Leaglize drugs - say what u want

soph · 2003-01-02 17:12:01

for the record--im indendent (not the party, independent period). i go with whoever i think will run this country correctly. some call me right wing, others call me liberal. my views go across the board. someone doesnt have to be defined as any wing. edwards looks like a good guy for next term.

clark · 2003-01-02 17:16:12

I find it interesting that both recent canadites for President both used illict drugs.

Our current president is a recovering alcoholic and used to abuse cocaine.

And I don't think Bush is the closest we have ever come to a dictator... that would probably have to be good ol Abe Lincoln.

How many presidents do you know who have suspended the habius corpus?

soph · 2003-01-02 17:30:02

bush has the most powers ever granted to a president. but abe lincoln was a good president. a civil war would be considered a bit extreme conditions, dont you think?

clark · 2003-01-02 17:35:19

What powers does Bush have that Clinton didn't?
What powers does Bush have that his father, Bush Sr. didn't have?

As to the character of Abe Lincoln, I think he was "good", and I think he probably made the best choices- but the fact remains he suspended habius corpus- he suspended the Bill of rights.

Journalists were jailed for what they wrote back then.
He declared war on his own people. He declared that his rule was absolute, and that the will of the State was subordinate to the that of the Federal government.

It's just history.

soph · 2003-01-02 17:38:42

the will of the state IS subordinate to the federal government, by the very structure. and war was never declared. in fact, the south fired the first shot. was still was never declared. i know my civil war history...go ahead, quiz me

bush has the right to invade peoples privacy like never before, and other powers, i would have to look up specifics. sorry, too tired from last night to dig that far into my brain ???

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 17:59:40

Cal, you have to get over this elected officals as a guage of American leanings garbage.

Especially since, in every election in fact, there are more Democratic voters than Republicans (with exceptions like Regan of course). But the fact that voter turnout is so pathetically low, such a guage is impossible to create to begin with. So I can't even really argue that Democrats are a majority (even though they are at current voting levels).

AltToWar · 2003-01-02 19:26:29

but is it wise to unleash yet another set of damaging vices into our society?

Those vices are already here and in high use.

The question is do we treat use as a crime?

Do we treat abuse as a crime?

AltToWar · 2003-01-02 19:34:38

the will of the state IS subordinate to the federal government, by the very structure. and war was never declared. in fact, the south fired the first shot. was still was never declared. i know my civil war history...go ahead, quiz me
bush has the right to invade peoples privacy like never before, and other powers, i would have to look up specifics. sorry, too tired from last night to dig that far into my brain ???

with the patriot act, the homeland security bill, and the new interpritation of 'enemy combatant' by the executive powers; america now has a secondary judicial system.

Bush can now declare anyone as an 'enemy combatant' and that person can be detained indefinately without council or trial or killed on the spot.

There is no oversight (except for the presidential election) on this power.

The president needs not provide any evidence to any body to activate this order.

The acts described above can be forever hidden from the Freedom of Information act.

The homeland security bill gutted the FOIA. In the midwest there was a huge train derailment. Information gathered by the FOIA brought to light that many of the train rails in the midwest were defective, and there was a coverup to hide this fact.

An unaccountable government will always be a corrupt one.

soph · 2003-01-02 21:48:38

changes will be made when a democratic congress returns. it will only be another two years. people cant be dumb enough to re-elect a president who has led us into recession.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-02 22:05:14

Depends on the state of the economy at that time. Bush's current approval rating is much lower than that of Clinton on the day of impeachment, and indeed, evenwhen he left the White House. It's kind of sad, actually, because it's only destined to fall even more.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-03 02:18:40

Isn't a state of worldwide hostility considered a pretty extreme environment? I think the Civil War was as close as it gets. I mean, the US was attacked... ON ITS OWN SOIL!!!

And why would Americans not re-elect Bush? He's led us through one of the darkest pages of our country's history. Most analysts agree that Gore couldn't have handled 9/11 the way the public wanted it to (ie unilateral action).

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-03 02:27:28

What unilateral action? There was plenty of worldwide support to attack Afganistan after 9/11. If anything, Al Gore wouldn't have squandered the worldwide support after the fact (by warmongering less than a year later about attacking Iraq).

I can list a dozen different things that Al Gore would have done better... for example, there would be no Afgani warlords anymore. Another example is that his economic policies would have pulled us out of a recession quicker.

clark · 2003-01-03 10:42:27

LOL- Guessing what the other guy would have done is fruitless.

The State is not subordinate to the the Federal government- at least not to the level that it has currently reached.

The framers envisoned each State doing their own thing, just as long as they didn't try to violate the agreed upon federal amendments. This is actually part of the problem with drug policy.

The Federal government is being influenced by soem rather rich constituency groups to maintain the status quo- however, these lobbyists can't be everywhere- so we now see individual State legislatures pushing back against the current drug laws.

The framers wanted as much local control as possible, but enough federal power to correct any individual abuse of the system. Medical pot is an example of how individuals have had enough of federal interference in what they deem okay.

I agree we should punish abuse, not simple use. That is after all fair and equitable.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-03 11:37:54

The Federal government is being influenced by soem rather rich constituency groups to maintain the status quo-

Yes. This is why certain technologies cannot become viable no matter how hard those try. And indeed, laws are passed to make these extra fields illegal, or extremely expensive. If the government was fair and equitable, there would be an equal level of research and subsidies in all fields. This simply isn't the case.

And clark, I'm not guessing what he would have done. He said those things from his own mouth. I tend to believe that he could have and would have done them, too. Of all the politicans, I think Al Gore is the most honest (despite that he exaggerates sometimes).

clark · 2003-01-03 12:04:24

I understand, but the point remains that Gore is not in office, he is not privy to the same information that Bush has, or is he under the same pressures he has.

Gore can say waht he would do becuase he has the freedom to do so- Bush though wears a mantle that encumbers what he sas, or how he proceeds.

Of course the tax cut was mistake, and I don't think Gore would have done that.

Auqakah · 2003-01-04 16:17:50

I think CalTech highlighted the problem with democracy. The state is supposed to act in the way that the majority wish it to act. But the problem is, what the majority wants isn't always correct.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

soph · 2003-01-04 20:17:51

Caltech, read what i said about why they wouldnt re-elect him.

1)dictator like powers

2)secrecy

3) shady business ties that should have been investigated, and would be a better use of $200 million tax dollars than proving that clinton cheated on hillary.

4)not signing the kyoto treaty, and doing everything he can to squash alternative automobile engines (fuel cells, for example).

5)bad economic policy that has worsened an existing recession

6)anti-science, anti-abortion, xenophobic

should i go on?

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-04 21:32:46

I think CalTech highlighted the problem with democracy. The state is supposed to act in the way that the majority wish it to act. But the problem is, what the majority wants isn't always correct.

I'll probably regret saying this tomorrow, but I'm in a particularly irate mood with regards to the state of our nation right now so what the hell: The majority usually doesn't know what it wants. The masses act on feeling, not reason. By and large, raw majority rule leads to either chaos or tyranny.

Americans like to believe that we're different; that unlike every other people in history, we are all equal and therefore equally fit to make decisions regarding the governing of a civilized state. It's simply not true. A republic, with institutions to moderate the raw and fleeting desires of the majority, is a noble approach to government. A true, direct democracy is a horrible idea. Many would like to see us move more in that direction, and slowly we have been. It will not end well.

Individual liberty and majority rule are not synonomous. They can often be in opposition to one another. Freedom depends on the whims of the majority being moderated by the concerns of the minority. True democracy does not provide this.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

In short, yes.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 07:06:51

Hmm, you probably will regret it, seeing as how I (of all the people) am responding to ya...

First off, if there's any truth to the idea that the majority doesn't know what it wants, it's mostly due to the fact that the majority isn't educated enough. This is hardly a problem with democracy.

The ?tyranny of the majority? is dilluted via law. This is the whole point of things like constitutions, and so on. But it's still largely up to the society to decide how issues are delt with (ie, some societies throw away their constitutions for some things).

You pretend as if republics have these neat, magical checks and balances which keep the majority from tyrannizing a minority, yet it seems like republics are one of the forms of society which have managed to change or ignore their constitutions and laws so that a minority has no say (see: practically every friendly dictator to the US).

One example is the US. The first ammendment discusses things about religion, and how the government will have no mandated say either way. Yet we go about officalizing our pledge with religion, and putting religious idioms on our money. Tyranny of the majority indeed. In a republic! How can that be? To me, it's all about how the society thinks and is executed, not something inherent to one system or another.

