Hmmm, nothing there about drugs. So I guess according to Jethro that means I can't have them. There isn't anything there about Dr. Pepper either. Can I not drink Dr. Pepper? Or J-Lo. Does that mean I can't watch her movies, or listen to her music, or buy magazines to look at her picture in? Do I not get to go to McDonalds to have a Big Mac? Or have them supersize it? I don't have the inalienable right to supersize my extra value meal?
Well crabs, how about if Blacks and Hispanics don't commit the crimes in the first place? They are obviously committing a greater % of crimes compared with their total population...Ya think?
Crabs, life and liberty are not inalienable. They can be forfeited under the laws of this country. So why can't the pursuit of happiness be forfeited?
do you ever read what you type, jethro? under the laws of this country, life and liberty can be forfeited. as punishment for violation of the laws. you're comparing apples to oranges, because the law in and of itself is causing the forfeiture of the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to a consequence for an action.
State legislatures, whose members have been placed in that position by citizens, have determined to pass the drug laws. The drug laws have became the law through established and legitimate democratic processes. The citizens can change that if they so choose. They do not so choose. That really is the dopers problem. He is anti-democratic.
So all laws that have been passed through democratic processes are good?
If everyone can participate in the process, sure. The doper attempts to equate jim crow with drug laws. The difference is fundamental. Jim Crow precluded citizens from participating in the political process based on skin color. The drug laws apply to conduct and are not limited to race. I do not think it is worthwhile to attempt to define what is a good law or a bad law. If the law was passed through the recognized democratic process then it should be respected. That does not mean that one has to agree with it or that they cannot work to change it. But they should respect the law and if they decide to violate it they should be prepared to accept the consequences if it comes to that.
Well crabs, how about if Blacks and Hispanics don't commit the crimes in the first place? They are obviously committing a greater % of crimes compared with their total population...Ya think?
no, I don't think that is the case at all.
The stats show that if anything, black use drugs in no greater percentage than whites.
The fact is, a white drug user stands an expotentially smaller chance of being arrested for drugs use than the black drug user.
and, once arrested, a white again stands an expotentially smaller chance of being sentanced to prison.
so, the answer is NO, blacks are NOT commiting a greater percentage of drug crimes...they are just being arrested and incarcerated for it more....a LOT more.
Jim Crow precluded citizens from participating in the political process based on skin color. The drug laws apply to conduct and are not limited to race.
Jim Crow said you couldn't eat at the same counter. That is conduct.
Now, it doesn't matter if the law "technically" isn't applied to race...that end effect is that the law is used in a racist fashion.
a law is only as good as it's result.
The drug laws results stink.
I do not think it is worthwhile to attempt to define what is a good law or a bad law
Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia passed similar initiatives in 1998. Maine passed an initiative in 1999, while Colorado and Nevada followed suit in 2000. Each state approved its initiative by a wide margin, and no state has rejected an initiative that solely addressed medical marijuana.(Congress was able to prevent the D.C. initiative from taking effect, because it is a district, not a state, and is therefore subject to strict federal oversight.) Hawaii broke new ground in 2000, when it became the first state to enact a law to remove criminal penalties for medical marijuana users via a state legislature. Hawaii's governor, who submitted the original bill and signed the final measure into law on June 14, said, "The idea of using marijuana for medical purposes is one that's going to sweep the country."
More than 51 million Americans -- 19% of the U.S. population -- now live in the eight states where medical marijuana users are protected by state law.
a democracy of "free" people is entitled to be oppressive?
You call it oppressive. Bad law is not necessarily oppressive. But a free society can make laws you don't like. It happens because not everyone can agree. I find the drug laws to be just fine.
A democratic society is entitled to make "bad laws."
Not necessarily. It depends on what kind of a democracy that you have. In a Majoritarian Democracy, what you say is true, since in a Majoritarian Democracy, the majority rules no matter what.
But Majoritarian Democracies don't protect the rights of all individual citizens regardless if they belong to the majority or the minority.
Liberal Democracies DO protect the rights of all individual citizens, regardless of whether they belong to the majority or the minority. The US has a Liberal Democracy, and so is NOT ENTITLED to make bad laws. Sometimes it takes a while to rectify bad laws, though, as in the case of Jim Crow laws. I'm sure there were many who thought those laws were "fine and dandy".
Crabgrass says that legalization of drugs is an issue of personal freedom. The choice to take them or not ought to be the choice of the individual. I wouldn't be against the government warning citizens that dangers attend such a choice (if it is based on sound research), but I agree with crabgrass: we don't need the government to be our nanny.
There are people who don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes by personal choice. The government warns the public about the dangers of using these drugs, and people make a personal choice about it.
even in the states where the democratic process has already done so? nope.
I thought you were for laws made by democratic process It is you liberals that got us into this fix. You need to live with the consequences of what you helped create.
Intriguing. You are of the opinion that the government is ENTITLED to make bad laws?
Let's make some distinctions: Bad laws can be made by mistake. Bad laws can be made out of public hysteria. Bad laws can be made through ignorance. This has occurred, and when recognized, our system allows for the rectification of those bad laws. But, to intentionally make a bad law is what is implied when you say that the government IS ENTITLED to make a bad law. Tell me this is not what you mean!
Government is entitled to make bad law. Except when it comes to abortion. I think that's what he is really trying to say.
If you think the judicial process is a democratic process then you are badly mistaken. That is why strict construction of the constitution is necessary.
But, to intentionally make a bad law is what is implied when you say that the government IS ENTITLED to make a bad law. Tell me this is not what you mean!
A free society means that they can make what you deem to be bad law. I do not think the term "bad law" is helpful in this discussion. The term bad indicates that you see something in a negative light. I do not think that a free society will pass a law that they perceive to be negative. Now they may be wrong but they don't not perceive it that way.
Aren't the judges appointed and confirmed by the people we elect?
they do not sit in a legislative position. also they cannot be removed except for bad conduct. what has happened is that judges have legislated from the bench instead of interpreting.
The term bad indicates that you see something in a negative light.
OK, so you are saying that whether the law is good or bad is a matter of opinion. You AREN'T saying that the government is entitled to make a law that is OBJECTIVELY bad, like my example of suspending the fourth amendment by statute. Correct?
So, if Congress decides to, say, do away with the fourth amendment by making a law suspending it, then that's OK? Government is entitled to do that?
They do not have that power. You should know that. However, the people can do away with the fourth amendment by adopting another amendment if they so choose.
You AREN'T saying that the government is entitled to make a law that is OBJECTIVELY bad, like my example of suspending the fourth amendment by statute.
The term bad I do not think is helpful. The term bad is simply too broad.
I own my home too, but I am limited by government restrictions on how I use it.
and no longer be a free society
what does this mean?
of course, if you ignore the history and the facts, you can believe just about anything
Where can I find a list of my inalienable and inherent rights? I want the master list now, not the knockoffs.
well, it's now clear that we aren't learning anything from history.
it's a short list...those rights are
life
liberty
the pursuit of happiness
that's the official list.
Hmmm, nothing there about drugs. So I guess according to Jethro that means I can't have them. There isn't anything there about Dr. Pepper either. Can I not drink Dr. Pepper? Or J-Lo. Does that mean I can't watch her movies, or listen to her music, or buy magazines to look at her picture in? Do I not get to go to McDonalds to have a Big Mac? Or have them supersize it? I don't have the inalienable right to supersize my extra value meal?
And I thought America was great.
if you don't think that drugs play a role in the pusuit of people's happiness, well...
Crabs, that post was directed at Jethro, not you. I was being sarcastic.
Well crabs, how about if Blacks and Hispanics don't commit the crimes in the first place? They are obviously committing a greater % of crimes compared with their total population...Ya think?
But a free people can lie to themselves and a free society can impose sanctions
and no longer be a free society
No they can still be free. Society is free to make mistakes. Again note I am not saying the drug laws are a mistake.
Crabs, life and liberty are not inalienable. They can be forfeited under the laws of this country. So why can't the pursuit of happiness be forfeited?
Crabs, life and liberty are not inalienable. They can be forfeited under the laws of this country. So why can't the pursuit of happiness be forfeited?
do you ever read what you type, jethro? under the laws of this country, life and liberty can be forfeited. as punishment for violation of the laws. you're comparing apples to oranges, because the law in and of itself is causing the forfeiture of the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to a consequence for an action.
