Legalize It!!!!!!!

[PLC1]

Well you will find the right to life elsewhere in the law, as well as the liberties you do have codified in actual law. So no, those "rights" in the Declaration of Independence are not legally binding, regardless, according to the US system of law. I challenge you to find any Supreme Court case where the DOI was the deciding factor. There are zero.

In my opinion, the DOI was a great commentary to the King, and laid a foundation for what was to come, but it was not and is not the law of the land.

OK. Does that mean that we are not endowed by our creator with the right to the pursuit of happiness?

Does it mean that we don't have a right to pursue happiness? Does the government, then, get to decide what we may or may not pursue?

 

[BigRob]

OK. Does that mean that we are not endowed by our creator with the right to the pursuit of happiness?

Legally speaking? No. That argument is not going to fly in court. If you want to get into a debate over natural law and whatnot, I think the first step we need to take is define what "pursuit of happiness" actually means.

Does it mean that we don't have a right to pursue happiness? Does the government, then, get to decide what we may or may not pursue?

I think again it must be defined what "pursing happiness" actually means to get into this debate. I would argue that it is an arbitrary concept and that other rights codified in law provide a general framework in the manner you can "pursue happiness." For example, you do not have the right to murder someone because it makes you happy. You can pursue happiness so long as it does not infringe on the stated rights of others codified in law.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"If you go back to 1980 as a starting point, I think we had 40,000 people in prison on drug charges, and today, we have about 500,000 of them," the first-term Virginia lawmaker said. "And the great majority of those are nonviolent crimes — possession crimes or minor sales."​

 

[PLC1]

Legally speaking? No. That argument is not going to fly in court. If you want to get into a debate over natural law and whatnot, I think the first step we need to take is define what "pursuit of happiness" actually means.



I think again it must be defined what "pursing happiness" actually means to get into this debate. I would argue that it is an arbitrary concept and that other rights codified in law provide a general framework in the manner you can "pursue happiness." For example, you do not have the right to murder someone because it makes you happy. You can pursue happiness so long as it does not infringe on the stated rights of others codified in law.

Yes, it must be defined. Are we to define it for ourselves, or is that the job of the government to do it for us? I say the government doesn't have that right. As long as my pursuit of happiness doesn't impinge on yours, then the government has no right to tell me what to do.

You sort of said the same thing:

so long as it does not infringe on the stated rights of others codified in law

except that by the phrase "codified in law" you seem to be saying that a law is just because it is a law, so what is against the law is wrong because it is against the law.

At issue is what should be against the law. I say we should be guided by what does and does not impinge on the rights of others. It would seem to me than anyone who has a limited government, tenth amendment, conservative sort of philosophy would agree with that, but it doesn't seem to be so.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, it must be defined. Are we to define it for ourselves, or is that the job of the government to do it for us? I say the government doesn't have that right. As long as my pursuit of happiness doesn't impinge on yours, then the government has no right to tell me what to do.

Well the government is not telling you what you do in your "pursuit of happiness." All they are saying is that it cannot infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, what are the "rights of others?" I argue that they are those that are codified in law.

Further, I think if you believe in the Bill of Rights then you have ascribed to the view of the government telling you what your rights are, since that is really all the Bill of Rights is. It is an amendment put together, more or less, by the government and made law.

except that by the phrase "codified in law" you seem to be saying that a law is just because it is a law, so what is against the law is wrong because it is against the law.

I am simply stating that a framework needs to be established. I do not violate the so-called right to "pursuit of happiness" because I refuse to sell Pepsi in a store (as an example). However, you violate my right to live, if you kill me in "pursuit of happiness." It has to be codified in law, or there will be no framework, and the entire system breaks down in my view.

At issue is what should be against the law. I say we should be guided by what does and does not impinge on the rights of others. It would seem to me than anyone who has a limited government, tenth amendment, conservative sort of philosophy would agree with that, but it doesn't seem to be so.

What "should" be against the law is the most arbitrary thing I have every heard. Who will be the ones to decide that? You? Me? No. Our elected government decides that by what they codify into law, and this establishes the framework that we operate in.

As for the 10th Amendment, states are just as capable of codifying laws of their own, and they do. It does not negate the fact that rights still need to be codified into law in my view.

I think that Constitution should be followed yes, but there is legitimate debate over the 10th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause and just what that means. In terms of social issues, I am all for limited government, in terms of defense, I am all for large government. After all, the Constitution states, "provide for the common defense" before it states "promote the general welfare." Now I am clearly slanted on this view since my degrees are focused on national security, but that is how I feel on it.

 

[PLC1]

What "should" be against the law is the most arbitrary thing I have every heard. Who will be the ones to decide that? You? Me? No. Our elected government decides that by what they codify into law, and this establishes the framework that we operate in.

Don't we elect representatives to make laws? Don't we expect them to enact what we think the law should be? We don't elect them to tell us what the laws already are, of course. If they don't enact laws we like, then we have the option of removing them from office during the next election.

What should and should not be against the law is the crux of the matter when it comes down to pot, especially.

