Page all of 2 12>
Topic Options
#25079 - 05/28/09 01:14 PM State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread)
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Regarding the issue of the federal government and it's powers to regulate recreational drugs (including marijuana, both recreationally and medicinally). From this thread.


Well I was simply talking about regulatory powers (conspiracy aside). They had to make a constitutional amendment in order for the federal government to have the power to enact the prohibition. To me, that indicates that the federal government does not have an inherent right to regulate any other type of recreational drug or chemical...it seems to me that the very notion of the amendment and subsequent repeal is also an admission of their lack of regulatory power in this arena.

The various states that are screaming for sovereignty as I type is proof enough that it is no political secret that the federal government is overstepping it's boundaries already. The tenth amendment states that congress (the federal government) has a limited amount of power and everything that is not delegated to congress and not specifically denied the states is left up to the states to determine. This goes far beyond pot smokers. The federal government is basically limited to protecting the union as a whole from outside invasion, negotiating treaties between other nations, and regulating inter/national trade. THAT'S IT. Everything else is supposed to be left in the state's hands.

Washington State
New Hampshire

Arizona

Montana

Michigan (click the PDF icon...they're a bit behind times on how to post on the internet, it seems)

Oklahoma and Missouri are on the list as having already begun the process, but I wasn't able to find the specific State Legislature to back this up.

California (of course...)

Georgia

13-18 other states are expected to begin drawing up similar legislature.

So how has it gotten so far out of hand? Who fell asleep at the wheel and allowed the federal government so much more power than it deserves? I'll keep my own opinion to myself for now.

I'd say write your governor, or your congressman...but I know that's a moot point. These days there's a whole lot of talking going on and a whole lot of bitching, but not so much in the way of action.

For those of you who really want to be able to smoke pot in peace, I suggest you get on the sovereignty bandwagon. Having marijuana reclassified as a medicinal drug is counterproductive because then it will still be regulated by the federal government by way of the FDA. The best route would be to let it remain classified as a recreational drug, work your ass off to make your state one that's actively enacting sovereignty legislature, and allow pot and all other drugs to be reguatled on a state level.

Don't confuse this as being in support of what I have already opposed. This has nothing to do with potheads and everything to do with the federal government's meddling in states rights as far as I'm concerned. Sovereignty affects everything from the federal reserve to income taxes to abortion rights to drugs to gun laws.

But hey, if I can get the potheads on board, I'll gladly have them.

The federal government has no inherent right to regulate recreational drugs. So for those of you who want to smoke, shoot, or snort yourself retarded, get off your collective asses and get to work.

Top
#25104 - 05/28/09 10:14 PM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: ceruleansteel]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
So how has it gotten so far out of hand? Who fell asleep at the wheel and allowed the federal government so much more power than it deserves? I'll keep my own opinion to myself for now.


Oh come now, don't be a cock tease.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
For those of you who really want to be able to smoke pot in peace, I suggest you get on the sovereignty bandwagon. Having marijuana reclassified as a medicinal drug is counterproductive because then it will still be regulated by the federal government by way of the FDA. The best route would be to let it remain classified as a recreational drug, work your ass off to make your state one that's actively enacting sovereignty legislature, and allow pot and all other drugs to be reguatled on a state level.


Good advice. Unfortunately most of the people who talk of "how cool it would be if pot were legalized, man" are too lazy to actually go out and work for it. Showing up to a Hempfest, getting baked and listening to Phish is NOT the same thing as taking direct action.





 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
Sovereignty affects everything from the federal reserve to income taxes to abotion rights to drugs to gun laws.


Now if only we could get more people to realize that. It would be good to have NRA support. The Pro-Choice crew could help too, I suppose.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#25107 - 05/28/09 11:35 PM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Quote:
Oh come now, don't be a cock tease.


Heh heh...okay: ALL THE LAZY BASTARDS WHO WANT TO BITCH ABOUT THE WAY THINGS ARE RUN BUT DON'T WANT TO DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.

Seriously, do you know how easy it is for citizens to do the whole "initiative and referendum" thing? Grassroots campaigns where you just pass a fuckin' petition around? People have convinced themselves that the government runs the show. Well FUCK! Someone has to be running things because We The People haven't been doing a damn thing since...what? The 60's?

