justincredible;1368806 wrote:More toxic than cigarettes? Can I get a link? You can vaporize marijuana and get essentially no carcinogens. Highly abused? Again, link? It is not possible to become physically dependent on marijuana. Also, you can't OD on it no matter how much you consume in one sitting. Sure, you can become mentally dependent on it but you can become mentally dependent on anything. No medical use? Science says you're wrong. And it's illegal because of bullshit propaganda from the 1930s like "Reefer Madness." It's not illegal because it's a dangerous drug. It's illegal because it threatened the profits of certain industries. Most polls I'm seeing say that the majority of American's think it should be legal and the number seems to grow every day.

Again, prohibition DOES NOT WORK. Nature should be legal for fucks sake.

Forgot to mention, I can also consume marijuana in the form of edibles. Is that also more toxic than cigarettes?

Con_Alma;1360870 wrote: It's not some fundamental human right to use drugs.

It is a fundamental human right to do whatever they want with the property they own, whether they want to eat it, smoke it, snort it, or shove it up their ass.

Cleveland Buck;1369870 wrote:It is a fundamental human right to do whatever they want with the property they own, whether they want to eat it, smoke it, snort it, or shove it up their ass.

I have never read that anyone. The right to do anything you want with your property? Can you point to such a ruling?

Con_Alma;1369967 wrote:I have never read that anyone. The right to do anything you want with your property? Can you point to such a ruling?

A ruling by who? God? I don't think He felt it was necessary, since that is the definition of ownership. To own something means you are the supreme authority over it.

Cleveland Buck;1369974 wrote:A ruling by who? God? I don't think He felt it was necessary, since that is the definition of ownership. To own something means you are the supreme authority over it.

We as a nation have defined those rights which we have been born into and are unalienable. Doing whatever you want with your property and specifically using or smoking marijuana isn't one of them. Since the legality is what we have been discussing and legality is defined by our form of government, it is that which I was referring to.

To directly answer you questions, a ruling by our branches of government, specifically either the judicial or legislative branch.

No, I was not asking about God but if you would like to refer to a Biblical reference to the word of God as it relates to this topic it would be very interesting to consider.

Cleveland Buck;1369870 wrote:It is a fundamental human right to do whatever they want with the property they own, whether they want to eat it, smoke it, snort it, or shove it up their ass.

It's not. ALL rights have limitations.

Is it your position based on this statement that all drug laws are unconstitutional?

queencitybuckeye;1370028 wrote:It's not. ALL rights have limitations.

Is it your position based on this statement that all drug laws are unconstitutional?

On a federal level, I'd say so.

And the limitations of "ALL" these rights is what? Short of then directly preventing someone else from exercising their rights, I don't see why that would be a problem.

O-Trap;1370040 wrote:On a federal level, I'd say so.

And the limitations of "ALL" these rights is what? Short of then directly preventing someone else from exercising their rights, I don't see why that would be a problem.

The limitation is what we the people through our chosen form of government determine. Unless it's a civil or unalienable right we determine what we permit or deny.

queencitybuckeye;1370028 wrote:It's not. ALL rights have limitations.

Is it your position based on this statement that all drug laws are unconstitutional?

All drug laws are unconstitutional, but I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about natural law. The law that we were born with the right to our life, liberty, and property, which hasn't been repealed regardless of what the government says. The only limit to your right to your property is where it infringes on someone else's property. I have no right to smoke my weed in your house or blow the smoke in your face. I have every right to do it in my own home.

[video=youtube_share;a-a_yR1jzHY][/video]

I know no one is going to watch a 6 hour lecture, but the first hour or so will give some of you a good idea of what rights are and what property ownership means.

Con_Alma;1370058 wrote:The limitation is what we the people through our chosen form of government determine. Unless it's a civil or unalienable right we determine what we permit or deny.

Again, we the people didn't make anything illegal. Neither was any decision made on it based on any facts or evidence.

