"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be contrued to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people"
yea...that says you can't try to take other people right's inalienable rights. It's protecting people from denying or disparaging other people's inalienable rights. This doesn't take away, it protects.
"inalienable" doesn't mean that no one can define it, it means that no one can take it away
yea, I said no one can decidewhich rights to take away if those rights are inalienable. If the one's they are deciding on are "inalienable", you can't decide to take them away because they can't be taken away.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are resrved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"The power[s] not delegated" are reserved. But, as previously stated in 9 of the document, the power to protect us from interfering with someone else's "inalienable" rights is a power that isdelegated by the Constitution (see 9).
thanks for pointing that out.
now, it says that I have inalienable rights and that "certain rights shall not be contrued to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people"
that says that if you give certain rights (that are not inalienable), they can't deny or disparage other (inalienable) rights.
It does NOT take away any right other than the right to deny someone else of a right Inalienable. I mean, I can kill someone and deny them of their inalienable right to life, but I certainly have no right, inalienable or otherwise, to do so, even if I'm a State. That's what these Amendments are about and at the very heart of why I love this country. It's also at the heart of why I think that drug laws are unConstitutional.
you can't kill someone from another State because the Peoplehave retainedthe right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, the Peopleconsider it to be inalienable.
the bottom line for me is that your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isn't injured if I grow a plant and smoke it.
if you put me in jail for it, my rights for the same have been denied and disparaged, something that Amendment IX says that you can't do.
Besides, the idea that having a law against it does less harm than having it legal is absurd. It's a plant that was an intregal part of this country's history. As much as cotton or iron or coal, hemp was a plant that this country was founded on. It was a one time mandatoryto grow it here. Listen, drugs have always existed. Making them against the law isn't going to stop people from using them. The drug laws in this country got their start as a tool to oppress minorities and is still quite successful at doing that. Denying people inalienable rights is where it's coming from. That's unAmerican.
When you say "freedom", why don't you actually mean it?
yea...that says you can't try to take other people right's inalienable rights. It's protecting people from denying or disparaging other people's inalienable rights. This doesn't take away, it protects.
Actually, there's nothing in the Constitution that I know of which says what people can't do to each other. The Constitution is a rulebook for government, not for people. I recognize that it doesn't take away, it protects. Not us from each other, though -- us from the government.
(BTW, your post makes it seem as if you are opposing me on this, or that you think I was trying to support jethro's side with my post. I'm confused. I was showing how the Constitution provides for the right to do drugs.)
yea, I said no one can decide which rights to take away if those rights are inalienable.
k, I re-read your original statement, and I get you now.
But, as previously stated in 9 of the document, the power to protect us from interfering with someone else's "inalienable" rights is a power that is delegated by the Constitution (see 9).
thanks for pointing that out.
That's not what I was pointing out. 9 (theoretically) stops the federal government from interfering with someone's inalienable rights (or the rights of states). It's laws which (again, theoretically) prevent people from interfering with each other, not the Constitution.
now, it says that I have inalienable rights and that "certain rights shall not be contrued to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people"
that says that if you give certain rights (that are not inalienable), they can't deny or disparage other (inalienable) rights
No. First of all, there is no alienable/inalienable distinction there, as you posit. It's just talking about rights, not alternate types of rights. Second, your quoting of it is deceptive. It's not saying the "certain rights" shall not be construed..., it's saying that the enumeration of those rights shall not be construed...
All it means is "just because we said people have these rights we listed here, doesn't mean they don't also have other rights we didn't list."
Like the right to do whatever you like with your body, for example.
Since nothing in the Constitution says we don't have that right, then, by virtue of the 9th Amendment, we do have the right.
Since nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to control what people put in their bodies, then, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, that power belongs to the states, or to the people. (And the 9th Amendment (supported by the 14th) seems to indicate that it's the people, not the states.)
your post makes it seem as if you are opposing me on this
I'm not trying to oppose you, just say what I think about it.
Your interpretation is interesting. Thanks.
or that you think I was trying to support jethro's side with my post. I'm confused.
I may have been a little confused too, since I asked him for specifics and you gave them. I should have known that he probably wasn't going to actually try to discuss specifics.
