Why would you be against the Medical Marijuana prop? (school, college)

[43north87west]

I voted yes. I am well aware that it's simply legalizing a vice. I'd like to see it (heavily) taxed like tobacco. Who cares if the drug companies already make a drug? Medical marijuana use has about zero to do with medicine. All I care about is the financial side. Tax it, let the potheads pay for their habit as if they used tobacco. If they can't afford it, that's life.

[LongIslandEddie]

Originally Posted by JAinAZ

Last time I checked, pot was not protected in the constitution, nor prostitution or gambling................

Last time I checked, pot was not prohibited in the constitution either, more likely than not, several of those who signed the constitution,
were pot growers and or users who surely never considered marijuana or hemp to be remotely worthy of ANY control measures. It was
about 160 years AFTER our illuminated forefathers framed our constitution, that a bunch of self serving politicians subverted it.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by JAinAZ

Last time I checked, pot was not protected in the constitution, nor prostitution or gambling................

Very true. However, there are many things that are not protected in the Constitution which are perfectly legal & we take for granted ... such as operating a motor vehicle, and procreation. Those things are not rights, but privileges. Even gambling and prostitution are legal in Nevada. It doesn't make any sense to keep something illegal because it won't stop the activity. Matter of fact, it actually becomes MORE of a problem because it transfers to the black market. Besides, I'd much rather see murderers, rapists, arsonists, etc. in prison than pot heads.

[pjg66]

Originally Posted by Alexus

I don't support any policy that favors the pothead or makes it easier to be a pothead.

By inference, does that mean you do not support any policy that makes it easier to be an alcoholic (like legalized alcohol)? Just asking.

[pjg66]

Originally Posted by JAinAZ

Last time I checked, pot was not protected in the constitution, nor prostitution or gambling................

The Declaration of Independence guarantees "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Of course there have been endless legal debates on exactly what this phrase protects and what it doesn't protect. But its interpretation has changed as our culture and society have changed. The founding fathers couldn't possibly have written in such detail that all future contingencies would be covered. So they sometimes wrote general principles, that should be flexible and enduring.

But industrial, technical and information revolutions are reshaping societies and cultures (whether anyone likes it or not or), which demands that we always rethink the meaning of individual liberty and societal responsibility.

But, for example, wasn't this phrase the basis of the Supreme Court eventually deciding we had a right to privacy? And wasn't the right to privacy the basis for eventually striking down anti-sodomy laws? (Just to pick an example; don't intend to get into an argument here about this specific issue).

Just to say that some specific thing is not explicitly protected does not mean that it can't be legal and condoned.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by pjg66

The Declaration of Independence guarantees "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Of course there have been endless legal debates on exactly what this phrase protects and what it doesn't protect. But its interpretation has changed as our culture and society have changed. The founding fathers couldn't possibly have written in such detail that all future contingencies would be covered. So they sometimes wrote general principles, that should be flexible and enduring.

But industrial, technical and information revolutions are reshaping societies and cultures (whether anyone likes it or not or), which demands that we always rethink the meaning of individual liberty and societal responsibility.

But, for example, wasn't this phrase the basis of the Supreme Court eventually deciding we had a right to privacy? And wasn't the right to privacy the basis for eventually striking down anti-sodomy laws? (Just to pick an example; don't intend to get into an argument here about this specific issue).

Just to say that some specific thing is not explicitly protected does not mean that it can't be legal and condoned.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. It's just flowery prose. Our rights, or lack thereof, are in the Constitution. There is no explicit right to privacy there. Some interpret the 9th and 10th Amendments to imply a right to privacy. Others disagree. I don't think you find much traction in pointing to the Declaration or the Constitution for that matter as a legal argument for allowing the sale of pot.

[blabladin]

The tricky thing is, pot is a federally classified substance. Federal laws really make it difficult for states to legalize pot in a well-regulated way. In theory, feds could actually intervene with pot consumption in California, but the federal government has thus far (as far as I know) chosen to take a hands-off policy to the California pot situation. And at the state level, it's difficult, because the state legislators are in a different position when it comes to legislation than a voter-sponsored proposition, so it can be difficult for them to further regulate something that is already at odds with federal law.
______________________
Debit cards for travel (http://prepaidcardtoday.com/travel.html - broken link)

[Howard Roark]

At the risk of falling into Godwin's law, to say we have no right to privacy is fascism.

I will defend my individual rights by my gun (and I don't really need the the 2nd Amendment, as explained below).

American government at the federal and state level is too big and too intrusive. At some city levels too big. And scary.

The Declaration of Independence certainly has no legal meaning.

I'll go out further and refer to Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority," which asserts that no one is bound by the U.S. Constitution. Use your favorite Internet search to read up on that.

We each have a natural right to our life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. State or not, no matter if a popular national referendum of 71% of the voters said we do not have those rights.

Included in the right to property is the right to be secure in our own homes and protected from invasion. Also as a renter, you assume you have some property rights temporarily granted to you by the owner - such as privacy. I get the same deal with my safe deposit boxes: Temporary privacy and protection.

The complication is when one leaves his property and goes onto someone else's property. He is a guest at the other place and must follow the rules there. I step into Phoenix Sky Harbor TSA checkpoint and I have to follow the rules (lose my privacy) in order to be a passenger on a commercial airliner. But I chose to do so. If I did not want to lose my privacy (x-ray, search, whatever), I would just avoid commecial airline flights.

Also I realize that before I step foot on someone else's property I need to read their posted sign that says no firearms permitted (at airports for example). I abide by those rules. A gun is permitted in my residence - I granted myself that permit. Also if I was a marijuana smoker, I would permit myself to smoke that in my own residence (state or not).

For decades I have wanted America to become a libertarian society where things we take for granted as government-owned are privatized (Highway Aggravation: The Case For Privatizing The Highways). I have never been convinced that government can do anything more efficiently than private industry. There is always initiation of force involved in government action.

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The Declaration of Independence has no legal weight. It's just flowery prose. Our rights, or lack thereof, are in the Constitution. There is no explicit right to privacy there. Some interpret the 9th and 10th Amendments to imply a right to privacy. Others disagree. I don't think you find much traction in pointing to the Declaration or the Constitution for that matter as a legal argument for allowing the sale of pot.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by blabladin

The tricky thing is, pot is a federally classified substance. Federal laws really make it difficult for states to legalize pot in a well-regulated way. In theory, feds could actually intervene with pot consumption in California, but the federal government has thus far (as far as I know) chosen to take a hands-off policy to the California pot situation. And at the state level, it's difficult, because the state legislators are in a different position when it comes to legislation than a voter-sponsored proposition, so it can be difficult for them to further regulate something that is already at odds with federal law.
______________________
Debit cards for travel (http://prepaidcardtoday.com/travel.html - broken link)

This brings up the question of states rights. If CA is so dead set in going down this path then they need to force the issue under the commerce clause.
Take one of the people arrested by DEA for selling medical MJ and back 'em with the CA attorney general then push it all the way to the supreme court. MT did it with firearms and the government "blinked" first and so far there's been no arrest.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

Isn't MARINOL already legal? And isn't it the same thing without all the potential side effects? So why do you NEED medicinal pot?

Tetrahydrocannabinol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope... I've personally tried Marinol, and it's a poor excuse for the real thing. Ask anyone who's used both, and I'm sure they would agree - scientific reasons were actually explained earlier in the thread.