Legalizing Marijuana
- Thread starter azurepred
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Shatterer of Dreams
Super Freak
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
that would be a horrible experience, lets take a drug that makes you paranoid, have fits of anger and then throw you into an overpacked convention in an increadible hot town in the middle of the summer.
yeah those are good times, though i would always blend them up in some kind of smoothie type drink cause thos things tasted horrible.
Yeah tell me about it! I especially liked throwing up in my mouth and forcing myself to swallow it. LOL! SEE KIDS! Drugs are bad!
However, what followed was fantastic! EVERYTIME!
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
Darth Cruel
Super Freak
Although my own stance has not changed ( I am still as strongly opposed to the current efforts to "legalize" marijuana as I was prior to this thread being created and I will always vote against it as it exists), I do want to present my point-of-view in a slightly more focused way than I did previously. I am going to stop debating the fringe issues such as safety and crime rates and any other collateral aspect of the core item, as I believe they have been shown plainly to be nothing more than spin fodder, and I want to key in on exactly what I dislike about the idea.<O</O
First, I want to make a point. The way this issue is being currently treated is not truly "legalizing" marijuana. It is simply changing the way marijuana is regulated from an offense controlled by fines and incarceration to one controlled by fines and incarceration AND taxes (if you think that this "legalization" will remove the prospect of going to jail over some aspect of use, you are mistaken).
<O</O
The whole issue is being argued wrong. Whether or not it is OK to smoke marijuana has been made to be the point and should not be. The issue should be whether our government has the right and authority to regulate it and if so, at what level? And the truth is…the State and Federal Government have been given that authority by the voters, but they should not have it. That is an issue that should be determined at the local level (i.e. county or community).
<O</O
And this thread stands as a textbook example of the effect of the State and Federal Governments use of stroking the desires of the masses in a way that gets them to hand over more and more power of control to them. In effect, they are usurping authority that they were never intended to have. The correct way for State and Federal Government to legalize marijuana is simply for the State and Federal Governments to acknowledge that they have no authority over it and turn that authority over to local governments. The idea is not to let the country fall in to anarchy, but it is to have the local communities determine what is good for them, and that is the most accurate way of actually allowing the people to govern themselves as was the intention when the Nation was originally formed (or at least, that is the pretense that was put forth in order to gain support for forming the Nation, I am still on the fence as to which it actually was).
</OFirst, I want to make a point. The way this issue is being currently treated is not truly "legalizing" marijuana. It is simply changing the way marijuana is regulated from an offense controlled by fines and incarceration to one controlled by fines and incarceration AND taxes (if you think that this "legalization" will remove the prospect of going to jail over some aspect of use, you are mistaken).
<O
</OThe whole issue is being argued wrong. Whether or not it is OK to smoke marijuana has been made to be the point and should not be. The issue should be whether our government has the right and authority to regulate it and if so, at what level? And the truth is…the State and Federal Government have been given that authority by the voters, but they should not have it. That is an issue that should be determined at the local level (i.e. county or community).
<O
</OAnd this thread stands as a textbook example of the effect of the State and Federal Governments use of stroking the desires of the masses in a way that gets them to hand over more and more power of control to them. In effect, they are usurping authority that they were never intended to have. The correct way for State and Federal Government to legalize marijuana is simply for the State and Federal Governments to acknowledge that they have no authority over it and turn that authority over to local governments. The idea is not to let the country fall in to anarchy, but it is to have the local communities determine what is good for them, and that is the most accurate way of actually allowing the people to govern themselves as was the intention when the Nation was originally formed (or at least, that is the pretense that was put forth in order to gain support for forming the Nation, I am still on the fence as to which it actually was).
Shatterer of Dreams
Super Freak
i'm not sure i completely understand, are you saying that letting the state or federal gov. make laws in regards to legalized marijuana is a bad thing? if this is the argument then are you also saying that state and federal laws on both alcohol and tobacco are also bad things and should also be regulated by communities?
if this kind of stuff is up to communities then you'll have neighboring towns with completely different laws on this which could lead to legal problems down the line. this is something that would be easier to regulate at a state level.
if this kind of stuff is up to communities then you'll have neighboring towns with completely different laws on this which could lead to legal problems down the line. this is something that would be easier to regulate at a state level.
Who gave you the right to smoke in a restaurant anyways? Why should I have to smell your dirty cigs while I'm trying to eat a meal?
Sounds like you're the fascist who demands to pollute my air while I'm trying to eat my meal. Do it outside and twenty five feet away from the entrance, tough guy. And dispose of your butts properly.
