Marijuana and Your Liberty vs. Others' Property

[MarshallAMarshall]

I think your jumping to conclusions when you say it's hurting this guys business First I think the claim is unsubstantiated. Your bias is obvious that you think smoking weed is not socially acceptable and he already allows smoking there. Control freaks they want to eat their cake and make you pay for it as well

[johnbrown1968]

You’re not allowed to drink your own alcohol on the property. Alcohol laws and marijuana laws should be the same. Let’s not overstep our authority. If we push this too far we can lose everything were fighting for.

[fistedsaxe]

yes there is a difference between tobacco and marijuana for children, Tobacco is still far worse for children than marijuana... and he was outside a bar and Grill,.... no kids allowed. Property rights rock as long as people are free to go to a pro pot smoking establishment if they choose as well, if your all about your right to tell me I can't use your business and go have a joint on the patio, don't tell me I'm not allowed to give my money to a business who wishes to accommodate me.

[h4tchetman]

Man I smoke weed an I don't think it's okay to go an smoke up with out the property owners premission to light up its just polite what if the owner smokes too an is like "yeah aye why not lets go smoke out back together" there ya go a social smoke, no need to make a scean an if he says no well, its his land aint it lol

[Robstailey]

weed cures cancer.

[jamesuslovesu]

i love marijuana, however if you are on someone elses property the person who owns that property should have the right to tell you not to do that "on their property" i think drugs should be legal even though i dont approve of most of them, if someone wants to hang out and smoke pot around me thats cool but if someone came over and started smoking crack in my yard i'd tell them to get the fuck out of here.

[i1234t1234]

@jamesuslovesu best way to prevent people from smoking crack in your yard is to keep it illegal

[jamesuslovesu]

@i1234t1234 if something is illegal it doesnt stop people from doing it, if it did then the u.s. wouldnt be number one in drug use

[i1234t1234]

@jamesuslovesu No but at least if its legal people might be able to keep a better eye on it.

[nero8289]

I belive he has the right to smoke pot,but he should do it on his own property.

[mdizzle4500]

hes just proving a point that everyone smoke there cigarettes every where. so why not smoke weed.

[zepplen4011]

your completely right there is a difference between marijuana and tobacco for children. tobacco is 1321731273 times worse.

[fistedsaxe]

@zepplen4011 thank you for noticing that as well .....

[UcanbeGOD]

He should only sue for the right and not the cash.

[619master4]

hehe S

[jommyrocks]

hay hay hay. ;D e

[ALookAt]

HymerSchmidt----buddy your a idiot and

a troll,ur poof people have sex with their

mother .i don,t get people like u ,on one side u sound reasonable bright on the other you suck gov off for breakfast ,please do Canada a fav and drown ur offspring's .

[HymerSchmidt]

Lucky for you, then, that I don't plan on having kids. And yes, people do have sex with my mother... While I don't know if I'm an idiot, I'm sure there are much smarter people -- it's a statistical certainty... I've also never received any breakfast from my government, regardless of it being after sucking them off or not. Please inform me where I'd get such things, because I must be paying for it.

[ALookAt]

HymerSchmidt---what r u the you tube guard do u live on this site u make a good spin doctor,gov advocates anything that allows them to increase their size and hire their kids the inbreeding is the problem ,we need different people not gov friends and family only like its been for 1000 years,same with cops they hire in the family and destroy non government people only have u ever seen a government kid in court,no only the poorest people get charged,thats why we can sue a cop in Canada now!!

[HymerSchmidt]

I get push email on a mobile. But I can understand if you aren't aware of push -- most people who use it know where the period key is on their keyboards.

And you need your re-uptake inhibited.

[HymerSchmidt]

Anyone know if you could ban smoking on your property, before the government banned it?

I'm guessing it was seen as discriminatory, and originally a "right" to smoke indoors; leading people to believe businesses thought indoor smoking was lucrative.

[qtronman]

Nice performance.

[ALookAt]

HymerSchmidt--i guess drinking beer and beating the wife is better right ,i,m a little sick of ur type if prisons are full of people who get drunk and commit violence is ok but smoke a joint and get the munchies is horrible,ur your a joke ,fuck off ur a monster!!!

[HymerSchmidt]

That's exactly what I was advocating: domestic violence good, munchies bad. I am such a simple caveman.

Clairvoyant, you are.

[HymerSchmidt]

My problem with legalized drugs is that we live in welfare states.

So Fred goes and gets himself addicted to, or desirous of, a drug(which by altering his innate motives, decreases his productivity). This then increases his potential for unemployment, and increases my chance of supporting his bad decisions. Having to pay for his bad decisions, belonging to this state-created, collective organism, makes me want to disallow him those freedoms.

Though taking away his freedoms isn't cheap, either.

[Sarrisan98]

@ Hymerschmidt

If that is what you are worried about, then fight the Welfare state. It is completely ridiculous to take away a man's freedom -- simply because he MIGHT become a welfare-addict -- simply on the basis that we live in a welfare state.

The solution is to fight for the dissolution of welfare in America -- not supporting it by taking away the freedoms of Americans to their own bodies.

[HymerSchmidt]

I agree that ending the welfare state is the "ultimate" solution. However, I'm unsure if legalizing drugs does anything to end welfare -- as you imply.

The mindset in America doesn't cascade, more freedoms in one area doesn't lead to freedoms in others. More often, the amount of freedom is conserved while the -- type -- of freedom changes, with the freedom lost being economic.

