What is your heuristic? So far in your argument it seems to be whether or not you personally approve or not. What are the qualifying factors you use to form your case-by-case opinions?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

What is your heuristic? So far in your argument it seems to be whether or not you personally approve or not.

I know you've heard of community standards. They're the enemy of the left.

__________________
War is the natural state of humankind.
Fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.

More enforceable than sodomy laws? So, if I have a gram of pot in my bedroom, it's easier to arrest me than if I engage in certain sexual acts in my bedroom? How so? If your argument is that I have to go out and buy the pot, that's really moot, since their are usually external indicators of "sodomy" as well. These two are part and parcel, my friend - if drug laws were "enforceable" why would millions of people be getting away with posessing drugs every day? Do you think that if you told a cop (or hell, if I told a cop) that I had a gram of pot in my house, that he would pursue it?

Passive aggressivity usually hides insecurity. If you're going to "po-mo" me, I'll "po-mo" you right back.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Community standards? Does this mean that the rights of individuals should be determined by popular opinion? What happens when popular opinion runs counter to the rights we now consider standard (such as the right for women to vote)? I do understand what you're saying, but "community standards" can't possibly be the only determining factor for doling out and removing rights. What happens when the community is wrong?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yes, community standards are what it means when "the people" are granted power. As an example, here are some laws on the books today, as posted by the SFSU journalism dept.:

Crime, Punishment and the Ridiculous

Places where oral sex is illegal: Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

An erection that shows through a man's clothing is illegal in: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington D.C. and Wisconsin.

In Georgia those charged and convicted for either oral or anal sex can be sentenced to no less than one year and no more than 20 years imprisonment.

In Missouri sexually deviant behavior between people of the same sex is classified as a class A misdemeanor.

In Harrisburg, Pennsylvania it is against the law to have sex with a truck driver in a tollbooth. (There's every woman's fantasy gone down the drain).

In Nevada it is illegal to have sex without a condom.

In Willowdale, Oregon it is against the law for a husband to talk to dirty in his wife's ear during sex.

In Clinton, Oklahoma it is illegal to masturbate while watching two people have sex in a car.

In Washington State there is a law against having sex with a virgin under any circumstances (including the wedding night!).

In Newcastle, Wyoming it is illegal to have sex in a butcher shop's meat freezer.

In Washington D.C. there is a law against having sex in any position other than face to face.

Animals are not exempt from the law either and here are three of the most ridiculous:

In Kingsville, Texas there is a law against two pigs having sex on Kingsville airport property.

In Fairbanks, Alaska it is illegal for mooses to have sex on the city sidewalks.

Lastly, even liberated California proves to be not quite so liberal for the animals...In Ventura County cats and dogs may not have sex without a permit.

http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/flux/gSpot/sexLaw.html

__________________
War is the natural state of humankind.
Fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.

Okay. This means that members of a municipality or state can vote into action and call for the enforcement of very specific laws (and then forget about them with the passage of time). So if "community standards" can require animals to obtain permits for having sex with one another, why not let "community standards" allow people to smoke pot?

My entire beef is with the federally enforced drug laws and the DEA - if members of a community want to make their community drug and alcohol free, then I say more power to them. But I don't think the federal government has any more business telling a town of hippies that they can't smoke pot than it does telling Fairbanks, Alaska that they have to ease up on mooses.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I doubt you're so concerned with the power of the federal govt in all cases--in racial discrimination cases, sexual harrassment cases, pollution cases, transporting illegals guns across state borders, etc. Your position is entirely arbitrary because you want freedom to use drugs. THe congress is "the people" at least theoretically and can pass laws to restrict certain vices. Deal with it or move to Amsterdam.

__________________
War is the natural state of humankind.
Fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.

All you've done here is claim that your own biases should have the force of law. In the meantime others have cited constitutional and logical arguments which you dismiss as "personal opinion".

Now you have the nerve to presume to know drgoodtrips opinion about a wide range of issues unrelated to this topic as if they were relevant and as if you had a clue what he believes.

I'm beginning to believe you haven't given this subject any thought at all and are merely grabbing at any straw to keep from admitting it.

Your entire "argument" here is nothing more than you making personal assumptions about me. It is both a strawman argument and ad hominem rolled into one post. First you presume to know what I'm "concerned with" and then you claim that I want to use drugs. Next, you offer the only sentence that isn't you playing Dr. Phil and you state the obvious (of course, Congress can pass laws, but the argument is whether or not they should and whether those laws are constitutional), and then you get back to the subject of me.

Do you have any arguments that aren't passive-aggressive potshots? If I found that interesting, I'd go down to the local 'alternative' music store and strike up a conversation with the pierced, mascara wearing clerk about music taste. It's hard to make reasonable arguments when you're not talking about the subject at hand. And, by the way, your "I'm going to assert my correctness via condescension" routine is more amusing than effective. You may feel clever, but that's just your inner-liberal telling you "if it feels good, do it." Try to take the moral high-road and not give in to the hedonism of self-congratulatory debate.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I've found this is often the case when it comes to the argument about federal bans on drugs. Most people have a subconscious "because that's the way it's always been" mentality. Then, when confronted with the actual statistics and facts on the subject, they usually form a very different opinion, after some initial resistance. Of course, not everyone buys into full legalization, but at the very least most people recognize that the "War on Drugs" is completely useless in terms of measurable results, and that a big-time overhaul must take place.

Personally, I think drug addiction (any kind of drug, even legal ones) is something to avoid at all costs, and that there certainly should be programs to help comba it. I just think we currently have all the wrong programs.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

It's quite possible, but not necessarily true. Consider that cocaine was extremely popular in the late 1800's (ubiquitous, as it were) and it is illegal today. The reason for the federal banning of substances has been politics rather than public good, nearly without exception. Thus the notion that marijuana would currently be legal in the event of it being more widespread would depend mainly on whether it had 'spread' to those influential enough to matter.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Hedonism is defined as:

"Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hedonism

This can include video games, smoking, drinking alcohol, sex for the purposes of enjoyment, eating unhealthy but tasty food, and jerking off. Either you support banning all of those, or you simply want to use laws to push your personal set of morals and ethics on others even though they do not affect anybody else.

I answered your point fully. You (since you didn't dispute my statements, I'll continue them) believe that the federal govt can pass laws which you support, but the one you don't support you cry about.

__________________
War is the natural state of humankind.
Fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.

We're done here.

I've completely lost interest in trying to salvage anything worthwhile from discussions with you. You've made my mental list of people not to be taken seriously and I will only engage you in the future for the sake of getting you to amuse me. I don't think that you have anything legitimate to contribute to a serious discussion.

Cheers, comrade

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I'm sorry I confronted your dogma and got the medieval response of "I don't want to talk about it"... dogma is a dangerous thing. Maybe somewhere where "god" isn't watching, you can reason for yourself the difference between federal laws regarding discrimination (acceptable) and federal laws regarding drug use and sale (unacceptable). You owe it to yourself to try.

__________________
War is the natural state of humankind.
Fighting for truth, justice and the American Way.