State legislatures, whose members have been placed in that position by citizens, have determined to pass the drug laws. The drug laws have became the law through established and legitimate democratic processes. The citizens can change that if they so choose. They do not so choose. That really is the dopers problem. He is anti-democratic.
the citizens of california did choose.
So all laws that have been passed through democratic processes are good?
So all laws that have been passed through democratic processes are good?
If everyone can participate in the process, sure. The doper attempts to equate jim crow with drug laws. The difference is fundamental. Jim Crow precluded citizens from participating in the political process based on skin color. The drug laws apply to conduct and are not limited to race. I do not think it is worthwhile to attempt to define what is a good law or a bad law. If the law was passed through the recognized democratic process then it should be respected. That does not mean that one has to agree with it or that they cannot work to change it. But they should respect the law and if they decide to violate it they should be prepared to accept the consequences if it comes to that.
no, I don't think that is the case at all.
The stats show that if anything, black use drugs in no greater percentage than whites.
The fact is, a white drug user stands an expotentially smaller chance of being arrested for drugs use than the black drug user.
and, once arrested, a white again stands an expotentially smaller chance of being sentanced to prison.
so, the answer is NO, blacks are NOT commiting a greater percentage of drug crimes...they are just being arrested and incarcerated for it more....a LOT more.
Jim Crow said you couldn't eat at the same counter. That is conduct.
Now, it doesn't matter if the law "technically" isn't applied to race...that end effect is that the law is used in a racist fashion.
a law is only as good as it's result.
The drug laws results stink.
it's crucial to maintaining a free democracy.
bad laws are the tools of oppression.
ignore them at your own peril.
not just California
Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia passed similar initiatives in 1998. Maine passed an initiative in 1999, while Colorado and Nevada followed suit in 2000. Each state approved its initiative by a wide margin, and no state has rejected an initiative that solely addressed medical marijuana.(Congress was able to prevent the D.C. initiative from taking effect, because it is a district, not a state, and is therefore subject to strict federal oversight.) Hawaii broke new ground in 2000, when it became the first state to enact a law to remove criminal penalties for medical marijuana users via a state legislature. Hawaii's governor, who submitted the original bill and signed the final measure into law on June 14, said, "The idea of using marijuana for medical purposes is one that's going to sweep the country."
More than 51 million Americans -- 19% of the U.S. population -- now live in the eight states where medical marijuana users are protected by state law.
Those are two different concepts. You seem to want to mix them up. Must be muddleheadedeness due to drug use.
the law and it's execution are two different things?
and you think I'm on drugs?
a democracy of "free" people is entitled to be oppressive?
man...where can I get the drugs you are on?
More than 51 million Americans -- 19% of the U.S. population -- now live in the eight states where medical marijuana users are protected by state law.
Fine. That does not mean they can use it for recreation. Which it is my understanding you wish to do.
a democracy of "free" people is entitled to be oppressive?
You call it oppressive. Bad law is not necessarily oppressive. But a free society can make laws you don't like. It happens because not everyone can agree. I find the drug laws to be just fine.
so, you support repealing the federal laws against medical marijuana?
and it's nice that you point out that it can be used for recreational purposes...
pursuit of happiness and all that
so, you are fine that it's being used in an unfair manner to oppress blacks?
okay.
I'm not.
jethro bodine - 01:13pm Apr 16, 2003 PST (#986 of 986)
Not necessarily. It depends on what kind of a democracy that you have.
In a Majoritarian Democracy, what you say is true, since in a Majoritarian Democracy, the majority rules no matter what.
But Majoritarian Democracies don't protect the rights of all individual citizens regardless if they belong to the majority or the minority.
Liberal Democracies DO protect the rights of all individual citizens, regardless of whether they belong to the majority or the minority. The US has a Liberal Democracy, and so is NOT ENTITLED to make bad laws.
Sometimes it takes a while to rectify bad laws, though, as in the case of Jim Crow laws. I'm sure there were many who thought those laws were "fine and dandy".
