Democrats file HR 420 to legalize pot

Fine. Which below accurately represents your position.

1. Keep the more dangerous drugs legal and keep the less dangerous drug as schedule 1 (the most hypocritical and least logical position to have.)
2. Designate alcohol & cigarettes as schedule I, since they are more dangerous than drugs already on schedule 1 (The option that provides the least freedom to freedom-loving Americans.)
3. Take the least dangerous of the 3 off the schedule I list. (The most logical option.)

 

I will repeat it for the 6th and last time. We need to look at all positives and negatives in order to have an honest discussion about legalization. All I am hearing from you is denial of all negatives, and the never ending "oh, but how about alcohol".

I already stated we could be more lenient in enforcement, and it can be done by simply ticketing the users. Many places in US have already adopted this route.

 

So you prefer the least logical option. Gotcha.

Next - please quote me saying there are no negatives. I'll wait.

 

And many states that once just wrote misdemeanor tickets for possession of marijuana now have legalized it entirely.

 

This lacks understanding of freedom and is simply not true in any realistic way. This is all too common unfortunately - 12 years of school and we manage not to educate kids in the principles on which this nation was founded.

Essential Liberty is "NOT" the freedom to kill someone - as you suggest. A good rule of thumb is "rights end where the nose of another begins" meaning direct harm - one person on another (rape, murder, theft and so on)

So when speaking of essential liberty we are not talking about the above. The cry of the revolution "Give me liberty or give me death" - had nothing to do with some desire to have the liberty to commit rape and murder without legal consequence.

The declaration puts essential liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't. The question is then - what is the legitimate authority of Gov't ?

The answer to this question - with respect to essential liberty - is protection from direct harm. This is where essential liberty ends and the legitimate authority of Gov't begins - and ends - Supposedly.

Obviously someone smoking Pot is outside this legitimate purview. This does not mean the Gov't can not make a law. What it does mean is that the Gov't can not make law - of its own volition.

In such cases the Gov't is supposed to obtain consent from "we the people" - in essence apply for a change to the social contract - construct by which the people give authority to Gov't.

This is in essence a change to what the definition of essential liberty is. Essential liberty is basically what "we the people" say it is. This is outside the legitimate purview of Gov't.. This is the difference between a democracy and totalitarianism.

The difference between a republic and a democracy is that the bar for making law which messes with essential liberty is much higher.
In pure democracy the bar is 50+1.

Both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism refer to this as "Tyranny of the Majority" - same with Simple Majority Mandate - that Gov't has the right to mess with individual liberty on some supposed mandate based on a 50+1 election.

The bar in a Republic is "overwhelming majority" at least 2/3rd's .. and 75% in some cases such as the percentage of states required for a change to the constitution.

If simple majority mandate was enough for Gov't to make law messing with essential liberty - there would be no point in putting essential liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

In summary - the law banning pot is illegitimate. It is "illegitimacy of Authority" - this is the benchmark in the Declaration for removal of that Gov't.

1) it is outside the legitimate purview of Gov't - that is just a given. It is not protection from direct harm - one person on another.

2) There is no 2/3rd majority consent to such a law - not even by assumption. (it is not like you need a referendum if something is obvious).

The reality is that there is not even close to 2/3rds majority = "tyranny of the majority" at minimum - and in fact it can be argued that there is not even 50% - at least in some states = "Tyranny of the Minority".

A good example would be Pot vs Meth. If something is viewed as so dangerous that Gov't should be given power to punish - then an overwhelming majority will agree. At least 2 out of 3 people. 1 in 3 people do not think murder should be legal .. obviously .. same with rape and other crimes of direct harm - which is why we gave some authority the power to punish in the first place.

What about Meth ? I think we are safe to assume that an 2/3rd's views this drug as so harmful to society that they do not want it.

Pot ? not so much. The principles we have work - if we would just use them.

When you start removing these safeguards - as has been advocated by Mac and others - you are removing the safeguards that protect us from Totalitarianism.

 

As stated in my last post to you (which you may have yet to read) - it is not about positives vs negatives. It is about whether or not the Gov't has the legitimate authority to make the law period.

The "but how about alcohol" is a completely valid argument. Prohibition of alcohol was an illegitimate act of Gov't being 1) outside the legitimate purview of Gov't and 2) not viewed as "so harmful" that power to punish needs to be given to Gov't.

Aside from the demonstrable fact that Pot is statistically less harmful - a point which shows contradiction/hypocrisy in law = violation of the rule of law ... There is no legitimate justification as per "Overwhelming majority consent of the governed" - this simply does not exist.

The law is then an anathema to the founding principles - the principle of a Constitutional republic - and the rule of law.

In a free society people have the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves.

Justification of law on the basis of Utilitarianism - "what will increase happiness for the collective" / Harm Reduction - allows for an end run around the founding principles as this justification for law completely ignores individual liberty.

Is this really how you want law to be made in this nation ? Have you been so swayed to the extreme left that you want law to be based solely on "what is best for the collective"

Be careful for what you wish for my friend ... I am quite sure you have not thought enough the consequences of this justification for law.

I bet I can point out a plethora of laws that you hate that were made on the basis of sliding down this extremely slippery slope - never mind what kind of laws will be made in the future.

Would you like a list ?

 

An honest discussion and more lenient legal approach is the least logical option.........all righty then. Can't blame me for not trying.

 

Well, South Florida is now more lenient, but we are not about to legalize it recreationally.

 

I didn't suggest anything, I flat out said laws are there for a good reason.

 

Seeing people who claim to be on the right, supporting leftist nanny state laws, is so bizarre. Why would a hard line nanny stater claim to be on the right? Red team = blue team. Same/same.

