Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (4461)	7/29/2005 10:30:28 AM
From: Rock_nj	Respond to of 9838

You could use that same argument to legalize and tax marijuana, and yet few would say THAT is in the common good. I agree, the same logic could be used to legalize many taboos in our society. This is a classic example of judicial activism. We all know the original intent of eminent domain, and it worked for 229 years or so just fine. If a new road needed to be built that the public needed for society to progress then eminent domain could be used to make the project happen. But, the SC jurists reinterpreted 229 years of eminent domain custom and refashioned it for the modern era of big government to justify expanding eminent domain. That is a bad way to judge. I'm not saying the SC should be totally inflexible, things change over time and sometimes the SC must also change. But, eminent domain has had a clear and legitmate intent since our founding, to serve the public good when public works were needed, they have expanded it way beyond that original intent, and trampled on private property rights in the process. I don't think it was a justifiable use of judicial activism. Sure, redeveloping blighted areas is good for the "common good", but people have to live somewhere, and we need to have a society based on private property rights for our system to work. The SC endorsed abusive government tactics in their decision. Actually, there is a strong case for legalizing marijuana from an economic standpoint for the "common good". A state recently studied it, I think Texas, and found that they'd save over $1 Billion per year in police costs and generate $100 Million in new tax revenues if marijuana was legalized. That would be good, but others would argue that there are other drawbacks to legalization. Personally, I think it's utterly insane that alcohol, a highly dangerous and addictive substance that causes all sorts of social problems is legal and a plant anyone can grow and is relatively benign in centuries of use is illegal. We should save money and police resources and just legalize it.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (4461)	7/29/2005 10:30:31 AM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9838

You could use that same argument to legalize and tax marijuana, and yet few would say THAT is in the common good. I agree, the same logic could be used to legalize many taboos in our society. This is a classic example of judicial activism. We all know the original intent of eminent domain, and it worked for 229 years or so just fine. If a new road needed to be built that the public needed for society to progress then eminent domain could be used to make the project happen. But, the SC jurists reinterpreted 229 years of eminent domain custom and refashioned it for the modern era of big government to justify expanding eminent domain. That is a bad way to judge. I'm not saying the SC should be totally inflexible, things change over time and sometimes the SC must also change. But, eminent domain has had a clear and legitmate intent since our founding, to serve the public good when public works were needed, they have expanded it way beyond that original intent, and trampled on private property rights in the process. I don't think it was a justifiable use of judicial activism. Sure, redeveloping blighted areas is good for the "common good", but people have to live somewhere, and we need to have a society based on private property rights for our system to work. The SC endorsed abusive government tactics in their decision. Actually, there is a strong case for legalizing marijuana from an economic standpoint for the "common good". A state recently studied it, I think Texas, and found that they'd save over $1 Billion per year in police costs and generate $100 Million in new tax revenues if marijuana was legalized. That would be good, but others would argue that there are other drawbacks to legalization. Personally, I think it's utterly insane that alcohol, a highly dangerous and addictive substance that causes all sorts of social problems is legal and a plant anyone can grow and is relatively benign in centuries of use is illegal. We should save money and police resources and just legalize it.