# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Pot Smokers are Abby Normal!

## RMNIXON

*Breaking News: Marijuana Use Linked to Brain Abnormalities*

abby+normal.jpg

*Young adults who used marijuana only recreationally showed significant abnormalities in two key brain regions that are important in emotion and motivation, scientists report. The study was a collaboration between Northwestern Medicine and Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School.
*
This is the first study to show casual use of marijuana is related to major brain changes. It showed the degree of brain abnormalities in these regions is directly related to the number of joints a person smoked per week. The more joints a person smoked, the more abnormal the shape, volume and density of the brain regions.

*"This study raises a strong challenge to the idea that casual marijuana use isn't associated with bad consequences," said corresponding and co-senior study author Hans Breiter.* He is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a psychiatrist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

"Some of these people only used marijuana to get high once or twice a week," Breiter said. "People think a little recreational use shouldn't cause a problem, if someone is doing OK with work or school. Our data directly says this is not the case."

*The study is published in the Journal of Neuroscience.*

http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/...-abnormalities

----------


## Mordent

I'd look into this more deeply but I'm just not motivated enough to do so.

----------

DeadEye (04-21-2014),fyrenza (04-19-2014),Old Ridge Runner (04-23-2014),sparsely (04-23-2014)

----------


## countryboy

*Study of Pot Smokers' Brains Shows That MRIs Cause Bad Science Reporting*

----------

fyrenza (04-19-2014)

----------


## squidward

smells like anthropogenic global warming.

----------


## michaelr

As more state move to legalize, more propaganda is to be expected.

----------


## Ginger

Pot makes ya lazy.................

----------

DeadEye (04-21-2014),Old Ridge Runner (04-23-2014),sparsely (04-23-2014),Viewpoint (04-21-2014)

----------


## gainso

most lazy people are born/raised that way.  Dope has little or nothing to do with it. It's their body, what they put into it is nobody elses BUSINESS.  If they abuse/neglect, punish them for THAT, not simple use/possession. We have laws vs those other things.

----------


## DeadEye

Wow! those who want to make criminals of people really have something here. Not!!. Every time I shit my brain wave patterns change. Smoking pot and shitting hasn't killed me yet but I'm still working on it.

----------


## Viewpoint



----------


## Foghorn

> Wow! those who want to make criminals of people really have something here. Not!!. Every time I shit my brain wave patterns change. Smoking pot and shitting hasn't killed me yet but I'm still working on it.


Your bathroom must be one funky looking room.

----------

DeadEye (04-22-2014)

----------


## RMNIXON

Lots of legal substances have negative medical effects. How is that making criminals?

 :Dontknow:

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-22-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> Lots of legal substances have negative medical effects. How is that making criminals?


Well, when SSRI's are concerned, shooting schools, malls, theaters, and the rest can have a real stiff penalty.

----------

DeadEye (04-22-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> Your bathroom must be one funky looking room.


You might say that but I don't do either with my eyes closed.

----------


## DeadEye

> Lots of legal substances have negative medical effects. How is that making criminals?


Well, according to my Dick Tracy watch possession is against the law, driving drunk is too but not getting drunk. Go figure.

----------


## Katzndogz

Marijuana use might be one way to explain the current explosion of the behavior of younger people to unusually cruel conduct.  This new need to torture and then kill.  Both John Holmes and Jared Loughner were heavy pot users.   Trayvon Martin had pot in his system when he decided to beat George Zimmerman to death.  Rudy Eugene was a regular pot user.  He never used anything else.  He was high when he ate Ronald Poppo's eyes.    

We know that pot causes brain abnormalities.   The abnormalities stay even after the thc is gone.

----------


## DeadEye

> Marijuana use might be one way to explain the current explosion of the behavior of younger people to unusually cruel conduct.  This new need to torture and then kill.  Both John Holmes and Jared Loughner were heavy pot users.   Trayvon Martin had pot in his system when he decided to beat George Zimmerman to death.  Rudy Eugene was a regular pot user.  He never used anything else.  He was high when he ate Ronald Poppo's eyes.    
> 
> We know that pot causes brain abnormalities.   The abnormalities stay even after the thc is gone.


This is very interesting, I'm not here to refute the science for or against the use of marijuana. My contention is that the government does not have the authority to control what substances I choose to put in my body.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-22-2014),Sled Dog (04-26-2014),wist43 (04-22-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> most lazy people are born/raised that way.  Dope has little or nothing to do with it. It's their body, what they put into it is nobody elses BUSINESS.  If they abuse/neglect, punish them for THAT, not simple use/possession. We have laws vs those other things.


When someone becomes ill due to the use of pot and has health insurance then yes, it is other people's business.  Why?  Such claims serve to drive up the premiums for those that don't use the wacky weed.

I think the theory behind punishing for possession is that the person  maybe selling the stuff.

----------


## Hansel

> This is very interesting, I'm not here to refute the science for or against the use of marijuana. My contention is that the government does not have the authority to control what substances I choose to put in my body.


You don't live in a social vacuum so that is the price of living around civilized people. Using it is the precursor to behavior that can be dangerous to yourself and to others.  Wake up man, the law is for your own health and safety.

----------


## DeadEye

> You don't live in a social vacuum so that is the price of living around civilized people. Using it is the precursor to behavior that can be dangerous to yourself and to others.  Wake up man, the law is for your own health and safety.


Yeah right,, not. The government does not have the authority to control what substances I choose to put in my body.  Wake up man, the law is illegal. Read the constitution and show me where the government has the authority circumvent my liberty.

----------

Toefoot (04-22-2014)

----------


## Toefoot

I wonder why the neighbors back yard is more important than ones own?




> Yeah right,, not. The government does not have the authority to control what substances I choose to put in my body.  Wake up man, the law is illegal. Read the constitution and show me where the government has the authority circumvent my liberty.

----------


## DeadEye

> I wonder why the neighbors back yard is more important than ones own?


Because the grass is always greener on the other side.  :Dontknow:

----------

Toefoot (04-22-2014)

----------


## Toefoot

I never got why so many are worried about people they never meet let alone cared for. Liberty must be a hard pill to swallow.




> Because the grass is always greener on the other side.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (04-22-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> I never got why so many are worried about people they never meet let alone cared for. Liberty must be a hard pill to swallow.


Yea, it's a big pill to swallow, like them penicillin tablets to get rid a bacterial infection. If they would just take the damned cure they would be much better off in the long run. With liberty one has to have morals and principles by which they live and die by or else they end up being pitiful dredges unable to care for themselves.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You don't live in a social vacuum so that is the price of living around civilized people. Using it is the precursor to behavior that can be dangerous to yourself and to others.  Wake up man, the law is for your own health and safety.


So then, whatever the government says is good must be good, and whatever the government says is bad, must be bad. If the government says that something that is bad without a prescription is good if there is a prescription, does that have a magical transformative effect on the substance? You progressives sure ascribe a lot of mystical power to government and the bureaucrats employed or licensed by it.

