NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: PIBby on July 02, 2003, 05:58:31 pm
-
That's why we're having one, now. Talk about anything you want. Political parties, stupid laws, stupid Presidents currently in the office, Legally Blonde 2 : Red, White, and Blonde, etc.
Just stay out of any ''riff-raff.'' ;)
-
Where have you been? there have been 2 pretty good ones in the last week or so... :) And of course you can aways click below my sig... i'm sure you would just LOVE my LiveJournal... LOL
-
not really political but did ya know that canada is legalizing pot? Good to know huh? And Massachusetts is debating whether to also. What a cool world we live in.
-
Actually that's a very political topic... and they're not really "legalizing" it. They're removing and lessening the punishments for small amounts. It's an excellent move in my opinion.
Decriminalizing drugs... and stopping our waste of money on the useless drug war we have been waging for years woudl be so beneficial to everyone. Why do we have so much drug violence, and other drug related crime? Because drugs have been drived into the dark, shady alleys and backstreets... their "illegality" has forced their prices sky high and made them profitable... you get rid of theat and it becomes like any other business... supply and demand... regulated... and just like Alcohol and cigarettes... what you do under the influence, you pay for.. you drink and drive you're busted... you get high and drive, same thing...
ahh.. so more to say, but today has been a bad day for me.. and i have to head home from work now...
This is a big issue for my political party... feel free to check out http://www.lp.org
-
Ya...there was this one woman on the chronical that had this like head problem and around her time of the month she would get these harsh pains in her head and the only way they would go away was if she smoked a joint. She got these pills from her doctor who had pot in them but they didn't work as well as a real joint. The pills costed her like 1000 dollars a month and now she is fighting i think so she can just grow her own pot.
poor lady.
-
i like how the county's goin....
-
not really political but did ya know that canada is legalizing pot? Good to know huh? And Massachusetts is debating whether to also. What a cool world we live in.
Canada SHOULD legalize it! But they didn't. Booo.
As for MA, they CAN'T. There are FEDERAL drug laws, which basically say that even if MA legalizes it that the US gov't can come in and bust people.
And they HAVE done this already in CA. Where medial marijuana is legal under state law, but Federal law still has jurisdiction in MANY situations (anything involving interstate commerce) and they use this to come in and confiscate crops etc. BAd stuff. States Rights!!!
----Andrew
-
*doesn't like political threads with Jason or Andrew*
they write really long posts....lol, but they always (well usually) have really good points.
*learns a lot when I am not lazy*
But here is my opinions, I don't like the president, he scares me, his wife looks nice...but he in the words of my favorite and yours Wanda Sykes "laughs like a villan" 8O .
*stops mumbling.*
-
But here is my opinions, I don't like the president, he scares me, his wife looks nice...but he in the words of my favorite and yours Wanda Sykes "laughs like a villan" 8O .
LOL.
forget his wife! Check out his DAUGHTERS. Yummy.
---Andrew
-
I have a terrible laugh. But I have a big sense of humor, so that doesn't work, now, does it?
You think George has good looking kids? Look at President Kennedy's! John-John = Yummy >: )
Poor thing. :'(
I'm, now, depressed. *sighs*
-
i'm beginning to think that its sad that i will jump into any conversation about pot :?
-
The Federal goverment can not pass drug laws. It's not a power delagated to them under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.
The power belongs to the state, since it isn't delagated to the Federal government.
Why the heck do you think it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol? The lawmakers knew they couldn't do it any other way.
-
Am I wrong, or can the Federal Government over rule State Government?
-
Am I wrong, or can the Federal Government over rule State Government?
In a way, yes. Where there is a Federal law that is stricter than a state law, the Federal law takes precidence.
However, I am arguing that the Federal government cannot pass a law on this matter. In fact, there is quite a bit that they pass these days that is contrary to the Constitution. In article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the things that Congress can do are listed. In the Bill of Rights, it says that all powers not delagated to the Federal goverment belong to the States.
Drug regulation isn't in there. Hence, the states are the only ones with a say here. The Federal drug laws are illegal without a Constitutional amendment, which has to be approved by the states anyway.
-
However, I am arguing that the Federal government cannot pass a law on this matter. In fact, there is quite a bit that they pass these days that is contrary to the Constitution. In article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the things that Congress can do are listed. In the Bill of Rights, it says that all powers not delagated to the Federal goverment belong to the States.
Eh. yes and no. technically, you are right. BUT, the fed regulates drugs based on the interstate commerce restriction... which IS dellegated to the fed in the constitution.
The way they argue it is that the drugs are manufactured/grown/processed with chemicals/tools/materials purchased from across state lines. The drugs are usually sold across state lines, the growth and sales of those drugs could affect purchases made in other states. The consumption of those drugs could endanger comerce in other states due to crime. Etc etc etc.
Is this complete BS? Absolutly. Does the Fed do it and get away with it? ALL day.
It's kinda like how according to KY state law you can have sex with a consenting 14 year old.... but since federal law is 18 if you did anything involving interstate commerce the Fed can bust you, even if she was over 14.
