Weed Land

• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1705022 wrote:I would agree that we're not discussing a rights issue. However, for me, the law doesn't define my views on right or wrong, the penalties merely affect my actions where I may disagree with the law. It's nothing but a cost/benefit analysis.

  
  I don't think marijuana being legal has anything to do with right or wrong from a moral perspective but the action against a law does have right or wrong associated with it with regards to society. The wrong is against what the collective have decided society is trying to be....with regards to this topic it is one without open marijuana use.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1705031 wrote:Ahh, yes. Democracy. A form of government completely incompatible with liberty.

  
  It's not democracy. If it were then the people could simply vote for legalised marijuana. Instead it takes the masses to overwhelmingly force representation to support such an issue which may or may not be accompanied with a vote of the people.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1705035 wrote:It's not democracy. If it were then the people could simply vote for legalised marijuana. Instead it takes the masses to overwhelmingly force representation to support such an issue which may or may not be accompanied with a vote of the people.

  You mean like they did in Colorado and Washington?
  
  I know that's not how it's going to work on a federal level to get Marijuana off the schedule 1 list. I love all of the lip service Obama and Holder have given on marijuana, yet they did nothing/have done nothing to remove it from the schedule 1 list. He's got a phone and a pen, blah, blah, blah, yet here we are, wasting an ungodly amount of resources on a war against a plant.
• Heretic

  

  justincredible;1705025 wrote:The only laws that should exist/be enforced, IMO, are those that involve violating the rights of others (rape, murder, theft, ect). Nanny-state laws absolutely should not exist. I don't think my views are hypocritical at all.

  Precisely. +1. Reps. And all that shit.
  
  Some laws have value because they are in place to prevent one person from violating the rights of others. Other laws don't because their purpose is what? To generate money to fill coffers? To show the public that someone "means business" in fighting a fictitious "war on drugs"? To bloat our society with tons of unneeded legislation?
  
  Whatever. Fuck that noise.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1705042 wrote:You mean like they did in Colorado and Washington?
  
  I know that's not how it's going to work on a federal level to get Marijuana off the schedule 1 list. I love all of the lip service Obama and Holder have given on marijuana, yet they did nothing/have done nothing to remove it from the schedule 1 list. He's got a phone and a pen, blah, blah, blah, yet here we are, wasting an ungodly amount of resources on a war against a plant.

  No, the people in those States didn't do enough. They haven't gotten their federal reps to legalize such actions. Why worry about it being legal or not if you're willing to continue to break the law?
  
  I don't see us wasting money enforcing laws. Such effoert lends additional credence to the fact that we function as a nation of laws. If we don't respect them, try to enforce them, all of them, then we might as well rip up the constitution and start over. Until such time I support spending money on trying to ensure our laws are upheld.
• Con_Alma

  Heretic;1705053 wrote:Precisely. +1. Reps. And all that shit.
  
  ... Other laws don't because their purpose is what? ....

  ...to reflect the desire of the people attempting to create the type of society we desire to have. it's a never ending effort.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1705054 wrote:Why worry about it being legal or not if you're willing to continue to break the law?

  This is a serious question?
• Heretic

  

  Con_Alma;1705055 wrote:...to reflect the desire of the people attempting to create the type of society we desire to have. it's a never ending effort.

  Yes, attempting to micro-manage everyone into a small box with walls all over the place telling them "don't do this" and "don't do that" would be a never-ending (and futile) effort.
• Con_Alma

  I hope I haven't implied in any way that I haven't tried to be serious. It's a very good, relevant topic in our world today....and I think it's foundational discussion points are much bigger than being able to use or smoke pot.
• Con_Alma

  Heretic;1705058 wrote:Yes, attempting to micro-manage everyone into a small box with walls all over the place telling them "don't do this" and "don't do that" would be a never-ending (and futile) effort.

  ...and yet our country is set up in a manner that permits such efforts. I don't see it being discontinued any time soon...especially when you consider a push by the people to discontinue it is in and of itself an act of doing exactly what you chastised, by nature of one group pushing back the desires of another.
• justincredible

  

  Con_Alma;1705060 wrote:...especially when you consider a push by the people to discontinue it is in and of itself an act of doing exactly what you chastised, by nature of one group pushing back the desires of another.

  Pushing back on the nanny-state is the same as the nanny-state trying to micro-manage the lives of others?
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1705060 wrote:...and yet our country is set up in a manner that permits such efforts.

  While true it permits such efforts, it's sad that the electorate nor those they elect remember or understand that such efforts were not the intent.
• Heretic

  

  justincredible;1705064 wrote:Pushing back on the nanny-state is the same as the nanny-state trying to micro-manage the lives of others?

  BY NOT LETTING YOURSELF BE MICRO-MANAGED, YOU ARE RUINING LIVES!!!!!!
• Pick6

  

  These threads are the best.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1705065 wrote:While true it permits such efforts, it's sad that the electorate nor those they elect remember or understand that such efforts were not the intent.

  ...and the brilliance of such a set up was that the framers new they could not foresee the wants and needs of future generations, making the allowance of the electorate having the ability to determine such things.
• Con_Alma

  justincredible;1705064 wrote:Pushing back on the nanny-state is the same as the nanny-state trying to micro-manage the lives of others?

  
  No. Pushing back on the desires of other people striving to have a society not inclusive of a culture of marijuana is no different than those peopel pushing against the people wishing for marijuana to be legal.
• Gardens35

  Pick6;1705102 wrote:These threads are the best.

  Reps.
  
  Edit: Seems I've given too many today.......next time Pick.