Drunk Drivers' Rights?

[Ben Kenobi]

Perhaps Columbo could crack this caper.

[Sava]

Why? You seem on top of things.

Spoiler:

[AAAAAAAAH!]

When his snowblower was sitting right out there, it's not hard to make the connection.

It's a small neighborhood, Felch. Everyone knows everybody pretty much. He walked the loop to see if anything turned up.

As we all know, no two snowblowers look the same.

[rah]

So how does seeing a snow blower that could have been his at a drug dealers house automatically translate to we were robbed by a weed smoker?

There isn't a court in the land that wouldn't convict on such solid evidence.

[Sava]

Today's Chicago Tribune headline seems... relevant.

[Berzerker]

It applies to Medicare as well. Same concept. If the government is paying for it the government has the authority to claim what is and is not covered. With food stamps they can make your buying decisions over food and what you eat. With Medicare, they can cut you off of your medications, regulate how much you get and whether you get coverage at all.

You said the fact you pay for Medicare meant you have the right to decide what everyone else does even if they aint on Medicare. You're trying to change your argument again...

Yep, and it's why Rasta doesn't count. It also doesn't have any form of sacred scriptures unique to themselves.

The Constitution and the 1st Amendment don't define religion so your opinion (or some later court trying to create loopholes in it) is irrelevant. Thomas Jefferson said it makes no difference if his neighbor believes in no god or 20 gods, that neither picks his pocket or breaks his leg. He defined religious freedom and he didn't mention "scriptures" or anything else on that list. Just hurting others violates the definition of religious freedom...and hurting others is what you do in the name of your God and religion.

By having the courts and Congress define religion they (and you) are violating the establishment clause in addition to our religious freedom. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, a law defining religion does exactly that - it establishes religion.

What murderer? Christ?

Paul

Christianity is somewhat older than Marley.

Christianity aint older than the religious use of pot

Yeah, I'm sorry I don't consider Marley to be a prophet.

Who said he was? Oh yeah, you did... So now he aint a prophet. Make up yer mind...

I claimed that I get a say because you are taxing my ass to pay for Medicare. This is a fundamental part of the American republic. Taxation comes with representation.

I'm not taxing you and your "say" is limited to funding, you dont get to say what everyone eats.

Funny, you can live off food.

Still doesn't change the fact you accused me of saying something I didn't say...again. But go ahead and try living off cake, you wont last too long. But you would last longer on hemp because its better for you than cake, yet cake is a food. So yes, hemp is food and there are people in the world who use it for that.

If it's not an enumerated right Congress has the power to regulate it. There is no enumerated right to pot.

Then Congress can ban ice cream, wine and crackers. And you just denied arguing our rights must be enumerated, now you're back to telling us our rights are enumerated.

Rasta isn't a religion.

Followers disagree, their opinion trumps yours.

ONCE AGAIN - yes there is an enumerated right. The Right to life.

Where?

Due process clause of the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Quote it

Neither is moonshine and it's been regulated too.

Congress got that power with an amendment to the Constitution, but the states dont have the power to regulate non-commercial moonshine under the guise of regulating commerce - words have meanings and you need a dictionary on hand whenever you start using them.

Yawn. What you mean is that "He opposes pot, he must be wrong!" You aren't an atheist, Berz. Pot is your God.

Well thats funny, wine and crackers are your God... You should try mine, he aint nearly as hateful as yours.

[The Mad Monk]

Does anyone read point-by-point arguments anymore? Whatever happened to the art of the paragraph?

[Felch]

I mostly just skip over them.

[Ming]

Today's Chicago Tribune headline seems... relevant.

When I saw that headline this morning, the first thing I thought of was benie boy

[Ben Kenobi]

So how does seeing a snow blower that could have been his at a drug dealers house automatically translate to we were robbed by a weed smoker?

When he's a weed dealer and it's your blower?

There isn't a court in the land that wouldn't convict on such solid evidence.

