sleeper;1304827 wrote:So you are okay with the federal government enforcing it everywhere else but Denver, CO. Gotcha.

If you read my statement saying that they have an obligation to enforce it and punish those who break federal law I think you will find I am Not "O.K." with it not being enforced.

I personally believe many of the same things Con Alma does, but with a huge difference.

I don't do any kind of "illegal" drugs, don't even smoke weed. I don't feel the consequences are worth the reward (except weed I just don't care for). I am a Christian and try to live my life according to those beliefs. I feel it would be beneficial if more people felt the way I do in those areas.

I don't, however, believe the government has any authority to make people feel that way. God didn't authorize the government to violently force morality on people. The Constitution doesn't either by the way. If someone smokes a rock they didn't do anything to my property, so it isn't my place to infringe on their property. Period.

Cleveland Buck;1305145 wrote:I personally believe many of the same things Con Alma does, but with a huge difference.

I don't do any kind of "illegal" drugs, don't even smoke weed. I don't feel the consequences are worth the reward (except weed I just don't care for). I am a Christian and try to live my life according to those beliefs. I feel it would be beneficial if more people felt the way I do in those areas.

I don't, however, believe the government has any authority to make people feel that way. God didn't authorize the government to violently force morality on people. The Constitution doesn't either by the way. If someone smokes a rock they didn't do anything to my property, so it isn't my place to infringe on their property. Period.

???

You say " but with a huge difference". Where is it?

I don't see it. Are you sure there's a difference between the two views?

Con_Alma;1305316 wrote:???

You say " but with a huge difference". Where is it?

I don't see it. Are you sure there's a difference between the two views?

I don't, however, believe the government has any authority to make people feel that way. God didn't authorize the government to violently force morality on people. The Constitution doesn't either by the way. If someone smokes a rock they didn't do anything to my property, so it isn't my place to infringe on their property. Period.

???? I'll ask it differently.

What makes you think that is different than my view?

Con_Alma;1305818 wrote:???? I'll ask it differently.

What makes you think that is different than my view?

Because you have supported (if I remember correctly) our current drug policies.

I Wear Pants;1306965 wrote:Because you have supported (if I remember correctly) our current drug policies.

I support the people who ultimate decide through representation to create drug policies in place. I will support them when them rid the country of certain drug policies also. It's not the policies as much as the process that's worth supporting.

That has nothing to do with your highlighted statement above which you stated was a huge disagreement between us. It's not.

I don't believe believe the government has any authority to make people feel any particular way at all about religion.

God didn't authorize the government to violently force morality on anybody. Drug laws are not necessarily in place because of "morality".

I have nor would I ever infringe on anyone property because they smoked a "rock".

Con_Alma;1306995 wrote:I support the people who ultimate decide through representation to create drug policies in place. I will support them when them rid the country of certain drug policies also. It's not the policies as much as the process that's worth supporting.

That has nothing to do with your highlighted statement above which you stated was a huge disagreement between us. It's not.

I don't believe believe the government has any authority to make people feel any particular way at all about religion.

God didn't authorize the government to violently force morality on anybody. Drug laws are not necessarily in place because of "morality".

I have nor would I ever infringe on anyone property because they smoked a "rock".

You're not making sense. You say you would not infringe on another because they smoked a rock but yet in the same post suggest that the people may indeed infringe on the property of those who smoke a rock if they ultimately decide to in representative democracy.

That is a substantial difference from someone who believes that the people in Congress have no authority to do such things.

BoatShoes;1307057 wrote:You're not making sense. You say you would not infringe on another because they smoked a rock but yet in the same post suggest that the people may indeed infringe on the property of those who smoke a rock if they ultimately decide to in representative democracy.

That is a substantial difference from someone who believes that the people in Congress have no authority to do such things.

What doesn't make sense? I wouldn't "infringe" on anyone. It's not my business nor do I have the authority.

I do, however, support our process that laws are created by and the authority it gives those to enforce those laws.

Con_Alma;1307059 wrote:What doesn't make sense? I wouldn't "infringe" on anyone. It's not my business nor do I have the authority.

I do, however, support our process that laws are created by and the authority it gives those to enforce those laws.

So you would support any law that was created because it's the law? If tomorrow they reinstated prohibition you would agree with that? Or if they came up with a law saying you couldn't choose to eat Pizza because it is bad for you and could cause health problems?

