The United States Supreme Court just proclaimed that gay/same sex marriage is legal in all 50 states.
Good for them and congratulations to all who benefit from this.
Tell me this: If they can legalize (or make legit) something like this in all states - then why the hell can they not make cannabis legal in all 50 states?
And don't start laying that "class 1 drug/narcotic" or "individual states rights" bull$hit on me! Cannabis was made illegal through a back room deal where a couple of wealthy cats bought off the politicos of the day. Their actions were to protect THEIR private and personal interests (tree farming/paper production/development of synthetics) and were partly due to their personal feelings agains blacks and Mexicans, whom they deemed as the largest users of cannabis. THERE WAS NEVER A VOTE BY THE PEOPLE!
Believe me, I've got a rant that would take up most of the internet!
So, WHY DOES THE SUPREME COURT NOT EXTEND THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO USE CANNABIS THAT THEY DO TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE CANDIDATES?
Patience Rusty it is already happening one state at a a time. It took Gay movement decades to get to this point.
So, WHY DOES THE SUPREME COURT NOT EXTEND THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO USE CANNABIS THAT THEY DO TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE CANDIDATES?
They feel it's better not to live your life impaired? Just guessing.
So, WHY DOES THE SUPREME COURT NOT EXTEND THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO USE CANNABIS THAT THEY DO TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE CANDIDATES?
They feel it's better not to live your life impaired? Just guessing.
So by that "logic", why is alcohol legal?
So, WHY DOES THE SUPREME COURT NOT EXTEND THE SAME CONSIDERATIONS TO THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO USE CANNABIS THAT THEY DO TO SAME SEX MARRIAGE CANDIDATES?
They feel it's better not to live your life impaired? Just guessing.
So by that "logic", why is alcohol legal?
Good question.
The Supreme Court does not "make things legal". They settle questions of existing laws or practices that have been challenged through the appellate system yet remain unresolved. I'm not sure where the cannabis issue is on that path, or even if it is on that path since it's not an issue I follow. The gay marriage issue went through the hoops necessary to come before the court. If and when the cannabis issue does that I'm sure there will be arguments made by both sides and a decision will be handed down. It is not a case of "they made THIS legal so why don't they make THAT legal?"
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure and has ruined thousands of American lives being jailed for Cannabis possession.
Instead why not legalize it, tax it and use the money to educate people on the harmful effects of drugs. This will also reduce the number of people put into prison needlessly.
The gay marriage issue impacts on the 14th amendment. The marijuana issue does not. You will have to settle for old fashioned method of convincing state legislatures to enact the laws you want.
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure and has ruined thousands of American lives being jailed for Cannabis possession.
Instead why not legalize it, tax it and use the money to educate people on the harmful effects of drugs. This will also reduce the number of people put into prison needlessly.
1. On the other hand, the decision to break the law ruined thousands of lives.
2. And we could re-define the word "drug" and call them "revenue enhancer." Done.
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure and has ruined thousands of American lives being jailed for Cannabis possession.
Instead why not legalize it, tax it and use the money to educate people on the harmful effects of drugs. This will also reduce the number of people put into prison needlessly.
Addressing your second point, that makes no sense. The harmful effects of drugs are out there and the education of its effects has been and will be ignored. Drug rehab will become a growth industry and a serious problem for our already overloaded medical system.
The gay marriage issue impacts on the 14th amendment.
How would this amendment apply to bi-sexuals? They're the one group left out of this whole conversation. Now that marriage has a flexible definition, shouldn't they be permitted to marry a male and a female? Being forced to choose between one or the other doesn't seem fair.
The war on drugs has been a miserable failure and has ruined thousands of American lives being jailed for Cannabis possession.
Instead why not legalize it, tax it and use the money to educate people on the harmful effects of drugs. This will also reduce the number of people put into prison needlessly.
