"Forfeiture is literally a de jure presumption of guilt with regard to certain kinds of property, and flies in the face of a thousand years of tradition."
Isn't that what this Too Big to Fail policy is all about? You know, the one where somebody gets to assume damages based on whatever knowledge and seize the company in question?
That would be the case if this judge didn't rule in direct opposition to the 2nd amendment. What's next? States can take away our freedom of speech? Our freedom of spiritual expression?
"Guilty until proven innocent?"
That's this administration's mentality. They can now take over any company on the same principle. Except it's a little shorter: Guilty!
Deal with voting like we do currency and it should not be a huge ordeal. Voters can handle the responsibility. That would arguably be more secure than the ballot method.
Don't be blind. She's ruled in favor of gun restrictions, particularly a full blown ban. She's an activist judge. We don't need her. She's too far left.
I don't see anyone complaining when 51% elect a new president. Well except for the 49%. That's life. Get over it. We'll cycle back toward the right with time. That's the American experiment, and it wouldn't work without democracy. Representatives are meant to represent the views of their constituents. If they don't, it's likely they'll lose office. People only complain about democracy when the majority has opposing views.
And I love the stereotype you through in there. Real classy. I guess you learned that from grade school. The fact is that a lot of people want marijuana legalized, and every "Ask Obama Questions" website has come to that same conclusion. There have been 3 or 4 to date.
I would believe you if this hadn't started out with change.org. This form of communication with Obama has been used 3 or 4 times, and every time marijuana legalization has been at the top, alongside universal health care.
I would say that Sotomayor's stance on gun ownership is unconstitutional. But lo and behold she's likely our next Supreme Court justice. An activist judge interpreting the constitution, allowing empathy to override justice, is not constitutional. Judges don't make law.
Well, I don't like pulling this out because "omg it's YouTube" but the Government doesn't necessarily want this study to be known. They have been stifling research into cannabis since prohibition started. They only allow research into the harms of marijuana, not the benefits. In fact, the Government holds a monopoly on cannabis research supply, which is low grade and quality, and almost all research requests are denied. At any rate, here's the best I can give you -- an interview with the researcher behind the study. Good luck getting the official papers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmQ16cGBHU
With the prohibition, people are more likely to hide their use from family, roommates, or whomever, and what a lot of them do is hop in their cars and take a cruise to smoke. I'm telling you, prohibition does more harm than it does good.
Government ran a study over the course of 30 something years that concluded that marijuana does not cause cancer. In fact, they found that marijuana has anti-cancer properties. The hypothesis left for someone else is that the anti-cancer properties of cannabis counter the cancer-promoting activity of inhaling smoke. But for the really concerned there's always vaporization, which reduces the carcinogens to almost nothing.
I keep having to say write this. I might copy this one so I can paste it. Nah I'll keep it personal. You get used to the high. Prohibitionists like to reference this when asked about marijuana addiction. You build a tolerance to marijuana, just like you build a tolerance to some prescription drugs, such as Cymbalta, another anti-depressant drug that leaves you feeling "high" the first few weeks of using it. Your doctor should be sure to tell you of these issues, and there should be no difference with marijuana. People aren't educated on drugs. DARE is not drug education. That is a horrific bad drug scare that leaves emotional damage and bigoted views about drug users, or it's an advertisement to a curious young moderately rebellious child.
You get used to the high. Prohibitionists like to refer to this phenomenon when asked about marijuana addiction. You build a tolerance to marijuana. It's why responsible recreational smokers space out their smoking. They celebrate the high. Medical marijuana patients likely smoke daily and stop experiencing the high after a week or 2.
We certainly saw a mess when Prohibition ended, didn't we? We saw the end to a violent black market that no cop had a chance against under a Constitutional government. That's power. But sadly no lesson was learned, as we've allowed drug prohibition to inflict its harms on society, and we're no closer to a solution than the first laws put in place.
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
The high goes away. You get used to it. Recreational users know this and space out their smoking so they still experience the high. (Well, not all do that. Personal responsibility plays a role.) The medical marijuana patients? They're likely smoking or vaporizing the cannabis daily, and will no longer experience this side effect of feeling high.
Slashdot Mirror
You misunderstand the government's new powers then.
Well, maybe, but it all ends Dec 2012 anyways, so what's with the plans?
"Forfeiture is literally a de jure presumption of guilt with regard to certain kinds of property, and flies in the face of a thousand years of tradition." Isn't that what this Too Big to Fail policy is all about? You know, the one where somebody gets to assume damages based on whatever knowledge and seize the company in question?