As long as Alcohol is legal there is no way logical argument for Marijuana to be illegal. I don't smoke and honestly have probably smoked 2-3 times in my whole life. I sometimes think that people think that if drugs were legal, that all of the sudden everyone would be out shooting up heroin and snorting coke all day.

pmoney25;1307071 wrote:I sometimes think that people think that if drugs were legal, that all of the sudden everyone would be out shooting up heroin and snorting coke all day.

They would start passing out drugs in the lunch lines at high schools.

pmoney25;1307071 wrote:So you would support any law that was created because it's the law? If tomorrow they reinstated prohibition you would agree with that? Or if they came up with a law saying you couldn't choose to eat Pizza because it is bad for you and could cause health problems?

As long as Alcohol is legal there is no way logical argument for Marijuana to be illegal. I don't smoke and honestly have probably smoked 2-3 times in my whole life. I sometimes think that people think that if drugs were legal, that all of the sudden everyone would be out shooting up heroin and snorting coke all day.

I support the process we have which create laws. I did not say I would support any law that was created. There's a difference.

I would follow the laws if prohibition were reinstated if the proper legislative process occurred, yes.

Because *one thing is legal doesn't mean it's illogical for anotherto be illegal. All things are not desired or lend to a culture we are seeking as a society.

I believe that there is a cultural shift that will lead to things like marijuana being made legal or at least decriminalized. We aren't there yet, however.

I've mentioned it before but I'm pretty certain Con_Alma is a reincarnation of Kant in regards to his views on law and authority.
Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express

I Wear Pants;1307097 wrote:I've mentioned it before but I'm pretty certain Con_Alma is a reincarnation of Kant in regards to his views on law and authority.
Sent from my SGH-i937 using Board Express

???? Lol.

I don't believe at all that moral requirements must come from a certain standard of rationality or practical reason.

I believe that morality stems from a combination of influences that often times isn't "rational" at all. Sometimes the moral result or action isn't even decided consciously.

Con_Alma;1307059 wrote:
I do, however, support our process that laws are created by and the authority it gives those to enforce those laws.

If you believe that there is even authority for that to happen, you believe the state has the authority to infringe on the property of others. You're playing language games here. If you believe that there is some kind of police power in a republic grounded on representative democracy you believe in collective infringement on the individual's sovereignty; whether you yourself do the infringing or not you're still a cog in that machine if you support in principle that the people can do that.

You're acting like because you personally don't arrest a man smoking a rock of cocaine that you and others and your views that the state should not allow such activity don't play a part in creating that regulatory state wherein folks are arrested for smoking rocks.

The Cleveland Buck/Libertarians of the world on the other hand believe that the people have no authority to infringe on an individual for smoking rocks...even if they would will that to be the case they simply think the state has no power to do so...and that it would be morally wrong to do so.

You on the other hand believe the state has the power through representative democracy and that it may be the case that it's at least not morally wrong for the state to act on that power with regard to crack smokers.

BoatShoes;1307123 wrote:If you believe that there is even authority for that to happen, you believe the state has the authority to infringe on the property of others. You're playing language games here. If you believe that there is some kind of police power in a republic grounded on representative democracy you believe in collective infringement on the individual's sovereignty; whether you yourself do the infringing or not you're still a cog in that machine if you support in principle that the people can do that.

You're acting like because you personally don't arrest a man smoking a rock of cocaine that you and others and your views that the state should not allow such activity don't play a part in creating that regulatory state wherein folks are arrested for smoking rocks.

The Cleveland Buck/Libertarians of the world on the other hand believe that the people have no authority to infringe on an individual for smoking rocks...even if they would will that to be the case they simply think the state has no power to do so...and that it would be morally wrong to do so.

You on the other hand believe the state has the power through representative democracy and that it may be the case that it's at least not morally wrong for the state to act on that power with regard to crack smokers.

I don't believe that certain actions are protected by individual sovereignty.

I may not agree that smoking crack should be illegal but it's not me that determines what is and isn't legal. It's the collective so long as fundamental rights are not violated. In such an instance I do not play a part in folks being arrested for such an act. Does that make it more clear? It's not a word game at all.

I agree that the State does have the power granted to it by the people's representation and it's not morally wrong to act on that power, yes....whether I like it or not...whether I agree with their actions or not.

You may have clarified our different views on the issue better than he was able or willing to. Thank you.

