"The Truth" commercials

[Marxist ßastard]

I believe that every city in the US should buy a couple dozen billboards that say this:

WARNING: EVERYTHING MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH OR SAFETY.

Funnily enough, this is pretty much exactly what CA Prop. 65 did. The only effects it has had was to kill a few thousand trees, make a few immensely sleazy lawyers richer, and make a few people freak out when buying hedge clippers.

 

And though there may be reasonable justification for the illegality of manufactured chemicals,

I don't see how the two cases would be different at all.

 

where substances in their naturally occurring state are concerned (herbs, fungi, cacti, flowers, etc.) , it's criminal to make them criminal. I plead the 1st amendment here

How is this impeding your right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?

[ed8020]

I believe that every city in the US should buy a couple dozen billboards that say this:

WARNING: EVERYTHING MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH OR SAFETY.

Funnily enough, this is pretty much exactly what CA Prop. 65 did. The only effects it has had was to kill a few thousand trees, make a few immensely sleazy lawyers richer, and make a few people freak out when buying hedge clippers.

 

And though there may be reasonable justification for the illegality of manufactured chemicals,

I don't see how the two cases would be different at all.

 

where substances in their naturally occurring state are concerned (herbs, fungi, cacti, flowers, etc.) , it's criminal to make them criminal. I plead the 1st amendment here

How is this impeding your right to petition the government for a redress of grievances?

And people should FEAR THE HEDGECLIPPERS.

 

I was conceding some ground for the sake of civil discourse.

 

Religious. Gen 1:29. But that's the simple answer. I would prefer to argue the point on the pursuit of happiness but thats kind of vague.

 

EDIT: On a side note. I must say that I am proud of Obama when during the on line town hall meeting.

he quite literally retrieved a question about legalization from the trash and addressed it.

He idid not say that he was opposed to legalization, just that it was not a valid tool to inject money into the economy (paraphrasing). I hope he will address the issue in the future but to do it now would derail what he is trying to accomplish now. Baby steps.

[Marxist ßastard]

I was conceding some ground for the sake of civil discourse.

Arbitrarily abandoning a very large portion of drug users isn't what I'd call civil. Tweekers have rights too.

 

Religious. Gen 1:29.

Which is God telling Adam that he and all other animals are allowed to eat any spermatophytic plants in the Garden of Eden. You're certainly entitled to believe that, but what does it have to do with this topic?

 

But that's the simple answer. I would prefer to argue the point on the pursuit of happiness...

Are you calling for the complete dissolution of the government? Because that's the only case where language from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence would be relevant.

[ed8020]

I was conceding some ground for the sake of civil discourse.

Arbitrarily abandoning a very large portion of drug users isn't what I'd call civil. Tweekers have rights too.

True. But try and have civil discourse with one on day 3.

 

Religious. Gen 1:29.

Which is God telling Adam that he and all other animals are allowed to eat any spermatophytic plants in the Garden of Eden. You're certainly entitled to believe that, but what does it have to do with this topic?

" He shall have all the herbs bearing seed and trees bearing fruit, for his meat."

I prefer my meat smoked.

 

But that's the simple answer. I would prefer to argue the point on the pursuit of happiness...

Are you calling for the complete dissolution of the government? Because that's the only case where language from the preamble to the Declaration of Independence would be relevant.

Think about the other guy. You gotta keep it simple. And though the pre amble conveys the spirit of the constitution very well, they need things a little more clearly defined. Plus when you bring freedom of religion into it, it tends to shut them up. Unless of course it's not their religion. Hence the reason for my choice of arguments.

[Marxist ßastard]

True. But try and have civil discourse with one on day 3.

You're still in the exact same boat as them. Smoking pot entails a chemical reaction, followed by a separation. Pot smoke is no less "manufactured" than amphetamines, LSD, or even aspirin.

 

"He shall have all the herbs bearing seed and trees bearing fruit, for his meat."

