Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Ron Paul in bed with Barney Frank (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Ron Paul in bed with Barney Frank
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Barney Frank, Ron Paul Legislation Would End Federal Ban On Pot

I'm sure I won't be the first person to use that as a headline. Anyway, I think it's about time. The federal ban on pot was snuck through by using the term "marijuana", which the legislators didn't realize was hemp or cannibis. It's appalling that this is still on the books.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Time to start locking down those franchise rights to my area. Coming much earlier then I expected. Anybody know how to come up with a buisiness plan?
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There must be a businessplans.com or the like, no?
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
IIRC, the original constitution was actually printed on hemp paper. If Marijuana is in the constitution, would that make the pot ban unconstitutional? [Smile]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It might make the Constitution illegal. Having a copy in public could get you arrested.

[ June 24, 2011, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"IIRC, the original constitution was actually printed on hemp paper."

quote:
George Washington grew it on his plantation
In case you did not know he was the father of our nation
Him face on dolla bill cause me much frustration
Me use that dolla bill to fight for ganja liberation!

(By a 90's NYC band called Zute)

Or, if you prefer...

quote:
You carried the flag for the first time
Even the words of old King James...
If these are the things that we hold sacred
Why do they keep you in chains?"

(Native, "Running Smooth", Native)

Ron Paul sounds terribly advanced on this, but in reality he just wants to transfer the tyranny from one level of government to another. Instead of the feds messing with my mellow, now it'll be the (often narrow-minded and bigoted) state. Cannabis consumers won't fare any better under the drug laws of Alabamy or Mississippi than they do under Washington.

Paul should man up and say that it's unconstitutional for anyone to prohibit cannabis.

However, removing the specter of Federal tyranny will be very good for residents of many other states, and will stop cancer patients from getting arrested for growing a few plants.

[ June 24, 2011, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its legal under some states, some states have to in fact hide the location of medical farms from the federal government.
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Darn! I thought this was going to be another one of those political threads on a sex scandal. [Frown]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Ron Paul sounds terribly advanced on this, but in reality he just wants to transfer the tyranny from one level of government to another. Instead of the feds messing with my mellow, now it'll be the (often narrow-minded and bigoted) state. Cannabis consumers won't fare any better under the drug laws of Alabamy or Mississippi than they do under Washington.

Paul should man up and say that it's unconstitutional for anyone to prohibit cannabis.

"Man up"? Shows you don't understand his position at all. The Constitution explicitly grants the states the power to do anything that the Constitution hasn't explicitly reserved for the Federal government, and this isn't one of those things.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
""Man up"? Shows you don't understand his position at all. The Constitution explicitly grants the states the power to do anything that the Constitution hasn't explicitly reserved for the Federal government, and this isn't one of those things."

"...or the people respectively." Prohibition of drug use is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, and also (not legally binding, but dayumn) of the pursuit of happiness.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lisa, the 9th and 10th Amendments reserve rights to the states and individuals that are not granted to the federal government. Why do you give states the right to regulate drugs instead of giving individuals the right to use whatever drugs they want? Do you support the idea that someone intentionally addicting someone else to cocaine or heroin so that they can control them should be allowed because it is just a private business venture?

One of the arguments for getting rid of drug laws is the "right" to self-medicate. Do you believe in that right? If so, does the government have the authority to limit what medicinal drugs can be sold on the market?

[ June 24, 2011, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
""Man up"? Shows you don't understand his position at all. The Constitution explicitly grants the states the power to do anything that the Constitution hasn't explicitly reserved for the Federal government, and this isn't one of those things."

"...or the people respectively." Prohibition of drug use is a clear violation of the 4th amendment, and also (not legally binding, but dayumn) of the pursuit of happiness.

The 4th is a fair point. You're right, and I was wrong. But pursuit of happiness is a silly argument.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Lisa, the 9th and 10th Amendments reserve rights to the states and individuals that are not granted to the federal government. Why do you give states the right to regulate drugs instead of giving individuals the right to use whatever drugs they want?

I don't think they should. And in addition, Ricky made a good point about the 4th Amendment. I do think that state government have a right to forbid the sale of dangerous substances unless the buyer is aware of the danger. That's essentially part of preventing fraud.

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Do you support the idea that someone intentionally addicting someone else to cocaine or heroin so that they can control them should be allowed because it is just a private business venture?

God, no! Where on earth did you pull that out of (and did you wash it before bringing it in here)?

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
One of the arguments for getting rid of drug laws is the "right" to self-medicate. Do you believe in that right?

