Give it up, crabs. No one except other dopers are going to take you seriuously. Accept the drug laws will remain. You'll sleep better especially if you get off the stuff.
I am not married. I'm engaged, but not married yet. I grew up in a household where my parents were married. I went to school with friends who were married. I became an adult, had friends who got married. I can't see how their lives are affected by marriage, whether positively or negatively, have my own opinion and have it be valid? Interesting.
Oh, by the way, my major in school is family social science. Does that help my opinion?
if you had half a brain, you'd reconsider your opinion on a lot of things.
Yes, ares, all knowing and thoughtful one. I will reconsider everything because you have suggested it. I mean after all you have the market cornered on analytical thinking.
No one except other dopers are going to take you seriuously
it's really quite amazing how many times you can be wrong about things.
and I know several straight edge people (who consider too much sugar to be a drug for them) who completely support the legalization of drugs.
not that they want to take them, but because they can see how bad the laws are.
you look around and you will find that a lot of people, maybe even a Republican governor and a police chief or two, take these laws and how bad they are quite seriously.
that you can claim to be a conservative and support laws that diminish personal freedom just goes to show that you are the one who's not infallible.
I didn't say I was infallible. No one is. I still don't see why you can't understand that a democratic society can legitimately restrict some personal freedom.
I still don't see why you can't understand that a democratic society can legitimately restrict some personal freedom.
someone else answered this already, but since you can't seem to keep up, here it is again....
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.
in this case "bad law" means a law that doesn't protect the rights of individual citizens...and in this country, those rights involve personal freedom.
Had to repost it Crabgrass. HERE is proof that the prohibition against marijuana is based on the opinion of two men who never used any research to back up their opinions.
The society can determine what is and is not a right.
Not really. Rights are inalienable. Rights can be moderated by social contract, but not by statute. The federal marijuana prohibition is actually a statutory infringement of the tenth amendment.
As you yourself said, Jethro, there is not a strict constructionist defense of the federal drug laws.
HERE is proof that the prohibition against marijuana is based on the opinion of two men who never used any research to back up their opinions.
that also tells about how, after the AMA had testified that marijuana was in no way harmful, they turned around and lied by claiming that they had said just the opposite.
but I live in a free country that is supposed to recognise and respect my inalienable rights.
The term "inalienable rights" is mumbo jumbo. You live in a free society. You can participate in it and have a voice in what the law is. Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean your "rights" have been violated.
little article supports the idea that drug abuse is greater when it drugs are legal.
It doesn't say that at all. It says that drug ADDICTION was a higher percentage back then , and it also says that the overwhelming majority of those addicted to drugs were addicted accidently, because patent drug makers weren't required to list their ingredients. They usually put about 50% morphine in their concoctions.
All I can say about you dopers is that you are all subversives. Furthermore, you don't care about anything but your desire to get high. You are a drag on society. But the good people will keep carrying you, but only so far.
People can post things they don't read it's extremely difficult to post a link to a page without looking at the page.Read, doper, read. R-E-A-D. Not look. Get it
Too complicated for Dubya and his followers. Better to just have a fascist hierarchy and operate on the "moral clarity" of a war mongering bully.
No you damn subversive communist. Government needs to operate on specifics so dangerous people like you can't misuse power. Hopefully you'll never get any power because of your inability to comprehend what makes a free society. And it isn't being able to do whatever it is that you want to do.
Government needs to operate on specifics so dangerous people like you can't misuse power.
Government DOES operate on specifics. Inalienable rights are some the basic "specifics." Civil liberties are the exercise of those rights. And those specifics are meant to guard against dangerous subversives like Bush, who wants to be able to arrest people in the middle of the night based upon "secret evidence" that no one will ever see, and hold them in dog kennel concentration camps indefinitely without being charged or being allowed to even see a lawyer.
I'm not advocating that "people get to do whatever they want to do." I'm arguing that at least one thing that people do is restricted unnecessarily.