----------

wist43 (04-23-2014)

----------


## RMNIXON

> Yea, it's a big pill to swallow, like them penicillin tablets to get rid a bacterial infection. If they would just take the damned cure they would be much better off in the long run. With liberty one has to have morals and principles by which they live and die by or else they end up being pitiful dredges unable to care for themselves.



So you think people should be allowed to take all the antibiotics and other prescription medication they want until they are rendered ineffective for the people who really need it? 

Maybe not so harmless after all..........

----------


## RMNIXON

> You progressives sure ascribe a lot of mystical power to government and the bureaucrats employed or licensed by it.



No magic power, but there is a medical science. 

And while I agree the bureaucrats have been heavy handed with alternative medicines, there is legal justification to have some measure of control over prescription medication. Both for personal safety and general public safety. 

BTW General Welfare is in the Constitution. And while I do my best to avoid wide ranging interpretations, that does not mean everything is a free for all because it's your body as if they has no broader effects on others. As someone else pointed out, you don't live on an island onto yourself.

----------


## RMNIXON

*The Drinking Age Is Past Its Prime*

*Camille Paglia*




> Alcohol relaxes, facilitates interaction, inspires ideas, and promotes humor and hilarity. Used in moderation, it is quickly flushed from the system, with excess punished by a hangover. But deadening pills, such as today’s massively overprescribed anti-depressants, linger in body and brain and may have unrecognized long-term side effects. Those toxic chemicals, often manufactured by shadowy firms abroad, have been worrisomely present in a recent uptick of unexplained suicides and massacres. Half of the urban professional class in the U.S. seems doped on meds these days.
> 
> As a libertarian, I support the decriminalization of marijuana, but there are many problems with pot. From my observation, pot may be great for jazz musicians and Beat poets, but it saps energy and will-power and can produce physiological feminization in men. Also, it is difficult to measure the potency of plant-derived substances like pot. With brand-name beer or liquor, however, purchased doses have exactly the same strength and purity from one continent to another, with no fear of contamination by dangerous street additives like PCP.


http://time.com/72546/drinking-age-alcohol-repeal/



Note this is her opinion, not mine.  

Same with the post that started this thread, which I deliberately sprinkled with a bit of humor in the false hope that some of you might lighten up a little!

----------


## Archer

> *Breaking News: Marijuana Use Linked to Brain Abnormalities*
> 
> Attachment 3490
> 
> *Young adults who used marijuana only recreationally showed significant abnormalities in two key brain regions that are important in emotion and motivation, scientists report. The study was a collaboration between Northwestern Medicine and Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School.
> *
> This is the first study to show casual use of marijuana is related to major brain changes. It showed the degree of brain abnormalities in these regions is directly related to the number of joints a person smoked per week. The more joints a person smoked, the more abnormal the shape, volume and density of the brain regions.
> 
> *"This study raises a strong challenge to the idea that casual marijuana use isn't associated with bad consequences," said corresponding and co-senior study author Hans Breiter.* He is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a psychiatrist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
> ...


More, less or the same danger level as drinking?

----------


## DeadEye

> So you think people should be allowed to take all the antibiotics and other prescription medication they want until they are rendered ineffective for the people who really need it? 
> 
> Maybe not so harmless after all..........


No,, that is not what I am thinking or what I was saying either. It was an analogy in response to Toefoot. Have I ever said on this forum any thing remotely close to what you are implying? If it were not for your buddy Nixon we would not be here discussing this topic. He is the one who threw a wrench into the works.

----------


## DeadEye

> No magic power, but there is a medical science. 
> 
> And while I agree the bureaucrats have been heavy handed with alternative medicines, there is legal justification to have some measure of control over prescription medication. Both for personal safety and general public safety. 
> 
> BTW General Welfare is in the Constitution. And while I do my best to avoid wide ranging interpretations, that does not mean everything is a free for all because it's your body as if they has no broader effects on others. As someone else pointed out, you don't live on an island onto yourself.


In what context is the general welfare clause used? I bet it is not what you think it is but for funnzies lets here from you on that particular clause.

----------


## Pogue Mahone

They must be considering less stress to be an abnormality.

----------


## wist43

> No magic power, but there is a medical science. 
> 
> And while I agree the bureaucrats have been heavy handed with alternative medicines, there is legal justification to have some measure of control over prescription medication. Both for personal safety and general public safety. 
> 
> BTW General Welfare is in the Constitution. And while I do my best to avoid wide ranging interpretations, that does not mean everything is a free for all because it's your body as if they has no broader effects on others. As someone else pointed out, you don't live on an island onto yourself.





> In what context is the general welfare clause used? I bet it is not what you think it is but for funnzies lets here from you on that particular clause.


I can help you with this one @Anonymous - to RM, as he states above, the _general welfare clause_ is an enumerated power out from which law can be made.

Logically, since it means anything anyone wants it to mean - it is a completely open-ended grant of power.

He believes the exact same thing about the _necessary and proper clause__ -_ which is why he, JPT, Ghost, Dan, Jim, et al... never, ever want to talk about the Constitution.

They interpret it the exact same way the progressive/liberals do - and why wouldn't they?? It is what they were taught in the government indoctrination center they attended. Very stout of mind in their ability to resist the techniques of indoctrination these lads are  :Wink: 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get ABBY Normal in my car, as my wife hates the smell... sadly, the last of my stash tonight - haven't smoked in almost a year, but scored a little bud to celebrate an occasion and '_ease my troubled mind"_

----------

DeadEye (04-24-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

And, variation on the theme of this thread...the ones here who admit to using pot are EXACTLY the ones I'd suspect simply by the lack of logic and incoherence of their assertions and flawed logic.

Because pot use harms brain function.  Some more than others; some, probably, not noticeably.  But for the most part, it shows.

----------


## Dos Equis

Smoking pot.

The only Constitutional right we have left.

----------


## squidward

> And, variation on the theme of this thread...the ones here who admit to using pot are EXACTLY the ones I'd suspect simply by the lack of logic and incoherence of their assertions and flawed logic.
> 
> Because pot use harms brain function.  Some more than others; some, probably, not noticeably.  But for the most part, it shows.


what's your excuse ?

----------

DeadEye (04-24-2014)

----------


## wist43

> And, variation on the theme of this thread...the ones here who admit to using pot are EXACTLY the ones I'd suspect simply by the lack of logic and incoherence of their assertions and flawed logic.
> 
> Because pot use harms brain function.  Some more than others; some, probably, not noticeably.  But for the most part, it shows.


Some people just don't have the strength to stand firm on principle against pressure - that would be you, lol... You're willing to compromise and make deals... nothing wrong with art itself - but when the compromises are about principle?? Compromising the integrity of the Constitution itself?? No, some of us won't do that - ever.