 Quote:
Good advice. Unfortunately most of the people who talk of "how cool it would be if pot were legalized, man" are too lazy to actually go out and work for it. Showing up to a Hempfest, getting baked and listening to Phish is NOT the same thing as taking direct action.


Yes, the irony of the whole Pot Debate is that if pot smokers didn't murder their ambition/drive by simply being what they were, they could probably get a lot done. They definitely have the numbers for it. Although the supreme court can basically do whatever it wants, it really does base a lot of decisions on the climate of the country. That climate is in the process of a major shift right now and the political leanings of the current justices has less impact on their opinions that popular opinion does.

If enough states get on board, they will have to address the issue. And IMO, it's about damn time that we have a(nother) civil upheaval and put the freakin' federal government back in it's place.

 Quote:
Now if only we could get more people to realize that. It would be good to have NRA support. The Pro-Choice crew could help too, I suppose.


If you really feel that way, start bringing it to people's attention.




Will some Mod please correct my fucked up spelling in my original post? I hate that shit.


Edited by ceruleansteel (05/28/09 11:38 PM)
Edit Reason: goddamn typos...BAH!

Top
#25112 - 05/29/09 05:05 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: ceruleansteel]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
 Quote:
Oh come now, don't be a cock tease.


Heh heh...okay: ALL THE LAZY BASTARDS WHO WANT TO BITCH ABOUT THE WAY THINGS ARE RUN BUT DON'T WANT TO DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT.


Somehow I knew that is what you were getting at. And, sadly, that is all "we" get: the lazy bastards who want to bitch about the way things are run but dont want to do a damn thing about it.

This may be going a little of topic, but; whenever I tell people that I don't vote, they often follow by saying: "Then you have no reason to bitch". A position which I vehemently disagree with. The reason, I "pray", needs no explanation.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
Seriously, do you know how easy it is for citizens to do the whole "initiative and referendum" thing


I will gladly(?) play the ignorance card in response to that question.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
Grassroots campaigns where you just pass a fuckin' petition around?


I have seen a few of those. Specifically ones concering gay marriage, and, sadly, one that was trying to get Marijuana dispensaries here in Oregon. ( I say "sadly" because this thread is more about state sovereignty than it is about the legalization of Marijuana). The guy who was assigned to obtain signatures for the latter, at my school, was your stereotypical, and, quintessential stoner: Long hair, Greatful Dead T-shirt, glazed eyes and that "Yo brother" attitude. Not one that would be taken seriously by your average person.


 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
People have convinced themselves that the government runs the show. Well FUCK! Someone has to be running things because We The People haven't been doing a damn thing since...what? The 60's?


I wasn't alive then, but, I feel pretty confident that people are still using the same tactic that was used in the sixties: bitch and bitch and moan and moan and hope the government will take your drug addled mind seriously. Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately; I would rather have an oppressive government running the show than a stoned majority.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
the irony of the whole Pot Debate is that if pot smokers didn't murder their ambition/drive by simply being what they were, they could probably get a lot done. They definitely have the numbers for it.


Now if only my "peers" were as rational as you...

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
Although the supreme court can basically do whatever it wants, it really does base a lot of decisions on the climate of the country. That climate is in the process of a major shift right now and the political leanings of the current justices has less impact on their opinions that popular opinion does.


What you just said there is so true. The political climate of the country is indeed in a major shift, but a bad one IMO. The people of this country are so daft that they think things will be different just because a black man is president.

Now, I like having Tiger Woods for a president just as much as the next person, but; is there any guaranteee that there will be a change, specifically, a change for the better? So far, judging from Obama's "leanings", compared to my own, there is not only the absence of a guarantee, but a promise there will be no change only business as usual.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
If enough states get on board, they will have to address the issue.


Bear in mind that didn't really work before. See "The American Civil War".


 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
And IMO, it's about damn time that we have a(nother) civil upheaval and put the freakin' federal government back in it's place.


Damn, Toni, I do love you sometimes \:D

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
 Quote:
Now if only we could get more people to realize that. It would be good to have NRA support. The Pro-Choice crew could help too, I suppose.


