Pot culture

SmarterthanYou said:
then you should be able to paste the specific text of the constitution that states that power, no?
Click to expand...

It's not a specific amendment, it's how they've been applied.

How about where we remove convicted felons's liberty to protect society?
Take away someone's liberty if they cry fire in a crowded theater, even tho they have a right to free speech?
THe creation of the FDA and associated regulations?
 
Lorca said:
It's not a specific amendment, it's how they've been applied.
Click to expand...
so the torturous application of judicial and societal wants is satisfactory for this?

Lorca said:
How about where we remove convicted felons's liberty to protect society?
Click to expand...
there is the 5th Amendment
Lorca said:
Take away someone's liberty if they cry fire in a crowded theater, even tho they have a right to free speech?
Click to expand...
The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court's holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year--Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.--also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White's excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"
Lorca said:
THe creation of the FDA and associated regulations?
Click to expand...
all unconstitutional as they stand right now.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so the torturous application of judicial and societal wants is satisfactory for this?

there is the 5th Amendment

The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court's holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.

Two similar Supreme Court cases decided later the same year--Debs v. U.S. and Frohwerk v. U.S.--also sent peaceful anti-war activists to jail under the Espionage Act for the mildest of government criticism. (Read Ken White's excellent, in-depth dissection of these cases.) Together, the trio of rulings did more damage to First Amendment as any other case in the 20th century.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action"

all unconstitutional as they stand right now.
Click to expand...

Oh well. You didnt like my answer.

Doesnt make it invalid.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
how is presenting factual evidence that you're constitutional law interpretations are incorrect not making it invalid???
Click to expand...

LOL, didnt prove them invalid. There are tons of inconsistencies and exceptions on both sides.

Never said I agreed with them either....just playing the odds hoping for a favorable outcome on pot legalization.

And I dont use it....just see the overall positive side(s) to legalization.
 
Sometimes that 'all or nothing,' 'only my way is right' 'tude blocks anything from getting done.

Sometimes getting a foot in the door under any circumstances and letting things sort themselves out, letting the public see good outcomes.....gets things done sooner.
 
Lorca said:
Sometimes that 'all or nothing,' 'only my way is right' 'tude blocks anything from getting done.

Sometimes getting a foot in the door under any circumstances and letting things sort themselves out, letting the public see good outcomes.....gets things done sooner.
Click to expand...
Cheers to that!
 
Lorca said:
Sometimes that 'all or nothing,' 'only my way is right' 'tude blocks anything from getting done.

Sometimes getting a foot in the door under any circumstances and letting things sort themselves out, letting the public see good outcomes.....gets things done sooner.
Click to expand...
it also hands more power to the government in order to 'get something done'. the founders would be.......disgusted.
 
wanderingbear said:
SO you want to get rid of all taxation. Then how would we fund the government services we need and use? Or do you propose to do away with all government services and go back to when there were no government services? That would be ridiculous and insane.
Click to expand...


they seek the death of this country.

good to see you here
 
SmarterthanYou said:
it also hands more power to the government in order to 'get something done'. the founders would be.......disgusted.
Click to expand...

It's not like this is a life and death matter.....gradual change is better than no change.

We're not handing the govt power, we're reducing it and shifting it. Name some other products sold that arent taxed, besides food? (I think clothing in some states?)

Pay your taxes for drug users in law enforcement, courts and prisons....or to purchase BY CHOICE.
 
Lorca said:
It's not like this is a life and death matter.....gradual change is better than no change.

We're not handing the govt power, we're reducing it and shifting it. Name some other products sold that arent taxed, besides food? (I think clothing in some states?)

Pay your taxes for drug users in law enforcement, courts and prisons....or to purchase BY CHOICE.
Click to expand...

the power to tax is the power to destroy. allowing the government to tax OR PROHIBIT a simple weed or plant is not something the founders envisioned or intended the federal government to have.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the power to tax is the power to destroy. allowing the government to tax OR PROHIBIT a simple weed or plant is not something the founders envisioned or intended the federal government to have.
Click to expand...

As I said, I believe they'll eventually reduce restrictions on growing your own. And that wont be taxed.

Get over it. I've never seen anyone whine so much at someone agreeing with them. If you want to argue taxation in general, start another thread. Your position is extreme and applies to alot more than pot.
 
Lorca said:
As I said, I believe they'll eventually reduce restrictions on growing your own. And that wont be taxed.

Get over it. I've never seen anyone whine so much at someone agreeing with them. If you want to argue taxation in general, start another thread. Your position is extreme and applies to alot more than pot.
Click to expand...
yes, freedom and limited government within the confines of the constitution is extreme. everything else is just unamerican.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top