeating, would you care to show what is being done to bring the mj issue to the forefront??

I have to repeat because you are lying and fail to show where anyone used your straw man arguments.

Prop 19. Medical MJ laws in several states. The SC recently refused to hear San Diego's attempts to circumvent medical mj, arguing that the law was preempted by the feds. Courts are also throwing out harsh punishments for possession. The DEA has backed off a little on the medical MJ states. Once more states pass laws for medical MJ or full legalization, the SC may extend Lawrence.

Are you honestly arguing that the outlook on mj has not changed dramatically?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I have to repeat because you are lying and fail to show where anyone used your straw man arguments.

Prop 19. Medical MJ laws in several states. The SC recently refused to hear San Diego's attempts to circumvent medical mj, arguing that the law was preempted by the feds. Courts are also throwing out harsh punishments for possession. The DEA has backed off a little on the medical MJ states. Once more states pass laws for medical MJ or full legalization, the SC may extend Lawrence.

Are you honestly arguing that the outlook on mj has not changed dramatically?

You have to repeat it; because that way you can hopefully convince yourself that what you're posting is fact, instead of the fallacy it truly is.

YEAH BUDDY; at this rate, mj wil be legal in about ohhhhhhhhhhhh 20 more years.
OH-WAIT, that's what they said 20 years ago.

 

[Timshel]

It is a fact that I never said it was worthwhile to get yourself busted for mj, outside of some sort of mass demonstration. It is a fact that I did not claim that mj legalization is supported by a majority. It is a fact that you have not shown where anyone has made such arguments. The first one is highly dubious.

Who said that 20 years ago? More than likely, just another one of your straw man arguments.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It is a fact that I never said it was worthwhile to get yourself busted for mj, outside of some sort of mass demonstration. It is a fact that I did not claim that mj legalization is supported by a majority. It is a fact that you have not shown where anyone has made such arguments. The first one is highly dubious.

Who said that 20 years ago? More than likely, just another one of your straw man arguments.

Are you asserting that 20 years ago, people didn't expect mj to be legal by now??

If those in favor of getting the mj laws changed aren't willing to put themselves on the front line, how do you expect to get others to become involved??

I guess MLK should have just written letters to the Editor, instead of organizing large protests.

Others have suggested that getting busted brings attention to the issue and I said the idea was stupid.