I may have been a little confused too, since I asked him for specifics and you gave them. I should have known that he probably wasn't going to actually try to discuss specifics
I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to him. His request for the provision of the Constitution that allowed drug use. Which would explain both of our confusions.
is a rulebook for government, not for people here is where we disconnect
As far as I know, there's nothing about people (who are not in government) having to do or not do anything in the Constitution. I.e., there are no rules for people in it. Right in the preamble, the document is defined as "this Constitution for the United States of America". I.e., a rulebook for government. As we saw in the 10th Amendment, the authors of the Constitution were clear on the distinction between the people, the States, and the United States. Three different entities -- and the Constitution, as the preamble says, is the rule book ("constitution") for the third one -- the U.S.
The only place I've found it really talking about people doing anything is right at the beginning, where "we the people" "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." But it's well worth noting that that "we the people" is those people back then -- the people who were adopting it, and the people on whose behalf they were doing so. And the action specified is already done. "We the people" ordained and established it back in September 1787.
Where else in the Constitution does it talk about people having to do or not do any things?
How about where it says "WE The People"... in letters larger than the rest?
Again, that was them the people. the people who established and ordained the Constitution. That is an act which occured and has been completed. "We the people" completed the task referred to.
How about where it says "Union", BOTH right in the beginning?
It's talking about a Union of the states.
How about where it says "Provide for the common-defense", right at the beginning?
How about it? Where does that say that I should do or not do any thing? What is the instruction there for a given person in the U.S.?
How about where it mentions "The States", right at the beginning?
That's the States, which again, if you read the 10th Amendment, you will see are a distinct entity from "the people". Am I California? No.
(and that is just the short list of references to The "People".)
Very short. And the only people referenced have been dead for 200 years or so.
Besides which, I wasn't asking for references to people, I was looking for rules. Crab said (or implied at least, which is more his way) the Constitution was a rulebook for the people. I maintain it is not. It is a rulebook for the United States Government.
Please show me anywhere in the Constitution where there is any rule for me, as a citizen. (As opposed to me, who is seeking a job in government.)
It's certainly not in the Bill of Rights. I don't think it's in the parts where the details of the three brances are explained. It's not in the preamble. Hmm....
There's the 18th Amendment, but that's no longer in force (and, I'd argue, it would be unconstitutional if it was.) There's the income tax amendment, but that itself doesn't contain any rules for me.
I don't see a single thing in there about my conduct. Or any of yours. Which fits right in with what I've heard about those founding father guys.
Crab said (or implied at least, which is more his way) the Constitution was a rulebook for the people. I maintain it is not. It is a rulebook for the United States Government.
and the Government is for the people....it's theirs collectively.
it represents them.
what is the government if not the people?
a bunch of buildings?
you mean that we have a document to provide rules for a bunch of buildings?
Just cut with the questions and show me. Paste the rule. Rulebooks have rules. You say they are rules for me, and you and all of us. Show me one of them.
I'll be happy to answer your questions after you do. I don't want to get lost in your tangents until this is settled (or stalemated).
I'll give you this much: the Government is an institution. It is an entity of its own. It is not the people, it is the people's servant -- our contractor. Societies establish governments -- that right there should show you they are not one and the same.
The Constitution, however, says that they can be taken away
where is this again.
Try the Fifth Amendment
I understand that you want to just sorta snip off the preamble, which of course only states the intention of the document. just so we are clear, what other parts of it you want removed as being "not legal"?
I didn't say any of the Constitution should be removed. The preamble states the general direction of the Constitution but the specific provisions control.
The right to use drugs is one of the blessings of Liberty
Main Entry: lib·er·ty
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
You amazing with every post, crabs. It proves to me why humanity has the problems it has. Many drugs are controlled by the government and it is done with the consent of the people.
"A Government of the People, by the People, and for the People".
That's not in the Constitution. That's a quote from almost 80 years later, and not any kind of rule or government decree. I can say "as American as apple pie", and it doesn't equal a command to all my fellow citizens, or a new rule.
Lance, that you cannot see what this means,
It means whatever each person thinks it means. It's just a phrase someone made up. Frankly, in terms of rules, it doesn't matter what it means.
nor allow that there ARE rules for the proper flow of society in any TRUE-Democracy,
I allow that there are rules for the proper flow of society (in "any TRUE-Democracy", whatever that's supposed to mean.) That doesn't mean there are rules for individuals in the Constitution. There aren't. The "rules for the proper flow of society" are called laws and morals.
instead and predictably, substituting a purely Libertarian "Logic" to YOUR understanding of the document, and why it exists, is something which obviously no ammount of debate or discussion will change.