Essentially, if we're going to be as specific about our rights as you seem to like, we could be justifiably prohibited from owning anything, really (ironically, arms are one of the few things expressedly permitted). Land, a house, a pet ...

What would you suggest distinguishes marijuana from other such possessions, if anything? Do we truthfully have so few actual rights in your mind that we could essentially be denied virtually any property?

Nearly a hundred years ago the people actually believed we needed to amend the Constitution to empower the federal government to ban such substances.

O-Trap;1370080 wrote:Again, we the people didn't make anything illegal. Neither was any decision made on it based on any facts or evidence.

Essentially, if we're going to be as specific about our rights as you seem to like, we could be justifiably prohibited from owning anything, really (ironically, arms are one of the few things expressedly permitted). Land, a house, a pet ...

What would you suggest distinguishes marijuana from other such possessions, if anything? Do we truthfully have so few actual rights in your mind that we could essentially be denied virtually any property?

We the people authorize our representatives to act on our behalf. I don't distinguish marijuana as any different than any possession. We have the ability to chose what we want to be part of our society and what we don't. We can deny anything we choose so long as it's not expressly determined to be a civil or unalienable right.

We decide by authorizing people to act on our behalf. The other side of that coinc is we have the ability to provide enough desire in mass to make it decriminalized also. We haven't yet done that.

majorspark;1370109 wrote:Nearly a hundred years ago the people actually believed we needed to amend the Constitution to empower the federal government to ban such substances.

Based on hyperbolic and dishonest lobbying. But hey, we made a mistake. Why think it ridiculous to undo it, you know?

At one point, the people actually believed that we needed a "3/5ths Compromise."

Con_Alma;1370112 wrote:We the people authorize our representatives to act on our behalf. I don't distinguish marijuana as any different than any possession. We have the ability to chose what we want to be part of our society and what we don't. We can deny anything we choose so long as it's not expressly determined to be a civil or unalienable right.

We decide by authorizing people to act on our behalf. The other side of that coinc is we have the ability to provide enough desire in mass to make it decriminalized also. We haven't yet done that.

The problem is apathy. The majority of the country doesn't care whether or not someone smokes or eats pot ... as in, they'd be okay with it. Problem is, the fact that they don't care isn't going to show up in any voting because it's not a position about which they care.

As such, a minority is given power to restrict what might otherwise be your or my right, solely because they vote.

Put it this way: If you've got 11% of the people in the country who are passionate about people being able to use marijuana, 14% that somehow believe that nobody should be allowed to use it, and 75% who would be okay with it, but don't care enough to vote with it in mind, then it doesn't matter that the majority is cool with it.

O-Trap;1370129 wrote:Based on hyperbolic and dishonest lobbying. But hey, we made a mistake. Why think it ridiculous to undo it, you know?



The problem is apathy. The majority of the country doesn't care whether or not someone smokes or eats pot ... as in, they'd be okay with it. Problem is, the fact that they don't care isn't going to show up in any voting because it's not a position about which they care.

As such, a minority is given power to restrict what might otherwise be your or my right, solely because they vote.

Put it this way: If you've got 11% of the people in the country who are passionate about people being able to use marijuana, 14% that somehow believe that nobody should be allowed to use it, and 75% who would be okay with it, but don't care enough to vote with it in mind, then it doesn't matter that the majority is cool with it.

Apathy is indeed a problem for those that desire different than the present. It's why in my initial posts I stated it would take the masses to desire it be changed. That's exactly what it will take. That hasn't happened yet. It may some day but it's not today.

Con_Alma;1370131 wrote:Apathy is indeed a problem for those that desire different than the present. It's why in my initial posts I stated it would take the masses to desire it be changed. That's exactly what it will take. That hasn't happened yet. It may some day but it's not today.

And I don't disagree that, practically, that's what will happen.

My issue with it is whether or not that SHOULD be the case. It didn't take some big vote to make it illegal in the first place. All it took was a few private enterprises and the American Medical Association persuading Congress to make it thus.