There are lots of jokes to be made insulting Will.... but i'm in a good mood since its almost time to start my 3 day weekend!
---Anrew
-
Why then did it take a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?
And even if they could ban the import/export across state lines, they couldn't ban people growing weed with their own with seeds from before the restriction or seeds from plants grown before the restriction, or their decendents. What is keeping people from synthesizing other drugs made with materials from entirely in state?
IMNSHO, the interstate commerace clause is a weak argument that I do not believe would hold up in court, were a court to hear a case based on this or a similar argument.
Drugs are illegal to buy, sell, or posess, no matter where they come from. Interstate and intrastate included.
I have thought this out Andrew.
I don't necessarily think that they should be legalized. I still believe that is up to the states.
As far as I know, no court has ever heard arguments on this matter. If anyone could point me to any case concerning this, I'd love to read it. I'm confident that if a case were ever brought to a Federal court based on this argument, they'd win. Since stoners usually aren't that smart............
-
Why then did it take a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?
And even if they could ban the import/export across state lines, they couldn't ban people growing weed with their own with seeds from before the restriction or seeds from plants grown before the restriction, or their decendents. What is keeping people from synthesizing other drugs made with materials from entirely in state?
IMNSHO, the interstate commerace clause is a weak argument that I do not believe would hold up in court, were a court to hear a case based on this or a similar argument.
Drugs are illegal to buy, sell, or posess, no matter where they come from. Interstate and intrastate included.
I have thought this out Andrew.
I don't necessarily think that they should be legalized. I still believe that is up to the states.
As far as I know, no court has ever heard arguments on this matter. If anyone could point me to any case concerning this, I'd love to read it. I'm confident that if a case were ever brought to a Federal court based on this argument, they'd win. Since stoners usually aren't that smart............
To the best of my knowledge, you are correct. The supreme court has NOT ruled on this specific situation and I dont know any court that HAS. You see, the Fed has yet to actually press charges against any of the people they "arrest" and confiscate the drugs from in the states where medical marijuana is legal.
All the feds do is swoop in, burn the crops, drag them off in handcuffs then let them go 2 days later.
And the courts can't establish an opinion about it until the case gets put in front of them.
The bad news is, even if the Fed doesn't have the right to do this, they can still coerce states into enforcing their rules by placing restrictions on federal road and education funding based on conformance to a federal drug policy.
The interstate commerce clause has been used as an exucuse for the Fed to step on states rights for a LONG time, but states never want to fight it because they never want to loose federal funding.
The good news is that John Kerry is a PRO medical marijuana candidate and hes got a real shot at the Democratic primaries. Also, the medical marijuana movement is spreading pretty quickly and there are signs that some states are taking real action to get the fed off their backs.
---Andrew
-
I'll have to look it up the next time I'm at the library guys, my school has a pretty nice Government Document section. I BELIEVE--I may be mistaken, but I'm usually good with stuff about the USSC--that there was a guy about 10 years ago that got busted by a fed law that was MUCH stricter than the state he was from (want to say Montana)... Anyway, he pursued it through the courts and the Appeals Courts upheld the federal ruling, and when he appealed to the USSC he only got 3 of the 4 votes needed to even be heard in court. So unless there's a more recent case, I would say that the USSC has ruled--maybe not in an opinion or an actual case--but by deciding it wasn't even a good enough debate to hear.
It's so hard to get the USSC to actually hear a case now, it's not even funny. Even when you do, the court is so backed up it takes years for them to a) hear the case b) rule. Take the Michigan Law School case for example... when did that kid actually get denied entrance? '96?!
Here's my point on the issue: I don't want another substance to be out there that can seriously hamper someone's abilities of driving safely. I already live in fear that a drunk driver might take mine or one of my loved ones life, please don't make me live in fear that someone that's high is going to do it if the drunk driver doesn't get there first. Keep it illegal.
On the constitutionality of federal law? I lean toward the democrat side of the line (I'm very much a centralist that keeps getting stuck on democrat views--I would have voted for Bush, normally vote a very split ticket). So I guess you could say I'm big in favor of the national government setting the laws and enforcing the laws that it feels best for the country.
-
I BELIEVE--I may be mistaken, but I'm usually good with stuff about the USSC--that there was a guy about 10 years ago that got busted by a fed law that was MUCH stricter than the state he was from (want to say Montana)... Anyway, he pursued it through the courts and the Appeals Courts upheld the federal ruling, and when he appealed to the USSC he only got 3 of the 4 votes needed to even be heard in court. So unless there's a more recent case, I would say that the USSC has ruled--maybe not in an opinion or an actual case--but by deciding it wasn't even a good enough debate to hear.
Was he busted on a federal drug charge? I'm not arguing that where the Fed can pass laws, the states can overrule them with their own laws. (That's just not true, as long as the Fed can legally pass a law) As I understand it, if the Fed can pass a law and a state has a looser law, the stricter law prevails.
-
He was busted on a fed. charge if memory serves. He was doing something that was somehow legal by state law, and illegal by federal law... He was challenging the federal government's right to make that law and was saying it was not one of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.
