"Kansas has found the ultimate way to punish the poor"

[Ben Kenobi]

1. No since Congress is now happy to do things that don't have an explicit constitutional mandate.
2. That'll never happen. What are you going to do, make the penalties even more harsh than they already are? You're a psychopath.

You'd argue for a ban on sugar because sugar makes you fat. Just like drugs makes you high. The cartels rely on the demand side of the equation. No users = no cartels. If you're serious about impacting their bottom line, let's do something about the demand side.

[giblets]

You'd argue for a ban on sugar because sugar makes you fat. Just like drugs makes you high. The cartels rely on the demand side of the equation. No users = no cartels. If you're serious about impacting their bottom line, let's do something about the demand side.

Idiot. The war on drugs increases the demand for illegal mexican drugs because it eliminates potential law abiding competitors. Trying to stop people from doing drugs has been tried for decades and the results have been disastrous. Also, I'm not arguing for a ban on sugar. I certainly wouldn't advocate laws that make it a felony to possess sugar. That would be ****ing insane.

[Ben Kenobi]

The solution is ending the drug war, take the profits away from the cartels

You don't end a war by losing, Berz. The Cartels will just get bigger and stronger. You just lose, or rather all the citizens on the border lose, because our stuff gets trashed by addicts and criminals.

Keep that crap in Kansas, let us do our job in TX.

Banning drugs created the cartel drug runners... Just stop complaining about your taxes, other people are paying for stuff you want and you're ok with it.

Are you going to compensate me for lost property, Berz? Or am I just one of those 'victimless victims who deserve nothing?

You mean the US has not pressured Mexico and Colombia to fight drug wars?

I'm arguing that the Colombians and Mexican governments loved Yankee dollars more, enough to give the Cartels a space. The result was devastating. I don't want America to repeat that mistake.

Folks like me didn't ban drugs, folks like you did. Demand is not the problem, supply is

It's not a coincidence the cartels operate out of Mexico, Berz. Demand is the problem. No demand, no cartels. If every drug user got someone clean, every year, that would put a huge dent.

Colorado and Washington legalized pot thereby reducing the market for cartels. But according to you, they should be over run with cartels.

They aren't on the southern Border. You're pushing crap out that's really going to crush things in TX. We don't want it. We deal with enough trash already. We already have enough of a problem with drugs, if you want to become a drug mecca of the Midwest, have at it.

Just don't complain when you need TX enforcement to come pick up the mess you leave after. Seen enough of that, tired of picking up after users.

I didn't say that

In citing the ninth, you're conceding that there's no enumerated right. Meaning that the government does have the power to regulate these things. And they do, in many different ways.

Thats quite the rebuttal... Does the 1st Amendment protect reading the Bible? It doesn't say that. How about attending church? Doesn't say that either.

It says 'free exercise' clause. I love it. The first amendment doesn't protect religion, but does protect gettin' high. I guess that's the Chuch of Cheech for you. Are you one of their High Elders?

Does it protect the Catholic Church from hiring you to misinform children? It doesn't mention you or your church.

Yeah, actually. I have a morals clause that explicitly forbids drug use and I have to undergo drug testing. Why? because it's a morals clause and the Church doesn't want addicts teaching.

If I'm required to take a drug test to work, why shouldn't you, Berz?

Well sure

Nobody gets drunk at communion, Berz.

Thats religious drug use.

Yes, and? I'm talking about getting high.

Jesus got a bunch of people drunk, who am I to say Christians dont have the right to get drunk?

The bible is explicit in condemning drunkards, Berz.

Public is not private

Well, then. It's not an enumerated right, and the government does have the power to regulate it. All rights are public, Berz - the constitution speaks of the restraints on government, not the people. There's no explicit right to get high, and there's a good reason for that. We the people decided long ago that regulating these things was in the public's best interest, probably folks like me that got tired of cleaning up after users.

you're now comparing driving a car down the street with religion

Are you arguing that you have a right to toke that supercedes the right of the public to ban your ass for driving under the influence?

Seems to me your obsession with "enumerated rights" is calculated to ignore the 9th Amendment. You know, it is part of the Constitution.

What obsession? The government can and does regulate things which aren't enumerated rights all the time. I've given examples, none of which the supreme court has struck down for being unconstitutional. Public drunkenness is still a crime, Berz. Is public speaking a crime too?

Public is not private and when Prohibition was repealed it specifically allowed the states to continue the ban.

There's a reason the law makes a distinction between public speaking, (which is protected), and public drunkenness (which is not). One is an enumerated right, and the other is not. This means that the government can pass laws regarding sale and distribution.

Laws which piss you off because they get in the way of gettin' yer toke on.

Does Congress have the enumerated power to fund Israel's welfare state?

Are you suggesting that America abandon her ally Israel?

[Ben Kenobi]

Idiot. The war on drugs increases the demand for illegal mexican drugs because it eliminates potential law abiding competitors. Trying to stop people from doing drugs has been tried for decades and the results have been disastrous. Also, I'm not arguing for a ban on sugar. I certainly wouldn't advocate laws that make it a felony to possess sugar. That would be ****ing insane.

The Cartels operate on the same laws as any business. Supply and Demand. Why are you so opposed to hitting them where it hurts, but so supportive of it with things like Sugar? Funny, you're more permissive of cocaine than Sugar.

