Posted on 12/03/2001 11:53:17 PM PST by FF578
Not to be picky or anything BB but wasn't "A Clockwork Orange" a British film?
So all the referendums that have passed around the country are meaningless? How about the places that refused to hold a referendum even though there was adaquate support from the populace? Your argument still doesn't hold water. Sorry.
That's a humorous example, but let's look at a few real cases. How about when certain states, under the Constitution, held human beings as slaves? That was worse then your hypothetical Sun Ra law. And it actually happened. I have already mentioned that Frederick Douglass is one of my heros. Clearly, he broke the law when he escaped captivity. I support what he did. There are times when one must act outside the law. It is true.
Up to there on this paragraph we agree. When our government over-steps its bounds, then it is up to us to show them the error of their ways via civil disobedience. This is a freedom issue as surely as ending slavery was. You don't seem to be able to grasp that fact and in fact, come across more like you would have rather had those slaves stay true to the law of the time. Please try to find one side of the argument or the other.
But one must be willing to face the consequence, and IMO, the actions should be politically and morally constructive. If you haven't ever done so, read Martin Luther King Jr's writings on civil disobedience, in particular, on the preparation, the cleansing, that he advocated before action. It is truly brilliant, and IMO, a model for success. Imagine being a black man in Alabama during the days of segregation and injustice. With all they were up against! But the key was that their actions were purposeful. Anyway, I am rambling, I know. I guess I am just slightly resistant to a lot of whining with what seems like very little action, discipline, or committment to back it up. The history of America is a history of struggle for freedom, not freedom granted for nothing. It is ongoing, it isn't guarenteed, Constitution or not.
That is just it. How moral a choice is it for a person to make when they have only ONE government approved option? How much responsibility can they be held to for their actions when there is only one bureacrat approved path? Kinda ruins the whole self determination idea that our country was founded on. Druggies who mess up there lives with their habits should expect only that much charity as good people are willing to give them. Not free government hand-outs. I would never advocate that. On the other hand, it is the druggies life. Not yours. Not Bush Jrs. Not Ashcrofts. Certainly not mine. If they want to flush their lives down the toilets and ruin whatever potential they started out with, then fine.... let them.
To do otherwise has only brought the increasing degradation of the Rights we all are endowed with from the time we leave the womb. In this instance, the disease is no where near as bad as the cure our leaders have foisted upon us. Anyway, all I am saying is the means are there for change. It simply takes work, and effort, and time. And then some.
Referendums aren't meaningless. They just don't always have any legal force behind them. And anyway, whether or not to have referendums is up to the states. What about places that refused? Well, you could mope and whine and complain about it, but there are probably more constructive solutions. I am sure if you think real hard you can come up with one or two.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that fact and in fact, come across more like you would have rather had those slaves stay true to the law of the time. Please try to find one side of the argument or the other.
I must not be making myself clear. I believe that whereas a slave had no rights, and therefore no legal means for redress, we have many rights and adequate means. Therefore, I do not advocate civil disobedience as a means of changing drug policy. We can certainly disagree on that.
How moral a choice is it for a person to make when they have only ONE government approved option? How much responsibility can they be held to for their actions when there is only one bureacrat approved path? Kinda ruins the whole self determination idea that our country was founded on. Druggies who mess up there lives with their habits should expect only that much charity as good people are willing to give them. Not free government hand-outs. I would never advocate that. On the other hand, it is the druggies life. Not yours. Not Bush Jrs. Not Ashcrofts. Certainly not mine. If they want to flush their lives down the toilets and ruin whatever potential they started out with, then fine.... let them.
Problem with that is that now your program has expanded beyond mere drug policy reform; now it includes a total dismantling of the welfare state. What is your action plan for getting that done? Which comes first? What are the odds? These are fair questions. Conservatism has been the movement where these things have been attempted. YOu judge for yourself the success or failure of the program. However, hope springs eternal. I think that taking on achievable goals within the current system is wise. Even that can take 20 years. Don't mistake my point of view for advocacy of things as they are. I simply advocate dealing with things as they are.
Stigmatize what can happen to you if you let it control you and emphasize how little help from the rest of us you'll get.
I know I'm coming across a little heartless on that last bit, but I am really tired of having to suffer for someone elses actions. Let THEM bear their own burdens for their mistakes.
Come visit us at Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 6
and be a part of something that is larger than all of us.
Alone, we are a voice crying in the wilderness. Together we are a force for positive action!
Don't be left out!
Be one who can someday say..................... "I was there when..................."
Thank you to everyone who has already come by and become a part!
A referendum is a vote amongst the populace to get their legislators to step up to the plate on an issue. California passed one about five years ago. Guess what, it isn't the states having trouble with this. It IS however, the JBT's in the FedGov refusing to leave these people alone. Square that with your confused logic.
