Dear California Potheads

The issue isn't whether or not someone should use it, but whether or not the government has the right to regulate private behavior.

 

JDF, the government is your biggest enemy

 

Have you retracted the first part of your statement about danger to self? That's obviously what I took issue with.

 

*sigh* Here we go again.

The debate of the thread: Does government have the power to regulate substances? Alcohol and pot were cited as examples.

My statetment:

It wasn't about alcohol or pot specifically. It was about the power of government.

Your response was to claim I was advocating totalitarianism.

I called you and your mentor out on ignoring my obvious real point and being pedantic in an effort to bolster your argument.

You then demanded I prove that pot makes one a public danger.

I said, no that wasn't my point. My point was about the power of government.

You then call me a liar and claim victory.

 

Nope. Government should intervene in a suicide attempt, or in the use of substances that make one suicidal or delusional or otherwise a real danger to himself and others.

Overeating isn't that. And you know it. And you know what I meant.

That's the last concession you get on this point. Moving on is up to you.

 

You keep insisting that I "know what you mean". I only know what you say, and your view even restated above, opens up a loophole so big you could drive a truck through it.

I'm attempting to have an honest discussion here, not being intentionally anything except honest. Your words here: "or otherwise a real danger to himself" could and would be used to stop people from eating certain foods by Progressive Liberals bent on such things.

You can't give the government a little bit of control in these matters. It has an insatiable appetite for control. It must be limited by carefully-worded laws and regulation.

 

I can only go by what you say, Princess.

You said that if something causes someone to be a danger to himself or others, then the government should regulate it.

You never explained what business the government has regulating it or how pot makes one a danger to himself or others.

Must be all that rock and roll music you listen to.

 

Okay then let's work from the other side. Is it a legitimate duty of the state to intervene in a suicide attempt? Why or why not?

 

ROFLMAO!

Folks, here is a person that creates thread after thread after thread purporting to know what Arminians are thinking, what they believe, how they think, who they esteem, etc. and here he says he "only knows what people say."

Well, people have been telling him there are no Arminians on this board, that his characterizations of people are dishonest, that he creates strawmen, yet here he is saying he only wants an honest discussion.
.




Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

....cool, learned a new word....

 

Think this could be the reason for Trump administration pressing the issue?

Either enforce the law or change the law.

 

LOL.... make sure now that you spell it correctly & use it in a sentence properly. You wouldn’t want to upset certain people.

 

I listened to Charles Koch yesterday. He stresses innovation that’s good for both the individual & the country. I hope that this is Trumps agenda (being that he is a genius and all).

 

I suspect it's same strategy as Trump's pressing the DACA issue, 'let's not sit on this any longer', either enforce the law or change the law. and yes, Trump's a lot smarter than his detractors want to give him credit for.

 

My immediate response would be, no, but I've not given that question much thought.

I had a very good friend (decades ago) who was institutionalized because his mother (who didn't like him very much) called the police and said that he was suicidal, knowing that would "lock him up".

Once locked up, the "doctors" held his fate in their hands. He could not get out until they said so. He was forced to take anti-psychotic drugs and suffered greatly all because his mother was trying to punish him for something (I can't recall).

All it took was her word that my friend was suicidal. No judge or jury, yet locked up, as if in prison. That's just one example of what can happen when we give the state (aka sinners) that kind of power.

 

Cunning perhaps, insecure definitely... an unscrupulous scoundrel...well yea, but that’s what I personally like about him. But let’s be honest, he is no intellectual, not by a long shot.

 

Thats what you get for trusting mommy

 

"My my my.... you announced that I was on your ignore list, right."

It's a new year. I let you all out a few days ago. Lord help me.

 

You do not have to smoke it though...you can ingest it —they make it in liquid form. Anyway I find alcohol even more disruptive and toxic to the human body as well as addictive. Alcohol is legal if consumed responsibly so why can’t guideline laws be implemented for canibus?