She Was Denied Citizenship for Working in Legal Cannabis.

Where did I say "all"? It is our duty to protect our most precious asset. Our most precious asset is our children. I am pretty sure there is a middle ground between keeping drugs and guns out of the hands of children and giving up all of our and their freedom.

 

did I misunderstand your answer? and I 100% agree there is a middle ground, prohibition is not the answer

 

"All of it, if keeps our children from destroying their brains." That is an extreme which should not be necessary. However, if that is what it takes.

 

right, that says to me you would be willing to give up all your freedoms if.....

 

I don't agree that pot should be illegal, but if we are going to call out laws for being racist, gun laws also disproportionately affect the same people.

 

Yes. The purpose of "providing for the common defense" is to "secure the blessings of Liberty". Thank you for proving my point. They defend FREEDOM, not safety. Freedom is inherently dangerous.

 

It says "and" secure the blessings of liberty, not "to" secure the blessings of liberty.

 

Is logic not good enough? Children can't buy legal marijuana. Therefore, its harder for them to acquire where legal marijuana exists.

Black markets only rise where there is sufficient demand that can't be supplied legally. If there is demand for an illegal product, an illegal supplier will ALWAYS appear. If suddenly a legal source appears, then some percentage of the people will prefer to purchase from that legal source instead, thereby shrinking the black market.

Children who want to buy MJ have no choice but to buy it from the black market. If the black market is smaller due to competition from the legal market, it's logically harder for them to buy.

 

A distinction without a difference. One must provide for the common defense if one is to secure the blessings of Liberty.

 

The framers were very careful with their words.

 

One is dependent upon the other. The blessings of Liberty cannot be secured unless the common defense is provided for. The purpose of providing for the common defense is, therefore, to secure the blessings of Liberty. Authoritarianism like prohibition, is antithetical to Liberty.

 

Nope

 

Then your thread has nothing to do with some immigrant who violated federal laws, you just want pot legalized.

Uh...OK.

 

And what does that have to do with this immigrant?

 

"and" does not mean "therefore".

 

The purpose of providing for the common defense is to secure the blessings of Liberty.

The PURPOSE of government is to secure the blessings of LIBERTY. It says so right there in the Constitution, that YOU posted. Authoritarianism, like the prohibition that YOU support, is antithetical to Liberty. This country was not founded to keep people safe, it was founded to keep them FREE. Free to reap the rewards, and/or to suffer the consequences of their own free will. Freedom is inherently dangerous. He who would sacrifice essential Liberty for a little temporary security, deserves neither.

 

It lists 4 things to secure those blessings

1. Establish Justice,
2. Insure domestic Tranquility,
3. Provide for the common defense,
4. Promote the general Welfare,

Safe and free. People who are not safe, typically don't feel free.

One might argue that prohibiting drugs helps insure domestic tranquility.

 

Why do you hate freedom?

 

Don't make stuff up.

I love freedom and I don't consider giving up mj too much for the benefit of our children's health and well being.

By the way, according to my DD Form 214, I served a total of 25 years, 0 months and 3 days in defense of that freedom.

 

No one hates freedom. Why are you complaining anyway, when you have a "freedom" to smoke as much cannabis as you want.

 

Fairness suggests that it should be legal. That was my point, not that it was illegal and that is why she was not given citizenship, that's a given, we already know that.

 

there are studies that give conflicting outcomes.

Therefore, the argument isn't settled.

 

What in your fertile imagination is ridiculous, and not just any run of the mill 'ridiculous' but 'patently rediculous' about the suggestion that cannabis should be legal?

 

How so?

 

Her example was the basis for the argument, so her plight has a lot to do with the argument, and it goes for lots of folks in jail for pot who are not criminals.

Her plight is under discussion, as well.