Bernie wants to legalize Pot -

Tulsi has already been tossed under the bus, my cat has as much chance of winning the nomination. She stepped on Hillarie's toes and is fairly sane.

 

K - Look - Declaration of Independence - is what ? What is its purpose ?

This document represents the principles by which Law and the Constitution are supposed to be interpreted.

1) It sets out what the legitimate authority of Gov't is - the limits to Gov't power - more importantly what is "illegitimate" - "illegitimacy of authority - when should we throw the bastards out

Essential Liberty - (Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness) - is put "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. I have had people that think "liberty" -in context - means you can do what ever your want so I apologize if you know where the line is .. or at least that there is one.

So where is that line ? - I can go into the ideology of the founding fathers but - in summary it is protection from harm. - direct harm - one person on another - rape, murder, theft and so on.

That is the legitimate authority of Gov't. If you want Jefferson's take on this line.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Notice the word "only". And also that separation of Church and State is mentioned. The point of bringing in the "Creator" was to say what the Gov't cant do. Not to say that we should make law on the basis of "God Says".

The Gov't has no legitimate authority to make any law that messes with individual liberty - "of its own volition" - never mind make law that messes with liberty on the basis of religious belief.

Legitimate authority is Protection from Harm .. direct harm - one person on another. .. Not what one does to oneself. Liberty ends where the nose of another begins - but in a direct way.

2) Where does the authority of Gov't come from - the question the enlightenment thinkers asked. In their time - the authority of the King came from God. "Divine Right" - in all its varied glory and splendor - right through the 1000 years of horror - which had only abated for perhaps 100 years - very fresh in the minds of the founders.

"Consent of the Governed" It is the people that grant authority to Gov't. on the basis of the above principle and the Constitution. a document that lists a few "essential liberties" explicitly - but by no means was intended to cover all.

so what then is the bar for messing with individual liberty ?

If Gov't wants to mess with individual liberty - it is supposed to go to the people - because Gov't has no legitimate authority "of its own volition" to mess with liberty.

That bar - in both Classical Liberalism and Republicanism - is overwhelming majority - at least 2/3rd's or even 75%. (such as the % of States required to make a change to the Constitution)

50+1 or "Simple majority mandate" (that some dude managed to get elected) - is referred to (in both) as "Tyranny of the Majority".

So .. if you want to use physical violence (Law) to mess with essential liberty - there should be at least 2/3rds approval.

If something is so harmful - so dangerous - to society as a whole - that it should be banned .. 2/3rds are going to agree.

Take Pot vs Meth or Fentynal - Good luck getting 33% to agree that Meth should be legal. That stuff is nasty and ridiculously dangerous and super addictive. One might have trouble finding 1 in 10.

Pot ? -- ohhhh .. boy .. harmful stuff that is. Every weekend you have people in hospital for alcohol overdose. Pot ? Nope - its virtually impossible - except if one eats a bunch. It almost never happens by comparison to alcohol.

but I digress. The bar that needs to be hit - in order for Gov't messing with essential liberty to be legitimate - is 66%

Good luck getting 66%. The reverse is true - the "legalize it" crowd only needs 33% but, as of yesterday on CNN - they have 66%.

Never mind "Tyranny of the Majority" - This is Tyranny of the "minority" - completely illegitimate use of authority. 100% .. not even a question.

That completely aside .. even from a Utilitarian perspective (a anathema to the founding principles - as it does not consider individual liberty - its "what will increase happiness for the collective". - harm reduction ceases to be a legitimate legal argument - if you can find something that is comparably harmful - that is legal. Hence my previous alcohol comparison.

So 1) I do not agree with your Utilitarian arguments to begin with - as these - by definition - allow for an end run around the safeguards to liberty put in by the founding fathers.

and 2) Even if I was to grant Utilitarian arguments - there are no good ones. The arguments put out by the Establishment Drug Czars are all Fallacious Utilitarianism - end up not even increasing happiness

For example - "if it saves one life" - as justification for law. aka "Harm Reduction"

Sounds good on the surface - Who does not want to save one life ? Which is why these arguments are so insidious.

