The problem is freedom.
Democrats want to control your freedom in one way and Republicans another.
Originalists (I hadn't heard that name for it until recently, and I like it) believe that there should be freedom, and that's what the Constitution grants. Or rather, prevents the Government from taking away.
Apparently, there are some out there who think that freedom is a maleable thing that they can take away on a whim. If you don't like someone doing something that is of no harm to anyone else, then don't watch. If an adult wants to light up in their home, and get high, who cares? It doesn't hurt you. If someone gets high and goes and crashes a car into a bus stop with 10 people, I'd say prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Just like alcohol. If two consenting adults decide they want to get together to have some form of sex, what should the state say about it? Nothing. If one of the people participating in that activity instead is a child, or non-consenting adult (and I mean truly non-consenting, not the "I'm waiting until penetration to scream rape" type) then frankly, they should be buried under the jail. That's my biggest gripe with the Republican Party. If you are doing something that's not "moral" or "right" then they want to stomp on it. In the opposing direction, the Democrats have a different sort of madness. They want you to do what you want, just according to their rules, and pay a fee for it. Frankly, their way leads to more bending/breaking of the rules, and they don't protect the innocent at all, but both ways are equally wrong.
Our Constitution enumerates the restrictions on the GOVERNMENT. NOT the CITIZENS. And this newest ruling turns that on its head.
I'm sure this post will be either glossed over by the anti-drug at any cost crowd, or if not, some minor nit will be the focus, but the main thrust of the post will be totally ignored. Because it doesn't fit into your model of how you want the world to work. I challenge you to read the whole thing, and actually try to deconstruct the arguments in a logical fashion. It will reveal a lot about how oppressive you actually are. BTW, I've never smoked pot, or done any illegal drugs, so I have no dog in this hunt on that. And if you are curious as to why I would have had any reason for that, it's real simple. I had cancer when I was 16 and the pain was excruciating. I decided I was becoming too dependent on my pain medication, so I took myself off them for three days just to clear out my system. I never went to sleep those nights, I passed out. I have had chronic, debilitating back pain for 18 years since my cancer. I have never taken more than a prescription muscle relaxer. This, despite the fact that some days the pain gets so bad, that my system shuts down and I lose control of all the muscles in my legs and suffer temporary paralysis. I am not some form of superman, nor do I try to claim to be. I just like keeping my mind clear to be able to think straight. So, if you ask me, I think I'm well qualified to tell you that getting rid of pain is VERY justified, with any means necessary. I'm just too darn stubborn to do so most days.
Paul
I didn't know I had a model of how the world should work. All I would like to see is a debate on how the judiciary should work, and right now it's not working like the Framers intended it to work.
I challenge you to read the whole thing, and actually try to deconstruct the arguments in a logical fashion.
I just did read the whole thing, and I'll try to answer your points.
It will reveal a lot about how oppressive you actually are. /I>
How did I get to be oppressive? I'd like to see the judiciary changed so it takes the Constitution more seriously, doesn't water it down with each passing ruling, and gives states the rights to govern their people as they see fit. What's oppressive about that?
BTW, I've never smoked pot, or done any illegal drugs, so I have no dog in this hunt on that.
Yes you do...we all do. Unless the judiciary is brought back under the control of Congress they will continue to make laws from the bench, and overrule laws made from the Legislature. We all have a dog in this hunt.
I had cancer when I was 16 and the pain was excruciating.
I'm sorry that you had cancer in your life, and there's no way I can imagine what your pain must be like. But, this isn't about pain, or marijuana use, it's a simple case of the highest court in the land telling us all how we must live. Justice Thomas is right when he says that the Court will soon be able to tell us what we can and cannot buy. It's a case of judicial overreach, another judicial power grab, and our Congress does nothing to stop it.
So, if you ask me, I think I'm well qualified to tell you that getting rid of pain is VERY justified, with any means necessary.
I think you are very qualified to talk about pain, and the ways to deal with it. Apparently there are some people who have chosen to use marijuana, under a doctor's prescription, to deal with their pain, and our Black Robed jurists say they can't do that. Suppose the way you've dealt with your own pain was condemned by some judges, would you think highly of them then?
Our Constitution enumerates the restrictions on the GOVERNMENT. NOT the CITIZENS. And this newest ruling turns that on its head.
You're right about that. All I want to see, here on FR, is a serious debate about how the people can regain control of this rogue judiciary we now have. The Constitution gives us the means through the amendment process, but first there needs to be a grassroots debate. That's what's sadly lacking.