Your arguments have actually had power - Republicans controlled all 3 branches, and what did they do?? They enthusiastically supported the complete gutting of the Bill of Rights - WTF?? The Patriot Act and the NDAA's that followed are abominations to the cause of liberty. The 2008 economic meltdown, mortgage-backed securities, bailouts, the Enron mess, et al.

And worse, you tell us we have to accept completely open-ended interpretations of the Constitution, interpretations that conveniently allow both you and your partners in crime, the dems/liberals/progressives/special interests, etc, to pilfer the public treasury with impunity, and monstrously expand FedGov power. Each special interest getting things they want, expanding their little fiefdoms. You don't want the EPA to get bigger, but Mr. Treehugger Democrat doesn't want the DEA any bigger - compromise?? Everybody "wins", cause everyone gets something they want. The EPA gets bigger and more powerful, and the DEA gets bigger and more powerful. Pick an agency from either side - 'let's make a deal'  :Wink: 

We've been here before JPT. You didn't get it before, you don't get it now, and you'll likely never get it. It is your "logic" that is seriously flawed. The game you are playing now is - the game. The only rule to the game is, one must never question the rules of the game  :Wink: 

There's no way I can lend support to your deficating all over our Constitution; stripping us of our rights; expanding and militarizing federal agencies, and state and local police forces; stealing money from the Federal Treasury; allowing that skank of criminals at the FedRes to operate unchecked and with nothing but token oversight; etc, etc...

You have a very ugly track record my friend. Most libertarians won't abandon principles in pursuit of expediency.

----------

DeadEye (04-24-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> what's your excuse ?


None; and I don't need one.

In the above, I'm being judged by someone incompetent to make that assessment.  It is he, not I, that is impaired.

----------


## wist43

Neocons, I have to ask you guys - where did you go off the path from mainstream conservatism of 20 years ago?? I was working with a few congressmen and their staffs at the time - I can assure you, constrictive interpretations of the various clauses were very much being talked about - especially leading into the Republican victory in '94.

It was comrade Newt's task to blunt and derail any constitutionalist momentum - he served his masters well. Anyway, even with Newt working to muck up the works, it was still mainstream conservative to argue that the _necessary and proper, and general welfare clauses_ were not grants of power in any way.

Now, there are apparently few who believe that. Curious that you've adopted platform planks of the progressive left, yet react with venom against anyone who dares mention it, lol... a shame to be kept in the closet?? A sort of "_self loathing"??_  :Smile:

----------

DeadEye (04-24-2014)

----------


## RMNIXON

If anyone wonders why I don't respond to the attacks on the membership, the above exchanges are as good an example as any. And I will not waste time trying to knock down the same nonsense over and over again. That is not why I am here, and some people are simply not worth the bother. 

On the other hand I invite any member to read what I (or anyone else mentioned) actually post on the Constitution, or any other subject and judge for themselves. Do not let the frequent and intentional misrepresentations by others cloud your judgement.

----------


## teeceetx

> When someone becomes ill due to the use of pot and has* health insurance then yes, it is other people's business*.  Why?  Such claims serve to drive up the premiums for those that don't use the wacky weed.
> 
> I think the theory behind punishing for possession is that the person  maybe selling the stuff.


I beg to differ with you.  I can find dozens of behaviors that YOU engage in, that will put you at a much higher risk of injury or death, thus becoming, in your opinion, the business of the rest of us.  Find another argument, that one does not compute.

----------


## wist43

> If anyone wonders why I don't respond to the attacks on the membership, the above exchanges are as good an example as any. And I will not waste time trying to knock down the same nonsense over and over again. That is not why I am here, and some people are simply not worth the bother. 
> 
> *On the other hand I invite any member to read what I (or anyone else mentioned) actually post on the Constitution,* or any other subject and judge for themselves. Do not let the frequent and intentional misrepresentations by others cloud your judgement.





> No magic power, but there is a medical science. 
> 
> And while I agree the bureaucrats have been heavy handed with alternative medicines, there is legal justification to have some measure of control over prescription medication. Both for personal safety and general public safety. 
> 
> *BTW General Welfare is in the Constitution.* And while I do my best to avoid wide ranging interpretations, that does not mean everything is a free for all because it's your body as if they has no broader effects on others. As someone else pointed out, you don't live on an island onto yourself.


You posted that the _general welfare clause_ is a grant of power. You try to be slippery about it, and leave yourself an escape hatch, i.e. "_... try to avoid wide ranging interpretations" -_ except it would seem in those circumstances when it serves your purpose so well, you simply can't resist??

Nothing else be said... they're your own words. You've signed off on trading away your freedom.

If you want to use the _general welfare clause_ to empower government for drugs - who are you to say that some liberal can't do the same thing for seizing your property b/c it has a puddle on it??

Which takes us back to the hypocracy thread. You have no moral standing to be telling anyone they can or can't do anything with government power, b/c you yourself are willing to misuse it, and then rationalize that misuse.

At least a liberal doesn't play at having any use for fidelity toward the Constituiton and limited government - it is why there is no point in bothering to talk to them. You on the other hand - you say you have some regard for the Constitution and limited government, but then turn around and wink at an open-ended interpretation?? 

Seriously, I don't get how you can rationalize any of that.

----------


## Sheldonna

> *Breaking News: Marijuana Use Linked to Brain Abnormalities*
> 
> Attachment 3490
> 
> *Young adults who used marijuana only recreationally showed significant abnormalities in two key brain regions that are important in emotion and motivation, scientists report. The study was a collaboration between Northwestern Medicine and Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School.
> *
> This is the first study to show casual use of marijuana is related to major brain changes. It showed the degree of brain abnormalities in these regions is directly related to the number of joints a person smoked per week. The more joints a person smoked, the more abnormal the shape, volume and density of the brain regions.
> 
> *"This study raises a strong challenge to the idea that casual marijuana use isn't associated with bad consequences," said corresponding and co-senior study author Hans Breiter.* He is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a psychiatrist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.
> ...


Does PAST pot  smoking count?       Well...then.....

that explains why I'm so _quirky_ now.   I'm grateful to my pot-smoking days then.  

At least I'm not boringly *N O R M A L !!!!*

----------

Toefoot (04-25-2014)

----------


## wist43

> In what context is the general welfare clause used? I bet it is not what you think it is but for funnzies lets here from you on that particular clause.


Ya know @Anonymous - when it comes to prescription drugs - the authoritarians could actually make a constitutional argument thru the _commerce clause,_ and I suppose they do that to some extent; but the _commerce clause_ doesn't get them to being able to enforce prohibition of recreational drugs.

For prohibition - they need a very broad intepretation of either the _general welfare or necessary and proper clause._

Pointing to this fact, and the fact that they embrace these interpretations when it suits their purposes - and then pointing to how they castigate liberals for misuse of government under those very same clauses - is the height of hypocracy - and met with all the tactics that the left uses to deflect from their guilt and numerous hypocracies.