BB
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
I think you should have went with "Chief" or "Hoss" instead of "tough guy". I find those adjectives much more suitable when I'm trying to display my own interweb toughness to another interweb user by using said terms.
Darth Cruel
Super Freak
I do not see ease of regulation and disagreement between communities as being justification for the surrendering of our rights.
I think you should have went with "Chief" or "Hoss" instead of "tough guy". I find those adjectives much more suitable when I'm trying to display my own interweb toughness to another interweb user by using said terms.
I'll keep that in mind there, Slick. LOL
BB
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
LOTRFan
The Grey Pilgrim
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 11,394
- Reaction score
- 0
I think you should have went with "Chief" or "Hoss" instead of "tough guy". I find those adjectives much more suitable when I'm trying to display my own interweb toughness to another interweb user by using said terms.
Ok Keith, you got me with that one!
Shatterer of Dreams
Super Freak
but you still didn't answer my questions. what exactly are you saying? the government right now tells us that we cannot smoke pot but if we pass the law then we can as long as well follow certain laws like we do with other substances. how is this giving up any rights? the government is already telling us what we can't do with this so i just don't see how we're giving up a right that we already don't have
devilof76
Super Freak
The proprietor of the establishment did. That's the person who gets to make the decisions regarding their property in a non-fascist state. No one made you eat there, so I don't see how your discomfort is my problem.
buzzybean said:
Maybe in Bizarro world. Did you not know smoking was permitted? Or did you think you were the only patron in the restaurant?
I never smoked in restaurants. Had I known what you people would pull, maybe I should have.
buzzybean said:
Is that an order Herr Buzzybean?
devilof76
Super Freak
But there is no real difference in principle between being ruled by a community government, and being ruled by state or federal governments. When the Founders said 'self-rule' they meant individual sovereignty; not democracy. This is a republic (if you can keep it).
Jen
KurJen - Kurgan Mod
I don't see why the govt. couldn't let the owners decide if they want a smoking or non smoking establishment.
I am sure there would have been more than enough restaurants/bars to cater to both. I would prefer to eat at a non smoking restaurant - and would therefore choose one that catered to that....not a big deal to me if there were other restaurants that catered to smokers.
Darth Cruel
Super Freak
but you still didn't answer my questions. what exactly are you saying? the government right now tells us that we cannot smoke pot but if we pass the law then we can as long as well follow certain laws like we do with other substances. how is this giving up any rights? the government is already telling us what we can't do with this so i just don't see how we're giving up a right that we already don't have
I want to continue the discussion in this direction. But it can not be done without dragging politics in to it to a point where the thread is sure to get locked, and I do not want to be one of the reasons for that so I will make this my L.P.O.T.S. And I will say no more than your question was answered in my post, it is a matter of whether you see the answer clearly or not. I encourage you to contemplate the post further...or even move this aspect of the discussion to PM. I would be happy to have a friendly dialogue about it.
BadMoon
Demi G0D Overseer
Shatterer of Dreams
Super Freak
pm'd you as i am curious about the political aspect that you speak of.
ProgMatinee
circlesendwheretheybegin
restaraunt proprietors can care less about the after effects and subsequent healthcare costs associated with cigarrette smoke. Many bars would support a return of cigars and cigs because many people drink when they smoke.
To say a proprietor is the sole decision maker on what to do on their property when it relates to health issues for smoking is not really congruent with the spirit of other laws already passed.
really, I think the restriction of smoking in restaraunts to be very close to the restriction against dumping the grease into the creek on their property or having fire hazards or keeping the rodent killer in the same cabinet as the fresh fruit.
People can consider the issues to be different, but there is certainly presidence in which a proprietor can't just do anything they please.
You might argue "well they should!" but then that isn't the reality we live in is it? So until you reverse the presidence on all those other issues I don't think smoking deserves a special consideration.
To say a proprietor is the sole decision maker on what to do on their property when it relates to health issues for smoking is not really congruent with the spirit of other laws already passed.
really, I think the restriction of smoking in restaraunts to be very close to the restriction against dumping the grease into the creek on their property or having fire hazards or keeping the rodent killer in the same cabinet as the fresh fruit.
People can consider the issues to be different, but there is certainly presidence in which a proprietor can't just do anything they please.
You might argue "well they should!" but then that isn't the reality we live in is it? So until you reverse the presidence on all those other issues I don't think smoking deserves a special consideration.
Similar threads