He kept losing in the courts... think he lost 2-1 in the federal appeals court, and then applied for Cert to the USSC and Cert was denied with only 3 votes approving.
Once again, this is all off the top of my head... I'll have to look it up another day.
-
He was busted on a fed. charge if memory serves. He was doing something that was somehow legal by state law, and illegal by federal law... He was challenging the federal government's right to make that law and was saying it was not one of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.
He kept losing in the courts... think he lost 2-1 in the federal appeals court, and then applied for Cert to the USSC and Cert was denied with only 3 votes approving.
Once again, this is all off the top of my head... I'll have to look it up another day.
Yeah, if you could look it up, that would be awesome. :)
-
Here's my point on the issue: I don't want another substance to be out there that can seriously hamper someone's abilities of driving safely. I already live in fear that a drunk driver might take mine or one of my loved ones life, please don't make me live in fear that someone that's high is going to do it if the drunk driver doesn't get there first. Keep it illegal.
Here's a lesson in both Economics and human psychology. Making drugs illegal does nothing but raise the prices of the drugs. This does reduce some of the demand, but the people who are gonna do drugs and then do something stupid couldn't careless if it is or is not illegal and the addicts will find ways to get the money for them. By causing the price to go up, you force people to commit crimes to get their fix. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the US government to remove the SUPPLY of drugs. When there is a demand, SOMEONE will supply. It's the economic law our country is built on.
If you legalize drugs then the gov't can TAX them, regulate prices and set age limits. Which makes it both cheaper and easier to have the exact same affect as the "war on drugs". Actually, you get a better affect because you drive the illegal shady dealers out of business and clean up a lot of the crime that is associated with those street corner dealers.
Not to mention that the people who are going to do drugs and then drive are the same people who drink and then drive. You think there are people out there who do coke but WON'T drink alcohol?!? Come on. So you are NOT increasing the total number of people driving under the influence of some drug by legalizing ANYTHING.
---Andrew
-
Wow, a debate.
-
Wow, a debate.
Shocking, I know. :wink:
---Andrew
-
I agree.
-
Shocking, I know. :wink:
---Andrew
Yes.
-
Shocking, I know. :wink:
---Andrew
That's right.
-
Shocking, I know. :wink:
---Andrew
That's right.
ELEPHANTS WITH POPSICLES ARE EVVERRYYWHHEEERRE
-
Shocking, I know. :wink:
---Andrew
That's right.
ELEPHANTS WITH POPSICLES ARE EVVERRYYWHHEEERRE
Speaking of drug usage....
---Andrew
-
lol :drunk:
-
Shocking, I know. :wink:
---Andrew
That's right.
ELEPHANTS WITH POPSICLES ARE EVVERRYYWHHEEERRE
Speaking of drug usage....
---Andrew
Actually this insanity is caused by the fact that my most important server DIED :evil: (cheapass barracuda scsi drives)
when i use drugs i see puppies and teddy bears, anything else is completely unacceptable :mrgreen:
-
Here's my point on the issue: I don't want another substance to be out there that can seriously hamper someone's abilities of driving safely. I already live in fear that a drunk driver might take mine or one of my loved ones life, please don't make me live in fear that someone that's high is going to do it if the drunk driver doesn't get there first. Keep it illegal.
Here's a lesson in both Economics and human psychology. Making drugs illegal does nothing but raise the prices of the drugs. This does reduce some of the demand, but the people who are gonna do drugs and then do something stupid couldn't careless if it is or is not illegal and the addicts will find ways to get the money for them. By causing the price to go up, you force people to commit crimes to get their fix. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the US government to remove the SUPPLY of drugs. When there is a demand, SOMEONE will supply. It's the economic law our country is built on.
If you legalize drugs then the gov't can TAX them, regulate prices and set age limits. Which makes it both cheaper and easier to have the exact same affect as the "war on drugs". Actually, you get a better affect because you drive the illegal shady dealers out of business and clean up a lot of the crime that is associated with those street corner dealers.
Not to mention that the people who are going to do drugs and then drive are the same people who drink and then drive. You think there are people out there who do coke but WON'T drink alcohol?!? Come on. So you are NOT increasing the total number of people driving under the influence of some drug by legalizing ANYTHING.
---Andrew
I'm sorry, I still disagree.
I do not give a rats ass about the economics of this issue.
-
I'm sorry, I still disagree.
I do not give a rats ass about the economics of this issue.
Thats fine, and everyone who gets high will continue to drive under the influence with complete knowledge that a breathalyzer for marijuana really cant exist since hey, its illegal :wink:
-
I'm sorry, I still disagree.
I do not give a rats ass about the economics of this issue.
Well now... THAT'S a mature stance.
"I don't care what you say, I'm not listening, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah".
Entertainment/Recreational Drugs WILL be legalized in the US eventually. It's just a question of time. Why, you ask? Because there is NO logical reason for them NOT to be. None. Zero. All of them have been debunked. Allowing alcohol and tobacco and not other drugs is just silly.