It's amazing to watch these guys flop around like a fish out of water trying to keep from being exposed for what they really are.

In the end, they need to admit that they are wrong, get on the right side of the Constitution, and join with those of us who truly want to save our freedom with the Constitution we already have.

----------


## DeadEye

> Ya know @Anonymous - when it comes to prescription drugs - the authoritarians could actually make a constitutional argument thru the _commerce clause,_ and I suppose they do that to some extent; but the _commerce clause_ doesn't get them to being able to enforce prohibition of recreational drugs.
> 
> For prohibition - they need a very broad intepretation of either the _general welfare or necessary and proper clause._
> 
> Pointing to this fact, and the fact that they embrace these interpretations when it suits their purposes - and then pointing to how they castigate liberals for misuse of government under those very same clauses - is the height of hypocracy - and met with all the tactics that the left uses to deflect from their guilt and numerous hypocracies.
> 
> It's amazing to watch these guys flop around like a fish out of water trying to keep from being exposed for what they really are.
> 
> In the end, they need to admit that they are wrong, get on the right side of the Constitution, and join with those of us who truly want to save our freedom with the Constitution we already have.


Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No magic power, but there is a medical science. 
> 
> And while I agree the bureaucrats have been heavy handed with alternative medicines, there is legal justification to have some measure of control over prescription medication. Both for personal safety and general public safety. 
> 
> BTW General Welfare is in the Constitution. And while I do my best to avoid wide ranging interpretations, that does not mean everything is a free for all because it's your body as if they has no broader effects on others. As someone else pointed out, you don't live on an island onto yourself.


Nobody disagrees that THE WORDS "General" and "Welfare" are in the Constitution.

People who understand the Constitution are in full agreement that the words "general" and "welfare" in no wise give Congress the least shred of authority to subsidize indolence or corporations.  

As for the drugs...it bothers you not in the slightest if someone elses spends his entire weekend smoking pot until he dies from unrequited munchies.     So long as he isn't driving a car or playing in traffic, what he does with his body is not even the least of your concerns, its no concern of yours at all.   Cite the Constitutional authority given to Congress to criminalize drug possession.

----------

DeadEye (04-26-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> When someone becomes ill due to the use of pot and has health insurance then yes, it is other people's business. Why? Such claims serve to drive up the premiums for those that don't use the wacky weed.
> 
> I think the theory behind punishing for possession is that the person maybe selling the stuff.


There is that argument.

Why can't the insurance company sell policies with riders that void the contract if the insured imbibes of substances the insurer figures places too great a risk to cover?

Oh.

That would be the Free Market doing it's True Social Justice Thang.    Can't have real justice or even real consequences for individual behavior coming back around to bite the individual in his own HIV infected tush, can we?

----------

DeadEye (04-26-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> So you think people should be allowed to take all the antibiotics and other prescription medication they want until they are rendered ineffective for the people who really need it? 
> 
> Maybe not so harmless after all..........


So human liberty must be constrained because bacteria evolve?

Can you look at the last to presidential elections and truly believe that bacteria are capable of evolution?   Obama won, didn't he?  See? No evolution happening among the bacteria.

----------


## Hansel

> There is that argument.
> 
> Why can't the insurance company sell policies with riders that void the contract if the insured imbibes of substances the insurer figures places too great a risk to cover?
> 
> Oh.
> 
> That would be the Free Market doing it's True Social Justice Thang.    Can't have real justice or even real consequences for individual behavior coming back around to bite the individual in his own HIV infected tush, can we?


If a person is deathly ill and goes to the ER  I think the hospital must serve his needs to the point that he is stabilized. If insurance doesn't cover such an incident then the other patrons of the hospital will in time absorb it.  Either way the people at large get it in the shives.

I don't think that in America you will see people denying a patient emergency health care because we aren't that sort of people.

----------


## wist43

> If a person is deathly ill and goes to the ER  I think the hospital must serve his needs to the point that he is stabilized. If insurance doesn't cover such an incident then the other patrons of the hospital will in time absorb it.  Either way the people at large get it in the shives.
> 
> I don't think that in America you will see people denying a patient emergency health care because we aren't that sort of people.


The problem Hansel, is that these things are not a federal matter. Drugs are not a federal matter, insurance is not a federal matter, and healthcare is not a federal matter.

They are questions for the states, and each state may have different laws, and different safety nets, etc; but at the end of the day, we are all better off keeping the FedGov out of our lives as much as possible - that was the intent of the Constitution from the beginning.

Here's the logic behind why FedGov involvement in drug prohibition is improper, and why it is not improper on the state level (even though I would argue it is wrong - there's a difference):

1) if you accept that the FedGov can prohibit drugs, you can only do so by way of broad interpretations of _the necessary and proper and general welfare clauses._

2) if you accept those interpretations, you open Pandora's Box to government power, b/c if you can use FedGov violence and power against another citizen for what you perceive to be unseemly behavior or activities - why can't another citizen wield the power of government for _his_ own ends by misusing the same interpretation??

3) now, with the FedGov completely empowered by these interpretations - why is anyone surprised that the government is stealing our wealth, property, and liberty?? It is the nature of government, it is the lesson of history, and it is why our Founding Fathers tried to write the Constitution in such a way as this could not happen. But alas, here we are... decades removed from the seals being torn off of those clauses - and predictably nearly bankrupt, liberty under attack, our society diseased and dying.

What amazes me, is that the majority of people recognize none of these things - and when it is pointed out to them, and their own involvement in supporting this demise, they react with rage, denial, and venom.

It truly is amazing to be alive at a time when a major historical society is dying. To watch it die, day by day, as the people helplessly flounder around and have no idea what's going on - yet are angry and belligerent. Truly amazing.

----------

DeadEye (04-26-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

*The Winds of Fate* 				 				  				 				 					 					 						One ship drives east and another drives west
With the selfsame winds that blow.
Tis the set of the sails
And not the gales
Which tells us the way to go. 
Like the winds of the seas are the ways of fate,
As we voyage along through the life:
Tis the set of a soul
That decides its goal,
And not the calm or the strife.  						



Ella Wheeler Wilcox
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-winds-of-fate/

----------


## Katzndogz

Not very much of our criminal code has Constitutional authority.  There's no Constitutional prohibition against shoplifting, or not picking up your dog's poop in the park.   Yet, both are illegal acts.

Drug prohibition is part of the contract that the government makes with citizens that if they do not enforce the law by vigilante acts, the government will enforce the law for them.    Otherwise the parents whose child is a drug user might well track down and blow the dealer away on his or her own.   Like it or not, drug use has a wider effect than just the user.  I wouldn't mind at all if users were just warehoused someplace and allowed to take anything they want until they die.  Alone except for the company of other users.  That's acceptable.   The harm done blankets all around them.  Their children suffer, their coworkers, families, neighbors and even total strangers.   