I guess we'll never find that out, since neither you nor crabby (the only ones who have stepped forward to claim the Constitution is a rulebook for the people), is attempting real debate or discussion. You offered a bunch of examples, I rebutted them, and instead of proving me wrong (or even asserting that I was wrong), you leapt to quoting Abe Lincoln -- a questionable Constitutional scholar if there ever was one -- and gave up.
Crabby for his part simply refuses to even offer one example to support his claim.
Just show me the rule. If the Consitution is so loaded with rules for people -- as a rulebook would by design be -- it should be a piece of cake to show me one single rule from it that tells me what I must or must not do.
jethro:
The right to use drugs is one of the blessings of Liberty.
Lance: The right to use drugs is one of the blessings of Liberty.
Jethro: I hope no one believes this.
Lance: What makes it not true?
There is no protection for drug use written anywhere. Now it may not be specifically addressed in the Constitution but the states have the authority to impose restrictions and they have. Originally the people of each state were allowed to impose any law that was supported by their citizens as long as it did not interfere with a power specifically delegated to the federal government. Even then the states could act in certain areas that were delegated to the federal government as long as the state act did not conflict with the federal law. Liberty is not an absolute and it can be taken away given due process.
Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
fold wrote: If this isn't a "RULE" pertaining to the way in which WE shall choose to harbor soldiers, IF we choose to, then what is it...?
They are RULES that we ALL must abide by, in theory.
No. They are rules primarily directed at the federal government. They simply set forth the specific powers the federal government and those it does not.
the reason they are controlled is because they can, if one is not careful, hurt you. lots of things can hurt you. Guns can hurt you. bleach can hurt you, poison can hurt you...lots and lots of substances and the things we make from them can hurt you.
but because they can hurt you (and marijuana can't even be conclusively shown to do even that) is not a reason to make them illegal. It is a reason to, as a society, control them. The reason drug prohibitions fail is because the laws themselves hurt more than the thing the pretend to be protecting us from. This is an easy lesson we have already learnedwhen we tried to prohibit alcohol. Prohibit any drug that people enjoy and you can create crime and a black market. The current laws are an extreme example of beheading for dandruff. The laws have an origin in the anti-black laws of last century and are among the last and most brutal of the "Jim Crow" type laws this country has to address. The levels of crime (that is often exercised in a racist fashion) that these laws createis totally unjustified and they laws that make it possible should be repealed.
No it [is a rulebook for government, not for people] is where YOU disconnect, crabs.
it is a rule book for governing,not government
governing by a People
"governing" is a verb...verbs don't have rights, people do.
crabs, why should anyone bother with you? You don't even have a tenuous grasp on the fundamental purpose of the Constitution. Because of that you have little or nothing to offer to the topic.
crabs, why should anyone bother with you? You don't even have a tenuous grasp on the fundamental purpose of the Constitution. Because of that you have little or nothing to offer to the topic.
I offer plenty. It's you who are offering nothing but comments about me.
I'm not the subject here. Speak to the subject being discussed.
here is a simple course in American Government for students in grades 8 to 12
If you scroll down to the "Conclusion", it say this...
This WebQuest will give you the opportunity to discover how Our Federal Government is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.You will also become familiar with how the three branches of Our Federal Government have separate but equal power. Knowing how a bill becomes a law and what role each branch of the government has with the laws will be learned in the American Government WebQuest. Â Â
what happened?
too busy out supporting yourself since the age of 12 and so you skipped that class?
and let me again remind YOU that it used to be illegal until WE came to our senses and repealed that because it was creating more harm than even the great harm that the substance alone was causing.
your response is EXACTLY why drugs should be legal. It points to a strong precedent that prohibiting drugs is WRONG and creates crime and a black market and can be used to infringe upon the LIBERTY of our individual citizen's rights in a racist way.
In my OPINION the ramifications of legalizing currently illegal drugs would be worse than the current crime associated with those drugs.
unfortunately the facts don't bear that out and putting hundreds of thousands of people in prison because you have an unfounded opinion is no reason to actually do that.
unfortunately the facts don't bear that out and putting hundreds of thousands of people in prison because you have an unfounded opinion is no reason to actually do that.