Human nature requires that human societies will move in specific directions, given enough time, till they eventually reach an equilibrium point. So unless human nature changes, you should start getting used to the idea of being able to buy a pack of mary-jane at your local walmart. But you might get carded for it.
---Andrew
-
I'm sorry, I still disagree.
I do not give a rats ass about the economics of this issue.
Well now... THAT'S a mature stance.
"I don't care what you say, I'm not listening, nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah".
Entertainment/Recreational Drugs WILL be legalized in the US eventually. It's just a question of time. Why, you ask? Because there is NO logical reason for them NOT to be. None. Zero. All of them have been debunked. Allowing alcohol and tobacco and not other drugs is just silly.
Human nature requires that human societies will move in specific directions, given enough time, till they eventually reach an equilibrium point. So unless human nature changes, you should start getting used to the idea of being able to buy a pack of mary-jane at your local walmart. But you might get carded for it.
---Andrew
That's far from what I said. Simply put: The economics of this issue are of NO importance to me. Wow! The government can tax it?! BIG FUCKING DEAL. Should we now legalize conspiracy to committ murder, but put a nice pretty 6% tax on the amount that you pay the person to do it?! Do NOT try to argue the money issue... that's outrageously asinine. This is NOT about money.
You have a way of taking someone's words, and then putting them on the spin cycle to bash their argument.
-
That's far from what I said.
Then maybe you should do a better job of clarifying what you mean. If you say something and it gets misinterpreted, it's YOUR fault for not properly wording it, not the person who didn't understand it.
Simply put: The economics of this issue are of NO importance to me. Wow! The government can tax it?! BIG FUCKING DEAL. Should we now legalize conspiracy to committ murder, but put a nice pretty 6% tax on the amount that you pay the person to do it?! Do NOT try to argue the money issue... that's outrageously asinine. This is NOT about money.
Ah. But you are wrong here my friend. See, it IS significant that the gov't can tax it. You know why? Instead of spending umpteen billion dollars on fighting drugs, they instead MAKE X billion dollars taxing and regulating it. So thats an X+Umpteen billion dollar turnaround. THat money has to go somewhere, amiright? So take that money and spend it on education and treatment. Reduce the DEMAND for the drugs. Make them less "sexy" by making them legal.
Also, MONEY is the heart of demand in a capitalist (or semi-capitalist) economy. People only want something if they can get it at or below a specific price. So to say it's not about MONEY is just being ignorant of the real issues. It's about the demand for drugs in the US and what the war on drugs is doing to affect that. Because as I stated earlier, if there is a demand, SOMEONE will supply.
Unless you are gonna try and tell me you are against the legalization of drugs for moral or religious reasons? Because we are not debating weather or not taking drugs is "morally" or "ethically" right. We are debating weather or not it should be legalized. The two are completely different issues.
And as for the conspiracy to commit murder comment, the difference between the two is that murder harms another person DIRECTLY. Taking drugs DOES NOT. Taking drugs irresponsibly might... but driving irresponsibly or handling your gun irresponsibly might hurt another person as well. And it's not illegal to own a gun or drive a car, now is it? We just put restrictions on them. An adult of sound mind should be allowed to poison his or her own body however he or she sees fit and the gov't has no right to stop them. Do you think abortion should be legal? If so then you understand the root of this already: its my body, don't tell me what I cannot do with it.
You have a way of taking someone's words, and then putting them on the spin cycle to bash their argument.
You have a way of stating things too simplistically and expecting other people to read into it. Make your assertions clear and you won't give me any room to REINTERPRET (or "spin") the things you say.
---Andrew
-
Ah. But you are wrong here my friend. See, it IS significant that the gov't can tax it. You know why? Instead of spending umpteen billion dollars on fighting drugs, they instead MAKE X billion dollars taxing and regulating it. So thats an X+Umpteen billion dollar turnaround. THat money has to go somewhere, amiright? So take that money and spend it on education and treatment. Reduce the DEMAND for the drugs. Make them less "sexy" by making them legal.
Also, MONEY is the heart of demand in a capitalist (or semi-capitalist) economy. People only want something if they can get it at or below a specific price. So to say it's not about MONEY is just being ignorant of the real issues. It's about the demand for drugs in the US and what the war on drugs is doing to affect that. Because as I stated earlier, if there is a demand, SOMEONE will supply.---Andrew
ONCE AGAIN.
If your main argument is going to be that the United States government can make money off of legalizing drugs, that is sad.
My words have been very simple to figure out. I don't give a shit about the economics of the issue... HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
The fact remains that marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. etc. DO put others at risk. All of the above mentioned SERIOUSLY hamper one's ability to think or to express any sense of reason. My mother's an ER nurse--you'd be shocked to hear how often a guy high off of drugs shoots a guy but can't remember it the next day.
And we won't even get into the effects it has on a person with withdrawals and what the crimes they will committ to get that drug.
Your argument that drugs don't cause harm to other people can be disproven by the sheer number of people who get killed/injured/harmed by people who are so fucked up they don't even remember it.