The authority of the government to regulate drugs is NOT the necessary and proper clause, nor is it the general welfare clause.   See those clauses refer to the authority of the federal government to regulate ITSELF.  It was not really supposed to apply to citizens.   The authority actually comes from the creation of the FDA in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914.

----------


## wist43

> Not very much of our criminal code has Constitutional authority.  There's no Constitutional prohibition against shoplifting, or not picking up your dog's poop in the park.   Yet, both are illegal acts.
> 
> Drug prohibition is part of the contract that the government makes with citizens that if they do not enforce the law by vigilante acts, the government will enforce the law for them.    Otherwise the parents whose child is a drug user might well track down and blow the dealer away on his or her own.   Like it or not, drug use has a wider effect than just the user.  I wouldn't mind at all if users were just warehoused someplace and allowed to take anything they want until they die.  Alone except for the company of other users.  That's acceptable.   The harm done blankets all around them.  Their children suffer, their coworkers, families, neighbors and even total strangers.   
> 
> The authority of the government to regulate drugs is NOT the necessary and proper clause, nor is it the general welfare clause.   See those clauses refer to the authority of the federal government to regulate ITSELF.  It was not really supposed to apply to citizens.   The authority actually comes from the creation of the FDA in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914.


I don't even know what to do with that K... what you've written there is so wrong, on so many levels, where does one begin to tear it down??

Shoplifting is not a federal crime, b/c the Constitution does not grant the FedGov authority over such a matter, neither is dog poop. As the 10th amendment says, such things are issues for the states and the people themselves. Drugs?? Same thing.

Aren't you a lawyer?? How is it you can have no understanding of the Constitution?? The FedGov can make no law outside of the enumerated powers - at least that's the way constitutional law is supposed to work. In that way, the Constitution is a negative document, and the people are free as a result b/c the government simply doesn't have the power to visit authoritarianism, arbitrary rule, or tyranny upon them.

What you are describing is tyranny. You are saying the government can do anything it wants - simply b/c it says it can. If FedGov laws are not grounded in constitutional authority - which is what you are saying - then you will have a lawless government; which of course is what we have.

It boggles my mind that a lawyer would be led so far afield by the education he/she received that they could view the Constitution and governance is such ways.

Just wow.

----------


## wist43

> Not very much of our criminal code has Constitutional authority.  There's no Constitutional prohibition against shoplifting, or not picking up your dog's poop in the park.   Yet, both are illegal acts.
> 
> Drug prohibition is part of the contract that the government makes with citizens that if they do not enforce the law by vigilante acts, the government will enforce the law for them.    Otherwise the parents whose child is a drug user might well track down and blow the dealer away on his or her own.   Like it or not, drug use has a wider effect than just the user.  I wouldn't mind at all if users were just warehoused someplace and allowed to take anything they want until they die.  Alone except for the company of other users.  That's acceptable.   The harm done blankets all around them.  Their children suffer, their coworkers, families, neighbors and even total strangers.   
> 
> The authority of the government to regulate drugs is NOT the necessary and proper clause, nor is it the general welfare clause.   See those clauses refer to the authority of the federal government to regulate ITSELF.  It was not really supposed to apply to citizens.   The authority actually comes from the creation of the FDA in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914.


Katz, something else I would point to in this post - which I agree with you on, but there are 2 "howevers" to it...

Here you say the _necessary and proper clause, and general welfare clause_ do not apply to the people - I agree; however #1, the general welfare clause is not a grant of power in any way, in any form to the government. It is exactly what James Madison said it was, a generic and meaningless introductory clause to the following sentence; however #2, you stated in another thread that your cited 1904 and (1907) I think, laws were predicated upon the _necessary and proper clause._

After you cited those laws, however many weeks ago, you were noncommittal on the constitutional authority for them. You just kept citing the laws themselves. Of course that can't fly, I called you on it, i.e. and eventually you relented and said those laws were justified under the _necessary and proper clause.

_Pretty sure that was you that said those things?? 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bottom line is, if we as citizens accept that the government can be, and can act as a law unto itself - then we have accepted the terms of living under tyranny. 

The Constitution empowers the FedGov to perform certain "enumerated" functions. If the Constitution does not explicitly empower the FedGov to be involved in a given area of our society, then the FedGov simply does not possess that power - unless and until an amendment is passed. The 18th amendment being the most obvious example of this.

You may want to argue that the FedGov can regulate drugs under the commerce clause - but that does not get you to prohibition, does it?? Because - I, as a private citizen, can plant a seed, harvest the bud, and smoke on my property without ever leaving the boundaries of my property. No "commerce" involved there at all - so how do they get around that??

They get around that by torturing all of these clauses to illogical proportions - and sadly Amerikans have come to accept these interpretations as being valid and lawful, when nothing could be further from the truth.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*America is supposed to be about FREEDOM!!!!* Yet we have laws against everything - the government micromanages every detail of our lives. Run afoul of some bureaucrat?? Or some filthy pig of a cop?? and you're facing the big house - Amerika imprisons more people per capita than any country in the world!!! 

How can that be, if America is supposed to be about freedom?? Your ideas about freedom are not in line with liberty - they are about legalism as the means of enforcing authoritarianism. Those notions are poison.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Aren't you a lawyer?? How is it you can have no understanding of the Constitution?? The FedGov can make no law outside of the enumerated powers - at least that's the way constitutional law is supposed to work.


So then, you're okay with STATE laws that limit voting to only white males.

Or with STATE laws that require blacks and whites to have "separate but equal" facilities - no integration of restaurants, hotels, parks, shops and stores.

By your reading of the Constitution, which BTW I agree with, mostly, those should be A-OK.

And I've said it numerous times:  Legalizing this idiot-incense would be fine with me.  IF.  IF we could kick users off of welfare and government payrolls; keep them from voting or driving and allow employers to terminate them with that as a reason, as they choose.

I'd be fine, if we could marginalize the voluntarily-retarded.  BUT we can't, and you can thank the Federal Leviathan for that; so we NEED to have other ways of insuring we're not run by the dopey.

As we are now.  Barry uses pot; Barry wrecks this nation with his stupidity.  Coincidence?  I think not.

----------


## wist43

> So then, you're okay with STATE laws that limit voting to only white males.
> 
> Or with STATE laws that require blacks and whites to have "separate but equal" facilities - no integration of restaurants, hotels, parks, shops and stores.
> 
> By your reading of the Constitution, which BTW I agree with, mostly, those should be A-OK.


As citizens, they have a constitutional right to vote in the absence of some legal disqualification.

A private business discriminating against someone - for any reason?? That's none of the governments business. By the same token, if someone is discriminated against by a business - again, not a matter for government. Government should not be in the discrimination business at any level, on either side of the issue.