 

Governor DeSantis wants it. We'll see how it plays out.

 

Yet you've had ample opportunity to provide a legitimate justification to keep pot as schedule I, and have not been able to do so. So, perhaps you've answered your own question. No valid reason? Remove the classification.

 

You said - and this is quoted in the post to you - "Any law can be argued to be anti-freedom"

As stated in my post - this lacks understanding of "freedom" and is not true in any realistic way - followed by a very specific discussion (which you obviously didn't read) of what essential liberty means with respect to law.

 

You sober up ... you are the one that lacks understanding of what you speak. Calling out others for your flaws is just projecting your flaws onto others.

 

Indeed. Both Red and Blue establishment hate the principles on which this nation was founded. They love to trample on essential liberty and the constitution.

While the left is more honest its totalitarian collectivist leanings - Utilitarianism- Law based on what will increase happiness for the collective / Harm Reduction - the Right also loves this justification for law. It is a plague.

This justification for law (and the various bad and fallacious arguments along this line of thinking) has now become so pervasive - that average Joe on both sides - now thinks this is a legitimate justification for law.

Nothing is further from the truth. This justification of law is a nothing but a thinly veiled end run around one of the main safeguards put in place by the founders to protect the citizens from Tyranny and Totalitarianism.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

As anyone - "Do you think the powers of Gov't should be limited or would you prefer Totalitarianism" ? NO NO NO they will cry - we don't want Totalitarianism - except for the nutters of course who are very few in number.

Then say .. OK Good - If you want the powers of Gov't to be limited .. what then should those powers be limited to ? At which point you will get the "deer in headlights look" ... then clarify - "what are they limited to with respect to the founding principles in relation to essential liberty"

No one who does not know the answer to this question should be allowed to vote. They are simply not qualified.

 

Yes, it can be argued in such way (it is what the other poster is trying to argue), and I continued by saying even libertarians agree laws are there for a good reason. Please make an effort to understand what you read.

 

You've yet to provide "good reason," for keeping a specific drug as schedule I, while drugs that are far more dangerous, are sold on the open market.

 

I quoted a bunch of good reasons from the DSM, but its like talking to a wall.

All I have asked for is an honest discussion which weighs in the negatives and positives, but apparently that is too much to ask for.

Negatives:
- Increase in auto accidents
- Increase in mental illness
- Increase in lung diseases, including cancer
- Increase in heart disease

Positives:
- May help with seizures and some other disorders

 

Your list is nonsense. The number one cause of car accidents, by far, are related to alcohol. MJ related accidents are quite low on the list. Lung disease, cancer & heart disease myths have already been debunked, numerous times in this thread. You have failed to list all the net positives.

You simply don't have any valid reason to keep dangerous drugs legal, while keeping less dangerous drugs illegal. You are a hypocrite of the highest order. Nanny Staters. Grrrrrrrrrr!

When did the right start loving on the leftist desires for government to be the country's nanny?

 

I know you will deny everything negative no matter what, which is why an honest discussion with you is impossible.

I hope the law makers will have an honest discussion and then make an educated decision. It seems Dems will support, and GOP will oppose, but we'll see how it goes.

I don't know, maybe with the founders. Or maybe the founders were "leftists". Heck, homosexuality was a capital offence back then, and later Jefferson argued that castration is sufficient. Church attendance was mandatory in many areas in the US. Having laws to control people's behavior is nothing new.

The left is proposing legalization, so I am not sure what you are even talking about. Social conservatives have always been the ones to restrict certain behaviors. It pretty much defines the term "social conservative". Anti abortion, anti-drug, anti-porn, anti-music (certain kinds of music), anti this, anti that......The religious right is alive and well in the US.

 

It is truly difficult to discuss freedom with people who hate freedom. I just don't get how so many AMERICANS can be against freedom.

Try to reconcile your hypocrisy, and get back to me when you have a plan that is consistent with your beliefs. Keeping pot illegal, while keeping FAR MORE dangerous drugs, illegal, is the epitome of hypocrisy.

 

Your confusion runs deep.

I am looking for an honest discussion, but for some reason that offends you to no end. It puts you on full defensive mode. I want our representatives to make an informed decision, not just "it's freedom" and "oh, but alcohol", or "pot makes people better drivers", and other nonsense. I want them to weigh the negatives against the positives. It should not be too much to ask for.

 

Your hatred of freedom is well documented.

 

Falsely accusing people of hatred is an old and trusted tool in the leftist arsenal.

I only want an honest discussion. Period. I have not even said I oppose legalization. I only want an honest discussion so our representatives can make an informed decision. It that somehow translates to hatred of freedom in your mind, then so be it.

 

How many more years of "honest discussion," do you, personally need? The science is pretty solid, at this point. We know there are some risks, but the bennies outweigh those risks. In terms of safeness, it's far safer than stuff already available on the open market. How much safer than that do you need, for you, personally, to get a warm fuzzy about letting people be free?

How do you justify keeping more dangerous drugs legal, when you want every assurance that this particular drug is 100% safe? No such thing exists. I guarantee that I am polluting my body far less by using Hybrid over Xanax to treat my condition. It doesn't make me nearly as floopy, either. It allows me to keep focus for many things, (most things outside of driving and working,) whereas, I can only take Xanax if I have time to be drowsy.

People who hate on pot, who pretend they are only interested in MY safety as justification to keep it illegal, are playing games of pretend. You are pretending these discussions are just now getting started, that science doesn't yet know, etc. It's not my fault that you can't keep up with the research, and my liberty shouldn't suffer due to your ignorance on the topic.