Oh I think the facts do show sever consequences of legalized drugs. The number of lives ddestroyed just from the use of illegal drugs is enormous. Just think cheap drugs will allow even more use destroying more lives.
Oh I think the facts do show sever consequences of legalized drugs.
no, they don't. and certainly not with something like marijuana.
The number of lives ddestroyed just from the use of illegal drugs is enormous.
yes, all the gangs and violence, which would dry up if we simply stopped make them illegal.
Just think cheap drugs will allow even more use destroying more lives
if someone uses a drug, they aren't doing anything to destroy anyone else's life.
if someone drives a car when they are using a drug that may cause them to harm someone else, then the driving of the car in that condition can be prohibited. Don't go shooting off guns while you are loaded either.
but the taking of a drug does no harm to anyone except the person taking the drug and I don't want you telling me what is or isn't "harm" to myself. I can decide what does and doesn't hurt me all by myself.
If you're taking drugs, your judgment and inhibitions are altered, are they not? If they are in this state, are they going to stop themselves from getting in a car to drive, or carry a loaded weapon? Probably not if their judgment is impaired. Granted some will act accordingly, but I fear the ones that are more likely to still drive or carry a weapon. Also, I may be wrong on this, how are trials handled where people are high and commit a crime? Like say someone is high off crack and they kill somebody. Can the defense lawyer contend that the person was not in their right mind?
I can't believe you're asinine enough to hold that against me
that wasn't what I was holding against you. I was holding against you the inability to understand even high school level American Government conclusions while at the same time accusing me of not understanding it.
most American's don't agree with your contention that illicit drugs should become legal.
which explains why the Feds shut down medical marijuana in California
Ask the child of a drunk or drug addict if that's the case
I am one...go ahead, ask.
and remember,
"Let me remind you alchol is legal"
Granted some will act accordingly, but I fear the ones that are more likely to still drive or carry a weapon
that some will not "act" (it's the acting that is illegal) accordingly is no reason to make a law that imprisons those that do "act accordingly", "accordingly" in this sense being threatening to someone else'sfreedom. The simple act of ingesting a substance, particularly marijuana, threatens no one but the person ingesting it. If it causes that person to act in a way that threatens other people, that substance may require control. But an overwhelming number of people smoke marijuana and they don't appear to be threatening anyone.
yea...that says you can't try to take other people right's inalienable rights. It's protecting people from denying or disparaging other people's inalienable rights. This doesn't take away, it protects.
yea, I said no one can decidewhich rights to take away if those rights are inalienable. If the one's they are deciding on are "inalienable", you can't decide to take them away because they can't be taken away.
"The power[s] not delegated" are reserved. But, as previously stated in 9 of the document, the power to protect us from interfering with someone else's "inalienable" rights is a power that isdelegated by the Constitution (see 9).
thanks for pointing that out.
now, it says that I have inalienable rights and that "certain rights shall not be contrued to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people"
that says that if you give certain rights (that are not inalienable), they can't deny or disparage other (inalienable) rights.
It does NOT take away any right other than the right to deny someone else of a right Inalienable. I mean, I can kill someone and deny them of their inalienable right to life, but I certainly have no right, inalienable or otherwise, to do so, even if I'm a State. That's what these Amendments are about and at the very heart of why I love this country. It's also at the heart of why I think that drug laws are unConstitutional.
you know...the inalienable ones
you can't kill someone from another State because the Peoplehave retainedthe right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, the Peopleconsider it to be inalienable.
the bottom line for me is that your inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness isn't injured if I grow a plant and smoke it.
if you put me in jail for it, my rights for the same have been denied and disparaged, something that Amendment IX says that you can't do.
Besides, the idea that having a law against it does less harm than having it legal is absurd. It's a plant that was an intregal part of this country's history. As much as cotton or iron or coal, hemp was a plant that this country was founded on. It was a one time mandatoryto grow it here. Listen, drugs have always existed. Making them against the law isn't going to stop people from using them. The drug laws in this country got their start as a tool to oppress minorities and is still quite successful at doing that. Denying people inalienable rights is where it's coming from. That's unAmerican.
When you say "freedom", why don't you actually mean it?
Actually, there's nothing in the Constitution that I know of which says what people can't do to each other. The Constitution is a rulebook for government, not for people. I recognize that it doesn't take away, it protects. Not us from each other, though -- us from the government.