Addressing your second point, that makes no sense. The harmful effects of drugs are out there and the education of its effects has been and will be ignored. Drug rehab will become a growth industry and a serious problem for our already overloaded medical system.
When all the effects of alcohol are considered, including socio-economic, legal, emotional, and domestic issues as well as physical effects alcohol is the most damaging drug in our country. More people die from tobacco related illnesses every day than all other substances combined.
I'm in agreement. License drugs, tax the hell out of them, regulate them, and take all that money plus the money you would save from law enforcement, prosecution, and incarceration and put it into early identification and referrals of at risk youth, education, jobs programs, counseling and treatment programs. The difference twenty years from now could be amazing. I don't see how it could possibly be any more of a failure than the war on drugs.
Isn't this the biblical idea of traditional marriage?
The gay marriage issue impacts on the 14th amendment.
How would this amendment apply to bi-sexuals? They're the one group left out of this whole conversation. Now that marriage has a flexible definition, shouldn't they be permitted to marry a male and a female? Being forced to choose between one or the other doesn't seem fair.
Equal protection under the law. I spouse per person for everyone. I know Larry Craig is probably disappointed.
The gay marriage issue impacts on the 14th amendment.
How would this amendment apply to bi-sexuals? They're the one group left out of this whole conversation. Now that marriage has a flexible definition, shouldn't they be permitted to marry a male and a female? Being forced to choose between one or the other doesn't seem fair.
Equal protection under the law. I spouse per person for everyone.
For the time being. Times change, and we need to continue to evolve.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by alloak41]
The gay marriage issue impacts on the 14th amendment.
How would this amendment apply to bi-sexuals? They're the one group left out of this whole conversation. Now that marriage has a flexible definition, shouldn't they be permitted to marry a male and a female? Being forced to choose between one or the other doesn't seem fair.
Equal protection under the law. I spouse per person for everyone.
For the time being. Times change, and we need to continue to evolve.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by alloak41]
Awwwwww, isn't that cute. Alloak has a new catchphrase to beat to death.
Sadly, he doesn't understand what it means. 😛
The gay marriage issue impacts on the 14th amendment.
How would this amendment apply to bi-sexuals? They're the one group left out of this whole conversation. Now that marriage has a flexible definition, shouldn't they be permitted to marry a male and a female? Being forced to choose between one or the other doesn't seem fair.
Equal protection under the law. I spouse per person for everyone.
For the time being. Times change, and we need to continue to evolve.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by alloak41]
Awwwwww, isn't that cute. Alloak has a new catchphrase to beat to death.
Sadly, he doesn't understand what it means. 😛
1. It's already been beat to death. What difference does one more make?
2. The definition seems to vary depending on what/who it's being applied to. For some it's a flip-flop, others it's evolving.
The gay marriage issue impacts on the 14th amendment.
How would this amendment apply to bi-sexuals? They're the one group left out of this whole conversation. Now that marriage has a flexible definition, shouldn't they be permitted to marry a male and a female? Being forced to choose between one or the other doesn't seem fair.
Equal protection under the law. I spouse per person for everyone.
For the time being. Times change, and we need to continue to evolve.
[Edited on 6/30/2015 by alloak41]
Awwwwww, isn't that cute. Alloak has a new catchphrase to beat to death.
Sadly, he doesn't understand what it means. 😛
1. It's already been beat to death. What difference does one more make?
2. The definition seems to vary depending on what/who it's being applied to. For some it's a flip-flop, others it's evolving.
1. I said it once. You have been beating it to death.
2. A flip flop is when a politician changes his stand based on his audience and his need for their vote. Evolving means a genuine change in belief. All politicians flip flop, only some evolve.
You used to sound intelligent, but those days are behind us.
A flip flop is when a politician changes his stand based on his audience and his need for their vote. Evolving means a genuine change in belief. All politicians flip flop, only some evolve.
Got it. I bet you can tell us exactly which ones flip-flop and which ones evolve.
