Drunk Drivers' Rights?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Learn set theory. Kthxbye.

What a pretentious ******.

[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.

[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.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

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

[Sava]

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

[Ben Kenobi]

"Banning" literally applies to every definition of "regulate"

Banning is a subset of regulation, but it is not, by definition equivalent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, it is banned. Federal law prohibits all possession of marijuana.

By individuals. Pharmacies do use cannibonids.

[Ben Kenobi]

Religious use of pot predates the Bible, and if a burning bush was talking to Moses I'd say the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms predates it too. Of course it does, your religion is probably based in part on what some guys did while high as a kite.

Wikipedia is not a source, sorry. Arguing, "Moses was high", argues that what he saw was a hallucination and not real. This would argue against the use of hallucinogens in religion as it would distort any true visions one would receive.

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

This is true.

And the people do not have the enumerated right to drink wine and read the Bible.

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.

Do you believe that your God is bodily present in pot?

I didn't write the 9th Amendment

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?

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

You denied and disparaged those rights. You mocked them and said they dont exist because they are not enumerated.

What right? There is no constitutional right to get high and smoke pot. The state has the authority to regulate the distribution of pot.

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

Find one who argues that there is a constitutional right to pot. Several grew the stuff and were big fans of various intoxicants including opium

So let's see some actual evidence.

No, I'm arguing the Framers gave us a Bill of Rights that fails to mention all sorts of rights we take for granted.

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

You argued we dont have any rights unless they are enumerated.

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.

So there is no enumerated right to eat food and that means Congress can ban food and starve us

False analogy. One will not die if one has no access to pot.

Where is this right enumerated?

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

The 1st Amendment doesn't say Ben Kenobi gets to define religion for everyone. Doesn't even say Congress gets to define religion for us, imagine that.

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.

Taxation is a form of regulation when its used for that purpose

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.

they just wanted revenue.

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

And we're not talking about imports, you're trying to change the subject again. Foreign commerce is not all commerce.

It's not changing the subject at all. This is the core of the debate. To what extent can governments legitimately exercise control over substances? What is legal for the federal government is not necessarily illegal for the state. The state can legitimately choose (per the 10th), to regulate and outright ban the use of pot. Local authorities also have the right to ban the sale within their counties too. This hasn't been ruled unconstitutional either, Berz.

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.

Booze was regulated back then, quite heavily actually. Proof? When did Congress begin heavily regulating booze?

The ratification of the Constitution shifted the locus of power from the individual states to an invigorated national government. Congress's authority over fiscal policy and taxation reflected this transformation. Under the requisition system of the Articles of Confederation, Congress had little recourse in revenue collection beyond the good faith of the individual states. The new Constitution, however, granted the national legislature exclusive power to impose tariffs and coin money, along with the flexibility to collect excises and levy taxes directly on individual citizens.

That doesn't even get into the authority of the states to regulate things which predates the constitution.

Receipts from customs duties continued to rise steadily, ultimately providing about 90 percent of the national government’s income from 1790 to 1820

Also at Hamilton’s behest, Congress approved a whiskey excise tax in January. Unlike the tariff, it constituted a direct tax on a specific class of producers * spirit distillers. Hamilton insisted the excise was necessary to garner additional funds for his debt funding and assumption plan, and argued that domestic distilling was one of the few "mature" industries in the United States capable of bearing the tax. He also added, somewhat disingenuously, that a tax on spirits stood to serve a useful moral function if higher prices led to reduced consumption of alcohol. Opposition to the excise tax in Congress was muted, since Madison and Jefferson had agreed to compromise and support Hamilton’s funding plan; they had little choice but to back a bill purporting to pay for it. Designed to raise $800,000, the measure levied a tax on spirits ranging from 7 cents to 18 cents per gallon, and created an internal revenue service to collect it.

I rest my case.

[Sava]

Banning!= regulation

Read a goddamn dictionary.

reg·u·late
verb \ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā-\

: to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)


"Banning" literally applies to every definition of "regulate"

[Sava]

Many conservatives don't see a distinction between taxing and regulating.

Here's a good discussion on the subject

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2012/07/04/taxation-v-regulation-a-revolutionary-question-for-the-colonials/

This was the earliest reference I can find atm

By the outbreak of the Civil War, 13 states, beginning with Maine in 1851, had adopted some form of prohibition as law.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Historical+Background+of+Alcohol+in+the+United+States

[Felch]

Banning!= regulation. Pot is not banned, but it is heavily regulated like most other psychoactive drugs.

Yes, it is banned. Federal law prohibits all possession of marijuana.

[Berzerker]

that wasn't regulating booze, it was a tax to help pay for the war

[Sava]

Proof? When did Congress begin heavily regulating booze?

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

??

George Washington

using US troops to collect taxes from anti-tax scumbags

US troops retroactively collecting all the Mitt Romney-type tax cheats
and from corporate traitors

[Berzerker]

Your argument, "toking up is a religious practice protected by the 1st."

No, it's not. Getting high is not a religion.

You're wrong

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

Religious use of pot predates the Bible, and if a burning bush was talking to Moses I'd say the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms predates it too. Of course it does, your religion is probably based in part on what some guys did while high as a kite.

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

And the people do not have the enumerated right to drink wine and read the Bible.

People who believe that smoking pot is a fundamental freedom? They warned us about people like you who would insert whatever the hell they wanted to into the constitution.

I didn't write the 9th Amendment, the people who did made it clear we have many rights and the enumeration of certain rights should not be used to deny or disparage those rights. So what did you do? You denied and disparaged those rights. You mocked them and said they dont exist because they are not enumerated.

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

Several grew the stuff and were big fans of various intoxicants including opium, I doubt they'd support your version of the Constitution. If they believed Congress should have the power to ban pot they would have said so, they didn't. Thats my argument right there, Ben... Whats yours?

Are you arguing that pot is necessary to sustenance in the same way food is? You've got a serious addiction problem if you believe that to be the case.

No, I'm arguing the Framers gave us a Bill of Rights that fails to mention all sorts of rights we take for granted. You argued we dont have any rights unless they are enumerated. So there is no enumerated right to eat food and that means Congress can ban food and starve us, so says Ben Kenobi. Oh wait, Ben may have found a right to eat food in the Constitution... By all means Ben, please share your new found wisdom. Where is this right enumerated?

I don't believe getting high is a religion. Sorry Berz.

Like I said, you have the mentality of a dictator... The 1st Amendment doesn't say Ben Kenobi gets to define religion for everyone. Doesn't even say Congress gets to define religion for us, imagine that.

Taxation is a form of regulation and regulation via taxation involves controls on the distribution. The US has always had controls on importation of quite a number of goods. This is not unconstitutional.

Taxation is a form of regulation when its used for that purpose, thats not what it was used for back then - they just wanted revenue. And we're not talking about imports, you're trying to change the subject again. Foreign commerce is not all commerce.

Booze was regulated back then, quite heavily actually.

Proof? When did Congress begin heavily regulating booze?

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Your argument, "toking up is a religious practice protected by the 1st."

No, it's not. Getting high is not a religion.

Drinking wine and eating crackers isn't a religion either.