[quote]SexMachine wrote:
But again, you have skipped my point - the free exercise and establishment clauses do not mean what you want them to mean.
[/quote]
What do I want it to mean? I only said that people should demand it be interpreted that way. You know, in the same way the second amendment has been interpreted to mean that free felons can lose their right to legally possess arms, that the right to own automatic weapons can be infringed, etc.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Libertarians are not all the same. The positions that you have taken place you firmly in the camp of the radical libertarian/anarchist. I agree with the above statement but I am in the rational/minarchist camp. But again, you have skipped my point - the free exercise and establishment clauses do not mean what you want them to mean.
[/quote]
If someone doesn’t believe that everyone owns his own body and justly acquired property, he is not a libertarian. Calling yourself a minarchist is basically like saying, “I believe some should rule others, but I reserve the right to bitch and moan when a ruler’s policies interfere with my ability to do what I want.”
[quote]NickViar wrote:
What do I want it to mean?
[/quote]
Let’s not play games. jj said that they should be interpreted to mean that the government should be prohibited from legislating morality based laws - specifically in reference to drug legalisation. You said yes, people should demand it be interpreted as such. Clearly you want it to mean something it doesn’t mean.
I’m not sure I understand the distinction. You don’t want it to mean something it doesn’t - you just want people to pretend it means something it doesn’t? Is that what you’re saying?
[quote]
You know, in the same way the second amendment has been interpreted to mean that free felons can lose their right to legally possess arms, that the right to own automatic weapons can be infringed, etc. [/quote]
Forget the second amendment. We’re talking about the free exercise and establishment clauses of the first.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Sorry to hear your woes dude , good luck in the future .
I contend another aspect of the War On Drugs is all the problems in Mexico , El Salvador, Columbia. All these refugees fleeing drug violence
Chicago’s worst weekend 41 shot 7 killed , No one is saying look at all the fucking problems this war is causing , they should [/quote]
I’m sure that Rahm Emanuel thinks that the guns are to blame.[/quote]
I would disagree
[/quote]
You would disagree that guns are to blame, or that Rahm Emanuel would think that they are?[/quote]
I would disagree . that guns are to blame . IMO if you take away the war om drugs you would have normal murder rate ,maybe a little higher
If take away guns you will still have a war .
A war on guns sounds as smart as a war on drugs .
I tend to agree with NicVar this time 
I think Rahm knows the score
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Sorry to hear your woes dude , good luck in the future .
I contend another aspect of the War On Drugs is all the problems in Mexico , El Salvador, Columbia. All these refugees fleeing drug violence
Chicago’s worst weekend 41 shot 7 killed , No one is saying look at all the fucking problems this war is causing , they should [/quote]
I’m sure that Rahm Emanuel thinks that the guns are to blame.[/quote]
I would disagree
[/quote]
You would disagree that guns are to blame, or that Rahm Emanuel would think that they are?[/quote]
I would disagree . that guns are to blame . IMO if you take away the war om drugs you would have normal murder rate ,maybe a little higher
If take away guns you will still have a war .
A war on guns sounds as smart as a war on drugs .
I tend to agree with NicVar this time I think Rahm knows the score
[/quote]
What do you mean you “think Rahm knows the score?” He’s trying to push through some of the toughest gun control laws in the country including mandatory video recording of all sales, banning sales in 99.5% of the city of Chicago. You’re against gun control but you think “Rahm knows the score?” Do you know what you’re talking about?
OH PRUDISH ONE
We have a State Senator named Kavanaugh , he proposed a bill to give money to the private prisons that they did not even ask for
I can’t wait until elections , I so want to see this dick wad voted out and if for some reason he is not I will probably give up on our present system
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
OH PRUDISH ONE
Um yeah? That’s what I said. So I was asking why you said he “knows the score?”