I challenge every user here to get someone clean, every year. Then we can make a real dent on their profits.

[Ben Kenobi]

The 14th amendment explicitly mentions people who were born in the United States, do you have any evidence at all that it was intended to cover fetuses?

Given that abortion was explicitly banned in the US until the 60s, yes, I can conclude from that that the Founders believed that the unborn child should be legally protected.

[giblets]

The Cartels operate on the same laws as any business. Supply and Demand. Why are you so opposed to hitting them where it hurts, but so supportive of it with things like Sugar? Funny, you're more permissive of cocaine than Sugar.

I challenge every user here to get someone clean, every year. Then we can make a real dent on their profits.

I'm not opposed to waving a magic wand and making cocaine usage go away. I'm opposed to incarceration of drug users. I'm also opposed to incarceration of people who want to peacefully sell cocaine the way alcohol and tobacco is sold. AND I JUST SAID I DON'T THINK SUGAR SHOULD BE ILLEGAL YOU STUPID ****.

[giblets]

Given that abortion was explicitly banned in the US until the 60s, yes, I can conclude from that that the Founders believed that the unborn child should be legally protected.

1. The Founding Fathers didn't write the 14th amendment which would make this a non sequitur.
2. In the 18th century abortion was only banned after quickening. I already posted this.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. The Founding Fathers didn't write the 14th amendment which would make this a non sequitur.

Actually, no it doesn't. American jurisprudence up until the 60s was pretty much unanimously in favor of protecting the life of the unborn child. You asked, I answered. Intent is pretty clear in the laws that were in place at the time banning abortion.

2. In the 18th century abortion was only banned after quickening. I already posted this.

Yes, and? They also banned abortions. Quickening was when they could positively detect life within the womb. If, as you asserted that it was birth that was the standard, why didn't they state birth? Clearly the intent at the time was to protect life in the womb that they could decisively prove existed. In the days prior to ultrasound.

Now we have no excuse. We know that life begins at contraception, and here we have you defending the same standard as Thomas Aquinas. I never took you for a medievalist, gribbler. Modern science has moved on from the dungeons of antiquity.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not opposed to waving a magic wand and making cocaine usage go away.

Well, that's the point. Addiction is serious business that causes tons of problems for a supposedly 'private' usage. Society has a tremendous burden already in the thankless task of getting folks clean.

I'm opposed to incarceration of drug users.

I'm opposed to having my property stolen by addicts looking for their next fix, and dealers looking for a little extra capital.

AND I JUST SAID I DON'T THINK SUGAR SHOULD BE ILLEGAL YOU STUPID ****.

Weren't you arguing that obesity was a serious problem? And that Americans deserved it or have I mixed you up with one of the other raving loonies here? Forgive me then. So many progressives...

[giblets]

1. I asked for court cases. You haven't answered.
2. Modern science shows there's no brain activity during the first half of a pregnancy. No brain, no person.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. I asked for court cases. You haven't answered.

Which precise statement are you challenging? That American law in the 19th century banned abortion? If it's quickening, I'll just save time and cite Aquinas and one of the legal opinions of the time. Will that suffice?

2. Modern science shows there's no brain activity during the first half of a pregnancy. No brain, no person.

Modern science argues that we can determine fatherhood by assuming the continuity of the person from conception onwards. If there's no continuity, there's no way of determining fatherhood.

[giblets]

Well, that's the point. Addiction is serious business that causes tons of problems for a supposedly 'private' usage. Society has a tremendous burden already in the thankless task of getting folks clean.



I'm opposed to having my property stolen by addicts looking for their next fix, and dealers looking for a little extra capital.



Weren't you arguing that obesity was a serious problem? And that Americans deserved it or have I mixed you up with one of the other raving loonies here? Forgive me then. So many progressives...

If something is a serious problem, that doesn't mean that a government intervention involving mass incarceration is going to make things better. No, the existence of obesity and drug abuse does not mean people's bodies are government property. If someone stole from you to buy new shoes, that wouldn't mean expensive shoes should be illegal and the people who wear expensive shoes should go to prison

[giblets]

Which precise statement are you challenging? That American law in the 19th century banned abortion? If it's quickening, I'll just save time and cite Aquinas and one of the legal opinions of the time. Will that suffice?

Show the case law that says the 14th amendment guarantees fetuses a right to life. You claimed the 14th amendment protects fetuses.

[Ben Kenobi]

Show the case law that says the 14th amendment guarantees fetuses a right to life. You claimed the 14th amendment protects fetuses.

I claimed that the 14th explicitly enumerated rights that unborn children already legally possessed. Right to life isn't new, goes right back to the preamble to the declaration, written up by the founders.

Given that unborn children were already legally protected at the time, and that the standard used then was quickening, and the constitution was amended to reflect this, what leg do you have to stand on? I don't see you contesting the abortion bans, or the standard was quickening and not birth.

[giblets]

I claimed that the 14th explicitly enumerated rights that unborn children already legally possessed. Right to life isn't new, goes right back to the preamble to the declaration, written up by the founders.

Given that unborn children were already legally protected at the time, and that the standard used then was quickening, and the constitution was amended to reflect this, what leg do you have to stand on? I don't see you contesting the abortion bans, or the standard was quickening and not birth.

Just provide some case law supporting your claim that the Constitution guarantees fetuses a right to life.