Up front, my following questions are not intended to place you or anyone else in a pariah’s box. However, you raise some interesting questions which I would like you to clarify.

1. Do you consider this practice a right: In that this is an inherent human practice whose limits must be very carefully examined before any restraint is placed?

2. Do you have a basis in our legal system to believe that no law can be placed?

3. Are you taking the position that this practice is important enough to deliberately take the steps of civil disobedience?

http://www.legalsomeday.com/forums/

The one exception is the Opium War with China in the 1800′s. In essence, the vast majority of the Chinese population, including most of it’s government officials, were addicted to Opium. As a result, the Chinese barely knew who was attacking them, much less how to combat the invasion (they couldn’t). In addition, the merchants were so sotted that the British essentially waltzed in and took over.

This is the real danger of addictive drug use and why we as a society and government must combat it. Quite a few years ago, I was listening to a doctor on a medical call in show. At the time, he said that people who are addicted to Heroin are able to function completely as normal people do provided that the addicts are able to receive sufficient and timely doses of the drug.

I shudder at the mental picture of unscrupulous officials manipulating drug supplies to a significant part of a population addicted to and turn voters into essentially subservient slaves, never to know individuality or freedom again while they live: too destroyed by the drug(s) to even realize what they had lost.

Congratulations on winning my prize for “dumbest comment of the week”.

When a law is passed, there’s your legal basis. Goddamn, man.

Surely you mean much, much, much safer than a bottle of alcohol.

Deaths from marijuana: 0 in recorded history. Deaths from alcohol poisoning, not counting drunk driving: Over 85,000 PER YEAR in the US ALONE.

How is this not a valid law if it was passed by the peoples representatives? Isn’t that what we call the constitution?

There is no legal basis for the laws to be passed, meaning that even though the law is written and passed by our representatives, it’s still an invalid law and just an attempt for a majority to oppress a minority.

“If police expect the taxpayers to cover their $1.2 million in overtime during the DNC, it is only fair that they respect the laws adopted by those taxpayers,” said Mr. Tvert, leader of Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation. “There will be plenty for police to do during the DNC aside from arresting or citing adults who are simply making the safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol.”

If one wanted to respect the laws passed by the taxpayers then one would NOT be choosing marijuana over alcohol. It makes it really difficult to take the legalization movement seriously.