Hell, yes.

quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
If so, does the government have the authority to limit what medicinal drugs can be sold on the market?

You say "government" like there's no difference between state government and federal government. That's wrong. The federal government has no such authority (except the authority of "might makes right").
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clearly the states have a right to regulate or ban the sale of substances, including age restrictions, time of day, advertising rules, etc.

I imagine Ron Paul would argue (if he were a state legislator) that such laws should be broadly liberal in favor of freedom, but not that they were unconstitutional.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Do you support the idea that someone intentionally addicting someone else to cocaine or heroin so that they can control them should be allowed because it is just a private business venture?

[Lisa:] God, no! Where on earth did you pull that out of (and did you wash it before bringing it in here)?

I showered afterward, but how does it not follow from
quote:
[Lisa:]I do think that state government have a right to forbid the sale of dangerous substances unless the buyer is aware of the danger.
that someone can't say to someone else "This stuff is really tasty, but you could get hooked" and then for whatever reason the tastee tries it and then goes on to get addicted. Now the seller has a committed clientelle. What's wrong with that? That's how we regulate tobacco (at the federal level).
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
If so, does the government have the authority to limit what medicinal drugs can be sold on the market?

[Lisa:] You say "government" like there's no difference between state government and federal government. That's wrong. The federal government has no such authority (except the authority of "might makes right").

You know very well that the states don't have the facilities or money to do drug testing and controls enforcement. So how would the states take on that responsibility? Since by your rules (if I understand you correctly) anything that isn't forbidden is permitted, then pretty much any drug can be sold. And if it can't be sold in this state, you can probably buy it in the state next door.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Clearly the states have a right to regulate or ban the sale of substances, including age restrictions, time of day, advertising rules, etc.
Just as clearly, if not more so, people have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Just as clearly, if not more so, people have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

Well, if you actually start carving yourself up or chopping off appendages then I can actually pick you up with Johnny Law's assistance and take you to an emergency room, where you will be promptly shipped to a laughing academy.

Also, you kinda don't have the right to commit suicide. If you tell somebody you're going to kill yourself and seem serious, you can be picked up as well.

I imagine that you're speaking philosphically though, as to the IDEAL that an individual has the right to do whatever they want with their body.

[ June 24, 2011, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Grant ]

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's harder to get into the legal cannabis trade then you might think. Arizona passed medical via public vote last year. In the following months the state gov attached an insane amount of fees and regulations necessary to open and run a dispensary(the staties are definitely going to be getting their cut in the medical cannabis trade). Despite this there were many, many more applications then there were permits to be had. A lot of them were people who had extensive experience in the industry already, and were basically leaving California to do some homesteading in the new Arizona grounds.
Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by djquag1:
In the following months the state gov attached an insane amount of fees and regulations necessary to open and run a dispensary(the staties are definitely going to be getting their cut in the medical cannabis trade).

Once more the government crushes the entrepreneur under it's jack boot. Gotta love those taxes and fees. One more dead dream.

#$@!

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
imagine that you're speaking philosphically though, as to the IDEAL that an individual has the right to do whatever they want with their body.
THere are also limitations on the right of the state to impose restrictions on the sale of goods. The fact that there are limitations on rights does not mean those rights do not exist.
Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
So how would the states take on that responsibility? Since by your rules (if I understand you correctly) anything that isn't forbidden is permitted, then pretty much any drug can be sold. And if it can't be sold in this state, you can probably buy it in the state next door.

Pretty much. So? If they want, they can do what Taxachussetts did when people were going over the border to New Hampshire to buy alcohol. They can lay in wait for them on the Massachussetts side and figure out some way to pull them over that isn't an illegal search and seizure. I'm told that Mass cops tried going into NH and writing down the license plate numbers of Mass plated cars at NH liquor stores. Until the NH cops arrested them for loitering. [Wink]
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
Just as clearly, if not more so, people have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

You think so, huh?

I wonder why they took that guy in the trenchcoat off the subway. He seemed happy enough.

Morally, I agree with you, but there's never been any indication that the founders thought so or that the wording of the constitution tried to prevent government from interfering with people's own bodies. Consider particularly prohibition that lives on county-by-county in this nation, and the near banning of substances as benign as psuedophedrine.

And as far as things that you don't have the right to sell to somebody else to put in their body, I present the FDA as fairly established proof that there is very much a right for the federal government (and local equivalents) to determine what will and won't be sold, how it is labelled, etc.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I'm told that Mass cops tried going into NH and writing down the license plate numbers of Mass plated cars at NH liquor stores. Until the NH cops arrested them for loitering. "

[LOL] Live Free Or Die!