If you really feel that way, start bringing it to people's attention.


I have tried, but, most people, from my experience: are fucking stupid.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#25120 - 05/29/09 11:59 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Re: Initiative and Referendum:

In retrospect, I believe that my state (Arkansas) has the easiest time of it all. In order to get a public vote on something, one (private citizen) needs only to collect enough signatures in order to get their ideas put on the ballot, at which time it is eligible for public vote. BUT a public vote to push for sovereignty here would be just as valid as the very word of the governor.

There are similar methods in all states, though. In researching a previous topic, it was brought to my attention that almost every state has a department within the governor's office whose sole purpose is to educate the public on how they can affect political change. One phone call and you get a free book or pamphlet or sometimes CD that explains it all to you.

Obama may or may not be a buffoon. I confess that I haven't taken a single moment yet to look at national politics since he has taken office. But anyone aspiring to "bring change" can get many tricks of the trade by observing HOW he campaigned.

Look how he targeted and who he targeted. He made the people who are always overlooked feel like they were a part of his grand dream. He allowed them to assist him by using the methods that not only were better known to them, but would reach more of the untapped masses that he was aiming for. People "our age" don't watch the news. We don't watch political debates (okay, I have to retract that and say "they", because we all know my nerdy ass does)...we get online. We surf the web, watch YouTube, fuck around on myspace....that's where Obama got everyone. The previously non-political found themselves caught up in it all simply because it was presented in a format they could understand and feel comfortable with.

Regardless of what he does in the next four years, I have to admit that Obama is a political genius.

As far as the sovereignty issue goes: you have to separate each dynamic of the population and present it to them individually in a way they will understand and embrace. NRA, Pro-Choicers/right-to-lifers, pot smokers, gays, single moms, those both for and against affirmative action...every private citizen, no matter their political leanings has a stake in this pie. You just have to tailor-make your rhetoric depending on who you are addressing.

It would take all the wind out of the sails of congress and truly put the power back where it belongs: on a much more local level. The federal government is supposed to be much like the family dog: they live outside and bite anyone who tries to fuck with us. The state government is more the parents. Their job is to make sure we clean our rooms and wash the dishes. Who put the fuckin' dog in charge of the house?

RE: Civil War:

The Civil War was the same, but different. Though a true push for sovereignty may (remotely possible) lead to civil war, I think it unlikely that such a thing would go in favor of the federal government this time around.

I would be VERY interested in seeing just what would happen.


Edited by ceruleansteel (05/29/09 12:03 PM)

Top
#25121 - 05/29/09 12:22 PM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: ceruleansteel]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
The biggest problem I see with petitioning for state sovereignty is that the states would essentially be asking the Federal government to just back off. Seeing as how they feel it is their right meddle in the affairs of individual states, I don't think they would be too quick to relinquish control.

To expand on your dog metaphor, which was a great way to put it; Asking the federal government for sovereignty would be like asking a dog to give back the piece of bacon it stole off your plate and ate.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#25124 - 05/29/09 04:41 PM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
I differ in opinion.

It wouldn't even go through congress. It would go through the Supreme Court. Any grievance with the federal government goes through the Supreme Court, who by the way answers to no one and is much more difficult to corrupt than others on the federal level.

There have actually been several cases go through the Supreme Court in the past that could make excellent examples of sovereignty on the small scale. If a team of legal researchers were to sit down for a few months and list them all and cite the pertinent portions of the cases, it seems like it would be very compelling material indeed because then the SC would be forced to either go in favor of removing unconstitutional powers of congress and returning them to the states, or else they would be forced to overturn themselves on all those cases. A black eye like that is most likely something they would rather avoid.

Matter of fact, the nation could directly petition the federal government en masse and bypass the state-level complaints all together if it wanted to. "U.S. v. U.S." anyone? It would probably be easier to get the state governments on board, though, and let them do the real dirty work.



.