That would be the case if this judge didn't rule in direct opposition to the 2nd amendment. What's next? States can take away our freedom of speech? Our freedom of spiritual expression?
"Guilty until proven innocent?" That's this administration's mentality. They can now take over any company on the same principle. Except it's a little shorter: Guilty!
Well, this year's Audit the Fed bill has a TON of sponsors. Last I checked Ron Paul had over 150 representatives signed on.
Good one. :)
Deal with voting like we do currency and it should not be a huge ordeal. Voters can handle the responsibility. That would arguably be more secure than the ballot method.
You had me till you brought up the stereotype. That's childish.
Don't be blind. She's ruled in favor of gun restrictions, particularly a full blown ban. She's an activist judge. We don't need her. She's too far left.
My computer's all black. I don't want any Chrome. I wonder how they're going to do automatic updates in Linux.
Well she doesn't think we have a right to protect ourselves. She thinks the states have a right to overturn the constitution.
I don't see anyone complaining when 51% elect a new president. Well except for the 49%. That's life. Get over it. We'll cycle back toward the right with time. That's the American experiment, and it wouldn't work without democracy. Representatives are meant to represent the views of their constituents. If they don't, it's likely they'll lose office. People only complain about democracy when the majority has opposing views. And I love the stereotype you through in there. Real classy. I guess you learned that from grade school. The fact is that a lot of people want marijuana legalized, and every "Ask Obama Questions" website has come to that same conclusion. There have been 3 or 4 to date.
"Self-defense of same is the second." Which is threatened by the Sotomayor nomination.
I would believe you if this hadn't started out with change.org. This form of communication with Obama has been used 3 or 4 times, and every time marijuana legalization has been at the top, alongside universal health care.
I would say that Sotomayor's stance on gun ownership is unconstitutional. But lo and behold she's likely our next Supreme Court justice. An activist judge interpreting the constitution, allowing empathy to override justice, is not constitutional. Judges don't make law.
They're talking about democracy.
Well, I don't like pulling this out because "omg it's YouTube" but the Government doesn't necessarily want this study to be known. They have been stifling research into cannabis since prohibition started. They only allow research into the harms of marijuana, not the benefits. In fact, the Government holds a monopoly on cannabis research supply, which is low grade and quality, and almost all research requests are denied. At any rate, here's the best I can give you -- an interview with the researcher behind the study. Good luck getting the official papers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmQ16cGBHU
With the prohibition, people are more likely to hide their use from family, roommates, or whomever, and what a lot of them do is hop in their cars and take a cruise to smoke. I'm telling you, prohibition does more harm than it does good.
By common law those are illegal. By common law, according to all the "Questions" for Obama, marijuana should be legal, not illegal.
Government ran a study over the course of 30 something years that concluded that marijuana does not cause cancer. In fact, they found that marijuana has anti-cancer properties. The hypothesis left for someone else is that the anti-cancer properties of cannabis counter the cancer-promoting activity of inhaling smoke. But for the really concerned there's always vaporization, which reduces the carcinogens to almost nothing.
I keep having to say write this. I might copy this one so I can paste it. Nah I'll keep it personal. You get used to the high. Prohibitionists like to reference this when asked about marijuana addiction. You build a tolerance to marijuana, just like you build a tolerance to some prescription drugs, such as Cymbalta, another anti-depressant drug that leaves you feeling "high" the first few weeks of using it. Your doctor should be sure to tell you of these issues, and there should be no difference with marijuana. People aren't educated on drugs. DARE is not drug education. That is a horrific bad drug scare that leaves emotional damage and bigoted views about drug users, or it's an advertisement to a curious young moderately rebellious child.
You get used to the high. Prohibitionists like to refer to this phenomenon when asked about marijuana addiction. You build a tolerance to marijuana. It's why responsible recreational smokers space out their smoking. They celebrate the high. Medical marijuana patients likely smoke daily and stop experiencing the high after a week or 2.
We certainly saw a mess when Prohibition ended, didn't we? We saw the end to a violent black market that no cop had a chance against under a Constitutional government. That's power. But sadly no lesson was learned, as we've allowed drug prohibition to inflict its harms on society, and we're no closer to a solution than the first laws put in place. "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this." Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
The high goes away. You get used to it. Recreational users know this and space out their smoking so they still experience the high. (Well, not all do that. Personal responsibility plays a role.) The medical marijuana patients? They're likely smoking or vaporizing the cannabis daily, and will no longer experience this side effect of feeling high.