Posted on 09/07/2009 3:09:41 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin
The racism of marijuana prohibition
Enforcement of marijuana laws disproportionately affects young African Americans -- even though their usage rates are lower than whites'...
So while the purported mainstream is delighting to "Weeds" and contemplating the new revenue that state-regulated marijuana would generate, there's even greater urgency to ending the prohibition of marijuana. California can't wait any longer to end the racist enforcement of marijuana laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
mvpel: “Rolling back the police/prison state may be down on your list, but it’s nearer the top of other peoples’ lists.”
Never had a problem with the “police/prison state”. They’ve never locked me up. Of course, I’m not a pusher or user of illegal drugs and I generally try to obey the law (full disclosure: I admit to pushing the speed limit a bit).
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison
I have more explosive potential in the 500-gallon propane tank next to my house and the gasoline in my garage than a 155mm shell.
No reason to try and reason with that. You’re right, everyone should own a 155mm howitzer. Shoot, I want tactical nukes, too! They’ll fit in nicely with my propane grill and gas mower.
Congress has been trying to ram through a 1,000 page bill that they haven't read, and that's just because they're upholding a long tradition. There's not a single person in this country that can say with utter confidence that they are completely in compliance with every law.
You could just ask Wayne Hill about the police/prison state administrated by the BATFE, an organization which considers a 14" shoelace, or a malfunctioning semi-auto rifle, to be machine guns.
Count your blessings that you haven't been in the wrong place at the wrong time, or offended the wrong person, to become a target of an angry police officer without any scruples.
If all you can resort to is argumentative fallacy, instead of standing on the fundamental principles of individual liberty which our Constitution represents, then there’s certainly no point in trying to reason with you.
Well, you're not debating one of them here, you're simply building an elaborate straw man.
I support regulations on storage and use of fireworks, but I don't support bans.
I support regulations on storage and use of 155mm howitzer shells, but I don't support bans.
I support regulations on storage and use of nuclear weapons, but I don't support bans.
Finally, the US Constitution does not guarantee your right to get high.
Rights don't come from the Constitution.
I do believe in the fundamental principles of individual liberty enshrined in the US Constitution. I just don’t think you and I see those fundamental principles the same way. However, you’re certainly entitled to try and convince people they should legalize crystal meth and 155mm howitzers, but I’m not holding my breath.
There are things today that the founders never considered, such as nuclear bombs and chemical weapons. Would they consider those things protected by the 2nd Amendment? I have my doubts.
Unfortunately, it appears we are at an impasse. No amount of discussion is going to convince me to support total legalization of all weaponry and drugs. Nor does it appear I’m getting through to you (to support my perspective). Have a great day!
Do you at least agree that in order for the federal government to have the power to criminalize simple possession of nuclear bombs, or chemical weapons, or certain kinds of plants and plant products, that there needs to be a Constitutional amendment?
They never considered the Internet, either, but there's a fundamental underlying principle of individual sovereignty that applies equally to FreeRepublic.com and quill pens.
No. I don’t believe there needs to be a constitutional amendment to allow the federal government to criminalize possession of nuclear weapons. The right to bear arms can be reasonably interpreted to apply to typical militia-style weapons that an individual soldier might carrier, not extending to tanks, howitzers, and nuclear bombs. If the SCOTUS actually ruled individuals had the right to possess chemical weapons, MOABs, etc., there WOULD be an amendment in short order...to ban said weapons.
If possession of a warship can legitimately be criminalized, then what would be the point of the Constitution authorizing Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal?
The “crew-served” exemption offered by those squeamish about the Second Amendment doesn’t square with “shall not be infringed.”
As for privately-owned tanks: http://www.milvehtechfound.com/
So you spent all that time to say nothing? Impressive!
“So you spent all that time to say nothing?”
Hmmm. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is here to hear it, does it make a sound?
Similarly, if a person makes a rational argument to someone who has no ears to hear, is the argument actually made?
Refusing to give the arguments fair hearing is bad enough; denying that they were made is just pathetic.
“So you’re asking James Madison to try again?”
No, I’m asking *you* to try again. And this time *try* — really try — to understand what Madison wrote.
“To make matters worse, these folks attack other conservatives because we’re not pure enough.”
Yes, I used to think that drugs should be legalized, and then that opinion was blown out of the water in the space of just a few words.
I just hope that these misguided individuals will enjoy a similar epiphany at some point.
You made no argument though.
“You made no argument though.”
Howls, Bruce. Howls of derisive laughter.
Or, in the words of the only pubby who has a pair, “You lie.”
It's pretty obvious. The scope of the power "to provide for the general welfare" is limited by, and does not expand upon, those authorized by Article I Section 8 in the Constitution.
Why are you being so sanctimonious about it?
Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," [the federal branch claim] a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the general welfare. --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:147
He may have a pair, but his outburst stained the dignity of the Congress and the Office of the Presidency.
You can keep laughing in delusion, yet that’s like the third post in a row where you made no argument. You’re quite good at making no arguments. I’m wagering it’s because whatever argument you might have sucks royally, but maybe it’s for personal reasons.
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.