(BTW, your post makes it seem as if you are opposing me on this, or that you think I was trying to support jethro's side with my post. I'm confused. I was showing how the Constitution provides for the right to do drugs.)
k, I re-read your original statement, and I get you now.
That's not what I was pointing out. 9 (theoretically) stops the federal government from interfering with someone's inalienable rights (or the rights of states). It's laws which (again, theoretically) prevent people from interfering with each other, not the Constitution.
No. First of all, there is no alienable/inalienable distinction there, as you posit. It's just talking about rights, not alternate types of rights. Second, your quoting of it is deceptive. It's not saying the "certain rights" shall not be construed..., it's saying that the enumeration of those rights shall not be construed...
All it means is "just because we said people have these rights we listed here, doesn't mean they don't also have other rights we didn't list."
Like the right to do whatever you like with your body, for example.
Since nothing in the Constitution says we don't have that right, then, by virtue of the 9th Amendment, we do have the right.
Since nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to control what people put in their bodies, then, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, that power belongs to the states, or to the people. (And the 9th Amendment (supported by the 14th) seems to indicate that it's the people, not the states.)
here is where we disconnect
I'm not trying to oppose you, just say what I think about it.
Your interpretation is interesting. Thanks.
I may have been a little confused too, since I asked him for specifics and you gave them. I should have known that he probably wasn't going to actually try to discuss specifics.
I wasn't responding to you, I was responding to him. His request for the provision of the Constitution that allowed drug use. Which would explain both of our confusions.
As far as I know, there's nothing about people (who are not in government) having to do or not do anything in the Constitution. I.e., there are no rules for people in it. Right in the preamble, the document is defined as "this Constitution for the United States of America". I.e., a rulebook for government. As we saw in the 10th Amendment, the authors of the Constitution were clear on the distinction between the people, the States, and the United States. Three different entities -- and the Constitution, as the preamble says, is the rule book ("constitution") for the third one -- the U.S.
The only place I've found it really talking about people doing anything is right at the beginning, where "we the people" "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." But it's well worth noting that that "we the people" is those people back then -- the people who were adopting it, and the people on whose behalf they were doing so. And the action specified is already done. "We the people" ordained and established it back in September 1787.
Where else in the Constitution does it talk about people having to do or not do any things?
Again, that was them the people. the people who established and ordained the Constitution. That is an act which occured and has been completed. "We the people" completed the task referred to.
It's talking about a Union of the states.
How about it? Where does that say that I should do or not do any thing? What is the instruction there for a given person in the U.S.?
That's the States, which again, if you read the 10th Amendment, you will see are a distinct entity from "the people". Am I California? No.
Very short. And the only people referenced have been dead for 200 years or so.
Besides which, I wasn't asking for references to people, I was looking for rules. Crab said (or implied at least, which is more his way) the Constitution was a rulebook for the people. I maintain it is not. It is a rulebook for the United States Government.
Please show me anywhere in the Constitution where there is any rule for me, as a citizen. (As opposed to me, who is seeking a job in government.)
It's certainly not in the Bill of Rights. I don't think it's in the parts where the details of the three brances are explained. It's not in the preamble. Hmm....
There's the 18th Amendment, but that's no longer in force (and, I'd argue, it would be unconstitutional if it was.) There's the income tax amendment, but that itself doesn't contain any rules for me.
I don't see a single thing in there about my conduct. Or any of yours. Which fits right in with what I've heard about those founding father guys.
you aren't seeing that the individual and the group are both comprised of people.
"we" the people.
who is it for if not the people?
and the Government is for the people....it's theirs collectively.
it represents them.
what is the government if not the people?
a bunch of buildings?
you mean that we have a document to provide rules for a bunch of buildings?
Just cut with the questions and show me. Paste the rule. Rulebooks have rules. You say they are rules for me, and you and all of us. Show me one of them.
I'll be happy to answer your questions after you do. I don't want to get lost in your tangents until this is settled (or stalemated).
I'll give you this much: the Government is an institution. It is an entity of its own. It is not the people, it is the people's servant -- our contractor. Societies establish governments -- that right there should show you they are not one and the same.
show me one that isn'tfor the people
The Constitution, however, says that they can be taken away
where is this again.
Try the Fifth Amendment
I understand that you want to just sorta snip off the preamble, which of course only states the intention of the document. just so we are clear, what other parts of it you want removed as being "not legal"?