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually the 21st Amendment does explicitly give state governments certain powers that they otherwise would not have under the Commerce Clause. But I do love that story about Mass cops getting arrested for loitering in NH. And it's a day to remember when Ricky seemed to agree with Lisa on something. [Eek!]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but there's never been any indication that the founders thought so or that the wording of the constitution tried to prevent government from interfering with people's own bodies.
Who gives a **** what the founders thought the constitution meant? Its an indecipherable mess, because they held just about every possible opinion on the constituion. If I grant that the founders are any sort of authority on how we should interpret the constitution 220 years later, I think that you're wrong, once you take into account that many of the founders didn't think most people were people.

I also think the plain text provides two places where there are severe restrictions on what government can prevent a person doing to his own body, as well as one place where (see other thread) that the implicit point is made that I have a right to my own body.

[ June 24, 2011, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 2152 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
So how would the states take on that responsibility? Since by your rules (if I understand you correctly) anything that isn't forbidden is permitted, then pretty much any drug can be sold. And if it can't be sold in this state, you can probably buy it in the state next door.

Pretty much. So? If they want, they can do what Taxachussetts did when people were going over the border to New Hampshire to buy alcohol. They can lay in wait for them on the Massachussetts side and figure out some way to pull them over that isn't an illegal search and seizure. I'm told that Mass cops tried going into NH and writing down the license plate numbers of Mass plated cars at NH liquor stores. Until the NH cops arrested them for loitering. [Wink]
Lisa what are your thoughts on John Stewart Mill? In his view taxing products like tabacco and beer was well within the states right and moral imperative as long as the taxes were reasonable and didn't drive residents towards a black market economy.
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
but there's never been any indication that the founders thought so or that the wording of the constitution tried to prevent government from interfering with people's own bodies.
Who gives a **** what the founders thought the constitution meant?
Because the constitution is the formative agreement that made the country, and the mainspring for our current rights. Because without some center that holds, we turn all of our liberties to the unchecked whims of an unelected oligarchy.

And because we don't want you to run our lives.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I also think the plain text provides two places where there are severe restrictions on what government can prevent a person doing to his own body, as well as one place where (see other thread) that the implicit point is made that I have a right to my own body.

See? You don't have to turn the constitution into your personal inkblot test, in order to secure fundamental human rights.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
Member
Member # 2550

 - posted      Profile for Blayne Bradley   Email Blayne Bradley   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What about the fact that the Founding Fathers weren't exactly politically correct if you know what I mean?
Posts: 389 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
What about the fact that the Founding Fathers weren't exactly politically correct if you know what I mean?

If we wait for perfect men to form governments, build nations, and run for public office, we will be waiting a very very long time.
Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I respect that some people want limited government, and they can find support for that view in the Constitution. But the Constitution is a foundation on which protections and enforcements have been layered, also with support for their creation in the Constitution. The debate is not whether those layers should be removed (ideology), but whether they can be (politics).

I don't think so. It would be like saying because the first cars didn't have bumpers, brakes, seatbelts or headlights, cars today shouldn't have them either. It would also mean they shouldn't have high performance engines and roads shouldn't be paved. But if the inventors of the first cars could see modern ones, they would be amazed.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ken_in_sc
Member
Member # 6462

 - posted      Profile for ken_in_sc   Email ken_in_sc       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Many states already have Marijuana tax stamps. They were implemented in order to charge drug dealers with multiple crimes for one event--selling illegal drugs AND not paying taxes on them, and to make money from stamp collectors.
Posts: 159 | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
but there's never been any indication that the founders thought so or that the wording of the constitution tried to prevent government from interfering with people's own bodies.
Who gives a **** what the founders thought the constitution meant?
Because the constitution is the formative agreement that made the country, and the mainspring for our current rights. Because without some center that holds, we turn all of our liberties to the unchecked whims of an unelected oligarchy.

And because we don't want you to run our lives.

Actually, the constitution itself provides an ample center for a stable society. "Founder's intent", on the other hand, is a problematic fiction for a whole host of reasons. Legislation, even constitutional clauses and amendments, have multiple authors, and, more importantly, they gain legitimacy by the vote of passage, not the authorship. The "intent" of every single framer of the original constitution, plus every single state and federal legislator for each amendment, is both hopelessly contradictory and nearly entirely lost to history. When people use the lens of "framer's intent", they are viewing the constitution through a lens constructed of a very dubious historical construction.

