Banning cigarettes...

fixed link.

first of all, tacoma has an aroma. it's not driving by a feed lot bad, but it's still notable.

what do you want to know? the article is fairly broad and brings up several issues.

generally, i don't think it is the gov's business to 'protect' people from pot. people should be able to grow their own, so as to prevent a clusterfuck/racket of regulation/taxation for purchased weed. in other words, obviate another bureaucracy.

however kids becoming too casual with the idea of smoking it is not good. it should be treated like anything else that has uses, and dangers. responsible parents teach kids about gun safety if guns are around. i'd suggest a similar motif for pot.

if one chooses to voluntarily enter a 'weed bar' that would be their own choice. just like regular bars, if that isn't your thing, no one is forcing you to go there. smart weed bar owners would install extraction/circulation systems so as to mitigate the smoke. though i can imagine, given the popularity of using vaporizors these days, that 'vape bars' would be relatively popular. kinda like arabic cofee houses where you have house-provided smoking apparatuses. again, don't like it, don't go there.
 
I find it amusing that all the wackos want to criminlize tobacco but legalize marijuana.

I don't think the gov't is "protecting us from ourselves" with the criminalization of pot.
The old argument of an introductory drug has complete merit. I never met a speedfreak
that didn't start by smoking pot. Not all heads become meth dealers, obviously, but something
came first & it's typically a "safe" drug like weed.
 
but you'd be also hard pressed to find a pot smoker who never tried alcohol and tobacco first. should we cut off the behaviors, er, the commodities, there? next comes what... rock music? 'cause you know some dimwits will argue that marilyn manson was the cause of columbine. shit maybe tipper gore and the PMRC were right... puke....
 
Gonz said:
I find it amusing that all the wackos want to criminlize tobacco but legalize marijuana.

I don't think the gov't is "protecting us from ourselves" with the criminalization of pot.
The old argument of an introductory drug has complete merit. I never met a speedfreak
that didn't start by smoking pot. Not all heads become meth dealers, obviously, but something
came first & it's typically a "safe" drug like weed.
Click to expand...

The federal government though shouldn't be banning any drug since it is unconstitutional.
 
you know dude, literalists want to be led. it's much easier that making up your own mind.

052011_1528_episode121.png
 
2minkey said:
you know dude, literalists want to be led. it's much easier that making up your own mind.

052011_1528_episode121.png
Click to expand...

Literalist? I don't think so. A contexualist? Probably.

So how should the Constitution be interpreted? Contextually! As Thoman Jefferson said, "On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Amendment 10

Amendment 10 makes the Constitution a whitelist of what the federal government can do.

So minks, where in the Constitution do you think grants the federal government the authority to ban drugs?
 
i didn't make that claim. i asked you a question.

your "contextualist" is literalist in that it refers to what they meant, when they wrote it. nice try with the euphemism tho.
 
2minkey said:
i didn't make that claim. i asked you a question.

your "contextualist" is literalist in that it refers to what they meant, when they wrote it. nice try with the euphemism tho.
Click to expand...

No, a literalist is taking something at face value. It is more of a superficial reading of the text.

The only question you asked is "how is that boiwonder?" I explained the authority is not granted in the Constitution. If you think it is there, then show me.
 
you're treating it as scripture and looking only to literal, enumerated powers. there's no point in discussing this any further when you have such a bolted-down view of things. it would be like arguing with the robot from lost in space.

but, just for the sake of fun, what powers does the federal government have to make laws? sounds like you think there are very few. (waiting for you to burp up scripture.)
 
2minkey said:
you're treating it as scripture and looking only to literal, enumerated powers. there's no point in discussing this any further when you have such a bolted-down view of things. it would be like arguing with the robot from lost in space.

but, just for the sake of fun, what powers does the federal government have to make laws? sounds like you think there are very few. (waiting for you to burp up scripture.)
Click to expand...

I'm not treating it as scripture. You are the one who brought up the scripture reference. How the Constitution should be interpreted is as Thomas Jefferson said it should. You just want to cop out. You cannot find what grants them that authority. That authority does not exist. Why do you think the prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment? Without that Amendment, it would have been unconstitutional to do so.
 
Literalists, when it comes to a Constitutional Republic, are teh only ones to be trusted.

It's to limit the government from doing what it's doing.

hell, look at my two signatures
 
Gotholic said:
I'm not treating it as scripture. You are the one who brought up the scripture reference. How the Constitution should be interpreted is as Thomas Jefferson said it should.
Click to expand...

the items that appear in red appeared together in the same historical space. "directives" from the same voice. which you leverage in a foundational(ist) sense.

in other words, you want to believe, real bad. and that always comes with certain fetters. like a bible or other scripture.

no harm in that. but it is what it is.

i'm sure you're right in your interpretive frame that the constitution grants no specific power that refers to reefer or its structural equivalent, or anything that could be interpreted in your interpretive frame to be unequivocally construable as, um, federal enforcement powers over that kind of shit.

yes, there are a lot of amendments. certainly some that are regrettable.

the drug war is moronic. a cultural leftover dreamt up by cultural leftovers. a ball of interlaced frog intestines just waiting for some frenchman to gobble them up, and later pass them as the kind of small, weasely shits that french people produce. in public pay toilets that lack toilet seats. yep, real, tangible evidence of how socialism plays out long term in an effete population. but i digress.

in this case, i would in fact prefer your interpretation. but that does not prevent me from understanding what it is and what it springs from.

Wat8.jpg
 
Gonz said:
Literalists, when it comes to a Constitutional Republic, are teh only ones to be trusted.
Click to expand...

no one is to be trusted. and i think the framers had that idea in mind when they laid things out. the good thing about your point of view is that it is understandable, coherent, and consistent.
 
2minkey said:
i didn't make that claim. i asked you a question.

your "contextualist" is literalist in that it refers to what they meant, when they wrote it. nice try with the euphemism tho.
Click to expand...
:yawn: SSDD...I posted that to highlight the hypocrisy of those in power. Not as a stand on the legality of drugs et al...You may now go back to your dancing bears and juggling clowns. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top