Marijuana is no different than the vast majority of other legislated issues that are put upon us. It's how we chose to have our government process work.

When something is put in place it takes even more effort to reverse it than it did to get it put in place initially.

Con_Alma;1370135 wrote:Marijuana is no different than the vast majority of other legislated issues that are put upon us. It's how we chose to have our government process work.

When something is put in place it takes even more effort to reverse it than it did to get it put in place initially.

Yeah, what happened then is becoming more and more common. The problem is the freedom permitted to our federal government to restrict rights (not "unalienable" rights ... just things we're able to do legally) based on pandering, lobbying, or politicking.

The biggest issue with dictatorships in countries, even ones with loose constitutions, is that power is always defined by the person with the "biggest guns."

However, with politicians in the pockets of lobbyists, is the end result much different, particularly when we view the unmentioned areas of life as things the government CAN control instead of things they cannot?

O-Trap;1370129 wrote:Based on hyperbolic and dishonest lobbying. But hey, we made a mistake. Why think it ridiculous to undo it, you know?

I am thinking my post flew over your head. Back then we had to pass an amendment to the constitution to give the feds power. The fed used to have to be granted non enumerated powers. Today its by default.

O-Trap;1370129 wrote:At one point, the people actually believed that we needed a "3/5ths Compromise.".

At that point in time we did. Do you understand the 3/5ths compromise? Its purpose has been twisted over time.

majorspark;1370147 wrote:I am thinking my post flew over your head. Back then we had to pass an amendment to the constitution to give the feds power. Today its by default.

Perhaps it did go over my head. If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Back then, it had as much to do with manipulation via politicking as today.

majorspark;1370147 wrote:At that point in time we did. Do you understand the 3/5ths compromise? Its purpose has been twisted over time.

In the event that I misunderstand, would you mind extrapolating that a bit?

O-Trap;1370153 wrote:Back then, it had as much to do with manipulation via politicking as today.

I agree.

O-Trap;1370153 wrote:In the event that I misunderstand, would you mind extrapolating that a bit?

It was the slave states that wanted to count everyone in the census. But denied them suffrage. The non-slave states did not want them counted at all without a right to vote. Reason being slave states wanted more power in the House and electoral college by counting them. The non-slave states sought to deny them. The 3/5ths compromise was struck in order to get both sides to sign onto the Union contract. Like the great compromise which formed the bicameral legislative body it was necessary to the forming of the union. After the war between the states and amendment was passed rectifying the 3/5ths compromise.

I believe Al Gore while speaking to a black audience said "they don't even want to count you in the census". Insinuating Republicans. That is the political twist. The truth is anti-slavery representatives at the constitutional convention did not want them counted at all. But only to deny the slave holding states more power in the Union. Compromising to form the the Union the idea was the wrong could be rectified peacefully through the Union contract. Unfortunately that did not happen and there was war.

majorspark;1370164 wrote:It was the slave states that wanted to count everyone in the census. But denied them suffrage. The non-slave states did not want them counted at all without a right to vote. Reason being slave states wanted more power in the House and electoral college by counting them. The non-slave states sought to deny them. The 3/5ths compromise was struck in order to get both sides to sign onto the Union contract. Like the great compromise which formed the bicameral legislative body it was necessary to the forming of the union. After the war between the states and amendment was passed rectifying the 3/5ths compromise.

I believe Al Gore while speaking to a black audience said "they don't even want to count you in the census". Insinuating Republicans. That is the political twist. The truth is anti-slavery representatives at the constitutional convention did not want them counted at all. But only to deny the slave holding states more power in the Union. Compromising to form the the Union the idea was the wrong could be rectified peacefully through the Union contract. Unfortunately that did not happen and there was war.

Fair enough.

O-Trap;1368667 wrote:You think the illicit trafficking will continue the same way it does now if drugs were made legal? YOU serious?