I didn't say any of the Constitution should be removed. The preamble states the general direction of the Constitution but the specific provisions control.
The right to use drugs is one of the blessings of Liberty.
I hope no one believes this.
you use drugs or you are in the very extreme minority
most all people use some drug or another
Main Entry: lib·er·ty
1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice
sure sounds like it
is a rulebook for government, not for people
here is where we disconnect
No it is where YOU disconnect, crabs.
You amazing with every post, crabs. It proves to me why humanity has the problems it has. Many drugs are controlled by the government and it is done with the consent of the people.
you use drugs or you are in the very extreme minority
Are you speaking of legal or illegal drugs?
To the pro-drug-legalization crowd:
Single Malt Scotch = Heroin
Drugs = Heroin
That's not in the Constitution. That's a quote from almost 80 years later, and not any kind of rule or government decree. I can say "as American as apple pie", and it doesn't equal a command to all my fellow citizens, or a new rule.
It means whatever each person thinks it means. It's just a phrase someone made up. Frankly, in terms of rules, it doesn't matter what it means.
I allow that there are rules for the proper flow of society (in "any TRUE-Democracy", whatever that's supposed to mean.) That doesn't mean there are rules for individuals in the Constitution. There aren't. The "rules for the proper flow of society" are called laws and morals.
I guess we'll never find that out, since neither you nor crabby (the only ones who have stepped forward to claim the Constitution is a rulebook for the people), is attempting real debate or discussion. You offered a bunch of examples, I rebutted them, and instead of proving me wrong (or even asserting that I was wrong), you leapt to quoting Abe Lincoln -- a questionable Constitutional scholar if there ever was one -- and gave up.
Crabby for his part simply refuses to even offer one example to support his claim.
Just show me the rule. If the Consitution is so loaded with rules for people -- as a rulebook would by design be -- it should be a piece of cake to show me one single rule from it that tells me what I must or must not do.
jethro:
What makes it not true?
Lance: The right to use drugs is one of the blessings of Liberty.
Jethro: I hope no one believes this.
Lance: What makes it not true?
There is no protection for drug use written anywhere. Now it may not be specifically addressed in the Constitution but the states have the authority to impose restrictions and they have. Originally the people of each state were allowed to impose any law that was supported by their citizens as long as it did not interfere with a power specifically delegated to the federal government. Even then the states could act in certain areas that were delegated to the federal government as long as the state act did not conflict with the federal law. Liberty is not an absolute and it can be taken away given due process.
fold wrote: If this isn't a "RULE" pertaining to the way in which WE shall choose to harbor soldiers, IF we choose to, then what is it...?
It is a limitation on federal power nothing more.
They are RULES that we ALL must abide by, in theory.
No. They are rules primarily directed at the federal government. They simply set forth the specific powers the federal government and those it does not.
Precisely. The Constitution was set forth expressly to limit government.
drugs
there should be none illegal
drugs are just substances
the reason they are controlled is because they can, if one is not careful, hurt you. lots of things can hurt you. Guns can hurt you. bleach can hurt you, poison can hurt you...lots and lots of substances and the things we make from them can hurt you.
but because they can hurt you (and marijuana can't even be conclusively shown to do even that) is not a reason to make them illegal. It is a reason to, as a society, control them. The reason drug prohibitions fail is because the laws themselves hurt more than the thing the pretend to be protecting us from. This is an easy lesson we have already learnedwhen we tried to prohibit alcohol. Prohibit any drug that people enjoy and you can create crime and a black market. The current laws are an extreme example of beheading for dandruff. The laws have an origin in the anti-black laws of last century and are among the last and most brutal of the "Jim Crow" type laws this country has to address. The levels of crime (that is often exercised in a racist fashion) that these laws createis totally unjustified and they laws that make it possible should be repealed.
it is a rule book for governing,not government
governing by a People
"governing" is a verb...verbs don't have rights, people do.
Let me guess, you're a big drug user, aren't ya Crabby?
He's Crabby because he can't get the drugs he wants.
crabs, why should anyone bother with you? You don't even have a tenuous grasp on the fundamental purpose of the Constitution. Because of that you have little or nothing to offer to the topic.
I'll tell if you tell. what's in yourmedicine chest? Do you drink alcohol?
not really, no.
I don't drink alcohol except on rare occasions with a great deal of moderation, of course it's one of the most destructive ones to our society.