I must not be making myself clear. I believe that whereas a slave had no rights, and therefore no legal means for redress, we have many rights and adequate means. Therefore, I do not advocate civil disobedience as a means of changing drug policy. We can certainly disagree on that.
The legal analog for those slaves would be a person who wants to toke up. He can either wish and pray someone changes the law, or he can ignore it and hope the courts land on his side. Maybe along the way picking up enough public support to change the prevailing legal opinion that even judges are loath to change. You advocated the slave disobedience to change one policy, this is no different from a legal viewpoint.
Problem with that is that now your program has expanded beyond mere drug policy reform; now it includes a total dismantling of the welfare state. What is your action plan for getting that done? Which comes first? What are the odds? These are fair questions. Conservatism has been the movement where these things have been attempted. YOu judge for yourself the success or failure of the program. However, hope springs eternal. I think that taking on achievable goals within the current system is wise. Even that can take 20 years. Don't mistake my point of view for advocacy of things as they are. I simply advocate dealing with things as they are.
Which comes 'round to my previous point that you are now advocating that the slave had stayed under his masters whip. Going round in circles isn't helping the validity of your discourse one bit.
As for welfare, we could get rid of this by instituting an NRST, getting rid of the IRS, going back to a much more Laisse-faire form of capitalism (think pre-railroad barrons), and letting people take care of thier own. People are generous when you give them a chance. The billion dollars raised for the 9/11 fund should be proof of that. FedGov proven itself EXTREMELY ineffective at solving the problem pundits have told us are the banes of our society.
Now, stop trying to change the subject. One 500+ thread a day is my limit.
It is a vote amongst the populace of a state to get their state legislators to do something. If they want a referendum on an issue at the Federal level, they have three: one is called a Senatorial election, the other is called a Congressional election, and the other is called a Presidential election. Their job as citizens is to hold their reps accountable, and make it known what their priorities are. State referendums have nothing, zip, zilch, zero to do with the Federal government.
The legal analog for those slaves would be a person who wants to toke up. He can either wish and pray someone changes the law, or he can ignore it and hope the courts land on his side.
Absolutely, 100% INCORRECT. Slaves had NO RIGHTS. Could slaves vote? Could slaves publish a newspaper? Send out newsletters? Organize a party? Demonstrate? Petition? Own things? I hope you are really not so far gone as to think a pot smoker is in the same straits as a slave. Wow. That's really far gone. That is profoundly gone. You have the freedom to do all of the above activities, and thereby affect change in society through the process. They had no choice but to break the law. They were totally shut out. They were property. Wow. Are you really unable to make that distinction?
Which comes 'round to my previous point that you are now advocating that the slave had stayed under his masters whip. Going round in circles isn't helping the validity of your discourse one bit.
I think you are missing the point, again. I can keep saying it, but something tells me it just won't sink in.
As for welfare, we could get rid of this by instituting an NRST, getting rid of the IRS, going back to a much more Laisse-faire form of capitalism (think pre-railroad barrons), and letting people take care of thier own. People are generous when you give them a chance. The billion dollars raised for the 9/11 fund should be proof of that. FedGov proven itself EXTREMELY ineffective at solving the problem pundits have told us are the banes of our society.
This, as I said, is the argument conservatives have been making for what? 40 years? I am not opposed to less regulation, or a new tax set up, if it makes sense. Same thing applies as with drugs. The process is there to make the changes. Selling those changes to the people is the hard part. But the means are there.
Very true.
Let me make a few "minor" adjustments to that, if you allow me...:0)
There are many people on this thread who would not mind having somebody else's door booted in and getting pinned to the ground while the cops/feds searched somebody else's home.
They just think it'll never happen to them- as if only law breakers are infringed upon.
Yes it is disheartening.
The only logical reason to oppose such a stroke, considering that anyone that wants to do drugs can and will do them anyway, is if you are profiting from their illegality. So I am always skeptical of the motives of those who oppose legalization. After the experience of alcohol prohibition, knowing that drugs are available to whomever wants them, knowing that the Bill or Rights is being immasculated in the name of the WOD, knowing that our police forces, judiciaries, congresses, and banks are corrupted with the hugh amounts of monies involved, and knowing that we could once again walk our streets safely at night if addicts could obtain their needs at a reasonable price, I can find only two reasons anyone would oppose legalization: either you are profiting from the WOD, or you are quite simply, very ignorant.
I'm not so sure about that. As I understand it, the President is elected by the states, not the electorate. The general populace is separated from that by the electoral college. Their state representatives would therefore be the ones to hold the President responsible, and a state referendum would be their only course of action to express their intent.
Some people will NEVER get it! And, yes, it probably already IS to late to matter!
Drugs have been illegal for many years. No Americans but drug users equate the drug laws with a police state.
It isn't here yet.
TOTAL Bravo Sierra ... I could name a dozen right off the top of my head .... including me
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.