Top
#25169 - 05/31/09 12:59 PM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: ceruleansteel]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
If a team of legal researchers were to sit down for a few months and list them all and cite the pertinent portions of the cases, it seems like it would be very compelling material indeed because then the SC would be forced to either go in favor of removing unconstitutional powers of congress and returning them to the states, or else they would be forced to overturn themselves on all those cases. A black eye like that is most likely something they would rather avoid.


Well, sounds like you need to get busy. Go team. \:D

Seriously though those are some good points. Now the only question is; how do we get enough people/states on board so the SC will take notice?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#25664 - 06/15/09 11:25 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
icu4whatur Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/14/08
Posts: 21
This is an interesting thread, but I feel that the point is moot. With the decline of state budgets and the overcrowding of the prison system. They are going to start releasing non-violent offenders soon en masse. It's inevitable.

Historically there has been too much money involved in the drug industry from all angles. Enforcement agencies get to keep what they seize, prisons make a ton of money, public officials frequently get paid to make sure it stays illegal, the drug companies would be in deep shit if it was publicly known how healthy pot is, paper companies would be in trouble because of the incredible ease of manufacturing and high quality of commercial hemp paper... On and on

They simply can't pay to enforce the drug war any more. When our economy crashes it will be open season.

Top
#25686 - 06/15/09 11:54 PM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: icu4whatur]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
I think you have a much too simplisitic view of things. Not to mention, you seem to contradict yourself and back up everything I have said.

First off, this thread is a spin off. Drugs are not the issue per se, they are only a byproduct of the stated goal. Putting the right of the state back where it belongs will solve numerous problems plus it will go miles to assist the economy in many ways.

The federal government has it's nose in too many issues that should be left up to the states. Whether through outright coersion or through federal legislation, the feds have been calling the shots for too long on things that are simply none of their business. As I have stated before, there is a very limited list of rights that the federal government has. Minor issues such as gay rights, pot smoking, gun laws, etc. are all things that should be handled on the state level. Though this would undoubtedly result in a patchwork of differing opinions (those who can legally smoke pot or marry in some states would find themselves in violation in others), the overall effect would be legitimate in that each state has a constitutional right to create it's own rules.

One major problem for states - regarding budgeting - is that they have been held at gunpoint by the federal government to create and enforce certain laws. Returning the rights of the state would eliminate this. For example, it costs 30,000 per year to house one criminal. Think of how much California is saving by decriminalizing marijuana use (and look how nicely I just refuted both of your statements). If states did not have to spend so much money enforcing laws that the federal government has no right at all to force them to maintain, they will save money. If states are allowed to make their own rules regarding - say - gun ownership, recreational drug-regulations, etc (which, constitutionally is within their scope and not congress') then whatever is deemed illegal would be less expensive to prosecute, and most likely, a lot less would be deemed illegal because the ability of the people to tell the government what to do is much more effective the more local the level.

The biggest problem with giving states back their rights, and also the reason why the federal government would fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening, is that the federal government has been expanded to the point where many federal-level entities would simply not exist anymore if the power was shifted back to it's rightful owners...plus a percentage of revenue for the federal government would be lost.

There is a very long list of things that would be affected and probably improved on by a successful sovereignty initiative. Your post seems to actually back up everything I say, so why is it a moot point? Deregulation on a federal level of issues that should be regulated on a state level saves everyone money and keeps with the spirit of capitalism (if the paper companies cannot adapt that's their own problem). Not only that, but it makes the law as a whole less complicated, even when you factor in the varying rules that can pop up state-to-state. People would group themselves accordingly and there would be less violations overall.

If you are a gay pot smoker who is against guns, wouldn't you find it worth the effort to move to a place where you knew your views were echoed exactly by the powers that be? There are certain key issues that I think are more important than others and my ideas rarely coincide with federal opinion. If there was a state that echoed my own sentiments, I'd move there regardless of how far away that move was.

Here is an example of how the federal government bullies states: Many states have seatbelt laws, and these laws are enforceable as primary violations (in other words, you can be pulled over simply for not wearing a seatbelt). If the states do not show that they are enforcing the seatbelt law, funding for federal highways is cut. Now the states have to spend X on looking for seatbelt violators or else they don't get Y for their highway maintenance. Even if X costs them more than they get for Y, they MUST have Y so they HAVE to spend X. The same applies for drug enforcement and many other things that don't even seem related on the surface.

