User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 2:29:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I mean, under Bruen, this is an obvious one. There were founding fathers growing it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 2:31:32 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How so? Drugs can either be prohibited or allowed under a statist regime; it all comes down to which best serves the state as those who run the state believe. If legalizing drugs serves the interest if the state under a statist regime (which they might, and this is a theme in some dystopian literature) then the state will legalize it. I'll ask you what I asked him. How are you defining statism? It has an actual, objective definition and meaning. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sound's like Colorado is becoming the society you want.  That's exactly what I said (not). Are you a statist and if so, why do you think being one is okay? Thanks. Supporting drug prohibition, whatever its merits or lack thereof, doesn't make anyone a statist. That's an absurd accusation. Also, while Federal drug prohibition is most certainly unconstitutional (and bullshit like this law even more so), State level prohibition does not violate the Federal constitution. How so? Drugs can either be prohibited or allowed under a statist regime; it all comes down to which best serves the state as those who run the state believe. If legalizing drugs serves the interest if the state under a statist regime (which they might, and this is a theme in some dystopian literature) then the state will legalize it. I'll ask you what I asked him. How are you defining statism? It has an actual, objective definition and meaning. There weren't laws back in the day of the Founders banning drugs like we say today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 2:32:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good. And I don’t even smoke the shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 2:35:27 PM EDT
[#4]
Good.
Alcohol is a much, much more dangerous drug. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 2:45:58 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Supporting drug prohibition, whatever its merits or lack thereof, doesn't make anyone a statist. That's an absurd accusation. Also, while Federal drug prohibition is most certainly unconstitutional (and bullshit like this law even more so), State level prohibition does not violate the Federal constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sound's like Colorado is becoming the society you want. That's exactly what I said (not). Are you a statist and if so, why do you think being one is okay? Thanks. Supporting drug prohibition, whatever its merits or lack thereof, doesn't make anyone a statist. That's an absurd accusation. Also, while Federal drug prohibition is most certainly unconstitutional (and bullshit like this law even more so), State level prohibition does not violate the Federal constitution. Actually it does, same for those who supported alcohol prohibition. Prohibition got us NFA (because what better to do when people refuse to follow the law…? make more laws, of course!) Fuck prohibition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 2:57:01 PM EDT
[#6]
I have never ever run an emergency call involving violence and a pot smoker. Yet I've lost count of violence pertaining to alcohol use.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 2:57:56 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There weren't laws back in the day of the Founders banning drugs like we say today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 2:59:35 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good. And I don’t even smoke the shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 4:32:18 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 4:58:29 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Excellent. Recreational went on sale for the first time yesterday in Missouri, the drive through was wrapping around the building when I drove by lol I'm laughing my fucking ass off.....Missouri legalized by ballot Nov 8th, 2022 and its on recreational sale?? Meanwhile New York legalized it in 2021 and they only just opened up the FIRST recreational sale in NY on Dec 29, 2022 And they're still fuckin around with figuring out to give pot felons first licenses and trying to make everything as liberal as fucking possible combined with the most bureaucratic government ever known to man |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 5:10:02 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How so? Drugs can either be prohibited or allowed under a statist regime; it all comes down to which best serves the state as those who run the state believe. If legalizing drugs serves the interest if the state under a statist regime (which they might, and this is a theme in some dystopian literature) then the state will legalize it. I'll ask you what I asked him. How are you defining statism? It has an actual, objective definition and meaning. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sound's like Colorado is becoming the society you want. That's exactly what I said (not). Are you a statist and if so, why do you think being one is okay? Thanks. Supporting drug prohibition, whatever its merits or lack thereof, doesn't make anyone a statist. That's an absurd accusation. Also, while Federal drug prohibition is most certainly unconstitutional (and bullshit like this law even more so), State level prohibition does not violate the Federal constitution. How so? Drugs can either be prohibited or allowed under a statist regime; it all comes down to which best serves the state as those who run the state believe. If legalizing drugs serves the interest if the state under a statist regime (which they might, and this is a theme in some dystopian literature) then the state will legalize it. I'll ask you what I asked him. How are you defining statism? It has an actual, objective definition and meaning. You're using "legalizing" as a verb, implying that a thing being legal is the result of State action. It is not. The neutral state is legal. The People grant powers to the Government, the Government may only restrict The People within the authority granted. The source of authority being the State is the definition of "Statism". Authority is derived from The People. You could make a coherent argument for the Government's power to regulate the use of some drugs/narcotics/substances. You got a tough row to hoe making a convincing argument that the Government has been granted authority to remove an enumerated right from a pothead because they are a pothead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 5:12:42 PM EDT
[#12]
I agree with the Judge.
shall not be infringed means a lot. however, the user of those firearms will more than likely, in some point in the future become a member of the Darwin Awards Society by mixing marijuana with firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 5:24:38 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree with the Judge. shall not be infringed means a lot. however, the user of those firearms will more than likely, in some point in the future become a member of the Darwin Awards Society by mixing marijuana with firearms. I can't wait for all the blunt and bong and gun pics when it becomes federally legal. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