This country should NOT legalize something that can fuck with your mind so much, you have no sense of reason and that some psychologists have said almost makes you legally insane.
I think a LOT of the people are arguing for legalized drugs are thinking more of themselves than the general public.
-
ONCE AGAIN.
If your main argument is going to be that the United States government can make money off of legalizing drugs, that is sad.
My words have been very simple to figure out. I don't give a shit about the economics of the issue... HOW IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?
You know... sometimes you seem capable of simple human reasoning and sometimes you don't. Maybe I made the mistake of assuming you were more educated then you actually are.
Saying you don't care about the economics of the issue is like saying "I dont care about the issue". Economics is a LARGE part of the issue since, at it's heart, economics is a study of human behavior. If you want to have an argument about morality, say so, because as I said previously, that's an entirely different discussion. This discussion is about legalizing drugs in the semi-capitalist US government and how people will respond to it. Which is centrally a discussion of cost benefits and human behavior. If you don't realize this, then step out of the discussion, cause you don't know enough to participate.
Now that we have THAT out of the way....
The point isn't MAKING money. The point is two-fold; it's about how people will react to a price change AND how the government will SPEND the money. For example, spending the money on treatment and hospitals. Legalizing it will not increase drug usage significantly, it will increase the QUALITY (thereby reducing a lot of the risk.... such as people cutting cocaine with drano) and increase education and awareness.
The fact remains that marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. etc. DO put others at risk. All of the above mentioned SERIOUSLY hamper one's ability to think or to express any sense of reason. My mother's an ER nurse--you'd be shocked to hear how often a guy high off of drugs shoots a guy but can't remember it the next day.
People can get drunk and do the same thing. And spend the rest of their lives in jail. As you said, it happens NOW. So making it criminal isn't preventing the problem, now is it? You said so yourself; your mom is an ER Nurse and she sees it "often". So I don't see your argument here.
And we won't even get into the effects it has on a person with withdrawals and what the crimes they will committ to get that drug.
I already adressed this issue. By legalizing it, it becomes cheaper, more readily available and you remove this as an issue. When was the last time you saw someone commit murder for a pack of smokes? Are you gonna tell me it's because tobacco isn't as addictive?
Your argument that drugs don't cause harm to other people can be disproven by the sheer number of people who get killed/injured/harmed by people who are so fucked up they don't even remember it.
I never said that drugs don't cause harm. I never even IMPLIED this. I don't know where you got this from.
My argument is that a person should be allowed to RESPONSIBLY damage their own bodies. It's the job of the gov't to insure that it is done responsibly but not to stop them. It would also be likely that some of this burden would be placed on the drug manufacturers, much like tobacco and alcohol companies. If I want to manufacture a cocaine derivative then I have to spend X amount of my profits on treatment and education. If i am a drug store and I want to sell this derivative, I need to have the proper licenses and pay the proper fees.
Also, by regulating the drugs the gov't can CONTROL how strong they are and exactly what effects they have on people. If you go out on the street right now and by X from someone, the odds are you are getting X cut with cocaine. Most people don't know this. I've talked to DOZENS of kids who think X is a "safe" drug. You also might be getting X cut with something relatively harmless like codine or tylenol. You just don't know. Removing this element of danger seems smart to me.
This country should NOT legalize something that can fuck with your mind so much, you have no sense of reason and that some psychologists have said almost makes you legally insane.
I think a LOT of the people are arguing for legalized drugs are thinking more of themselves than the general public.
As I've said before, Alcohol can have the exact same effect on people. For that matter, sniffing paint thinner can too. I don't see your argument here.
You seem to be arguing based on emotion and not ration. Realize that RIGHT NOW, with the drugs ILLEGAL, all of these bad things are STILL HAPPENING.
We aren't STOPPING people from doing drugs or stopping them from commiting these crimes. Making it legal wont change that.
Let me REEMPHASIZE something; DRUGS ARE BAD. People SHOULD NOT do drugs. They harm your body in irreprable ways for short term benefits. That said... if I know the reprecussions of taking drugs then i should have the option of legally ignoring them. The law shouldn't force people to do the "smart thing". If I want to be dumb, that's my choice.
If you have something intelligent to contribute, please do so. But the fact of the matter is, there are only two logical stances on "drugs" in the US. Either make them all illegal (including alcohol and tobacco) or make them all legal. Making some legal and others not is inconsistency of the worst kind.
---Andrew
-
The fact remains that marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. etc. DO put others at risk. .
lmao!!! My mom is a nurse too, and she doesnt think marijuana is so bad. I can remember everything i have ever done when under the unfluence of it, well maybe not everything since it was when i was younger and years make you forget things,...but never once did i hurt someone. You are just a stubborn person lacking the open mind to see that a reasonably large amount of people smoke marijuana, it can be used medically to treat glaucoma and is better for headaches than tylenol, it eases the side effects of chemo on people with cancer. We could easily produce enough crops to fuel every vehicle in the world thus creating cars that burn more cleanly and efficiently while preserving our natural resources. It also can be used to make paper saving countless trees...The side products of creating fuel from hemp makes an extremely good meal for livestock. There is countless uses for the actual plants while alcohol....it can fuel cars that are dangerously explosive, annnd get people really drunk!!