If that alone is valid justification for law .. should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? - would we not save one life ?
How about boating .. that is really dangerous .. one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it.
In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

It is a horrible justification for law. In a free society - individuals have the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves.

What determines "what is unreasonable" is no less than 66% - overwhelming majority.

 

The majority of people thinking something should be legal or be made illegal isn't what the law should be based on. I support legalization, but people wanting it to be legal isn't a good reason to legalize it on it's own.

 

I doubt it - his choice for Drug Czar was an anti legalization nut. What happened to "civil liberties activist" Obama - on Pot - "Constitutional Scholar". fkn ridiculous -

I go into a long rant on post 52. This is a clown show. Its not about "Pot" .. hate it or love it. Its about when 33% of the population thinks something is not so bad - Gov't has no legitimate authority to use physical violence to stop people from doing the activity.

With Pot it is 66% who agree with legalization. we are in "illegitimacy of authority land".

 

Similar but different question Machine guns . but same arguments as given in Post 52 apply - and some other ones come into play.

 

Post 52 I go into a rant - a good one though.

 

Agreed - but it would have been good. She may pick up a VP spot - that would be cool .. Bernie Tulsi Ticket - or LOL Two women Warren/Gabbard. Think the country would go for a tag team ticket ?

 

Perhaps a VP spot ? .. that could be interesting.

 

Agreed with 66% being the bar for keeping the stuff illegal 33% for legalization. See post 52 for justification.

 

Not with Warren at the top. Hell I'm not convinced ole Bern or uncle Joe will still be alive by Sept 2020

 

That would be a serious concern for me if i were going to vote Democrat.
I get the feeling that he might be an ok guy but i just disagree with him on everything. Especially when it comes to taxing the rich.
The Democrats have to have someone forceful who can really fight. I assume that RGB will retire the moment a Democrat is elected. I also assume the house and Senate will remain mostly unchanged.
This means whoever the next D president is is going to have to fight tooth and nail for their nominee. Not sure Bernie is up to that.

 

Not sure bernie understands the process well enough to actually be able to fight effectively. He has spent his entire career in the role a deranged gad fly. It usually is a real smooth transition from that to leader of your party and your country especially when your country is a Republic and your position is far more limited in power than you ever imagined.

 

There are bills waiting that have passed the house yet McConnell wants to continue the tyranny and will not allow the bills to be debated or voted upon proving who the totalanist want in power.

 

LOL
Keeping people from legally smoking pot is very far from tyranny.

 

Like hell it isn't when the Declaration of Independence clearly states we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

 

Smoking pot es an escape from reality becsuse you aren't happy, same with alcohol and other drugs.

What is tyranny is the control the cartels have over Mexico.

I am all for states to legalize if they want to but any pot you have on you needs to be certified cartel free.

 

Yeah, maybe. But one of the things we all like about her is her independence. I would be disappointed if she sacrificed that.

 

Legalization by itself has no impact on previous convictions.

 

I don't do any drugs even the ones I get from the doc for my chronic pain I simply will not each a chemical created in a lab for profit..I grow my own weed and use it as natural medicine..Your body also produces thc...An escape? I love life and learning what all it has to teach, get real with your square box thinking..

 

Any sober person who has spent much time around a pot smoker is likely to say it is a bad idea.

 

you're doing it right, that's great.

 

I think it's ok and I have been around it for over 40 years and have never had a problem working or learning.....If you are a loser you are a loser because it is your desire no matter what substances you use and abuse...Same goes for people who succeed..

 

nor should it.

 

I have known too many who were not losers who became losers after using pot.

You cannot get a clearance for a very good reason, if you are a pot smoker.

 

Like most attempts to control people, the denial of personal choice comes from the right.

Democrats want to regulate industry.

Republicans want to regulate your personal life.

Right above we see the rationalization that righties should control people because... because.... because... I don't care about your rationalizations.

Republicans: If they don't like something, they want to control it.