Okla Sooner wrote:
If keeping it illegal has the potential to save even one single life, then it is a good thing.
I am very sorry for your loss. This statement, however, is not grounded in how our society works.
Okla Sooner wrote:
If keeping it illegal has the potential to save even one single life, then it is a good thing.
I am very sorry for your loss. This statement, however, is not grounded in how our society works.
jon secada wrote:
Okla Sooner wrote:If keeping it illegal has the potential to save even one single life, then it is a good thing.
I am very sorry for your loss. This statement, however, is not grounded in how our society works.
Yup, that line of reasoning (or lack there of ) shows a complete absence of critical thinking skills.
Using the above we should out law pretty much all tools, vehicles, hell even many foods and most house hold items.
New flash , people make bad decisions, people die from accidents. You look at a sample size of 100million and you are going to see a lot of deaths that are preventable.
Algebraist wrote:
I understand the point you're trying to make here, and personally I think gun ownership is kind of silly, especially if we're talking about weapons that were originally intended for military purposes. There are some people who really enjoy them though, and if they're enjoyed safely and responsibly, then it's fine by me.
I am opposed to "unrestricted" gun ownership, just like I'm against "unrestricted" alcohol and drugs. But alcohol is not "unrestricted" in this country. The production, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol is regulated. It's illegal to drink and drive. Public intoxication is illegal. I wouldn't advocate for zero regulations on marijuana either.
Don't get hung up on the word "unrestricted," as it was poor word choice and really isn't important to my point.
The point follows this line of logic:
1) Alcohol is extremely damaging to society and is a poor measuring stick. 2) When considering the facts, any reasonable person would conclude that our country would be better off without alcohol.
3) Arguing that marijuana should be legal because alcohol is legal is illogical and blatantly ignores the facts.
It doesn't matter that loads of people use it responsibly. Alcohol is indeed heavily regulated, yet it is still the monster described in the CDC reports.
Section 2 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part: “In all Cases . . . in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part: “This Consti-tution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) provides: “The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.”
Standing??? wrote:
Out of curiosity, from a legal standpoint (for attorneys on the board) how do Nebraska and Oklahoma have standing to sue for this? Is this lawsuit going to get thrown out because they don't have the right to sue Colorado?
It's not illogical to use alcohol as a measuring stick for marijuana. Both of them are mind-altering substances that people use for pleasure. Both have known effects on individual and societal health. It makes a lot of sense to draw some conclusions about legalized marijuana by looking at already legal alcohol.
You're saying that because both of them have some negative effects they should both be completely illegal. You're acting like there are no positives. People enjoy consuming alcohol and marijuana. They make a lot of people happy. They might not do much for you, but that doesn't invalidate the enjoyment that so many other people derive from them. Alcohol production and distribution is also a huge industry that employs hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. The regulation of alcohol creates additional employment as well.
Substance abuse is a terrible problem, but simply outlawing said substance effectively punishes the many for the sins of the few. It may well also do more harm than good - see the effects of our "War on drugs". I get where you're coming from and how powerfully your personal experience colors the debate, but if we take the principles you're promoting and apply them elsewhere, it becomes an argument for a kind of well-intentioned tyranny.
We would have a sad, boring, and overbearingly conservative society without alcohol. Just look at the Middle East