But speaking of direct democracy, or true democracy, I would say that at the local level, the majority probably does know what's best. How could they not? Their decision isn't affecting anyone else but themselves. It truely is an individual decision. To put local level decisions in the hands of some supposedly honest politicans or bureaucrats is stupid, indeed. At the international level I would differ, though, the majority ought not even have many issues they have to deal with there. As long as an issue isn't affecting me, why in the hell do I have to care about it?

soph · 2003-01-05 07:18:04

Josh-the pledge and money, its mainly symbollic. imho, thats a stupid argument. im atheist, but i fell off my chair laughing when i heard about the pledge protest.

its more of a symbol of a more binding agreement, a higher authority (in a legal sense) binding our words. The idea of a greater good, in a way.

the whole idea that we are religious tyrants because of two phrases is funny. i agree, some presidents have let religion dilute their decisions (*cough stemcells cough*), but i have to disagree with your examples.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 07:48:44

Um, it's not symbolic. There's an actual law (P.L. 84-140) that dictates that a monotheistic entity be upon our money; this goes beyond symbolic and becomes unconstitutional.

I know that as a young teenager you think that it's no big deal, and that such a thing is just silly to argue about. But that's just propaganda you've been taught. You see it on the news,?What's the big deal?? but you fail to understand the overreaching implications.

The first ammendment says that ?...Congress shall make no law...? with regard to religion. Yet P.L. 84-140 was just that. Sorry dude. It is a big deal. The Constitution was effectively abrogated in the 50s, and has been since. Realize that.

soph · 2003-01-05 08:05:59

it can be interpreted however you want it to be interpreted. its not about propoganda. if i listened to everything i was fed, i wouldnt post here, and i wouldnt be atheist ???

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-05 08:23:22

No interpretation needed. A law is a law.

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-05 20:59:12

Yep, I must admit a certain remorse about those comments, as now I must defend them. Normally I'd be more tactful, but I stand by the general ideas expressed.

First off, if there's any truth to the idea that the majority doesn't know what it wants, it's mostly due to the fact that the majority isn't educated enough. This is hardly a problem with democracy.

To the extent that people can be uneducated about important issues and still be able, in fact be encouraged, to participate in the process of government, is a problem with democracy.

The ?tyranny of the majority? is dilluted via law. This is the whole point of things like constitutions, and so on.

But if those constitutions are written according to the desires of the majority, the laws may not be particularly concerned with the minority. Besides, a constitution can be changed if the majority wishes it. Law guarantees nothing.

You pretend as if republics have these neat, magical checks and balances which keep the majority from tyrannizing a minority, yet it seems like republics are one of the forms of society which have managed to change or ignore their constitutions and laws so that a minority has no say

In theory, republics should have those checks and balances. They don't always in practice and that is unfortunate. Direct democracy, because it is raw majority rule, inherently lacks them. In the former, it is a flaw of execution; the latter, in design.

To me, it's all about how the society thinks and is executed, not something inherent to one system or another.

I'm with you there. I'd go so far as to say that fascism has a lot to offer if people weren't so damn easily corrupted. Humans, being what they are, need systems that moderate their base desires with reason. The tyranny of one and the tyranny of millions is indistinguishable when you find yourself under its yoke.

But speaking of direct democracy, or true democracy, I would say that at the local level, the majority probably does know what's best.

The locals certainly know their local issues best. Still, direct democracy is if nothing else horribly inefficient. It could work locally, but even then it is not ideal.

As long as an issue isn't affecting me, why in the hell do I have to care about it?

Oh, if I were an evil dictator I would be truly blessed to have subjects who think like that.

Sorry about that detour, maybe we can get back on topic now. This thread was about drugs wasn't it?

clark · 2003-01-06 09:51:07

I agree with Cobra Commander.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2003-01-02 17:12:01

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#102 2003-01-02 17:16:12

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#103 2003-01-02 17:30:02

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#104 2003-01-02 17:35:19

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#105 2003-01-02 17:38:42

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#106 2003-01-02 17:59:40

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#107 2003-01-02 19:26:29

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#108 2003-01-02 19:34:38

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#109 2003-01-02 21:48:38

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#110 2003-01-02 22:05:14

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#111 2003-01-03 02:18:40

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#112 2003-01-03 02:27:28

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#113 2003-01-03 10:42:27

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#114 2003-01-03 11:37:54

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#115 2003-01-03 12:04:24

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#116 2003-01-04 16:17:50

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#117 2003-01-04 20:17:51

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#118 2003-01-04 21:32:46

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#119 2003-01-05 07:06:51

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#120 2003-01-05 07:18:04

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#121 2003-01-05 07:48:44

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#122 2003-01-05 08:05:59

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#123 2003-01-05 08:23:22

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#124 2003-01-05 20:59:12

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#125 2003-01-06 09:51:07

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

Board footer