I shouldn't even have to explain this in such minute detail...

Top
#25716 - 06/17/09 01:36 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: ceruleansteel]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
i think you've pretty much hit every nail on the head here, so forgive me if i'm going a little off topic.

regarding seat belts, here's 2005's funny darwin award winner:
http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2005-15.html

a simple example of the spending you describe is going on in the company i'm working for this summer. they ordered hundreds of pairs of character shoes (a kind of dance shoe) in different colors and sizes for the chorus women, and for a period show, ordered extremely expensive cowboy boots for the men in the chorus. they were complaining about the price of some of these boots- $300 boots times 12 men, $50 shoes times 12 women- and don't forget extras in several sizes for each person. they will be worn maybe 20 times this summer, and rather than be added to a stock and reused, they will order more next year.
i asked them why they didn't just return the unused shoes, or buy knockoff cowboy boots, and was informed that if they didn't spend their entire budget every year, it would be cut the next. so they spend everything and use less than half, in case someday they actually need to buy 32 people pradas.
loosing money on principle. crazy. not to mention the physical waste, or in the case of seat belts, waste of time.
the clincher is this; they cut the contract salaries of many of the principal artists this year, citing financial difficulties, and, in the interest of my job i didn't have a lot of options if i wanted to work here. but they sure didn't cut the shoe budget, no way!
i have already been informed that i have three sets of shoes to choose from in two sizes. whoopie!

one question: can you really compare gay rights to a lifestyle choice like pot smoking? well, obviously you can, but how is it comparable?
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#25719 - 06/17/09 02:50 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: miriam]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
No offence meant Miriam and certainly not to CeruleanSteel, but one of the reason people don't see alot of the interesting discussions on this site, is because so many threads go off topic and then people don't actually start a new one (as CS did here).

Can I suggest we all (and I mean to practise what I preach), try to start a new thread whenever we find ourselves typing the words I know this is off topic.

Sorry if I seem like a hall monitor, that is not my intention. It's just 15 page posts put me off reading them, especially when I am new to a site, and doubly if I don't know that people definatley do go off topic here at times. All their good intentions aside.

OK, I'll shut up now and piss off.
Although not before saying that I am really enjoying this thread, even though it has nothing to do with me really being in Australia and all, I know many Americans that feel how CS does when it comes to Federal involvement.

Zeph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#25747 - 06/18/09 12:58 PM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: ZephyrGirl]
icu4whatur Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/14/08
Posts: 21
CeruleanSteel, I don't disagree with anything you've said. From state sovereignty, to the dictatorial powers that the feds have taken on. Look at the unfunded mandates handed down from Homeland Security. police Departments and the state .gov's HATE them. You're absolutely right.

My point is that it just does not matter any more. The government at all levels does not have the resources to fight the drug war, to say nothing of keeping all but the most dangerous criminals behind bars, and all of the government employees employed.

They're broke. The troubles that California have right now are not isolated. Every state in the union is in a similar state of collapse to varying degrees.

I guess I should clarify my point to mean that the issue is moot only in economic terms... Not ideological ones.

Top
#25768 - 06/19/09 06:01 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: icu4whatur]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Originally Posted By: icu4whatur
Look at the unfunded mandates handed down from Homeland Security. police Departments and the state .gov's HATE them. You're absolutely right.


"Unfunded mandates"? What the fuck are you talking about?

 Originally Posted By: icu4whatur
My point is that it just does not matter any more. The government at all levels does not have the resources to fight the drug war.


Of course they have the resources, but this thread is not about the "war on drugs", it is about state sovereignty.

 Originally Posted By: icu4whatur
to say nothing of keeping all but the most dangerous criminals behind bars, and all of the government employees employed. They're broke.


The federal government doesn't pay for that, we (the tax payers)do.

 Originally Posted By: icu4whatur
The troubles that California have right now are not isolated. Every state in the union is in a similar state of collapse to varying degrees.


Holy shit! I was completely unaware of that.

 Originally Posted By: icu4whatur
I guess I should clarify my point to mean that the issue is moot only in economic terms... Not ideological ones.


