Make an argument as to why marijuana should be illegal.... - Page 22 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

danielpalos · #**316** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

Man, you are like a broken record.

Pot is illegal.

Alcohol is legal.

How does what you posted differentiate between the 2?

Why is one legal and the other illegal?

It doesn't.

Alcohol is a powerful, mood altering Drug.

Drugs are a form of private property and Commerce.

Alcohol is still in the class of private property that can be considered for use in Commerce.

Norrin Radd · #**317** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

It doesn't.

Alcohol is a powerful, mood altering Drug.

Drugs are a form of private property and Commerce.

Alcohol is still in the class of private property that can be considered for use in Commerce.

So, you are saying that, according to the constitution, the US government can make any product illegal, if it so chooses?

Norrin Radd · #**318** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon;1467740

Duh.

[url

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/1231734-post266.html[/url]

So, did you also complain about Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and Carter?

Slon · #**319** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

So, did you also complain about Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan and Carter?

I dunno, were they still in power in July 2005?

danielpalos · #**320** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd

So, you are saying that, according to the constitution, the US government can make any product illegal, if it so chooses?

I am saying that the only delegated power to Prohibit commerce among the several states was repealed by the 21st Amendment to our Constitution.

fishjoel · #**321** (**permalink**) 06-15-2009

Drugs use being a victomless crime is a fallacy.

Slon · #**322** (**permalink**) 06-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Drugs use being a victomless crime is a fallacy.

How so?

danielpalos · #**323** (**permalink**) 06-16-2009

Can you elaborate on why you think something resulting from a market friendly Commerce transaction would be inherently bad?

Shouldn't caveat emptor be a rule of thumb when dealing with non-regulated or taxed products, as can be the case with the "products" of Prohibition?

fishjoel · #**324** (**permalink**) 06-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

How so?

Neglected kids/people killed by DUIs/huge drain on our healthcare/etc...

Ah...but ya'll would be naive enough to divorce the drug use from the actions caused by it. There is no point debating it. The most casual of casual observers can see it. But, by all means, please continue immature vices. Continue victimizing the country with higher insurance rates and increased taxes and harming others in you pursuit of silly self centered gratification. The fact that people fight so passionately over the use of these things while not caring about other more important issues (like why the character of so many feel the need to use drugs as a crutch) is comical.

bg85 · #**325** (**permalink**) 06-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishjoel

Neglected kids/people killed by DUIs/huge drain on our healthcare/etc...

Ah...but ya'll would be naive enough to divorce the drug use from the actions caused by it. There is no point debating it. The most casual of casual observers can see it. But, by all means, please continue immature vices. Continue victimizing the country with higher insurance rates and increased taxes and harming others in you pursuit of silly self centered gratification. The fact that people fight so passionately over the use of these things while not caring about other more important issues (like why the character of so many feel the need to use drugs as a crutch) is comical.

i sure hope you don't drink alcohol.

reality · #**326** (**permalink**) 06-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Sure, but there are at least two, very very large, very very influential, and very very powerful lobbies against it.

That's your sticking point, much more so than public opinion. By and large, the public views marijuana as culturally acceptable.

I don't know about that. Codifying something into law tends to retroactively garner support.

Right but heres the hitch: No politician will touch it because its political suicide. Because while there is alot of support, its still not a majority just yet. Its close, but no cigar. To pass a bill into law requires congresscritters to support it. For congresscritters to support it it has to be advantageous politically. Most don't believe that it is.

fishjoel · #**327** (**permalink**) 06-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg85

i sure hope you don't drink alcohol.

Yep, I can do w/o. Sometimes I drink it when others pay for it to be polite, but I probably drink about 15 times an entire year so I could easily do w/o. If a alcohol prohibition came back I'd shrug and move on. It's really just not important. Use your money for something more productive. You could donate it to charity or something.

reality · #**328** (**permalink**) 06-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

If he won't do it, then he should never have promised to do it. That's known as "making promises with no intention to keep them," AKA lying.Well, I guess it's too bad for Obama. If he wasn't serious about it, he should have added "just kidding!" or an "...unless it makes me look like an asshole" clause.So, you're telling Obama had no idea of any of this when he made the promises?

Because if he did know about it, it does not change the fact that he lied.Okay, so are you going anywhere with this? If that is the case, Obama should have said so: "we're never pulling out if you elect me." Or he should have at least refrained from promising the opposite of what he planned to do.
You can't vote someone "out of office." You can only "not re-elect him." But let's take this further.

Let's say I lease machinery and industrial space for 4 years at the stated cost of $12,000,000. As soon as the contract is signed and I move in, I make it known that I had absolutely no intention of paying the agreed upon $12,000,000. But, since I have the keys and the equipment, I just stay there for 4 years, and make revenue of $30,000,000. The 4 years expire and I just move on.

So, what you're telling me is, the person with whom I made the agreement should:

1. NOT be allowed to take legal action against me upon my telling him I had no intention of keeping the promise (and that I won't).
2. NOT be allowed to take legal action against me after the 4 years expire and I didn't pay a cent.
3. ONLY be allowed to do so much as not agree to another 4 years of business with me?

Duh.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/1231734-post266.html

Youre right, he shouldn't have made a promise he couldn't keep. Now what are you going to do about it, is my point. Thats right you can't do anything for 3 years. Then you can VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE.
With the contracts: You are comparing apples and brocolli. YOU DIDN"T SIGN A CONTRACT AND NEITHER DID HE. If you lease machinery you have a written contract signed and notorized. Do you and THE OBAMA (i hear thats how we're spelling it now) have a written contract? No? Only a vague campaign promise that is subject to change with the changing situation? hmmm. I'd say youre proper fucked. Youve no grounds for impeachment (high crimes and misdemeanors/treason), so that options out. Which only really leaves voting him out at the next election.

reality · #**329** (**permalink**) 06-16-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielpalos

The point is that it is respect for the law by elected representatives to Government, who are given public emoluments for their good work in supporting our Constitution, that we should have moral recourse to.

You are living in faeiry tale land. Politicians are concerned with keeping power only. That almost always entails NOT being moral (on the inside, where it counts). Another problem is that youd have to get them to recognize theyre breaking the law. Which i assure you they will not do. Because its so murky it can go either way. Wanna know he the SC will side with? Them not you. Because you don't HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT.