Drunk Drivers' Rights?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

It's like Ben is on hallucinogenic drugs by default.

[Berzerker]

Wikipedia is not a source, sorry.

Why not?

This is false. The constitution explicitly protects the free exercise of religion. This includes the distribution of communion wine, which we believe is the true body and flesh of Christ.

But you've decided the use of pot is not religion, so drinking wine and reading the Bible is not religion either. That was easy... Or as someone else put it, drinking wine and eating crackers is not religion.

And again, the state did regulate and control alcohol. So, once more, when we look at the actual historical evidence, there is zero support for your interpretation. Since, as you've asserted, the Founding fathers were familiar with pot, why don't we have any commentary from them on the right to toke?

The state or Congress? Why dont we have a commentary about the right to eat food?

Or could it simply be a bull**** 'religion' that you're claiming just so you can smoke pot and get high?

Other people use pot in their religions, I support their religious freedom.

Are you arguing that there's a constitutional right to cocaine?

Thats not what I said, but sure. What you put in your body is your right and aint my business much less Congress.

So let's see some actual evidence.

What would you consider a valid source? Tell ya what, google Ben Franklin and opium.

Then why draw an analogy with food if the comparison is false? One down.

It wasn't an analogy, you said we dont have rights if they aint enumerated - food aint enumerated, therefore aint no right to eat food. That was your argument against pot.

I did not. I stated explicitly that you do not have the natural right to smoke pot and that the state has a legitimate concern over the distribution of pot. This explicitly contradicts your statement that I believe no natural rights exist.

I believe that there is no natural right to smoke pot, even as other natural rights exist.

Aint no natural rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights either. And you did say we aint got rights if they're not enumerated, here:

Where does the constitution mention the free exercise of toking?

Congress has the right to pass laws unless the constitution explicitly forbears it.

And the people do not have the enumerated right to smoke pot.

Find one who argues that there is a constitutional right to pot.

The constitution explicitly protects freedom of religious expression.

These were your arguments denying and disparaging our rights

The right to life is an enumerated right in the constitution of the United States.

And you just did it again... But where is a right to life enumerated?

One, it's not a religious precept that requires the use of Pot. That's what I'm challenging. So far the extent of your argument is one Wikipedia page for a religion you don't claim to practice.

There's a bunch of religions listed on that page. You didn't even read it.

It follows that the state has the right to the regulation and distribution of things like pot. It's always been that way, from the earliest days.

Thats not true, Congress had powers to regulate commerce with other countries, the tribes, and among the states - not intra-state commerce.

So you're conceding that the state has the right to control substances based on revenue. Thank you Berz.

Congress has the power of taxation, it does not have the power to regulate commerce and it sure as hell dont have the power to ban or "control" a plant growing in somebody's yard. Thats not even commerce.

It's not changing the subject at all.

You do it constantly.

This hasn't been ruled unconstitutional either, Berz.

Of course the states get to regulate commerce within their borders, we're talking about Congress and its powers - you just changed the subject again.

Historically, looking at the evidence I see no support for your argument of a constitutional right to smoke pot. If it were, dry counties would be found unconstitutional, and they have not.

Congress doesn't have counties, we're debating the powers of Congress

I rest my case

That was a tax on booze, not heavy regulation of the industry. You claimed the latter was in effect from the start.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're the first person I've met who has actually substituted their own reality for reality... including the meaning of words.

Learn set theory. Kthxbye.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Learn set theory. Kthxbye.

What a pretentious ******.

[SlowwHand]

Now that's a really good argument.

God created all the Flora and Fauna for our use.
He didn't also create modes of transportation and suggest we operate this transportation while under excessive influence. He kind of counted on us using our head for more than a battering ram.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why not?

It's difficult for it to be an independent reliable source when you can edit it.

But you've decided the use of pot is not religion

Where's the evidence that pot is a sacrament? Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

, so drinking wine and reading the Bible is not religion either.

Evidence abounds for communion wine.

That was easy... Or as someone else put it, drinking wine and eating crackers is not religion.

I find it disingenuous that a professed atheist is arguing 'religious' convictions justify getting high.

Why dont we have a commentary about the right to eat food?

Still waiting for your evidence Berz. I already disposed of this argument.

Other people use pot in their religions

Evidence, please.

Thats not what I said, but sure. What you put in your body is your right and aint my business much less Congress.

Then why the hell am I paying for your medications? If I'm paying for it, it's my business.

What would you consider a valid source? Tell ya what, google Ben Franklin and opium.

Do your own work. Look up 'reliable source'. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

It wasn't an analogy

Yes, it was, Berz. You were making the analogy between pot and food. This is a false analogy.

we dont have rights if they aint enumerated

First premise is false. I argued that the natural right to pot does not exist, not that natural rights in general do not exist. Can we at least quit toking long enough to understand my argument?

you did say we aint got rights if they're not enumerated, here:

Where does the constitution mention the free exercise of toking?

Where does the constitution mention the free exercise of toking? It does not. One down. There is no enumerated right to toking.

Congress has the right to pass laws unless the constitution explicitly forbears it.

Indeed they do.

The constitution explicitly protects freedom of religious expression. These were your arguments denying and disparaging our rights

You've yet to supply reliable evidence of such.

And you just did it again... But where is a right to life enumerated?

Sigh.

There's a bunch of religions listed on that page. You didn't even read it.

Find a reliable source (ie, NOT WIKIPEDIA), which you can edit yourself.

Thats not true, Congress had powers to regulate commerce with other countries, the tribes, and among the states - not intra-state commerce.

And I provided evidence showing this to be the case.

Congress has the power of taxation, it does not have the power to regulate commerce and it sure as hell dont have the power to ban or "control" a plant growing in somebody's yard. Thats not even commerce.

Actually, yes it does. Again, I already supplied evidence of Congress doing exactly that.

Of course the states get to regulate commerce within their borders.

So then you're admitting that any state in the union can ban pot. We're done here.

[Berzerker]

It's difficult for it to be an independent reliable source when you can edit it.

Where's the evidence that pot is a sacrament? Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

https://www.cnsproductions.com/pdf/Touw.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=GHqV3elHYvMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP10&dq=Forces+of+Habit&ots=LhzDAe2AiO&sig=WPSqieJLktVihJoofw6D7iE_7m4#v=onepage&q=atharva&f=false

Those are 2 of the first 3 sources listed on the wiki page, I doubt they were edited. I'm surprised you didn't look up the wiki sources. Do you need a link to the Rastafarians too?

I find it disingenuous that a professed atheist is arguing 'religious' convictions justify getting high.

I'm not an atheist and I believe in religious freedom

Then why the hell am I paying for your medications? If I'm paying for it, it's my business.

You're not paying for my medications but if you were, how does that create a congressional power to make my medical decisions? Where is that in the Constitution?

Yes, it was, Berz. You were making the analogy between pot and food. This is a false analogy.

Pot is used for food, but I wasn't making an analogy between the two... I was explaining why your argument is illogical. You said we have only enumerated rights so using pot is not a right, but food aint enumerated either so you changed your argument and accused me of comparing pot with food. I was comparing enumerated and unenumerated rights, you know, the rights you say we have and the rights we dont have.

I argued that the natural right to pot does not exist, not that natural rights in general do not exist. Can we at least quit toking long enough to understand my argument?

That aint true, you said the right to use pot doesn't exist because it wasn't enumerated. Nothing about natural rights, you just grabbed that out of yer ass when you got the 9th Amendment thrown back at you. Now we have natural rights but according to you Congress has the power to decide what we ingest. How does that work and where did the Framers mention this limitation on our natural rights?

Where does the constitution mention the free exercise of toking? It does not. One down. There is no enumerated right to toking.

There's no enumerated right to eat food or drink wine and eat crackers or much of anything else... But there you go again using the enumeration of certain rights to deny and disparage other rights retained by the people. Lemme know when you understand the 9th Amendment.

And I provided evidence showing this to be the case.

No you didn't, you showed Congress taxing booze. You never did offer evidence of heavy regulation.

I already supplied evidence of Congress doing exactly that.

Where?

So then you're admitting that any state in the union can ban pot. We're done here.

No, I said the states can regulate commerce within their borders. You said Congress has that power, thats what we're debating.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you need a link to the Rastafarians too?

Rastafarians.

The prophet Marley.

So I can invent a bull**** religion and use it as an excuse to smoke Pot?

I'm not an atheist and I believe in religious freedom

Tell you what - show me a divine scripture of the prophet Marley.

You're not paying for my medications but if you were, how does that create a congressional power to make my medical decisions? Where is that in the Constitution?

Medicare is publicly funded. Congress has the power to eliminate funding for Medicare. Or are you going to give me the bull**** that Medicare is not a public organization again?

Pot is used for food

Alright since you can live off Pot - lets see you try.

You said we have only enumerated rights

GODDAMNIT.

I said nothing of the sort.

Quote me saying that or shut the **** up.

There's no enumerated right to eat food

Yes, there is an enumerated right. Right to life is protected in the US constitution.

No, I said the states can regulate commerce within their borders.

Then they can ban pot and there's no constitutional right to it.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm looking forward to Berz embracing the Rastafari faith. A faith with no sacraments other than smoking pot, getting high and listening to Marley.

[Sava]

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

Wikipedia isn't a source. It's a collection of sources.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wikipedia isn't a source. It's a collection of sources.

Which is why Berz needs to go to the actual sources and not Wikipedia.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey, I just edited your momma. She's so fat, fat is considered a category of her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat

[Sava]

Which is why Berz needs to go to the actual sources and not Wikipedia.

/facepalm

[N35t0r]

BK, the government needs an updated list of which religions are real and which aren't, so that they can apply the law accordingly. Please provide one ASAP, since it's clearly you who gets to decide this.

Also, I like how somehow taxing wealth is communist.

[rah]

So I can invent a bull**** religion and use it as an excuse to smoke Pot?

Isn't that what Jesus followers did? (minus the pot but with many other things) All religions were invented at some point. Longevity is not required for a religion to be considered a legit religion.
The constitution allows freedom of religion meaning you get to follow your religion and others get to follow theirs.
It doesn't give you the right to say who's religions are valid and which one's aren't.

But we're used to Ben believing he is the ultimate authority.

Now the courts have determined that some drug use (and other activities) isn't lawful in some religions, but the courts must answer that for every unique situation.
Ben is not the final arbitrator and when he argues that he is, he's just being the douche that he plays at Poly.


crosspost, yes exactly N35t0r