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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John who wrote (65677)	2/7/2012 5:08:25 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Precisely, Tim. Some argue that we should all be allowed to do anything we want, such as smoke marijuana. Anything we want is too strong. Someone might want to shoot someone else, or rape them, or burn their house down, but something which is harmless to others like smoking marijuana should be allowed. Constitutionally it should be up to the states. The feds were not given such powers in the constitution (which they recognized when they passed an amendment, since rescinded, to allow them to ban alcohol). If a state has such a ban, I wouldn't call it illegitimate or unconstitutional, just unjust and impractical. Impractical because its fairly unenforceable, and trying to enforce it expands the scope of criminal activity. Unjust because of its restriction of individual freedom. If I buy property and build homes on it, I should be able to sell it to whomever I choose, using any standards that I choose. THAT is freedom. In terms of direct sales, even contracts as part of that direct sale, I agree. In terms of contracts binding on all future owners in perpetuity, not so much. At the very most if someone sells it on to a third party, without including the restriction you want, your only course of actions should be to go after them for damages (which might be rather minimal) or for whatever penalty clause is in the contract; not to go after the third party who did not agree with you, to get injunctive relief.