The plain meaning of the words is a far more sound and reasonable standard, since that was what each participant was actually voting on (as opposed to some nebulous intent *beyond* said meaning). I would also posit that the plain meaning of the words must be applied with a contemporary understanding of those terms, but thats a separate argument.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But pursuit of happiness is a silly argument."

Legally? Certainly, and I said as much. Morally, though? This is what our country claims to be all about.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by PSRT:
quote:
but there's never been any indication that the founders thought so or that the wording of the constitution tried to prevent government from interfering with people's own bodies.
Who gives a **** what the founders thought the constitution meant?
Because the constitution is the formative agreement that made the country, and the mainspring for our current rights. Because without some center that holds, we turn all of our liberties to the unchecked whims of an unelected oligarchy.

And because we don't want you to run our lives.

Actually, the constitution itself provides an ample center for a stable society.
Only because the meaning of it remains relatively stable, rather than being read at the whim of postmodern legalists who say crap like "who gives a *** what the actual writers thought?" Judges that say crap like that are looking for a pretext to play God. It's a judicial coup d'etat.


quote:
"Founder's intent", on the other hand, is a problematic fiction for a whole host of reasons.
It makes a big difference where you put the apostrophe. "Founders' intent" recognizes multiple founders with conflicting intents, and recognizes that the Constitution, like all good contracts, was a compromise.

quote:
Legislation, even constitutional clauses and amendments, have multiple authors, and, more importantly, they gain legitimacy by the vote of passage, not the authorship.
Sure. But the debates leading up to passage give an idea of the intent of those that VOTED to pass a piece of legislation, or the constitution, or an amendment thereto. Legitimacy is of little use of the meaning is reduced to inkblot gibberish every time the court is reconstituted.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
So how would the states take on that responsibility? Since by your rules (if I understand you correctly) anything that isn't forbidden is permitted, then pretty much any drug can be sold. And if it can't be sold in this state, you can probably buy it in the state next door.

Pretty much. So? If they want, they can do what Taxachussetts did when people were going over the border to New Hampshire to buy alcohol. They can lay in wait for them on the Massachussetts side and figure out some way to pull them over that isn't an illegal search and seizure. I'm told that Mass cops tried going into NH and writing down the license plate numbers of Mass plated cars at NH liquor stores. Until the NH cops arrested them for loitering. [Wink]
Lisa what are your thoughts on John Stewart Mill? In his view taxing products like tabacco and beer was well within the states right and moral imperative as long as the taxes were reasonable and didn't drive residents towards a black market economy.
John Stuart Mill
Of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy
Was particularly ill.

Look... taxation is theft. Period. But facing that is the imperative of having a functioning government. At the moment, some taxation would be necessary even for a sane government. Do you do a luxury tax? Tariffs? It's a tough question, and I don't have a perfect answer.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"But pursuit of happiness is a silly argument."

Legally? Certainly, and I said as much. Morally, though? This is what our country claims to be all about.

But then you have to make the case that drugs make people happy. Which is utterly subjective. I'd rather stick with objective things, like liberty.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Liberty" is objective? You already agreed that a person doesn't have the right to control another person through drug addiction. If a person knows that a drug has dangers, can't they let themselves be enslaved to their supplier so they can have it? Isn't that liberty for both the dealer and the addict? You're confirming my opinion that Libertarians only pretend to not want rules; they just don't want the responsibility to carefully enumerate and manage them.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Liberty" is objective? You already agreed that a person doesn't have the right to control another person through drug addiction. If a person knows that a drug has dangers, can't they let themselves be enslaved to their supplier so they can have it? Isn't that liberty for both the dealer and the addict? You're confirming my opinion that Libertarians only pretend to not want rules; they just don't want the responsibility to carefully enumerate and manage them.

Ridiculous. If someone wants to take drugs that will make them dependent, that's their choice. But if the person doesn't know that it will make them dependent, it's absolutely a legitimate function of government to make that known, and to prevent people from addicting others without their knowledge.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
"Liberty" is objective? You already agreed that a person doesn't have the right to control another person through drug addiction. If a person knows that a drug has dangers, can't they let themselves be enslaved to their supplier so they can have it? Isn't that liberty for both the dealer and the addict? You're confirming my opinion that Libertarians only pretend to not want rules; they just don't want the responsibility to carefully enumerate and manage them.

Ridiculous. If someone wants to take drugs that will make them dependent, that's their choice. But if the person doesn't know that it will make them dependent, it's absolutely a legitimate function of government to make that known, and to prevent people from addicting others without their knowledge.
I have a client who was born addicted to heroin. What do you see as her legal remedy -- sue her dead mother?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1