Hard to recover when it's been sold.

[Ben Kenobi]

As we all know, no two snowblowers look the same

Mhmm, pretty sure my father would be able to tell if it were his blower.

[Ben Kenobi]

When I saw that headline this morning, the first thing I thought of was benie boy

My students do just fine.

[AAAAAAAAH!]

Mhmm, pretty sure my father would be able to tell if it were his blower.

Did he write his name on it?

[Ben Kenobi]

You said the fact you pay for Medicare meant you have the right to decide what everyone else does even if they aint on Medicare.

I did not say anything of the sort. I said, and I repeat, if I'm paying for medicare I have a say into what is covered and how it is covered. If there is no medicare then I don't get to have a say.

You're just bitter that I (correctly), called your statist ass out on this one.

The Constitution and the 1st Amendment don't define religion

Sava has already posted what the courts have said about this issue. I suggest you consult his post.

Thomas Jefferson said it makes no difference if his neighbor believes in no god or 20 gods, that neither picks his pocket or breaks his leg. He defined religious freedom and he didn't mention "scriptures" or anything else on that list.

Crafting a bull**** 'religion' to play marley and smoke weed everyday is why those rules exist. And again - there are limitations with Sharia law being one of those. But, I look forward to you dealing with Sharia law and seeing how well your religious freedom stacks up.

Just hurting others violates the definition of religious freedom

I'm sorry, your hurt feelings aren't actionable.

...and hurting others is what you do in the name of your God and religion.

Yeah, go sue me over comments that hurt your feelings on the internet.

By having the courts and Congress define religion they (and you) are violating the establishment clause

They are not, in that every single actual religion qualifies.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, a law defining religion does exactly that - it establishes religion.

What congress is saying is that unlike the Church of England, there would not be a Church of the United States. It doesn't prevent Congress from accurately defining religion. Nor does it prevent congress from banning things like Sharia Law which are fundamentally incompatible with religious freedom. The United States guarantees the right of people to leave their religion, and to live in harmony without the threat of being killed by a religion which insists on it.

One would think that an ardent exponent of atheism would express his abhorrence to Sharia Law, but I have seen precious little.

Paul

Perhaps you should reveal that he murdered Christians.

Christianity aint older than the religious use of pot

You cited Rasta as your example of religious use of pot. You've got it backwards. Rasta is pot's use of religion.

Who said he was?

You did. "Play his music and you will find it".

I find that a curious statement from an atheist.

I'm not taxing you

. My paystub says otherwise. Face it Berz, you're stuck. Taxation accompanied with representation is a fundamental core value of the American republic.

your "say" is limited to funding

Mhmm. No, it's not, unfortunately. I get a say as to coverage.

you dont get to say what everyone eats.

As Dinodoc pointed out I actually do with Food stamps.

Still doesn't change the fact you accused me of saying something

You made a false analogy between Pot and food. And then claimed, "pot isn't really food", admitting it was a false analogy.

Then Congress can ban ice cream, wine and crackers.

All are used for sustenance, so no, they could not. .

And you just denied arguing our rights must be enumerated

If there is no constitutional right to pot, the government can control its distribution through legislation.

now you're back to telling us our rights are enumerated.

There is no natural right to pot (or cocaine, or heroin). Sorry, Berz.

Followers disagree, their opinion trumps yours.

Dudeists are no different. What makes Rasta a religion and Dudeism not one?

Quote it

Already did ****er.

Congress got that power with an amendment to the Constitution

My previous source showed that they were regulating moonshine in the 1790s under Hamilton.

the states dont have the power to regulate non-commercial moonshine under the guise of regulating commerce - words have meanings and you need a dictionary on hand whenever you start using them.

Actually, per the constitution they do. The courts have upheld the right of the state to ban alcohol.

Well thats funny, wine and crackers are your God

By definition that's true. But then I don't claim to be an atheist.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did he write his name on it?

I'd ask him but he's dead. Sorry.