-
....it can fuel cars that are dangerously explosive, annnd get people really drunk!!
Well... there is some myth to the organic fuel ideas. It would basically be an ethanol synthesis which we can make from grains and woods already. The major problem being that it takes a large amount to power a car, it doesn't provide quick bursts which makes accelerating a bitch AND it requires a BIG powertrain.
That being said.... ethanol distilled from Hemp can power cards with low emissions. However, it would still release carbon as part of the combustion process which is still less efficient than hydrogen.
I agree with pretty much everything else you said. I personally don't do ANY illegal drugs, but I strongly support other people's right to smoke marijuana, especially for medical reasons. Marijuana usage is no worse than alcohol.
---Andrew
-
....it can fuel cars that are dangerously explosive, annnd get people really drunk!!
Well... there is some myth to the organic fuel ideas. It would basically be an ethanol synthesis which we can make from grains and woods already. The major problem being that it takes a large amount to power a car, it doesn't provide quick bursts which makes accelerating a bitch AND it requires a BIG powertrain.
That being said.... ethanol distilled from Hemp can power cards with low emissions. However, it would still release carbon as part of the combustion process which is still less efficient than hydrogen.
I agree with pretty much everything else you said. I personally don't do ANY illegal drugs, but I strongly support other people's right to smoke marijuana, especially for medical reasons. Marijuana usage is no worse than alcohol.
---Andrew
well if we get the livestock REALLY goin we could always make methanol :wink:
and if that doesnt provide a quick enough burst, at least it will clear a room
-
The fact remains that marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc. etc. DO put others at risk. .
You are just a stubborn person lacking the open mind to see that a reasonably large amount of people smoke marijuana, it can be used medically to treat glaucoma and is better for headaches than tylenol, it eases the side effects of chemo on people with cancer.
No, I'm a proponent of legalizing marijuana for medicinal useses WITH a doctor's consent. The only thing I would like to add to the California (and any other state that wishes) statute is that I think the surgeon general of the state should appoint only certain doctors that are able to write a prescription for it. Right now there are doctors running around writing prescriptions for anyone who wants one.
Let me clarify. I do not gives a rats ass of the economics and how much money we make/lose on the drug trade or how much money we would make/lose by legalizing it. Has it gotten to the point now that if we lose money on something that people will do anyway, that we should legalize it? I would surely hope not. There are things that this country is going to lose money on, and that people will want to do, that the government should be able to control.
My stance on the issue is that legalizing certain drugs (I'll exclude marijuana because I agree marijuana a well substantiated case could be made for that being as weak or weaker than alcohol or tobacco) puts at risk many others. That's a risk I am not willing to take--no matter how much money this country loses fighting the drug war every year.
EDIT: In the end, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
-
I said useses. Haha
-
SOme may find it odd that I have stayed silent on this.. but to be perfectly honest.. Andrew has said almost 100% word for word everythign that I would have said.
The war on drugs is a waste of government resources. It has proved to accomplish absolutely nothing! By decriminalizing drug use the same money can be used on treatment and education... but you could take the power away fromt he crime lords and bring the drugs out of the darkness and take the power away from the criminals... this would seriously clean up the streets... something EVERY person wants to see...
Whatever you believe... we can all agree... what we're doing now IS NOT working... we should definitely try SOMETHING else...
-
We could argue this one all day.
And I'll be the first to admit that I have no numbers to back my claims, no hard proof.
It's just how I was raised and from what I see as my rational thinking.
I have done no research on the issue, and if I had... MAYBE (be it a small chance) I would have come to a different conclusion. This issue isn't one of my trademark land posts that I argue many times over with my philosophical thinking buds.
I'm much more of a constituition thinker. Hence the fact I want to go into Constitutional Law.
So I'm putting this one to rest.
-
And I'll be the first to admit that I have no numbers to back my claims, no hard proof.
It's just how I was raised and from what I see as my rational thinking.
You have no numbers, no logic and no reason. You are debating morality and ethics. Ethics and morality have no place in law. Your personal philosophy has no place in this discussion.
Before you even consider going into constitutional law, you need to study some business and some sociology. Then come back and talk to us.
---Andrew
-
And I'll be the first to admit that I have no numbers to back my claims, no hard proof.
It's just how I was raised and from what I see as my rational thinking.
You have no numbers, no logic and no reason. You are debating morality and ethics. Ethics and morality have no place in law. Your personal philosophy has no place in this discussion.
Before you even consider going into constitutional law, you need to study some business and some sociology. Then come back and talk to us.
---Andrew
You have the biggest fucking ego I've ever seen.
EDIT: I don't seem to remember you bringing any numbers or facts into the issue either.
This is not a matter of law. Nor constitutional law.
Ethics and morality have no place in law?!?!?! Hmm... Georgia's School of Law's corriculum seems to think different... seeing as a second year course is "Ethics in law".