You aren't Adam. This isn't the Garden of Eden. The passage still doesn't apply.

 

...the pre amble conveys the spirit of the constitution very well...

Not really. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence just asserts that, in principle, there is an informal social contract which applies to people under any government, and that severe violations of this social contract are grounds for revolt. The Constitution forms a federal, formalized government to provide for collective liberty and security. There are not absolute rights to life or the pursuit of happiness formalized within the federal government.

 

Think about the other guy. You gotta keep it simple... they need things a little more clearly defined.

I know your current arguments are all bunk. You know your current arguments are bunk. I think "they" know your current arguments are bunk.

 

Now, the argument that you could be making, and which people could actually believe in, is that people using pot (or many "manufactured" drugs) pose no threat to others' liberty and security, and thus congress has no right to legislate against that. That's a perfectly valid argument, and it requires no lying on your part. It does require that you actually prove the harmlessness of these drugs, but you're prepared to do that, aren't you?

[ed8020]

True. But try and have civil discourse with one on day 3.

You're still in the exact same boat as them. Smoking pot entails a chemical reaction, followed by a separation. Pot smoke is no less "manufactured" than amphetamines, LSD, or even aspirin.

 

"He shall have all the herbs bearing seed and trees bearing fruit, for his meat."

You aren't Adam. This isn't the Garden of Eden. The passage still doesn't apply.

 

...the pre amble conveys the spirit of the constitution very well...

Not really. The preamble to the Declaration of Independence just asserts that, in principle, there is an informal social contract which applies to people under any government, and that severe violations of this social contract are grounds for revolt. The Constitution forms a federal, formalized government to provide for collective liberty and security. There are not absolute rights to life or the pursuit of happiness formalized within the federal government.

 

Think about the other guy. You gotta keep it simple... they need things a little more clearly defined.

I know your current arguments are all bunk. You know your current arguments are bunk. I think "they" know your current arguments are bunk.

 

Now, the argument that you could be making, and which people could actually believe in, is that people using pot (or many "manufactured" drugs) pose no threat to others' liberty and security, and thus congress has no right to legislate against that. That's a perfectly valid argument, and it requires no lying on your part. It does require that you actually prove the harmlessness of these drugs, but you're prepared to do that, aren't you?

 

LOL.

 

My apologies. I was the first one to misquote by implying that “the pursuit of happiness” has anything to do with the constitution. It is a common mistake.

The declaration just tells the king to piss off and has no “preamble”.

 

Since you believe all my arguments to be bunk and even propose to make my arguments for me, which you could have done without calling me a liar, there is no point in me taking part “your” argument.

 

I personally don’t care if you choose to take cyanide. though I recommend against it, but to each his own. The next time you eat acid I do suggest eating at least a half of a sheet. Then perhaps we can continue this debate with a little perspective.

 

Good luck and enjoy your trip.

[Marxist ßastard]

I personally don't care if you choose to take cyanide. though I recommend against it, but to each his own.

 

Good luck and enjoy your trip.

Why are you so afraid to free your mind, man?

[ed8020]

I personally don't care if you choose to take cyanide. though I recommend against it, but to each his own.

 

Good luck and enjoy your trip.

Why are you so afraid to free your mind, man?

There's a difference between freeing your mind and losing it.

[evilkoal]

I personally don't care if you choose to take cyanide. though I recommend against it, but to each his own.

 

Good luck and enjoy your trip.

Why are you so afraid to free your mind, man?

There's a difference between freeing your mind and losing it.

 

there is a very very small difference, sometimes one side being indistinguishable from the other.

[ed8020]

I personally don't care if you choose to take cyanide. though I recommend against it, but to each his own.

 

Good luck and enjoy your trip.

Why are you so afraid to free your mind, man?

There's a difference between freeing your mind and losing it.

 

there is a very very small difference, sometimes one side being indistinguishable from the other.

Aaaaaaah. You know about the 3rd day.