Con_Alma;1307127 wrote:I don't believe that certain actions are protected by individual sovereignty.

I may not agree that smoking crack should be illegal but it's not me that determines what is and isn't legal. It's the collective so long as fundamental rights are not violated. In such an instance I do not play a part in folks being arrested for such an act. Does that make it more clear? It's not a word game at all.

I agree that the State does have the power granted to it by the people's representation and it's not morally wrong to act on that power, yes....whether I like it or not...whether I agree with their actions or not.

You may have clarified our different views on the issue better than he was able or willing to. Thank you.

If people being imprisoned for something you don't feel should be illegal doesn't infringe upon basic rights I don't know what does.

I Wear Pants;1307162 wrote:If people being imprisoned for something you don't feel should be illegal doesn't infringe upon basic rights I don't know what does.

Not everything we do is a fundamental, basic human right. Just because I or someone else thinks it shouldn't be illegal doesn't make it a right.

Con_Alma;1307163 wrote:Not everything we do is a fundamental, basic human right. Just because I or someone else thinks it shouldn't be illegal doesn't make it a right.

You think whatever authority says is a right is a right and whatever they say isn't, isn't. At least I've never seen you display an opinion that refutes that.

I Wear Pants;1307180 wrote:You think whatever authority says is a right is a right and whatever they say isn't, isn't. At least I've never seen you display an opinion that refutes that.

??? Are you asking me or declaring this to be the case?

Our rights are not granted by those in authority but rather are defined/clarified by the people and protected by the government.

That opinion tends to negate your assumption of my position does it not?

Con_Alma;1306995 wrote:I support the people who ultimate decide through representation to create drug policies in place. I will support them when them rid the country of certain drug policies also. It's not the policies as much as the process that's worth supporting.

The "people who ultimate decide through representation" have no authority to infringe on the property of another individual. I don't care if they get the support of every other person in the country to do it. The process of doing so is not worth supporting at all. It is worth stopping. If someone buys some crack, they own it. There is no victim. They didn't steal. It is their property.

I know you also support our overseas empire, presumably because we are the moral authority on how they should form their governments.

And yes, the right to your property is a basic human right.

Cleveland Buck;1308534 wrote:The "people who ultimate decide through representation" have no authority to infringe on the property of another individual. I don't care if they get the support of every other person in the country to do it. The process of doing so is not worth supporting at all. It is worth stopping. If someone buys some crack, they own it. There is no victim. They didn't steal. It is their property.

I know you also support our overseas empire, presumably because we are the moral authority on how they should form their governments.

And yes, the right to your property is a basic human right.

It is illegal to possess things that are not beneficial to society and the culture we seek. One cannot own anything they want and think that it's protected covered under basic human rights. It's not. The victim is all of us when crack continues to become engrained in our culture. We are not alone but rather are part of a larger society.

The people who decide such things absolutely have an ability to make such a decision and have done so.

You don't know that I support forcing others to create a certain type of government at all because I don't. Other countries can have whatever government they so choose....not that that has anything to do with the statement I asked further clarification on but I appreciate your expanding on it for me.

Con_Alma;1308661 wrote:It is illegal to possess things that are not beneficial to society and the culture we seek. One cannot own anything they want and think that it's protected covered under basic human rights. It's not. The victim is all of us when crack continues to become engrained in our culture. We are not alone but rather are part of a larger society.

So you believe the war on drugs is working?

The sooner people realize that the drug "problem" is almost entirely caused by prohibition the better off we will be.

justincredible;1308730 wrote:So you believe the war on drugs is working?

...

The answer is based on what you define as "working". It comes full circle. Punishing those who break the law is an obligation of those in law enforcement. The "war on drugs" punishes those they catch. Yes, those who are caught are punished. Yes, it continues to work.

I don't understand what you and others mean by "drug problem". Can you help me understand that usage a little better?

Con_Alma;1308661 wrote:It is illegal to possess things that are not beneficial to society and the culture we seek. One cannot own anything they want and think that it's protected covered under basic human rights. It's not. The victim is all of us when crack continues to become engrained in our culture. We are not alone but rather are part of a larger society.

We are born with the right to our property. If someone or some group of people can determine that your property is "illegal" then it is no longer a right, but a privilege granted to us by the group that rules over us. Many people believe that we don't have the right to our property, so you are not alone. Just try to not to use the term "individual sovereignty" if you don't believe the individual is sovereign.