> And I've said it numerous times:  Legalizing this idiot-incense would be fine with me.  IF.  IF we could kick users off of welfare and government payrolls; keep them from voting or driving and allow employers to terminate them with that as a reason, as they choose.


Those are all arguments to be taken up on the state level. I might argue with you about what might be good policy and law, but I would not argue with you whether the state had the right to pass such laws.

If you passed prohibition, or conditional prohibition on the state level, I would recognize those laws as legitmate. That's not to say I'd agree they were necessary, appropriate, or well thought out; but I'd at least recognize them as being legitimate.




> I'd be fine, if we could marginalize the voluntarily-retarded.  BUT we can't, and you can thank the Federal Leviathan for that; so we NEED to have other ways of insuring we're not run by the dopey.
> 
> As we are now.  Barry uses pot; Barry wrecks this nation with his stupidity.  Coincidence?  I think not.


I have no idea why it would be important to you or anyone else to "marginalize" anyone - anyone at all?? Why?? 

Seriously, leave people alone; be kind and helpful to others when you can; be a good neighbor; and mind your own business... why is this so impossible for Amerikans today?? I just don't get the need to for some to have their boot on someone else's throat - I just don't get it.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> As citizens, they have a constitutional right to vote in the absence of some legal disqualification.


READ the Constitution.  I recommend you do it while not in a drug haze.  

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF A RIGHT TO VOTE.  The right to own firearms, the right of Free Speech...NOT the right to vote.

----------


## wist43

> READ the Constitution.  I recommend you do it while not in a drug haze.  
> 
> THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF A RIGHT TO VOTE.  The right to own firearms, the right of Free Speech...NOT the right to vote.


14th, 15th, and 19th amendments are part of the Constitution ya know  :Wink: 

Was your vision blurred by the gallons of blood splashed all over you after you smashed in the skulls of some pot smokers??

*15th amendment*
*
Section 1.* The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

*Section 2.* The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

*19th amendment
*
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Ya know, if you actually passed an amendment allowing the FedGov to prohibit drugs - I'd actually agree that the Feds had the power to do that; but alas, no amendment?? no authority  :Wink:

----------


## JustPassinThru

One reason the Constitution worked as well as it had, before we became a nation of the voluntarily brain-damaged, is that it stayed out of the minutia.  It didn't specify how the streets were to be swept; it laid out the duties and powers AND PROHIBITIONS in broad strokes, in plain language.

If the power of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce can be used to jam 0bombahCair up our _mmm-mmm-mmm_s, if it can be used to ban DDT and cyclamates and the manufacture of cars without magic _gris-gris_s on them to make the air smell sweet...then they have the power to ban stuff that makes people dazed and stupid for weeks after use.

As for those Amendments you referenced:  My mistake; as the hedgehog said after dismounting the toilet brush; but that is one MORE area, along with Amendment 17, where the social engineers took us down the wrong path.  The right to vote WAS INTENDED to be a State prerogative; and was understood to be a QUALIFIED right - based on substance and standing, and not to be dispensed to the feeble, the feckless, the worthless.

----------


## Katzndogz

Under the CONSTITUTION as it existed at the time, women had to give up the right to vote in order for Arizona to enter the union.

----------

JustPassinThru (04-27-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Under the CONSTITUTION as it existed at the time, women had to give up the right to vote in order for Arizona to enter the union.


Yes.

And this, along with Dred Scott, is another argument demonstrating the FALLACY of a large, unfettered powerful central government as, somehow, the guarantor of liberty and/or rights of the minority.

----------


## birddog

As a reply to the OP, I have always thought it was stupid and unhealthy to intentionally suck smoke into your lungs no matter what it was!

Rare exceptions might be those who truly use weed to ease a disease.

----------



----------


## wist43

> One reason the Constitution worked as well as it had, before we became a nation of the voluntarily brain-damaged, is that it stayed out of the minutia.  It didn't specify how the streets were to be swept; it laid out the duties and powers AND PROHIBITIONS in broad strokes, in plain language.
> 
> If the power of the Congress to regulate interstate commerce can be used to jam 0bombahCair up our _mmm-mmm-mmm_s, if it can be used to ban DDT and cyclamates and the manufacture of cars without magic _gris-gris_s on them to make the air smell sweet...then they have the power to ban stuff that makes people dazed and stupid for weeks after use.
> 
> As for those Amendments you referenced:  My mistake; as the hedgehog said after dismounting the toilet brush; but that is one MORE area, along with Amendment 17, where the social engineers took us down the wrong path.  The right to vote WAS INTENDED to be a State prerogative; and was understood to be a QUALIFIED right - based on substance and standing, and not to be dispensed to the feeble, the feckless, the worthless.


Of the few enumerated powers, _the commerce clause_ should be our biggest worry and problem.

The original logic behind it was to prevent the states from taxing each other, i.e. it was intended to facilitate the free flow of commerce between the states - the original 'free trade' compact if you will. Of course, government by its nature seeks to control and restrict - it was only a matter of time before that clause became perverted, expanded, and ultimately a real danger to economic freedom.

If we are to restore some sanity to our economy we need to rein in the FedGov's ability to micromanage the production and use of every widget. The _commerce clause_ has been stretched and expanded to such unbelievable proportions that it is entirely accurate to say that Amerika is more fascist than free b/c of it.

As for the OP, and as I've said  before - if you wanted to make the argument that you can regulate drugs under the _commerce clause_ - I would disagree with you, but at least your argument would have some constitutional and legal legs to stand on. The problem you have as an advocate of prohibition however, is you don't want to merely regulate drugs, you want to ban them - the commerce clause can't get you there, b/c a citizen can produce his own drugs, some drugs anyway, and never leave his property.

So to get to prohibition, you have to adopt the progressive interpretations of the open-ended clauses - which, as should be obvious, is opening up Pandora's Box. By doing this, you get something you want, prohibition, but the progressive gets everything he wants b/c government is now no longer constrained by law. He can now wield its power to rob the treasury and destroy liberty.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I've argued til I'm blue in the face, and it is the same argument our Founding Fathers made about the minutia of governance - if you want to prohibit drugs, make those arguments on the state level (10th amendment). You can still have your prohibition - if you can win the argument, but by acknowledging the federal nature of the issue you are empowering yourself to use the Constitution as a weapon against the authoritarian left.

As it is, as long as you argue prohibition on the federal level is lawful b/c of the open-ended interpretations - you are giving currency to the progressives, b/c they need those open-ended interpretations to empower a government that is otherwise powerless to steal from and terrorize the citizenry.

----------


## Katzndogz

Judging from the way most women vote, it's arguable whether they should ever have been allowed to vote.

----------

JustPassinThru (04-27-2014)

----------


## countryboy

> Judging from the way most women vote, it's arguable .whether they should ever have been allowed to vote.


I certainly don't want you voting.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I certainly don't want you voting.


Ya know what separates a conservative from a pie-eyed (and often impaired) liberal?

REALISM.