Government DOES operate on specifics. Inalienable rights are some the basic "specifics." It is a broad general term that gives people like you an opportunity to confuse the issue.Civil liberties are the exercise of those rights. And those specifics are meant to guard against dangerous subversives like Bush, who wants to be able to arrest people in the middle of the night based upon "secret evidence" that no one will ever see, and hold them in dog kennel concentration camps indefinitely without being charged or being allowed to even see a lawyer. You keep believing that crap. It is apparent you are beyond the point of no return.
I'm not advocating that "people get to do whatever they want to do." I'm arguing that at least one thing that people do is restricted unnecessarily. It is restricted through legitimate democratic process. Live with that fact. You can try to change it. But don't keep crying about how your rights are being violated. They are not.
you understand that most people who take drugs don't have ruined lives (unless they are put in jail for it)?
marriage ruins a lot of people's lives
should we outlaw it?
I don't think that Republicans make the world a very pleasent place to live in, but that's no reason to make a law outlawing them, is it?
Give it up, crabs. No one except other dopers are going to take you seriuously. Accept the drug laws will remain. You'll sleep better especially if you get off the stuff.
F***** nonsense.
marriage ruins a lot of people's lives F***** nonsense.
you've obviously never met someone whose marriage hasruined their lives.
marriage ruins a lot of people's lives
Oh yeah!
you've obviously never met someone whose marriage has ruined their lives.
Have you been married? Well then maybe I should reconsider my opinion. I mean after all.....
if you had half a brain, you'd reconsider your opinion on a lot of things.
I am not married. I'm engaged, but not married yet. I grew up in a household where my parents were married. I went to school with friends who were married. I became an adult, had friends who got married. I can't see how their lives are affected by marriage, whether positively or negatively, have my own opinion and have it be valid? Interesting.
Oh, by the way, my major in school is family social science. Does that help my opinion?
if you had half a brain, you'd reconsider your opinion on a lot of things.
Yes, ares, all knowing and thoughtful one. I will reconsider everything because you have suggested it. I mean after all you have the market cornered on analytical thinking.
when you're kissing my ass, don't forget to reference me as a deity either.
it's really quite amazing how many times you can be wrong about things.
and I know several straight edge people (who consider too much sugar to be a drug for them) who completely support the legalization of drugs.
not that they want to take them, but because they can see how bad the laws are.
you look around and you will find that a lot of people, maybe even a Republican governor and a police chief or two, take these laws and how bad they are quite seriously.
The drug laws are fine.
what did you have to eat today?
but didn't you just say it was only dopers?
oh, so you think that he lied about being a Republican in order to get elected on the Republican ticket.
acually, personal freedom has long been one of the main concerns of conservatives.
that you can claim to be a conservative and support laws that diminish personal freedom just goes to show that you are the one who's not infallible.
but didn't you just say it was only dopers?
they may be dopers. didn't you say we can't tell who is and isn't a doper?
that you can claim to be a conservative and support laws that diminish personal freedom just goes to show that you are the one who's not infallible.
I didn't say I was infallible. No one is. I still don't see why you can't understand that a democratic society can legitimately restrict some personal freedom.
and yet they are governers and police cheifs and...etc...
most everyone uses some kind of drugs.
someone else answered this already, but since you can't seem to keep up, here it is again....
in this case "bad law" means a law that doesn't protect the rights of individual citizens...and in this country, those rights involve personal freedom.
and yet they are governers and police cheifs and...etc...
Yes but probably not for long.
Get this straight, DOPER, you don't have a right to possess certain drugs. The society can determine what is and is not a right.
The History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in The United States
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm
Had to repost it Crabgrass. HERE is proof that the prohibition against marijuana is based on the opinion of two men who never used any research to back up their opinions.
The society can determine what is and is not a right.
Not really. Rights are inalienable. Rights can be moderated by social contract, but not by statute. The federal marijuana prohibition is actually a statutory infringement of the tenth amendment.
As you yourself said, Jethro, there is not a strict constructionist defense of the federal drug laws.
that also tells about how, after the AMA had testified that marijuana was in no way harmful, they turned around and lied by claiming that they had said just the opposite.
a law based on a lie...
bad law
maybe in Saddam's Iraq
but I live in a free country that is supposed to recognise and respect my inalienable rights.
well that little article supports the idea that drug abuse is greater when it drugs are legal.