Nice clarification?
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#25770 - 06/19/09 09:31 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
icu4whatur Offline
stranger


Registered: 12/14/08
Posts: 21
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6

"Unfunded mandates"? What the fuck are you talking about?


Unfunded mandates are orders from a higher governmental authority to a lower one requiring them to spend their own money on something the higher .gov wants. State and local .gov's have no say in the matter so the tax burden gets pushed down to the locals, who hate it because they have to go beg the sheeple for the money which puts their re-election efforts at risk.

 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Of course they have the resources, but this thread is not about the "war on drugs", it is about state sovereignty.

The war on drugs is a state sovereignty issue... Most states could care less about the war on drugs were it not for the large amounts of money and property they are able to sieze. Most cops I know hate having to arrest people for minor drug offenses. And no, across the country law enforcement budgets are tight right now. Some states are already considering releasing prisoners.

 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
The federal government doesn't pay for that, we (the tax payers)do.

Ok... well if we are splitting hairs then technically the feds don't pay for anything. It's all taxpayer money or money collected from the sale of bonds and other debt instruments.

 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
Holy shit! I was completely unaware of that.


Then you should read more news.
Here is an article that details the budget shortfalls

 Originally Posted By: icu4whatur
Nice clarification?


Thanks? Are you unclear about what I meant?

Top
#25796 - 06/19/09 03:44 PM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: miriam]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Quote:
one question: can you really compare gay rights to a lifestyle choice like pot smoking? well, obviously you can, but how is it comparable?


It's not comparable. I used them in the same list because they are both items on the list of things that the federal government has no right to dictate, constitutionally. It was meant to illustrate the fact that this is an issue that affects everyone. Every person in this country could find a dozen personal issues that the federal government has made some sort of law or regulation affecting if they spent about ten minutes reading the congressional transcripts and looking at what has and will pass across a congressman's table.

Top
#28775 - 08/22/09 01:51 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: ceruleansteel]
godam666 Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/15/09
Posts: 23
Loc: indiana
I agree not only have they taken away freedoms they should not have control over, but they are trying to force us into a system that is the opposite of what America stands for. All the people in America (or their ancestors) came here to be free (from oppression i.e socialism) but the federal government is trying to take everything over just like most third world countries. We are moving backwards in what The United States of America stands for.
_________________________
I am God

Top
#28781 - 08/22/09 04:57 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: godam666]
bluj666 Offline
stranger


Registered: 07/14/09
Posts: 38
Loc: Tennessee,USA
Look, Im gay and before people who had no reason to express their opinion on things, I was on my way to a happy marriage with a man that I honestly feel I was ment ot be with. We are a perfect match for each other. The issue of Weed and Homosexuality are two totally different things.

With weed you choose it, and choose to break the law (as stupid as it may be). homosexuality in most cases is not a choice. I have many propsitions from both Male and female but I deny females because I know I wont be happy with them, and I have no interest in them other then friends. I tried being straight and bi, but no matter how hard i tried, I could not give a female the same attention or love I gave the males I was interested in.

smoking weed, shootin heroin or doing crack or coke are the same. you make the decision to do so, and if you get addict then you do. You still knowing the risk did so.

Being gay and tring to fight it only hurt the individual and turns them into self conscious and self hating individuals with leads to suicide or other violent acts.

Top
#28782 - 08/22/09 08:24 AM Re: State Sovereignty (spin off of the pot thread) [Re: bluj666]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Why come onto a perfectly good political thread and fuck it up with shit like that? Did you even read this thread in it's entirety?

If you want to crusade, do it on your own thread. Your totally off-topic post has no place in this particular conversation. We're not talking about gays or drug-users. We are talking about STATE SOVEREIGNTY .

If anyone cares to reply to this R-tard, please do so by starting a new thread and quoting this post. Don't do it here.

And bluej, learn your damn language. Your grammar makes my eyes bleed.


Edited by ceruleansteel (08/22/09 08:26 AM)
Edit Reason: removal of unnecessary word and critique of grammar

Top
Page all of 2 12>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.036 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 32 queries. Zlib compression disabled.