I have argued for a long time, that voting should be restricted to either property-owners or persons who pay over a set base amount in taxes.  Well, guess what - I don't own property.  And last year I didn't pay much in taxes.

I'd have lost the vote - but that's okay; because along with me, the shiftless, useless, feckless would ALSO have been kept from voting.

KnD probably understands that, too.  Standards, to work, MUST be rigid.  There are worse things...like allowing the army of airheads to vote, along WITH me.

----------


## Katzndogz

Recently there has been a explosion of inexplicable cruel conduct.   We know that the boys who shot Chris Lane were high on pot and bored when they shot him in the back.  John Holmes was a regular pot user.  So was Jared Loughner.  

A boy stabs and kills a girl because she turned down a date for the prom.   A 16 year old boy and his 14 year old friend break into a retirement home, beat a bedridden 87 year old and drench her in bleach because they wanted to see what helpless looked like.  A teacher gives a lap dance to a 15 year old student.  Rudy Eugene eats Ronald Poppo's eyes out of his head while high on pot.

1 in every 13 children are on some kind of psychotropic drug.   Then they graduate to taking their own self medication.  

I heard a young student comment that we have a generation that has been raised without experiencing human emotion.   In a few years we will have a second generation, raised on drugs, used to pot suppressing their feelings.  What will the future look like when such monsters are adults?

Dennis Miller refers to them as limping on the Serengeti Plain.  I hope so, because it really will be a jungle out there.

----------


## Katzndogz

> I certainly don't want you voting.


Naturally the drug impaired should not be allowed to vote, or at least be drug tested prior to casting a ballot.   When a vote can be sold for a fix, it pollutes the voting process.  That's what we have now.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Naturally the drug impaired should not be allowed to vote, or at least be drug tested prior to casting a ballot.   When a vote can be sold for a fix, it pollutes the voting process.  That's what we have now.


If they would JUST require drug-testing prior to allowing a person to vote...I'd be just about ready to consider legalization of the stuff.

Of course, so many of these "requirements" turn out to be "temporary."  But, I guess, it doesn't much matter in the end - to quote John Maynard Keynes, in the long run, we're all dead.

I've got about fifteen years left - probably less; I won't make it through the coming dope-and-Marxism famine as an old man.

----------


## Katzndogz

It won't come to that.  We will be invaded and subjugated long before that happens.

----------


## wist43

> Ya know what separates a conservative from a pie-eyed (and often impaired) liberal?
> 
> REALISM.
> 
> I have argued for a long time, that voting should be restricted to either property-owners or persons who pay over a set base amount in taxes.  Well, guess what - I don't own property.  And last year I didn't pay much in taxes.
> 
> I'd have lost the vote - but that's okay; because along with me, the shiftless, useless, feckless would ALSO have been kept from voting.
> 
> KnD probably understands that, too.  *Standards, to work, MUST be rigid.*  There are worse things...like allowing the army of airheads to vote, along WITH me.


Good gravy man - what have you and I been arguing over these past several months?? Exactly that!!! Only you are the one arguing for nonexistent "standards", i.e. open-ended interpretations of the Constitution that allow for all manner of malfeasance and abuse of power!!!

If the Constitution is to work - if liberty is to survive - the law that empowers the government has to "be rigid" - yet you don't subsribe to that at all!!!

How can you in one post say that - "Standards, to work must be rigid"; and then in scores of other posts say that _necessary and proper_ is an enumerated power?? Those two positions are so opposed to each other, that anyone arguing both is probably rocking multiple personalities.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> ...


You obviously have a problem with perception.  I have never said what you claim.

I have not discussed "necessary and proper."  I do NOT support open-ended translations of the Constitution.

You THINK I have; because your brain is probably full of mild hallucinogenics.  

That's what THC does - it alters PERCEPTIONS.

On top of that you're agenda-driven - you start with a CONCLUSION, the Constitution requires (you think) that your favorite intoxicant be legal to all.  And you filter it all through that, and through a brain chemically altered.

You are wrong.  In so many ways; on so many levels.

----------


## wist43

> You obviously have a problem with perception.  I have never said what you claim.
> 
> I have not discussed "necessary and proper."  I do NOT support open-ended translations of the Constitution.
> 
> You THINK I have; because your brain is probably full of mild hallucinogenics.  
> 
> That's what THC does - it alters PERCEPTIONS.
> 
> On top of that you're agenda-driven - you start with a CONCLUSION, the Constitution requires (you think) that your favorite intoxicant be legal to all.  And you filter it all through that, and through a brain chemically altered.
> ...


So we're back to this again... 

So, state for the record - where do you say the FedGov gets the authority to prohibit drugs?? I'm all ears friend.

----------


## Hansel

> So we're back to this again... 
> 
> So, state for the record - where do you say the FedGov gets the authority to prohibit drugs?? I'm all ears friend.


Hiding behind the constitution doesn't cut it with me. You should have sense enough to not mess up your head with Wacky Weed.

----------


## Katzndogz

At the risk of repeating myself for the 100th time.

The creation of the FDA in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914 is what gives the federal government the power to prohibit drugs.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> At the risk of repeating myself for the 100th time.
> 
> The creation of the FDA in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914 is what gives the federal government the power to prohibit drugs.


They don't want facts.

They want "yes."  They're like badgering spoiled children - they keep on and on, until they hear "_YES!!_"

They don't give a flying rip about the Constitution or rights or any of that.  They want WEED!!

----------


## wist43

> At the risk of repeating myself for the 100th time.
> 
> The creation of the FDA in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914 is what gives the federal government the power to prohibit drugs.





> They don't want facts.
> 
> They want "yes."  They're like badgering spoiled children - they keep on and on, until they hear "_YES!!_"
> 
> They don't give a flying rip about the Constitution or rights or any of that.  They want WEED!!


For the 100th time - 

The FedGov cannot make a LAW - without having the constitutional authority to do so!!! What part of that don't you understand??

So - for the billionth time - *cite for me the clause of the Constitution that authorizes the FedGov to engage in prohibition*!!! NOT LAW - ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, THE LAW IS INVALID!!!

I asked a simple question about the Constitution - and KD cites law, and JPT goes into his song and dance routine?? Stop being weak, and back up your claims.

Constitution guys - Constitution!!!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> For the 100th time - 
> 
> The FedGov cannot make a LAW - without having the constitutional authority to do so!!! What part of that don't you understand??
> 
> So - for the billionth time - *cite for me the clause of the Constitution that authorizes the FedGov to engage in prohibition*!!! NOT LAW - ACTUAL CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY - WITHOUT CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, THE LAW IS INVALID!!!
> 
> I asked a simple question about the Constitution - and KD cites law, and JPT goes into his song and dance routine?? Stop being weak, and back up your claims.
> 
> Constitution guys - Constitution!!!


You comfortable if a State makes possession of marijuana a CAPITAL CRIME?