Marijuana just wastes time, but so does TV.
that's not true...I can get the drugs I want. GlucophageXR is my current drug of choice.
but the fact is, people will get the drugs they want and making that illegal will only create more crime.
I offer plenty. It's you who are offering nothing but comments about me.
I'm not the subject here. Speak to the subject being discussed.
I'm not the subject here. Speak to the subject being discussed.
I have tried. But instead of discussing the topic you want to discuss philosophic concepts that are not applicable to the discussion.
what's in your medicine chest?
Not a lot actually. I'd have to look, but I might have some cold medicine and some left over ear medicine of my sons.
Do you drink alcohol?
Yes I do. Let me remind you alchol is legal.
here is a simple course in American Government for students in grades 8 to 12
If you scroll down to the "Conclusion", it say this...
what happened?
too busy out supporting yourself since the age of 12 and so you skipped that class?
no...let me remind YOU that alcohol is legal.
and let me again remind YOU that it used to be illegal until WE came to our senses and repealed that because it was creating more harm than even the great harm that the substance alone was causing.
your response is EXACTLY why drugs should be legal. It points to a strong precedent that prohibiting drugs is WRONG and creates crime and a black market and can be used to infringe upon the LIBERTY of our individual citizen's rights in a racist way.
In my OPINION the ramifications of legalizing currently illegal drugs would be worse than the current crime associated with those drugs.
I BELIEVE there are more important things in society than crabs desire to dope himself up.
unfortunately the facts don't bear that out and putting hundreds of thousands of people in prison because you have an unfounded opinion is no reason to actually do that.
then why are you spending so much money and creating so much crime trying to stop it?
unfortunately the facts don't bear that out and putting hundreds of thousands of people in prison because you have an unfounded opinion is no reason to actually do that.
Oh I think the facts do show sever consequences of legalized drugs. The number of lives ddestroyed just from the use of illegal drugs is enormous. Just think cheap drugs will allow even more use destroying more lives.
then why are you spending so much money and creating so much crime trying to stop it?
Another example of your obtuse mind. Crime is created by those that CHOOSE to violate the law, no one else.
too busy out supporting yourself since the age of 12 and so you skipped that class?
Hey Crabby, F U
As I said before, I won't apologize for working hard to take care of my family.
I can't believe you're asinine enough to hold that against me.
btw: I was on the Dean's list every semester and did especially well in my Government classes.
That being said, most American's don't agree with your contention that illicit drugs should become legal.
no, they don't. and certainly not with something like marijuana.
yes, all the gangs and violence, which would dry up if we simply stopped make them illegal.
if someone uses a drug, they aren't doing anything to destroy anyone else's life.
if someone drives a car when they are using a drug that may cause them to harm someone else, then the driving of the car in that condition can be prohibited. Don't go shooting off guns while you are loaded either.
but the taking of a drug does no harm to anyone except the person taking the drug
and I don't want you telling me what is or isn't "harm" to myself. I can decide what does and doesn't hurt me all by myself.
but the taking of a drug does no harm to anyone except the person taking the drug
Ask the child of a drunk or drug addict if that's the case.
If you're taking drugs, your judgment and inhibitions are altered, are they not? If they are in this state, are they going to stop themselves from getting in a car to drive, or carry a loaded weapon? Probably not if their judgment is impaired. Granted some will act accordingly, but I fear the ones that are more likely to still drive or carry a weapon. Also, I may be wrong on this, how are trials handled where people are high and commit a crime? Like say someone is high off crack and they kill somebody. Can the defense lawyer contend that the person was not in their right mind?
that wasn't what I was holding against you. I was holding against you the inability to understand even high school level American Government conclusions while at the same time accusing me of not understanding it.
which explains why the Feds shut down medical marijuana in California
I am one...go ahead, ask.
and remember,
that some will not "act" (it's the acting that is illegal) accordingly is no reason to make a law that imprisons those that do "act accordingly", "accordingly" in this sense being threatening to someone else'sfreedom. The simple act of ingesting a substance, particularly marijuana, threatens no one but the person ingesting it. If it causes that person to act in a way that threatens other people, that substance may require control. But an overwhelming number of people smoke marijuana and they don't appear to be threatening anyone.
go ahead and ask a child of a drunk if it would be easier if alcohol was illegal.
and the answer the drug attic's child is "your mommy is in prison"