Marijuana Is Gateway to Hard Drugs in Twins Study

You call me the tyrant...

First of all, let me clear the air a little. I never called you a tyrannt, go back and check the posts. I certainly don't believe your goal is to establish a tyranny. What I did say is that you were a fellow traveler with tyrannts. What I meant by that is that, IMHO, your notions of what constitutes good legislation, at least as stated on this thread, pave the way for tyrannts and provide them support when in power.

The hallmark of tyrannies is not mere satisfaction of the ruler's whim. I'm certain both George III and Josef Stalin believed their governments were doing what was best for the people. Many Iraqis support what Saddam Hussein is doing as what is best for the country. No, the hallmark of a tyranny is the supression of liberty. It is the insistence of the state for the asking of permission for the exercise of rights, and it is the denial of permission. And nearly always the justification is for the betterment of society.

I'm not particularly interested in arguments that sacrifice individual rights for, at best, tenuously calculated societal benefits. There are those that would deny you and I the ability to legally drive SUVs. You know and I know it. Others would deny us the ability to legally consume fatty foods. Both would restrict liberty which I will define as the right of any individual to undertake any activity that does not violate the rights of another. For all those who wish to calculate how much their preferred restrictions better society, I further assert that the attempts to restrict of liberty are responsible for more human created misery than all other causes combined. If you dispute my assertion please name what causes you believe have created greater misery. For the record, I believe all murders, thefts, assaults, wars, enslavements, tyrannies, aristocracies, oligarchies, and the like as attmepts by individuals or groups to limit the liberty of other individuals or groups.

So, given my definition of liberty, tell me, what right of yours would I violate were I to sit in my living room and consume any substance whatsoever? If you disagree with my definition, please provide yours.

Your very judgment of the arguments by reasonable people over the heath and freedom issues of non-smokers regarding smoking laws makes you the same kind of tyrant you call me. You are trying to limit the liberty of non-smokers to breath reasonably clean air in an enclosed place when you favor only smokers.

Your comment suffers from many serious flaws in reasoning. First, "reasonable" people can be and often are wrong. The argument by otherwise reasonable people that their health is at risk due to breathing second hand tobacco smoke is not supported by scientific evidence. These "reasonable" folks are acting more on emotion than they are on reason. Erin Brockovich, et. al. were awarded hundreds of millions of dollars by "reasonable" people who were wrong. Dow Corning was sent into bankruptcy by "reasonable" people who awarded billions of dollars and who were wrong.

Second, in the case of non-smokers in an enclosed, smokey space, cite me the right they have to be there in the first placed. They are guests of the rightful property owner and enjoy the liberty to leave anytime they choose.

Finally, you assert I act as a tyrannt by seeking "to limit the liberty of non-smokers to breath reasonably clean air." They are there volutarily. They enjoy the liberty to seek satisfactory respiratory accomodations on their own property, on public property, or as guests elsewhere. Only if I forced them to be there would I be acting tryannically. Only if I prevented them from establishing private, smoke-free restaurants and shops would I be acting tyrannically.

Do you think you can legally hit your own head with a bat and if seen by an official NOT end up in an institution with most of your rights stripped for perhaps forever?

I certainly hope no one is entertaining the notion of making even more things I might wish to do illegal. In fact, people do this sort of thing all the time without arrests. Boxers punch each other in the head. Football players do too. Hockey players are continually smacking other players with their sitcks. Pleased don't tell me you're seriously suggesting legislatures base decisions in what the insane are doing.

"So, given my definition of liberty, tell me, what right of yours would I violate were I to sit in my living room and consume any substance whatsoever? If you disagree with my definition, please provide yours."

If nobody knows what you are doing, you can even slash your wrist and get away with killing yourself.
If you mean there is common knowledge of your behavior, then you have given your behavior exposure to what-ever laws apply.
As an example, if you decide to get high with children at home with JUST you, then you are putting those children at risk and the social services will remove the children from your home for safety.
Another example, lets you decide to rip the carpet out of the middle of the floor in your house and start to make a fire on the floor to cook every day. Do you have the freedom to legally do so? Probably not, fire codes, chances of self suffocation to carbon dioxide and all make it illegal. Plus you can burn the house down.
So I am saying there are balanced limitations to your liberty and freedom in the home, most limits seem to be based on common sense.
The same principle is in play with things others try to deny us. There might be questions raised, but balance and common sense is what stops almost all of the goofy laws.
Dow Corning knowingly was killing a city/valley full of people and it is my understanding they were doing it elsewhere as well. There crime is far worse than Charlie Manson's and affected so many more people.
Bankruptcy wasn't caused by the people who made the verdict in this case. It was Dow Corning's own doing in two ways:
#1 They created a slaughter of a whole area of people that will all die immediately or young.
#2 Bankruptcy is a common tool of protection for any corporation. The whole idea of a corporation is to have bankruptcy protection.
Most corporation rarely declare much taxable income to begin with, so being Dow Corning had control of their business practices and books, it is to their benefit to stick it to the people they are killing and to declare bankruptcy. In their case, I think even bankruptcy doesn't get them out of this completely.