And announces the Federal Courts have NO jurisdiction?

You gonna fight for THAT assertion of Constitutional principle?

----------


## wist43

> Hiding behind the constitution doesn't cut it with me. You should have sense enough to not mess up your head with Wacky Weed.


I'm not saying you can't make laws against drugs - I'm saying you can't prohibit drugs on the Federal level without a constitutional amendment.

Pass all the prohibition laws you want on the state level - but until you pass an amendment to the Constitution, the FedGov has no authority to prohibit anything.

The rule of law is there to protect us from government - that's what the Constitution is designed to do. How is it you don't understand these things??

----------


## Sled Dog

> If a person is deathly ill and goes to the ER I think the hospital must serve his needs to the point that he is stabilized. If insurance doesn't cover such an incident then the other patrons of the hospital will in time absorb it. Either way the people at large get it in the shives.
> 
> I don't think that in America you will see people denying a patient emergency health care because we aren't that sort of people.


"He that shall not work will not eat."

He that can't pony up the ER bill, can't ride his pony to the ER.

See how FAIR life can get?

----------


## Sled Dog

> You comfortable if a State makes possession of marijuana a CAPITAL CRIME?
> 
> And announces the Federal Courts have NO jurisdiction?
> 
> You gonna fight for THAT assertion of Constitutional principle?


Do you always find yourself resorting to absurdities because you don't have a logical rejoinder?

Name the state that's proposing, or has proposed, capital sentencing for mere possession of marijuana.

Any such law would violate the Eighth Amendment, since you asked about Constitutional jurisdiction.

----------


## Sled Dog

> At the risk of repeating myself for the 100th time.
> 
> The creation of the FDA in 1904 and the Harrison Act of 1914 is what gives the federal government the power to prohibit drugs.


Neither of which are constitutional.

An illegal act can't give power to anyone, it can only usurp power it is not supposed to possess.

If a state wants to ban a drug, that's the state's problem and something for the people in that state to deal with.  It's of no concern to the people of other states.  They're free to emulate or ignore as they wish.

----------

DeadEye (04-27-2014),wist43 (04-27-2014)

----------


## wist43

> You comfortable if a State makes possession of marijuana a CAPITAL CRIME?
> 
> And announces the Federal Courts have NO jurisdiction?
> 
> You gonna fight for THAT assertion of Constitutional principle?


Yes, it is not a federal matter... it would be an idiotic law and penalty, but as far as the FedGov is concerned, it is not a federal matter.

But of course that is such a ridiculous example, it isn't worth extrapolating upon.

---------------------------------------------------------

So, back to you Mr. Artful Dodger - answer the question, for the billionth and one time - cite for me the constitutional authorization  :Wink:

----------


## Sled Dog

> Naturally the drug impaired should not be allowed to vote, or at least be drug tested prior to casting a ballot. When a vote can be sold for a fix, it pollutes the voting process. That's what we have now.


Impossible to enforce.

Simply raise the voting age to 30, that will cut out most of the dead weight voters.  Require them to show proof of idenity, proof of age, and proof of address when attempting to vote.    Require them to dip their thumb in purple ink (their whole head if voting DemocRAT) prior to leaving the polling place.  Seriously, don't let them leave if they won't do it, not before the polls close.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Yes, it is not a federal matter... it would be an idiotic law and penalty, but as far as the FedGov is concerned, it is not a federal matter.
> 
> But of course that is such a ridiculous example, it isn't worth extrapolating upon.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So, back to you Mr. Artful Dodger - answer the question, for the billionth and one time - cite for me the constitutional authorization


Sorry,  but certainly the proposed punishment would violate the Eighth Amenmdment, and thus would become a matter for the federal courts.

----------


## wist43

> Neither of which are constitutional.
> 
> An illegal act can't give power to anyone, it can only usurp power it is not supposed to possess.
> 
> If a state wants to ban a drug, that's the state's problem and something for the people in that state to deal with.  It's of no concern to the people of other states.  They're free to emulate or ignore as they wish.


Exactly, lol... trying to get these guys to recognize and acknowledge how a Federal Republic is supposed to function is hairy work and heavy lifting  :Smile: 

It isn't a lack of intelligence - it's either indoctrination, bigotry, complete ignorance, and/or a mix of all three. *It's amazing to watch these guys flop around - sinking in the quicksand b/c they can't answer the question, but refuse to admit they're wrong.
*
The Constitution is there to protect everyone _FROM GOVERNMENT_ and to prevent people like JPT and KD from using the power of government against people they don't like - just as it's there to protect them from people who may find them to unsavory characters.

The Constitution is the "live and let live" document - but statists simply will never accept that.

----------

DeadEye (04-27-2014)

----------


## wist43

> Sorry,  but certainly the proposed punishment would violate the Eighth Amenmdment, and thus would become a matter for the federal courts.


I agree... JPT was just trying to make the most ridiculous argument he could to try to upend federalism... I would certainly agree that such an outlandish punishment would properly end up in a federal court.

In this case however, the redress to the federal level would be to protect rights and curtail improper governance - JPT would neve approve of that. He wants to use the government to harm people he disagrees with.

----------

DeadEye (04-27-2014)

----------


## Katzndogz

> Neither of which are constitutional.
> 
> An illegal act can't give power to anyone, it can only usurp power it is not supposed to possess.
> 
> If a state wants to ban a drug, that's the state's problem and something for the people in that state to deal with.  It's of no concern to the people of other states.  They're free to emulate or ignore as they wish.


Acts of Congress are constitutional.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Sorry,  but certainly the proposed punishment would violate the Eighth Amenmdment, and thus would become a matter for the federal courts.


Not if the "Cruel and Unusual" clause were read in its original intent, and not as liberal social-activist "judges" have bastardized it.

By "cruel and unusual" it was meant, OUTSIDE THE SPECIFICATIONS OF LAW.  In other words, peasants could not be broken on the wheel because it pleased the King - if the law stipulated execution, execution would follow in the same manner as was usual.  Hanging or shooting or whatever had been stipulated.

The example I gave was ridiculous but it bears consideration - the pot brigade here only wants to consider what violation interferes with their Right To Parrrr-_TAY!_  They're as unconcerned with TRUE Constitutional abuse as the Man in the Moon.

And this proves it.  All they want is pot, government gimmes, and the Eternal Buzz.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I agree... JPT was just trying to make the most ridiculous argument he could to try to upend federalism... I would certainly agree that such an outlandish punishment would properly end up in a federal court.
> 
> In this case however, the redress to the federal level would be to protect rights and curtail improper governance - JPT would neve approve of that. He wants to use the government to harm people he disagrees with.


No.

I was pointing out how the FOCUS of your agitation is only in ONE direction - ACCESS TO DRUGS.

You don't consider that it could go the other way - and if it should, you'll quickly reverse your stance.

All this has proved exactly that.

----------