I've always thought that you were a good guy. We disagree on some issues, that's all. That last post proves to me you're one of the most arrogant bastards I've ever seen/read/heard.
Why must you think that everyone that does not agree with you is somehow inferior or doesn't have a clue?!
-
so sad how grakhtis wants to be right about everything...when personally noone gives a shit :razz: :mrgreen:
-
You have the biggest fucking ego I've ever seen.
Son, you haven't even seen the TIP of my EGO. My Ego could fill this MB if I were to let it. If you think this is somehow an insult to me, you are sadly mistaken. I take pride in my ego.
EDIT: I don't seem to remember you bringing any numbers or facts into the issue either.
If you will remember correctly, I did try and bring economic LAWS and behaviors into it. But you said you didn't want to listen to economics. Or did you forget that part of the discussion? I'm sure I can respost it if you'd like.
Ethics and morality have no place in law?!?!?! Hmm... Georgia's School of Law's corriculum seems to think different... seeing as a second year course is "Ethics in law".
Ethics and morality have a place in enforcing and practicing law, because these things are done by individual people who have personal beliefs. They have no place in MAKING laws. Seperation of church and state is a key component to the US. Morality is a subjective philosophy or religion based issue and has no place in the wording or creation of laws. What I may think is unethical you may not. Don't write laws to prevent unethical behavior, write laws to prevent behavior that imposes on the personal freedoms of individuals.
Often times morality manages to work its way in to laws, but this is universally a bad practice IN MY OPINION.
I've always thought that you were a good guy.
well. That was your first mistake. I'm not a "good" guy. Don't expect me to do or say nice things. You'll just be dissapointed.
We disagree on some issues, that's all.
That last post proves to me you're one of the most arrogant bastards I've ever seen/read/heard.
This is not a case of disagreeing. I am familair with the concept of disagreeing. Disagreeing is when two people state opossing view points but neither side can ultimatly be shown to be correct.
YOU haven't even stated a rational VIEWpoint yet! You've just closed your mind to anything other than the stance you started with and defend it by saying "I don't want to hear about your position".
And you say I'M arrogant? I listen to coherant arguments. Look at my discussions with Kev ala religion. Intelligent debates. Why? Because he presented an INTELLIGENT viewpoint. He didn't just spout off. And in the end, he and I agreed to disagree, happily. I have a TREMENDOUS amount of respect for him regardless of if we agreed in the end or not.
Why must you think that everyone that does not agree with you is somehow inferior or doesn't have a clue?!
I think that everyone who disagrees with me and doesn't have a rational well thought out logical reason for it doesn't have a clue. Because if they DID have a clue then they would either come to the same conclusion as me, or have a valid reason for not coming to the same conclusion as me.
This, my friend, is simple logics. If I thought another position were better than mine, then i would change positions.
---Andrew
-
so sad how grakhtis wants to be right about everything...when personally noone gives a shit :razz: :mrgreen:
Apparently someone gives a shit, because people continue to debate with me. A good debate is healthy. Relieves tension and forces people to THINK for themselves.
---Andrew
-
so sad how grakhtis wants to be right about everything...when personally noone gives a shit :razz: :mrgreen:
Apparently someone gives a shit, because people continue to debate with me. A good debate is healthy. Relieves tension and forces people to THINK for themselves.
---Andrew
True :mrgreen: ....i love debates! bwahahahaha
-
I've listened to you debate economics and told you many times over that the economics of the issue of far less importance than the safety of others. How is that not a viewpoint?
-
Why must you think that everyone that does not agree with you is somehow inferior or doesn't have a clue?!
let me make one last thing clear. For me, this is not a PERSONAL argument. I don't think you are a "bad" person for disagreeing with me. Just an ignorant person. Everyone is ignorant about some things, the smartest people are just the ones who acknowledge their own ignorance and try to do something about it.
I don't dislike you, and even your comments about my ego wont change this because, well, frankly, I DO have a huge ego. Which I don't see as a bad thing.
So if you find yourself getting MAD or taking this argument personally, step back, take a deep breath, and realize that your views are not YOU. I am not attacking YOU, I am attacking your views and your lack of knowledge on a specific subject. These are things you can change, and should not be ashamed to change.
And you always have the option of just not debating with me anymore. Feel free to exercise it at will.
---Andrew
-
I've listened to you debate economics and told you many times over that the economics of the issue of far less importance than the safety of others. How is that not a viewpoint?
But the safety of others IS part of the economics.
Economics says that money is a way people have a voice in a free market economy. Where they spend their money shows their opinions. If a person wants to endanger their own lives (and the money flowing into the drug industry shows this to be true) then why should YOU have the right to tell them they can't? Are you my dad? My guardian?
---Andrew
-
Why must you think that everyone that does not agree with you is somehow inferior or doesn't have a clue?!
let me make one last thing clear. For me, this is not a PERSONAL argument. I don't think you are a "bad" person for disagreeing with me. Just an ignorant person. Everyone is ignorant about some things, the smartest people are just the ones who acknowledge their own ignorance and try to do something about it.