Again, the pattern thus far follows the same as the pattern of alcohol during prohibition. The "business" of alcohol was a dirty and violent one. Once it was legalized, did that violence continue, or did it wane?

The violence waned because of WWII and vietnam more than legalizing. Look at organized crime, it just evolved. The Hell's Angels and other biker gangs rose up after WWII when many drugs were still legal. even marijuan wasnt illegal at the federal level, it was just taxed and regulated. Then Vietnam came around and organized crime slowed down again. Soon after there was the rise of the Mafia etc.

Care to drop the "real" statistics on us with some credible sources?

assuming he is a teacher for kids, of course they would be on probation for committing a crime. For adults, possession of less than 100g is a minor misdemeanor....or about the same as a speeding ticket. you ever get probation or jail time for that?

But less toxic AND less addictive than alcohol.

care to throw out some stats?

No more than alcohol. Actually, I'm not even really sure what you'd define as "abused," but that's a tangent discussion.

so is talking about alcohol in a thread about marijuana, but i let it slide.

Ah, the democracy cover.

"Society" at large doesn't vote on it. It was made illegal by default. Society didn't make it illegal.

oddly enough, it was taxed and regulated first.....

Also, as a fun little aside, the reason a full-on democracy fails is that majority can oppress the minority. It's the reason we aren't one.

Finally, when push comes to shove, it's not even decided by a vote of the public. It's passed by legislators. C'mon, man. This is elementary Social Studies level stuff.

Oh noes. Too much freedom. Glad the public majority needs to approve of my actions in order for me to not worry about them being made illegal.

oh snap, someone better go tell colorado and washington they did it all wrong!

And a cartel won't just disband. They'll look for some other industry to try to get into, but they're not going to be able to compete, nor are they going to want to.

so why not kill 2 birds with one stone? lets try to keep drugs off the street and lock up the cartels by keeping it illegal and as a tool to use against the cartels?

Noble effort on their part, but a couple of problems with this.

and just like every medical marijuana "study" there are problems. very few of those "studies" are legit.

Not really pertinent to this discussion, as I'm dealing with the issue of recreational consumption, much like cracking open a cold one for a football game.

good for you, bet you wont even get drunk off one or two. however, do you know people who smoke weed to not get high?

Neither is a problem, but permitting one while branding the other a problem would be logically inconsistent, and thus, hypocritical. Just saying.

right, they arent problems, maybe i was wrong, you did get drunk off of one of two.

justincredible;1368806 wrote:More toxic than cigarettes? Can I get a link? You can vaporize marijuana and get essentially no carcinogens. Highly abused? Again, link? It is not possible to become physically dependent on marijuana. Also, you can't OD on it no matter how much you consume in one sitting. Sure, you can become mentally dependent on it but you can become mentally dependent on anything. No medical use? Science says you're wrong. And it's illegal because of bullshit propaganda from the 1930s like "Reefer Madness." It's not illegal because it's a dangerous drug. It's illegal because it threatened the profits of certain industries. Most polls I'm seeing say that the majority of American's think it should be legal and the number seems to grow every day.

Again, prohibition DOES NOT WORK. Nature should be legal for fucks sake.

you dont need a link, you just confirmed it by saying vaporizing is healthier.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1603611/posts
http://www.drugscience.org/Petition/C2B.html

science says i am wrong? got a link? most of those studies were done a while ago and even the recent ones are done involving self medication. many studies find marijuana is a placebo or similar.


what industries? you are telling me big pharma couldnt make a shit ton of money of it being legalized? they have lobbyist right? why arent they pushing it through the govt now? most drugs are nature. lots of things are nature, killing is part of nature, animals do that shit every day, turn on animal planet, there right before your eyes, nature!

Cleveland Buck;1370064 wrote:All drug laws are unconstitutional.

so the supreme court has ruled that all drug laws are constitutional? wonder why that hasnt made the headlines, maybe someone should tell my boss?