"Second, in the case of non-smokers in an enclosed, smokey space, cite me the right they have to be there in the first placed. They are guests of the rightful property owner and enjoy the liberty to leave anytime they choose."

Citing the whole thing for you is no problem for me at all. I think "ALL" private businesses anywhere in our country are subject to the Federal, State and Local laws pertaining to operation of a business.
Makes no difference if you "own", "rent" or just "work" a business, all are subject to the law as a condition of being allowed a business permit.
There is OSHA for health and safety I think and especially a ton of State and City laws.
In California, it has come to pass that the business laws have changed regarding smoking for various reasons. The limitations for the business in this regard is that the only place a smoker may light-up is outside in the open, away from enclosed areas. This law concerns the work place and businesses where "any" of the public has access to your buisness. Does not apply to your car, home or other private homes where it is invitation only. PS: California loved the way it all has worked out. We have so many people in small areas that the smoking was just too much.

Lastly, you can't compare dictator/monarchy to a Democracy run by a democratically elected Congress. A Democracy is far less likely to be the tool of tyranny.
If you think a Democracy is a tyranny, then we have a great degree of separation of views.

You want to "throw away" the word danger in your ideal like it means nothing to people. The major problem with your ideal is that if you take your desires of the heart to their conclusion, if passed, your versions of laws could be killing all kinds of people. This fuels some of the impression that Libertarians and others with your political philosophy could be considered anarchist.

The definition of danger is:
#1 Exposure or vulnerability to harm or risk.
#2 A source or an instance of risk or peril.

Those two things above are avoided in a populated society. Your philosophy would best serve a situation where one is a castaway on an island. When you are in a population, you have to consider more than one person and more than one person's liberty and freedom. There is probably a bit more restriction as the density of a population grows out of necessity. Otherwise you can have ANARCHY which is the freedom to the furthest extreme!

Another example that might make sense to you could be this.
There are twenty people in an elevator going up. One of the twenty decides it's time to execute their Constitutional right to do aerobic activity at that moment. This results in three concussions, two bloody noses, the loss of three eyes and 19 people wanting to throw the person doing the aerobics out of the top floor window. Maybe the 19 press charges against the one for putting them all in danger and actually hurting some instead of tossing him.
You can't just do anything you want at any time.

We can't see the direct affect of some activity before our own eyes every moment, so some of this seems a good topic that is debatable, but there is a rule of law for good reason.

The old saying that "There is a time and place for everything" does apply as a reasonable consideration.

Have a good day, I am back to putting new windows around the house. Bye.

If you think a Democracy is tyranny, then we have a great degree of separation of views.

The goal of Free Republic is the complete restoration of our Constitutional Republic as the Founders intended.

Man, I thought we had settled this before.

Remember several months ago when you said Congress should be able to pass laws in the domestic arena because otherwise, "we'd need to have thousands of constitutional amendments"? I may not have the quote exact, but can we agree that was the gist of your point?

I thought you had backed away from that position.

IMO, you just don't get the concept of a limited central government with specific and narrow powers, and State governments with broad and undefined powers but strictly confined within the limits of the Constitution.

If you think a Democracy is a tyranny, then we have a great degree of separation of views.

While I don't think democracy equates to tyranny, I understand the notion of a "tyranny of the majority." So did the founders of this nation which is why they took such great pains to establish a "limited" government.

You, on the other hand, seem to think everything anyone does is somehow the government's business. I doubt you would have sided with the revolutionaries in 1776. Your cheerleading for universal governmental intervention into every aspect of our lives would have you on the side of monarchists and babysitters everywhere. And just so we are absolutely clear about where you stand on the subject:

You believe I do not have the right to grow a plant in my garden and consume it at my supper table without the permission of you and your buddies.

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.