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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (45006)	2/8/2006 4:26:05 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"We were not talking about rapists, or anyone else who has attacked other people" The conversation started with the assertion that the Government ultimately relies on deadly force. If it has been narrowed down to arguing over the agreeability of marijuana laws, then it is you whom have left the road. "People enforcing those laws are not protecting the rights and freedoms of others at least not directly" You've introduced an entirely new topic--the Constitutional legitimacy of certain (victimless crime) laws. Nevertheless, all laws purport to be Constitutional and just--and justified by rights and freedoms. In the case of marijuana, it is claimed that certain unregulated drugs threaten the health and safety of society--in particular, the young. There are many who disagree with the idea that potential harm should be penalized as though it were actual harm. It is something that I disagree with, as well. But regulating the food and the drugs that may be sold to people is certainly a health and safety issue and laws may be made to address these public concerns. Naturally, they must be agreed to by "we the people" as they may express in a representative democracy.