Possibly, possibly not.
be specific
you know how to cut and paste, don't you?
but I live in a free country that is supposed to recognise and respect my inalienable rights.
The term "inalienable rights" is mumbo jumbo. You live in a free society. You can participate in it and have a voice in what the law is. Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean your "rights" have been violated.
nonsense that our country was founded on.
be specific
If you weren't so dense, or had at least looked at the article you would have understood that comment.
little article supports the idea that drug abuse is greater when it drugs are legal.
It doesn't say that at all. It says that drug ADDICTION was a higher percentage back then , and it also says that the overwhelming majority of those addicted to drugs were addicted accidently, because patent drug makers weren't required to list their ingredients. They usually put about 50% morphine in their concoctions.
what are you, a communist?
Thom Jefferson didn't talk no mumbo jumbo
nonsense that our country was founded on.
"inalienable rights" is a broad philosophical concept. Our governments cannot operate on such broad terms.
Thom Jefferson didn't talk no mumbo jumbo
He talked plenty of mumbo jumbo. He was a politician after all.
I understood it...was vague in oder to avoid being shown that it was wrong.
and if you were looking at the articles being linked, you would know that I not only looked at it, I was the one who posted it.
People can post things they don't read. Many people post things they don't understand.
The term "inalienable rights" is mumbo jumbo.
Why am I surprised to hear you say this when your avatar is
"der Fuehrer?"
Civil liberties: those are just technicalities, right?
it's extremely difficult to post a link to a page without looking at the page.
All I can say about you dopers is that you are all subversives. Furthermore, you don't care about anything but your desire to get high. You are a drag on society. But the good people will keep carrying you, but only so far.
Why am I surprised to hear you say this when your avatar is
"der Fuehrer?"
You even have less credibility than I thought.
Civil liberties: those are just technicalities, right?
another broad term that subversives like you misuse.
You asked for it
Too complicated for Dubya and his followers. Better to just have a fascist hierarchy and operate on the "moral clarity" of a war mongering bully.
People can post things they don't read it's extremely difficult to post a link to a page without looking at the page. Read, doper, read. R-E-A-D. Not look. Get it
Too complicated for Dubya and his followers. Better to just have a fascist hierarchy and operate on the "moral clarity" of a war mongering bully.
No you damn subversive communist. Government needs to operate on specifics so dangerous people like you can't misuse power. Hopefully you'll never get any power because of your inability to comprehend what makes a free society. And it isn't being able to do whatever it is that you want to do.
Government DOES operate on specifics. Inalienable rights are some the basic "specifics." Civil liberties are the exercise of those rights. And those specifics are meant to guard against dangerous subversives like Bush, who wants to be able to arrest people in the middle of the night based upon "secret evidence" that no one will ever see, and hold them in dog kennel concentration camps indefinitely without being charged or being allowed to even see a lawyer.
I'm not advocating that "people get to do whatever they want to do." I'm arguing that at least one thing that people do is restricted unnecessarily.
Government DOES operate on specifics. Inalienable rights are some the basic "specifics." It is a broad general term that gives people like you an opportunity to confuse the issue.Civil liberties are the exercise of those rights. And those specifics are meant to guard against dangerous subversives like Bush, who wants to be able to arrest people in the middle of the night based upon "secret evidence" that no one will ever see, and hold them in dog kennel concentration camps indefinitely without being charged or being allowed to even see a lawyer. You keep believing that crap. It is apparent you are beyond the point of no return.
I'm not advocating that "people get to do whatever they want to do." I'm arguing that at least one thing that people do is restricted unnecessarily. It is restricted through legitimate democratic process. Live with that fact. You can try to change it. But don't keep crying about how your rights are being violated. They are not.
go back and READ what I said, because I SAID "look".
here, let me help you out...what are you, on drugs?
no it isn't see http://www.foxnews.com/I just did it.
this just tells me that you didn't readthe article that told about how illegitimate the process actually was.
So what IF I'm racist crabs. So what IF I'm not. Answer the question.