User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 10:36:31 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's exactly what I said (again). Sure, the general population is chomping at the bit to do tar.  Here are the Cliff's Notes. Prohibition is both objectively immoral and unconstitutional. There's no place for it in a free society. You should go door to door to make sure that no one is doing any type of illegal drug. I don't have to go door to door to spot fentanyl addicts, because they usually don't have homes. You will end up with tent cities of violent junkies in your town, and no recourse for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 10:43:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't have to go door to door to spot fentanyl addicts, because they usually don't have homes. You will end up with tent cities of violent junkies in your town, and no recourse for it. Lol. Being one of the first states to legalize did cause a bit of an immigration but people dont smoke a joint and instantly get transported to van down by the river. I wonder if states with tent cities have anything else going on that contributes to this like nice weather or policies catering to homeless and poor people staying that way? Nah must be a plant.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 10:44:43 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Try again. I'm for all shit being legal even though I don't condone using most drugs, to be clear. The fact is that prohibition is both wrong and unconstitutional. That's irrefutable.You're advocating for the WoD. That was my point. Problems arise from junkies because politicians don't toss the ones committing real crimes in jail. Being a shit bag is being a shit bag, regardless of what you ingest, even if what you ingest makes you more prone to being a shit bag. Whether or not it's the majority of them is irrelevant. It's no different than the revolving door of letting shitbag carjackers out of jail the same day they get arrested while calling for infringing on gun rights. ETA - TLDR, there's no justification for being a statist.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 10:48:02 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doubt that ever happens……… nor jobs with safety sensitive activities Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Now rule it's legal to use and work in a job that falls under federal guidelines. Doubt that ever happens……… nor jobs with safety sensitive activities Would be a tough one. Use while on the clock would be reasonable to prohibit, same as alcohol. Firing someone for use outside of working hours and whose effects have worn off prior to returning to work is a different story. You're free to get blind drunk on your time off, as long as your BAC is 0 before returning to work. The same does not apply to pot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 10:49:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So instead of trying to curb addiction before it starts, you'd rather the country allow the conditions for mass addiction, get the general population hooked on tar, and then incarcerate them all?  As we stand today, anyone that wants anything, can go out and buy it. A few more rights violated, a few more billion $$$ and a few more million people in cages….and the war will be won…i cant wait..we are almost there |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 10:51:44 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. Being one of the first states to legalize did cause a bit of an immigration but people dont smoke a joint and instantly get transported to van down by the river. I wonder if states with tent cities have anything else going on that contributes to this like nice weather or policies catering to homeless and poor people staying that way? Nah must be a plant.. Again. Not talking about weed. He thinks prohibition of any substance is unconstitutional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 10:53:10 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As we stand today, anyone that wants anything, can go out and buy it. A few more rights violated, a few more billion $$$ and a few more million people in cages .and the war will be won i cant wait..we are almost there Except his solution necessarily involves spending more money to put more people in cages, but it's not statism when he does it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 10:54:00 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As we stand today, anyone that wants anything, can go out and buy it. A few more rights violated, a few more billion $$$ and a few more million people in cages….and the war will be won…i cant wait..we are almost there Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So instead of trying to curb addiction before it starts, you'd rather the country allow the conditions for mass addiction, get the general population hooked on tar, and then incarcerate them all? As we stand today, anyone that wants anything, can go out and buy it. A few more rights violated, a few more billion $$$ and a few more million people in cages….and the war will be won…i cant wait..we are almost there This. Literally nothing is impossible to purchase. It's just a matter of price. A legalization of drugs would reduce black market purchases of them, deprive criminal enterprises of some revenue, and generate tax revenue from the now legal sales. It also creates legal jobs for those working in the industry as well as allows the imposition of product quality and safety standards. Those affected by harmful or tainted products can also sue for damages. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:00:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again. Not talking about weed. He thinks prohibition of any substance is unconstitutional. It is. This is a thread about weed, why are you making an argument about fentanyl? Maybe if we just let people smoke opium we wouldn't have as many folks oding from fentanyl |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:04:02 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good. And I don’t even smoke the shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:04:44 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:05:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. Literally nothing is impossible to purchase. It's just a matter of price. A legalization of drugs would reduce black market purchases of them, deprive criminal enterprises of some revenue, and generate tax revenue from the now legal sales. It also creates legal jobs for those working in the industry as well as allows the imposition of product quality and safety standards. Those affected by harmful or tainted products can also sue for damages. Except, in reality, Chinese and Mexican crime syndicates have set up legal grow ops in America. Large organized criminal enterprises have no problem exploiting legal markets too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:06:49 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good. And I don’t even smoke the shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:16:24 AM EDT
[#14]
Good. Fuck ATF and Gov't rulings saying otherwise
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:17:51 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except, in reality, Chinese and Mexican crime syndicates have set up legal grow ops in America. Large organized criminal enterprises have no problem exploiting legal markets too. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This. Literally nothing is impossible to purchase. It's just a matter of price. A legalization of drugs would reduce black market purchases of them, deprive criminal enterprises of some revenue, and generate tax revenue from the now legal sales. It also creates legal jobs for those working in the industry as well as allows the imposition of product quality and safety standards. Those affected by harmful or tainted products can also sue for damages. Except, in reality, Chinese and Mexican crime syndicates have set up legal grow ops in America. Large organized criminal enterprises have no problem exploiting legal markets too. Oh, right, what was I thinking. Having them participate in a legal and regulated market is unacceptable. It's far better to use the government to ensure they have complete control of an unregulated market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:20:49 AM EDT
[#16]
As someone who has never partaken of the devil's lettuce, I approve of this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:24:46 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Would be a tough one. Use while on the clock would be reasonable to prohibit, same as alcohol. Firing someone for use outside of working hours and whose effects have worn off prior to returning to work is a different story. You're free to get blind drunk on your time off, as long as your BAC is 0 before returning to work. The same does not apply to pot. Because the only current reliable way to make sure someone is not under the influence is a piss test. Which is apples to apples to a breathalyzer in this scenario. Also insurance companies will be the hood ours on these issues. They are the ones that have to pay up if someone gets hurt under the influence of anything. And the first thing that happens when you get hurt on the job is going to be a piss test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:27:53 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except his solution necessarily involves spending more money to put more people in cages, but it's not statism when he does it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: As we stand today, anyone that wants anything, can go out and buy it. A few more rights violated, a few more billion $$$ and a few more million people in cages .and the war will be won i cant wait..we are almost there Except his solution necessarily involves spending more money to put more people in cages, but it's not statism when he does it. I love how you put words in my mouth. Definitely don't do any type of drugs - legal or not, because you can't afford to lose any more of your reasoning or reading comprehension "skills." You're almost correct. I don't do any statism (beyond voting for the lesser of the statists). The people who want to do drugs are doing them. Yes, it's cheaper to put people in jail who pick your pocket or break your leg than the current practice of ignoring them or doing catch and release. It has the added effect of showing others would-be rights violators that they'll get to go to jail too if caught. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:30:52 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the only current reliable way to make sure someone is not under the influence is a piss test. Which is apples to apples to a breathalyzer in this scenario. Also insurance companies will be the hood ours on these issues. They are the ones that have to pay up if someone gets hurt under the influence of anything. And the first thing that happens when you get hurt on the job is going to be a piss test. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Would be a tough one. Use while on the clock would be reasonable to prohibit, same as alcohol. Firing someone for use outside of working hours and whose effects have worn off prior to returning to work is a different story. You're free to get blind drunk on your time off, as long as your BAC is 0 before returning to work. The same does not apply to pot. Because the only current reliable way to make sure someone is not under the influence is a piss test. Which is apples to apples to a breathalyzer in this scenario. Also insurance companies will be the hood ours on these issues. They are the ones that have to pay up if someone gets hurt under the influence of anything. And the first thing that happens when you get hurt on the job is going to be a piss test. It's not actually, and that's well known. A pot user can still show positive on urinalysis long after the effects have subsided. Employers that use hair follicle testing can see back even further, possibly still obtaining a positive result after the metabolites no longer appear in the donor's urine. Determining an exact concentration in urine is an expensive process that most employers only utilize to retest a non-negative result to rule out a false positive (and sometimes at the cost of the employee if it's ultimately found to be grounds for dismissal). A legitimately positive result on a breathalyzer means that that person is currently impaired. This is not an apples to apples comparison. I can't stand stoners, but keeping them from having a job for smoking off the clock is pretty unfair when their coworkers are free to drink like fish off the clock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:32:31 AM EDT
[#20]
Not a fan of pot heads but good ruling!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:33:59 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh, right, what was I thinking. Having them participate in a legal and regulated market is unacceptable. It's far better to use the government to ensure they have complete control of an unregulated market. They kill eachother over legal markets too. Mexicans kill eachother over control of the avocado trade. If they could get away with it, they would absolutely kill all of the lolbert farmers here that support their right to grow in America. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:35:30 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Now rule it's legal to use and work in a job that falls under federal guidelines. That is coming too. A real issue is the Federal Government does not enforce pot laws against users, nor do they prosecute them. In effect the Feds are saying it is not a threat to society and the common welfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:38:22 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They kill eachother over legal markets too. Mexicans kill eachother over control of the avocado trade. If they could get away with it, they would absolutely kill all of the lolbert farmers here that support their right to grow in America. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Oh, right, what was I thinking. Having them participate in a legal and regulated market is unacceptable. It's far better to use the government to ensure they have complete control of an unregulated market. They kill eachother over legal markets too. Mexicans kill eachother over control of the avocado trade. If they could get away with it, they would absolutely kill all of the lolbert farmers here that support their right to grow in America. Again, another nonsensical argument. Murder is still illegal. No one is advocating changing that. Doesn't matter who they kill or why. It's still against the law and is something they do irrespective of whether they're participating in a legal or illegal market. In a legal market, however, any person or business they threaten could seek law enforcement intervention without fear of arrest. That's not the case for those participating in an illegal market. Maintaining the war on drugs simply because criminals are gonna do criminal shit even in a legal system is little different than arguing for a complete ban on guns because people use them for murder. It's asinine. Meanwhile, the government continues to use the war on drugs as an excuse for blatant civil rights violations, not least among them outright theft by way of civil asset forfeiture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:39:34 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryI don't know about worshiping satin, but I'd like to be ensconced in velvet.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:51:19 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In a legal market, however, any person or business they threaten could seek law enforcement intervention without fear of arrest. That's not the case for those participating in an illegal market. and who do you call when they consolidate enough power to effectively become the state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:53:44 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is coming too. A real issue is the Federal Government does not enforce pot laws against users, nor do they prosecute them. In effect the Feds are saying it is not a threat to society and the common welfare. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Now rule it's legal to use and work in a job that falls under federal guidelines. That is coming too. A real issue is the Federal Government does not enforce pot laws against users, nor do they prosecute them. In effect the Feds are saying it is not a threat to society and the common welfare. It's not much different then the feds not using existing gun laws against violent criminals who use illegal guns to commit crimes, then refuse to enforce said laws to incarcerate then per the criminal code in the federal penitentiary system. But go after Joe Smoe who has never hurt a flea for a brace, damn betcha they will........... Who exactly is the threat to society? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 11:56:49 AM EDT
[#27]
It should be illegal to "be in possession" of any firearms under the influence of any substance, alcohol included.