I don't dislike you, and even your comments about my ego wont change this because, well, frankly, I DO have a huge ego. Which I don't see as a bad thing.
So if you find yourself getting MAD or taking this argument personally, step back, take a deep breath, and realize that your views are not YOU. I am not attacking YOU, I am attacking your views and your lack of knowledge on a specific subject. These are things you can change, and should not be ashamed to change.
And you always have the option of just not debating with me anymore. Feel free to exercise it at will.
---Andrew
Now THAT is a good post.
-
I've listened to you debate economics and told you many times over that the economics of the issue of far less importance than the safety of others. How is that not a viewpoint?
But the safety of others IS part of the economics.
Economics says that money is a way people have a voice in a free market economy. Where they spend their money shows their opinions. If a person wants to endanger their own lives (and the money flowing into the drug industry shows this to be true) then why should YOU have the right to tell them they can't? Are you my dad? My guardian?
---Andrew
I (representing the american government I assume in your argument) should be able to tell them they can't because not only are they endangering their own lives, but they are also hampering their abilities to make rational and sane decisions when put on certains substances. I'm of the belief that the government should prevent (or at least try) people from being able to legally do things that hampers their decision making. You're obviously not.
-
I (representing the american government I assume in your argument) should be able to tell them they can't because not only are they endangering their own lives, but they are also hampering their abilities to make rational and sane decisions when put on certains substances. I'm of the belief that the government should prevent (or at least try) people from being able to legally do things that hampers their decision making. You're obviously not.
Now THAT is a central point on which we can agree to disagree as there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. It's just an opinion.
So you are also against alcohol? What about paxil? Ridlin? Are you against ALL mind altering substances? Or is there a cutoff point?
---Andrew
-
Of course there is a cutoff point.
I would also venture to say that if any drug can be PROVEN to have medicinal uses, that it should be able to be used with a doctor's consent and prescription. Once again I would ask though that the doctor's that can give consent or prescription to any of these currently illegal drugs would have to be authorized by that state's surgeon general.
There are far varying effects from say alcohol than there is, say heroin.
-
Of course there is a cutoff point.
I would also venture to say that if any drug can be PROVEN to have medicinal uses, that it should be able to be used with a doctor's consent and prescription. Once again I would ask though that the doctor's that can give consent or prescription to any of these currently illegal drugs would have to be authorized by that state's surgeon general.
There are far varying effects from say alcohol than there is, say heroin.
Depends on quantity. If you drink enough alcohol it can have the exact same affects on your behavior as heroine. You ever talked to an alcoholic?
So the cutoff is medical usage? So if it can have a medically beneficial affect then it's good?
So who defines beneficial? Is someone with ADD better off when they are on Ridlin? Is a depressed person better off when they drink because it makes them happier for a while? Who draws the line?
While I understand your stance, I think centrally it is flawed. I am a human being. I should have control of what I do with my own body. If i want to commit suicide, then that is MY decision and no one has a right to stop me.
---Andrew
-
So who defines beneficial? Is someone with ADD better off when they are on Ridlin? Is a depressed person better off when they drink because it makes them happier for a while? Who draws the line?
All I can is: Not me.
-
See.. I as the Libertarian here say that the government has no business telling it's people what they can and connot be doing to themselves. The moment, hoever, they step over the line and infringe on someone else's rights, SLAM, they get nailed.
I one heard a friend try to explain Libertarian Philosophy to his wife. And he said, well, they believe the Governemnet should stay out of people's lives as much as possible and let people make decisions for themselves. They would want pointless laws repealed. She asked for an example and I said Seatbelt Laws. She asked what I meant and I said A Libertarian believes that if you get into a car and you don't put on your seatbelt and you get into a crash and die. YOU and no one else are solely responsible for making that decision and are responsible for your death. YOU should be smart enough to put on your seatbelt because only a moron would not. The government has no business forcing people, with pointless laws to "do the right thing."
There need to be less laws not more... decriminalize things.. not regulate every miniscule piece of society... the people have the right to make decisions for themselves... and then they can answer for the impact of their actions... why would we want to live any other way?
-
See.. I as the Libertarian here say that the government has no business telling it's people what they can and connot be doing to themselves. The moment, hoever, they step over the line and infringe on someone else's rights, SLAM, they get nailed.
I one heard a friend try to explain Libertarian Philosophy to his wife. And he said, well, they believe the Governemnet should stay out of people's lives as much as possible and let people make decisions for themselves. They would want pointless laws repealed. She asked for an example and I said Seatbelt Laws. She asked what I meant and I said A Libertarian believes that if you get into a car and you don't put on your seatbelt and you get into a crash and die. YOU and no one else are solely responsible for making that decision and are responsible for your death. YOU should be smart enough to put on your seatbelt because only a moron would not. The government has no business forcing people, with pointless laws to "do the right thing."
There need to be less laws not more... decriminalize things.. not regulate every miniscule piece of society... the people have the right to make decisions for themselves... and then they can answer for the impact of their actions... why would we want to live any other way?
*nods head in agreement*
---Andrew
-
Ah, the life of a democrat with republican morals shames me...