Click the Love
Support Free Republic
Go Monthly
Sponsors will donate $10 for each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/11/2012 9:29:52 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost
I would rather smoke a joint then a cigarette anyday.....
That whole tyranny of the majority thing is lost on you, I guess. Sad, because I admire the passion with which you fight for your cause.
Me, a hypocrite? I practice what I preach. I oppose the government shoving the homosexual agenda down my throat for the same reason I'm pro decrim: it's none of the government's business in either case.
Remove the plank from you own eye before you concern yourself with the plank in mine, friend. It's your ideology that rests on a contorted and inconsistent footing, not mine.
The only reason why you don’t is because you just can’t e’m......LOL
The Founding Fathers opposed tyranny of the majority: “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” - Federalist #10
It’s fine to quote the Federalist Papers — they’re an excellent philosophical guide — but what’s binding is the Constitution. And the Constitution is absolutely silent on marijuana. So the matter is delegated to the people through the states — per the Constitution.
And the people don’t want marijuana legalized. There may be tyranny of the majority, but there is also government by majority — which is how we do it. Or are you suggesting that everything that’s decided by popular vote is “tyranny of the majority?”
This is your argument, so set some parameters. Let's get into it.
If what’s binding is the Constitution, from where in that document does the federal government derive the power to criminalize a substance? Are you really going to make a case for the Commerce Clause here?
That whole tyranny of the majority thing is lost on you, I guess.
Indeed, and well said. Such a narrow, "majority rule" view of American Liberty is simply wrong, and often hypocritical, as you have noted.
As long as I'm not infringing on another individual's rights, my concept of the "pursuit of happiness" is not bound by any other individual's or group's authoritarian whims.
That's true whether I decide I want to have a drink, smoke a joint, own a gun, or whatever.
American freedom shouldn't be reduced to its "lowest common denominator" by some amalgam of authoritarian majorities, whether left, center, or right, who seek to criminalize an individual's free choices, in the absence of any actual crime.
“Prostitution is legal in Nevada - is that a “crap, third-world” location?”
It’s only legal in certain counties. And yes, they are desolate, crap, third-world counties, hosting ruined lives, the shame of the state. The rest of the state is smart enough to say “we don’t want it here.” Which is their right.
” Opiates were legal in the USA until about 100 years ago - was the USA before that a “crap, third-world country”?”
When newspapers exposed the horror of the shattered lives in the opium dens that were prevalent in New York, San Francisco, and other big cities, popular outcry — or ‘tyranny of the majority’ — resulted in their being banned. Because smart people knew where tolerance would lead. To more of the same. And a “crap, third world” country.
Please list some more things that are prohibited — things that sane, decent, thoughtful people want to keep prohibited — as an advancement for your argument that, therefore, pot should be legalized. You’re making converts to my side with every post.
“If what’s binding is the Constitution, from where in that document does the federal government derive the power to criminalize a substance? Are you really going to make a case for the Commerce Clause here?”
I agree with you, there’s a good argument that drugs should be regulated by the states, not the Fed. But drug trafficking is an international crime, involving US border sovereignty. How would the states combat it individually?
We're talking first hand smoke. However, I'm unaware of any difference between first and second hand smoke other than intensity. Forest fires make my eyes and throat burn, but I'm not exactly toking them.
The study says if someone smokes mj once a week it does apparently little to no harm. Well, if a person smoked tobacco that infrequently it would do little to no harm.
Sheesh.
I like those as well, but for those who claim to hate them, I like to be more subversive as they likely have zero idea that they had all that acoustic music in their backgrounds.
What did one Deadhead say to the other after the drugs wore off?
“Man. this band, sucks.”
Suppose a state decides to legalize marijuana. Do you support its authority to do so under the Tenth Amendment without federal interference?
Well, that's a good point. Let me give it a think and get back to you.
But I submit that if drugs were regulated by the states, not the Fed, and each state set its own anti-drug policy, the whole nature of drug trafficking would be radically different than it is today. So if we're going to change a variable, we have to be careful to remember that by changing that variable, we also change the effect of it as well. Fair?
What you're forgetting, though, is that government by majority is not absolute. It has its limits, and those limits are what we're talking about when we bandy around phrases like "tyranny of the majority." What it means is that a majority cannot band together to deprive someone of his or her rights simply by virtue of assembling 50.000001% of a popular vote.
For instance, if I suggested that my neighbors could band together and vote to deprive me of my house . . . in other words, to relieve me of my right to own property . . . you'd rightly think that was absurd, yes? Well, the same dynamic is in play when we talk about grass. Do I not have the same right to determine what I want to eat, drink, smoke, or chew?
Think of all the revenue you could accrue from arresting and fining whole blocks of people with guilty lawns in the spring. The "Dandelions Aren't So Dandy" PSAs. Of course, everyone applying for work will have to have their yard tested for dandelions. Government funded studies showing people who let dandelions grow in their yards frequent jazz clubs and have interracial affairs....
After all, nobody likes dandelions, and the majority rules. So why not terrorize a few people for a weedless lawn from sea to shining sea. (Cue giant flag)
Ron Paul voters are kids or adults yet to actually develop yet. My thinking is they are libs/dems who do not want their govt sending them to war. The dope angle is just a bennie. 25% of the population thinks this way IMHO. He is going to be a pain in the ass at the convention and because of that he will hurt turnout for us. When we snub him the folks that voted for him will revert to the dems and vote for Obama or not vote at all. No conservative votes for Mittens and with the Paul folks voting for Obama or staying home we lose what should have been a landslide in a close one. Just my .02 cents.
“Suppose a state decides to legalize marijuana. Do you support its authority to do so under the Tenth Amendment without federal interference?”
Only if the Feds get out of the marijuana regulating business. Then it’s up to the states.
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.