I think fighting drugs is more costly than not, so I agree with legalization. I just disagree with your reasoning.

[Sarrisan98]

The basic premise for illegal drugs is that they are bad- that people are not responsible enough to know this- and that the government needs to protect them. That is exactly what welfare is. It assumes the people are universally retarded, and upon that premise takes government action to "protect" them, as a parent would a child.

Illegal drugs is a sub-set of welfare-statism. That is why I think, to get rid of welfare itself, we need also advocate against it's smaller corollaries.

[HymerSchmidt]

Like I said, I agree with you "end." However, your means are only theoretical; it remains untested(unproven by history in my opinion) and only imaginable in a very controlled setting.

Human nature and our culture of irrational force is much more complex -- and irrational -- than you're suggesting.

[Sarrisan98]

We will have to agree to disagree, then.

I will ask, though, in which historical arena your theory was proven? How do we get rid of welfare while subsequently ignoring all of the other statist premises?

[HymerSchmidt]

I never suggested I knew a way, only that if there were a way, economic freedoms come first. I'm confident prohibition of drug use and other freedoms arose after, and because of, taxation(in western culture this hold true, but correlation isn't always cause and effect).

When you force people to assume responsibility for others in one area, they are going to assume responsibility for them in all areas. People won't control other people's drug use if they have no stake in them using drugs.

[Sarrisan98]

Right now, we are already, as a people, responsible for other's drug use, through the obscene amount of taxes that goes to the War on Drugs.

I also think there is some historical evidence that the drug "problem" would disappear significantly if drugs were legalized (And I mean all drugs, not just marijuana). For instance, consider the Prohibition. Outlawing Alcohol effectively created the Mafia. Instead of forcing people to stop drinking (An immoral act in itself), they simply forced (Cont)

[HymerSchmidt]

I don't disagree that outlawing drugs has benefits, just that it doesn't have the benefit of making ANY steps towards economic freedom.

[HymerSchmidt]

I meant legalizing, not outlawing.

[Sarrisan98]

(2) gangs to begin fighting over it in the streets. After the prohibition was eliminated, cases of gang-violence and dependency dropped by drastic measures (That is, until the War on Drugs. Then it all started over).

I believe the same would happen, overall, if we legalized drugs. Indeed, I believe the same effect would occur if we legalized prostitution, etc.

[Sarrisan98]

"I don't disagree that outlawing drugs has benefits, just that it doesn't have the benefit of making ANY steps towards economic freedom."

I just don't see how you expect to get economic freedom, when the basic freedom of deciding what goes into your own body is denied to you. There is a hierarchy of things, I believe, and I simply don't see the less obvious freedoms coming before the blatantly obvious.

[HymerSchmidt]

I think you have the hierarchy right, but are ignoring that taking the bricks off the top of the pyramid, does little to unsettle its base. The base -- that is, economic injustice -- will take down everything above it when removed.

Removing the top, will do just that, removing the top. You are relying on a majority to then respond to that removal, as if it somehow demonstrates rationality they can reproduce. When drugs use, obviously, only leads to more irrationality.

[HymerSchmidt]

And not to mention, their want of drug use is often irrational in itself; it's not about freedoms to them, it's about destroying their brains and bodies. It's about desecrating their self-image, because they don't know how to improve it.

If moving towards legalized drugs is a step towards rationality, then I would agree with you. But it wouldn't be, because the desire for legalization is more often irrational.

[HymerSchmidt]

Once again, I will repeat that I agree. I just disagree that the niceties that come from legalization of bodily freedoms, doesn't lead to more economic freedom. I believe welfare will increase such that the tax dollars gained from the drug war's end won't matter.

Besides, the money spent on the drug war is arbitrary compared to the money currently spent of welfare. It would make a small dent.

[Sarrisan98]

"Besides, the money spent on the drug war is arbitrary compared to the money currently spent of welfare. It would make a small dent."

I agree on that. Welfare itself is definitely what really needs to go. I disagree as to drug-legalization being a "top brick," though. But, following your analogy; have you ever tried to remove the bottom bricks off of a pyramid before taking off the top? Not very easy to do, and the end result is a huge mess. I'm hoping for our little revolution to be cleaner.

[HymerSchmidt]

No revolution is clean. We will need to blow the base to bits with C4... or hope it implodes.

I will vote to legalize drugs, I just don't see it causing momentum.

Nice talking to you.

[Sarrisan98]

"Nice talking to you."

Same, though maybe we should have taken it to private messages after a while there. :P

[GamblerJustice]

On the subject of marijuana and cigarettes, I find it absurd that the goverment thinks it has a right to ban people from smoking in restaurants. Such a thing should be decided by the restaurant's owner - not by the goverment.

[fpontario]

It all starts linguistically: they start calling privately-owned commercial buildings "public places". Having called government-owned schools "public schools", it becomes much easier to convince people that they should have a say over how private property is used...by virtue merely of being permitted to enter.

[x11115]

not true.. that's a health issue. if you want to use drugs and have bad habits that's your choice but when you walk in somewhere and someone smokes up the room it's not the other persons choice. ass holes like you don't care about other peoples health.

[GamblerJustice]

You don't have to stand next to the person smoking.

It's still up to the restaurant owner, and they've resolved the issue very well by having non-smoking and smoking tables separated.

If the restaurants you visit don't use such a system then stop visiting them, it's their loss.

[Moragauth]

It's rare to see reasonable people on TV these days.

[Sarrisan98]

Maybe I should start watching Canadian TV...