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
OH PRUDISH ONE
Um yeah? That’s what I said. So I was asking why you said he “knows the score?”[/quote]
Oh I am sorry , I thought you said this
"What do you mean you “think Rahm knows the score?” He’s trying to push through some of the toughest gun control laws in the country including mandatory video recording of all sales, banning sales in 99.5% of the city of Chicago. You’re against gun control but you think “Rahm knows the score?” Do you know what you’re talking about? "
I missed the part where he is bolstering the private prison system
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
http://www.denver.cbslocal.com/2014/08/22/judge-husband-will-stand-trial-in-shooting-death-of-wife/[/quote]
"A DPD Detective testified that after conducting multiple interviews with the couple’s friends, police learned the couple had been fighting and had financial problems.
After an argument, the two went four days without speaking. A month before the shooting, Richard Kirk asked a friend if he could move in with him, because he and Kris were having problems.
Court testimony revealed the Kirks had $40,000 in credit card debt. Kirk also had a $304,000 insurance policy on his wife."
They found a partially eaten 100 mg edible and that is what made him trip balls? What is he a mouse? The toxicology revealed that a small amount of THC was in Kirk’s system that night. Yeah, it was the edible…please.
Sounds like some bullshit the defense it trying to pull or this asshole planned it to blame it on the weed.
[quote]xXSeraphimXx wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
http://www.denver.cbslocal.com/2014/08/22/judge-husband-will-stand-trial-in-shooting-death-of-wife/[/quote]
"A DPD Detective testified that after conducting multiple interviews with the couple’s friends, police learned the couple had been fighting and had financial problems.
After an argument, the two went four days without speaking. A month before the shooting, Richard Kirk asked a friend if he could move in with him, because he and Kris were having problems.
Court testimony revealed the Kirks had $40,000 in credit card debt. Kirk also had a $304,000 insurance policy on his wife."
They found a partially eaten 100 mg edible and that is what made him trip balls? What is he a mouse? The toxicology revealed that a small amount of THC was in Kirk’s system that night. Yeah, it was the edible…please.
Sounds like some bullshit the defense it trying to pull or this asshole planned it to blame it on the weed.
[/quote]
It’s the police who are alleging the marijuana set him off.
“Please hurry,” she told the dispatcher, adding that her husband was “totally hallucinating” and scaring their kids, the affidavit says.
After authorities arrested Richard Kirk, the affidavit says, he started “rambling to himself” and told an officer “that he was the strongest in the Church of Latter Day Saints and he had killed his wife.” At the time, police believed he was under the influence of a controlled substance…
His daughter said she’d never seen him act like that before in her life. Blood tests showed the only drug in his system was THC.
The terrible truth about cannabis: Expert’s devastating 20-year study finally demolishes claims that smoking pot is harmless:
Interesting article. It’s a little old(Jan 14) but raises some good points:
"As someone who is generally in favour of legalising marijuana, I am probably expected to cheer Colorado’s move as a great step forward. But I won’t. It is hard to be supportive when the drive towards dope legalisation has little to do with increasing personal freedom and bettering society…
An early sign that pot legalisation was not paving the way for more tolerance and understanding was the way political pundits discussed the Colorado experiment…
Speaking about Colorado on his Morning Joe TV show, Joe Scarborough said ‘pot just makes you dumb’. For offering this opinion based on his experiences growing up, he was greeted with a barrage of criticism that labelled him a ‘racist, a supporter of America’s failed drug wars, and a mindless puritanical dweeb’…
The tone was one of exasperation at anyone who failed to see how obvious the case for legalisation was, and amazement that individuals would dare challenge the new consensus…
…the discussion has become not so much about the pros and cons of legalisation per se, but rather about why marijuana in itself is a Good Thing…
‘…it is a myth that the US is becoming ?libertarian’ - the number of restrictions on personal behaviour is increasing, not decreasing. At the same time as marijuana is being legalised in Colorado, cities are banning e-cigarettes for no rational reason…
Many of the same people who are posing as liberty’s champions over marijuana are the same ones who are leading the charge when it comes to bans, limits and nudges on tobacco, soda, school lunches, and so on…
In today’s circumstances, the legalisation of marijuana runs the risk of increasing the heavy use of marijuana, in particular among younger people. The opponents of legalisation are generally right to worry about this…
