"Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug because of the absence of science"

• Con_Alma

  gut;1484310 wrote:My comment was in reference to your implication that what society desires is sufficient justification for going on the books. There needs to be a higher standard than that. Society might like the sky to be purple - doesn't mean it should be a law, or that there's value in that.

  You may think a higher standard is need but there isn't. IN fact, there's an even a lower level of justification in today's world...it's whatever the legislator's who may be influenced by lobbyist desire.
  
  That doesn't mean that there isn't value in a law existing that's reflected and desired by society.
• gut

  Con_Alma;1484313 wrote:I don't hope for an osmotic effect. Lol
  
  In general I view laws as reactive as opposed to proactive.
  
  I would agree, however, that we have laws on the books we no longer desire as a mirror of our society.
  
  The reality is that to eliminate them it takes an opposition of desire that's massive to get legislative activity.
  
  That's just reality....even if you might think it's a "load of crap".

  The legislative process tends to be both reactive and proactive at the same time. Or, if laws are to be grounded in reality, they can only reflect what has already happened (or sometimes what is likely to happen).
  
  Antiquated laws are something entirely different than attempting to make some sort of statement of morality with new laws.
• Con_Alma

  I said nothing of morality. They can be reflective of a society's immorality in the same manner...and still have value.
  
  I agree that some laws are and can be proactive...but I think in general they are reactive.
• gut

  Con_Alma;1484318 wrote:You may think a higher standard is need but there isn't. IN fact, there's an even a lower level of justification in today's world...it's whatever the legislator's who may be influenced by lobbyist desire.
  
  That doesn't mean that there isn't value in a law existing that's reflected and desired by society.

  I'm aware of how they operate, that doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying.
  
  And I disagree that a law has value if it it's nothing more than words on a paper - truly not worth the resources that went into writing it down. Because what does that law do? What does that law accomplish? Nothing. How would we be different with out that law? We wouldn't. I fail to see how you find value in that.
• Con_Alma

  I have never suggested a law that's just words on paper has value. ??? Quite the opposite.
• Pick6

  

  dont give a damn whether the drug is legal or not, but enough with the damn threads.
• Commander of Awesome

  

  Fly4Fun;1484286 wrote:Why is DoMA a poor example of the government changing their mind?

  Because it proved him wrong. All he had to say, "wow I guess I was wrong and didn't think about that."(biting my tongue here) Instead he decided to be a stubborn idiot. SMH
• majorspark

  

  Commander of Awesome;1484396 wrote:Because it proved him wrong. All he had to say, "wow I guess I was wrong and didn't think about that."(biting my tongue here) Instead he decided to be a stubborn idiot. SMH

  I agree but "wrong" is rarely found in the vernacular when it comes to government. Repeal is a more apt term and its about as good as you are going to get when you are speaking gubmint.
• gut

  Con_Alma;1484329 wrote:I have never suggested a law that's just words on paper has value. ??? Quite the opposite.

  Then explain to me a law that [paraphrasing your OP] "isn't about limiting activity and doesn't reduce usage...but works if it reflects the values of society"...
  
  Please tell me why that is more than just words on paper. Give me an example. Like I said, this is a load of crap.
• dlazz

  Fly4Fun;1484286 wrote:Why is DoMA a poor example of the government changing their mind?

  It wasn't really criminal in nature. Attempting to get married wouldn't get you 25 years in prison, but I didn't specify in my reply what I meant.
  
  I'll let CoA blow his load over this since he clearly has nothing better to do than prove people wrong over the Internet.
• Con_Alma

  gut;1484443 wrote:Then explain to me a law that [paraphrasing your OP] "isn't about limiting activity and doesn't reduce usage...but works if it reflects the values of society"...
  
  Please tell me why that is more than just words on paper. Give me an example. Like I said, this is a load of crap.

  I didn't say a law wouldn't be about limiting activity.
  
  I said it didn't have to limit activity to till have value.
  
  The reason it would still "work" is because it is the desire of the community to continuously try and restrict and punish those who participate in the activity.
  
  Just beacuse therre isn't less of the activity doesn't mean there aren't consequences for doing such crime.
• Sage

  

  Oh god the weed people who would vote for a conservative bag of shit like Gary Johnson merely because he supports weed legalization. Hey idiots, weed is only cool because it's illegal. If you have problems with cops over weed that's just evolution at work.
• like_that

  

  dlazz;1484451 wrote:It wasn't really criminal in nature. Attempting to get married wouldn't get you 25 years in prison, but I didn't specify in my reply what I meant.
  
  I'll let CoA blow his load over this since he clearly has nothing better to do than prove people wrong over the Internet.

  Just admit your fail and move on.
• dlazz

  like_that;1485015 wrote:Just admit your fail and move on.

  OKAY I FAILED COA LOL
• like_that

  

  dlazz;1485052 wrote:OKAY I FAILED COA LOL

  
  Obvious butthurt is obvious.
• dlazz

  like_that;1485074 wrote:Obvious butthurt is obvious.

  Someones sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.