Crabgrass says that legalization of drugs is an issue of personal freedom. The choice to take them or not ought to be the choice of the individual. I wouldn't be against the government warning citizens that dangers attend such a choice (if it is based on sound research), but I agree with crabgrass: we don't need the government to be our nanny.
There are people who don't drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes by personal choice. The government warns the public about the dangers of using these drugs, and people make a personal choice about it.
so, you support repealing the federal laws against medical marijuana? no.
even in the states where the democratic process has already done so?
I thought you were for laws made by democratic process
In a free society the potential for implementing bad laws cannot be eliminated without the risk of losing the free society altogether.
even in the states where the democratic process has already done so? nope.
I thought you were for laws made by democratic process It is you liberals that got us into this fix. You need to live with the consequences of what you helped create.
what fix is that? what is it that liberals created exactly?
the drug laws certainly aren't liberal and yes, the drugs laws certainly have us in quite a fix.
The US has a Liberal Democracy, and so is NOT ENTITLED to make bad laws.
jethro bodine - 01:42pm Apr 16, 2003 PST (#996 of 998)
Intriguing. You are of the opinion that the government is ENTITLED to make bad laws?
Let's make some distinctions: Bad laws can be made by mistake. Bad laws can be made out of public hysteria. Bad laws can be made through ignorance. This has occurred, and when recognized, our system allows for the rectification of those bad laws. But, to intentionally make a bad law is what is implied when you say that the government IS ENTITLED to make a bad law. Tell me this is not what you mean!
Government is entitled to make bad law. Except when it comes to abortion. I think that's what he is really trying to say.
JOE
Government is entitled to make bad law.
ThoseMedallingKids - 02:07pm Apr 16, 2003 PST (#1000 of 1000)
Fascinating. And you believe this, also?
So, if Congress decides to, say, do away with the fourth amendment by making a law suspending it, then that's OK? Government is entitled to do that?
Man, the nazification of the country is further along than I thought if people will buy that!
No, I'm not saying I believe it. I'm just interpreting Jethro for you guys. Or trying to.
what fix is that? what is it that liberals created exactly?
federal usurpation of state prerogatives.
I'm just interpreting Jethro for you guys.
LOL
Thanks TMK.
Whew! I was getting ready search the militia sites....
Government is entitled to make bad law. Except when it comes to abortion. I think that's what he is really trying to say.
If you think the judicial process is a democratic process then you are badly mistaken. That is why strict construction of the constitution is necessary.
federal usurpation of state prerogatives.
Well, in the case of drug legalization, I believe it is the Bush Administration that is usurping state laws. Not exactly a liberal policy!
But, to intentionally make a bad law is what is implied when you say that the government IS ENTITLED to make a bad law. Tell me this is not what you mean!
A free society means that they can make what you deem to be bad law. I do not think the term "bad law" is helpful in this discussion. The term bad indicates that you see something in a negative light. I do not think that a free society will pass a law that they perceive to be negative. Now they may be wrong but they don't not perceive it that way.
That is why strict construction of the constitution is necessary.
What strict, constructionist interpretation of the Constitution makes the drug laws constitutional?
Answer: None.
Aren't the judges appointed and confirmed by the people we elect?
What strict, constructionist interpretation of the Constitution makes the drug laws constitutional?
the federal drug laws? An argument can be made based on the commerce clause.
Aren't the judges appointed and confirmed by the people we elect?
they do not sit in a legislative position. also they cannot be removed except for bad conduct. what has happened is that judges have legislated from the bench instead of interpreting.
The term bad indicates that you see something in a negative light.
OK, so you are saying that whether the law is good or bad is a matter of opinion. You AREN'T saying that the government is entitled to make a law that is OBJECTIVELY bad, like my example of suspending the fourth amendment by statute. Correct?
So, if Congress decides to, say, do away with the fourth amendment by making a law suspending it, then that's OK? Government is entitled to do that?
They do not have that power. You should know that. However, the people can do away with the fourth amendment by adopting another amendment if they so choose.
An argument can be made based on the commerce clause.
And it is. Yet, that argument would NOT be a strict, constructionist argument.
You AREN'T saying that the government is entitled to make a law that is OBJECTIVELY bad, like my example of suspending the fourth amendment by statute.
The term bad I do not think is helpful. The term bad is simply too broad.