What you do when the tools are locked up should be your business. I believe the judge got it right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:03:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Since we're doing Alice Cooper on the same page this morning:
"I used to be such a sweet, sweet thing until weed got ahold of me.." And...go. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:08:19 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It should be illegal to "be in possession" of any firearms under the influence of any substance, alcohol included. What you do when the tools are locked up should be your business. I believe the judge got it right. I don't know, there's a difference between being slightly impaired and being completely wasted. If you paint with too broad a brush, you end up denying functional people on prescription medication the right to self defense. It can be hard to quantify how impaired somebody is from an enforcement perspective though, outside of noticably extreme impairement, I'll grant that. It's a tricky issue to balance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:09:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It should be illegal to "be in possession" of any firearms under the influence of any substance, alcohol included. What you do when the tools are locked up should be your business. I believe the judge got it right. No. We shot the British drunk as fuck. We paid soldiers in applejack |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:16:13 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: and who do you call when they consolidate enough power to effectively become the state? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In a legal market, however, any person or business they threaten could seek law enforcement intervention without fear of arrest. That's not the case for those participating in an illegal market. and who do you call when they consolidate enough power to effectively become the state? Really grasping at straws, huh? We've tried prohibition before. It doesn't work. Legalizing a previously prohibited product (alcohol) didn't cause any of the asinine scenarios you've suggested. If anything, the gangs and mobs had far greater control under prohibition than they did after it ended. If you remove the federal prohibition, American industry will push out the criminal groups. Prohibition only protects their hegemony of the market while simultaneously permitting the government to abridge rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:16:32 PM EDT
[#32]
FL's Boomers will not be happy.
 The Boomers against Dope are the same against Open Carry.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:21:03 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good. And I don't even smoke the shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:23:31 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ban-marijuana-users-owning-guns-is-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules-2023-02-04/ Feb 4 (Reuters) - A federal law prohibiting marijuana users from possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Oklahoma has concluded, citing last year's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights. U.S. District Judge Patrick Wyrick, an appointee of former Republican President Donald Trump in Oklahoma City, on Friday dismissed an indictment against a man charged in August with violating that ban, saying it infringed his right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. Wyrick said that while the government can protect the public from dangerous people possessing guns, it could not argue Jared Harrison's "mere status as a user of marijuana justifies stripping him of his fundamental right to possess a firearm." He said using marijuana was "not in and of itself a violent, forceful, or threatening act," and noted that Oklahoma is one of a number of states where the drug, still illegal under federal law, can be legally bought for medical uses. The U.S. Department of Justice did not respond to request for comment but is likely to appeal. They will appeal. 922 (g) 3 covers all controlled substances. Not just weed. This shuts down a HUGE part of gun control. They can't let this stand. So, it will go up to SCOTUS and the feds will lose anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:24:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It should be illegal to "be in possession" of any firearms under the influence of any substance, alcohol included. What you do when the tools are locked up should be your business. I believe the judge got it right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:25:33 PM EDT
[#36]
I see, guns and alcohol dont mix, but dope and guns do........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:27:22 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It should be illegal to "be in possession" of any firearms under the influence of any substance, alcohol included. What you do when the tools are locked up should be your business. I believe the judge got it right. I can legally keep my carry gun loaded, and on my person while shitfaced on my property. I can even lawfully use it in defense while shitfaced on my property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:31:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Great ruling, yeah buddy for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:37:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can legally keep my carry gun loaded, and on my person while shitfaced on my property. I can even lawfully use it in defense while shitfaced on my property. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It should be illegal to "be in possession" of any firearms under the influence of any substance, alcohol included. What you do when the tools are locked up should be your business. I believe the judge got it right. I can legally keep my carry gun loaded, and on my person while shitfaced on my property. I can even lawfully use it in defense while shitfaced on my property. Based |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:40:37 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As we stand today, anyone that wants anything, can go out and buy it. A few more rights violated, a few more billion $$$ and a few more million people in cages….and the war will be won…i cant wait..we are almost there I remember when DARE first rolled out in the 80s, we had a cop come to school and tell us how great the war on drugs was.. We cheered cause we were in third grade. Looking back at all the rights our nation has lost over the war on drugs, are we really gaining anything as a society..? Let the weak minded go get high and die. Clear out jails of petty pushers, stop bullshit traffic fishing techniques, disband quasi military police units. Watch crime shrink... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:41:47 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not actually, and that's well known. A pot user can still show positive on urinalysis long after the effects have subsided. Employers that use hair follicle testing can see back even further, possibly still obtaining a positive result after the metabolites no longer appear in the donor's urine. Determining an exact concentration in urine is an expensive process that most employers only utilize to retest a non-negative result to rule out a false positive (and sometimes at the cost of the employee if it's ultimately found to be grounds for dismissal). A legitimately positive result on a breathalyzer means that that person is currently impaired. This is not an apples to apples comparison. I can't stand stoners, but keeping them from having a job for smoking off the clock is pretty unfair when their coworkers are free to drink like fish off the clock. It is because they are the two fastest and most common testing processes available. Again it all comes down to the work comp company and there is zero reason for them to allow positive pot results on claims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:41:53 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I see, guns and alcohol dont mix, but dope and guns do........ |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:45:56 PM EDT
[#43]
Freedom is scarey
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 12:56:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not an issue of inebriation, it's an issue of any use at all. When it's legal in a significant amount of states, and even in D.C., it's pretty shifty to also deny gun rights to those people. Especially when the medical industry is increasingly pushing it. When I went for my yearly check up, the RN asked why I didn't smoke weed. Not even for any particular reason. I'm in great health and have no ailments that I think warrant it (Very rarely I'll use delta 8 if my back acts up, but I don't like being zooted if I can help it), and she still recommended it just because. Because docs are in on gun control too. The while point of pushing weed use to the people is to simultaneously deny them rights on the basis of their use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 1:12:19 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's exactly what I said (not). Are you a statist and if so, why do you think being one is okay? Thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 1:16:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's exactly what I said (again). Sure, the general population is chomping at the bit to do tar. Here are the Cliff's Notes. Prohibition is both objectively immoral and unconstitutional. There's no place for it in a free society. You should go door to door to make sure that no one is doing any type of illegal drug. It's not objectively immoral, nor unconstitutional at State and lower levels unless State constitutions say otherwise. Drug use and dealing is immoral, but whether or not it is such to the point it should be illegal and to what extent enforcement may result in the cure being worse than the disease is one of those things that States need to decide for themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 1:30:39 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: 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. Quoted: It's not objectively immoral, nor unconstitutional at State and lower levels unless State constitutions say otherwise. Drug use and dealing is immoral, but whether or not it is such to the point it should be illegal and to what extent enforcement may result in the cure being worse than the disease is one of those things that States need to decide for themselves. Whatever you need to tell yourself, bud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 1:43:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Whatever you need to tell yourself, bud. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Quoted: It's not objectively immoral, nor unconstitutional at State and lower levels unless State constitutions say otherwise. Drug use and dealing is immoral, but whether or not it is such to the point it should be illegal and to what extent enforcement may result in the cure being worse than the disease is one of those things that States need to decide for themselves. Whatever you need to tell yourself, bud. I would say the same. Drug use is objectively immoral and can also have practical, material effects which are detrimental (for those who are relativistic or reject morality, especially in the traditional Western sense), so a law against it cannot logically be immoral. It can be unsound or unwarranted for other reasons, but not on the basis of objective morality on its own. What part of the Federal Constitution do State and local level laws violate? States have broad police powers due to their sovereignty that are only curtailed when limited or prohibited by the Federal constitution or in conflict with Federal laws where those laws are authorized by the Constitution. I see no part of the Constitution that would prohibit such laws, assuming we are reading the words strictly and based upon the original understanding of them. As for statism, that has a very specific meaning to which drug prohibition or lack thereof is immaterial. What do you believe it is? I highly suspect you believe it to mean something other than what it does. It is a form of nationalism that centers around the idea of the state as the nation (as opposed to a people, race, ethnicity, etc.). It elevates the state to the point where we get Mussolini's " everything through the state, everything for the state, nothing against the state," he being the pioneer of statism (state centric nationalism being a novel and defining feature of actual fascism). Your response is as worthless as if you had just posted a meme. Why not post something of substance in support of your position? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 1:43:55 PM EDT
[#49]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2023 1:49:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nah, it is statist. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. |
|
|
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.
Attached File