If my neighbor would rather relax with a joint than a glass of wine, who am I to say his relaxation should be illegal, but mine is OK?

The fact of the matter is that pot is illegal because it's against the law, not because it should be against the law.

The guiding standard needs to be that what impinges on someone else's freedom should be against the law, and what doesn't shouldn't.

 

[BigRob]

Don't we elect representatives to make laws? Don't we expect them to enact what we think the law should be? We don't elect them to tell us what the laws already are, of course. If they don't enact laws we like, then we have the option of removing them from office during the next election.

What should and should not be against the law is the crux of the matter when it comes down to pot, especially.

Well this is mostly the same thing I said. We do elect our leaders to enact laws for us and establish a framework to operate in.

Therefore, when they enact a law that says pot is illegal, and then are not voted out of office for it, it seems that you are in the minority declaring pot needs to be legal.

If my neighbor would rather relax with a joint than a glass of wine, who am I to say his relaxation should be illegal, but mine is OK?

Someone who is abiding by the legal framework that governs the country.

The fact of the matter is that pot is illegal because it's against the law, not because it should be against the law.

The fact of the matter is that this is your opinion, and it would seem that lawmakers (and those who vote them into office) disagree with you at this time. I personally could care less if pot is legalized (but the manner it is done would be vital), but there is no codified right to the "pursuit of happiness," which was my main point.

 

[Andy]

Don't we elect representatives to make laws? Don't we expect them to enact what we think the law should be? We don't elect them to tell us what the laws already are, of course. If they don't enact laws we like, then we have the option of removing them from office during the next election.

What should and should not be against the law is the crux of the matter when it comes down to pot, especially.

If my neighbor would rather relax with a joint than a glass of wine, who am I to say his relaxation should be illegal, but mine is OK?

The fact of the matter is that pot is illegal because it's against the law, not because it should be against the law.

The guiding standard needs to be that what impinges on someone else's freedom should be against the law, and what doesn't shouldn't.

I'm open to the consideration of this. Can you show me in which country it has been legalized, and what the long term outcome has been?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm open to the consideration of this. Can you show me in which country it has been legalized, and what the long term outcome has been?

How 'bout tolerated?​

 

[PLC1]

I'm open to the consideration of this. Can you show me in which country it has been legalized, and what the long term outcome has been?

Interesting question. I thought it was legal in Holland, but it seems I was wrong about that.

Quite surprising, actually, since I haven't been wrong about anything else since I voted for LBJ.

While it is not legal in Holland, the law is not being enforced, which is practically the same thing. The result has been, what? I'm not sure you can make a cause and effect sort of response to that, but I do remember reading that Holland has a lower rate of drug abuse than the US does.

It looks like other nations are following the same course, not really legalizing it, but not enforcing the law either. That must be easier than passing a reasonable law, then standing by it.

I think maybe California is going the way of Holland, not making it legal, but looking the other way. It is pretty common here.

There was a big story about a medical marijuana seller who actually got his pot back in the news lately. Medical marijuana is one of those disputed areas. It's legal by state law, but not by federal law.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"A state lawmaker from San Francisco has introduced legislation to decriminalize marijuana and regulate it like alcohol.

It has been endorsed by a retired Orange County judge who used to be a federal prosecutor.

Jim Gray is a Vietnam combat veteran who spent 25 years on Orange County's 'bench'. He's riled a lot of anti-drug crusaders with his critiques of America's war on narcotics.

His critics can rattle off any number of reasons, but in Judge Jim Gray's book, the cost-benefit ratio of enforcing marijuana laws in California is not in society's favor."​

Tooooooooooooooooooooooo much common-sense.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I think maybe California is going the way of Holland, not making it legal, but looking the other way. It is pretty common here.

That's probably a safe-assumption.
​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Another shock to the health-care system; gettin' "loaded" for physical-therapy's sake!!!​

"Like most Americans, I discovered marijuana as a medicine quite by accident. 60-years old, I’ve used pot for over 41 years simply because it makes me feel good. I like it. But who would have ever guessed cannabis was actually helping me stay healthy at the same time?

A ‘bad back’ is one of medicine’s most oft heard adult complaints, and during my 35-years of farming and ranching, my body has written many a check my back couldn’t cash. Sometimes my back has hurt so bad that if I got down on the floor, I couldn’t get up without help. In the end, after trying numerous back treatments, I found that just plain walking and stretching was the best way to deal with my lower back pain, that is, walking and stretching while consuming marijuana. I had first bunched these activities together so as to allow me to get my hurting back “walked out”, and at the same time, I had the privacy to smoke a little pot out of the sight of my growing children. I soon found that walking and stretching while using cannabis was many times more effective for treating my back pain than just walking without it! Marijuana seemed to relax my muscles, reduce spasms and inflammation. When I later became acquainted with the scientific research on this subject, I found out that was exactly what cannabis, and its cannabinoids, had been doing for my body all along."​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How 'bout that....the Big Pharmas feel they're entitled to play God....by patenting naturally-occuring chemicals.

​

 

[PredFan]

For the record, this conservative is for legalizing drugs.