posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
I know SOOO many professionals who use pot every week. It really is rather stupid. Why don't they just switch the rules and legalize pot but make cigarettes illegal instead. Whole country would be so much healthier and we would have some great new hemp product lines.

---

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Actually, the way it will work is the excuse for making everything but albino rice cakes illegal will be BECAUSE the government has decided it is in charge of healthcare. I'm certain that in the next few years we'll see all kinds of fretting over the cost to tax payers..

---

Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Just a note on that opinion...

With universal healthcare and legalizing ANY substance? You get to ruin your body (because it yours, right?) And then the taxpayers get to foot the bill to care for you.

What a country!

---

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Just a note on that opinion...

With universal healthcare and legalizing ANY substance? You get to ruin your body (because it yours, right?) And then the taxpayers get to foot the bill to care for you.

What a country!

---

Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by rounder1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Just a note on that opinion...

With universal healthcare and legalizing ANY substance? You get to ruin your body (because it yours, right?) And then the taxpayers get to foot the bill to care for you.

What a country!

---

S.F. makes a really good point here and I hope that everyone gets it...... with the government in charge of health care there is no telling what will be outlawed in the name of cutting costs to tax payers.....

Nobody likes to think that there are families with or without children that do not have insurance......(I have lived a significant portion of my life without it)

So, now with this legislation, we are faced with the CERTAINTY that at some point down the road government will begin regulating behaviors and commerce in such a way as to limit the freedoms of the average citizen...... this will be done against individual segments of the population. This is a difficult concept to relate in type, but everyone has there own vices or pleasures.....Perhaps Glass is a smoker I am not. I don't know statistics but I would guess that in today's world most peeps in the U.S. are not smokers.....so with support legislation passes to do away with Glass's smokes. Perhaps Jordan (and I have no foundation for this) likes SkyDiving.....tuff sh*t....its a risky behavior and as such the task payer is at risk....the government (your ultimate protector, wtfever) is going to outlaw that sport.....speaking of sports....any football fans on this board? lots of injuries surrounding that sport (had a couple surgeries myself on account of it).

My very long winded point is this.... We all have things that we like that may not be in the best interest of our health. Be it sports, smokes, booze, etc..... But there are few things that a government could not take away from us now because in most cases of our vices or pleasures there is a relatively small number of kindred souls compared to the majority of the population for any given vice/pleasure.

One by one you will see many of these things attacked and mostly likely overcome.

So 25% (made up stat) of freedom is lost to give healthcare to 9% (real stat) more people..... and of that 9%.....how many of them actually care enough to work for it if they could.....prolly not many! I am not sure about where you live but in my town it is very fair to say that 10% of the population is as d**n sorry is the day is long......prolly more like 18%.......

---

Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
this gets a little complicated, but it's worth th read:

Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges,[1] into the school. He was confronted by school authorities[2] and admitted to having the weapon. Eventually he was charged with violation of the federal[3] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)[4]

Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §922(q) of the Act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." The trial court denied the motion, ruling that §922(q) was "a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the `business' of elementary, middle and high schools . . . affects interstate commerce."

Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that §922(q) exceeded Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction, holding that "section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress[5] under the Commerce Clause."

The Government petitioned[6] for Supreme Court review and the Court accepted the case.

To sustain the Act, the Government was obligated[7] to show that §922(q) was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause power, i.e. that the section regulated a matter which "affected" (or "substantially affected"[8]) interstate commerce.[9]

The Government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in one of two ways: first, because violent crime causes damage and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is obviously an important element of the nation's economic health.

The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person's economic productivity?[10]

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

---

Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
this gets a little complicated, but it's worth th read:

Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges,[1] into the school. He was confronted by school authorities[2] and admitted to having the weapon. Eventually he was charged with violation of the federal[3] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)[4]

Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §922(q) of the Act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." The trial court denied the motion, ruling that §922(q) was "a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the `business' of elementary, middle and high schools . . . affects interstate commerce."

Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that §922(q) exceeded Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction, holding that "section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress[5] under the Commerce Clause."

The Government petitioned[6] for Supreme Court review and the Court accepted the case.

To sustain the Act, the Government was obligated[7] to show that §922(q) was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause power, i.e. that the section regulated a matter which "affected" (or "substantially affected"[8]) interstate commerce.[9]

The Government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in one of two ways: first, because violent crime causes damage and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is obviously an important element of the nation's economic health.

The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person's economic productivity?[10]

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

---

Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Relentless.:
Basing legislation on the wants of a supposed God?

In the history of government supported ****ty ideas.. That's a whopper.

---

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by glassman:
the health Care Bill is a perfect example of "do-gooders' not thinking things thru all the way...

seriously? in another deabte a year or two ago? i pointed out that Jesus never promised anyone any earthly rewards, but Peaser pointed out to me one day that Jesus did HEAL people.

so you get this question. Is health care God-given "right"? It sure seems like Jesus would say yes to me... The dificulty is as Rounder pointed out, next thing you know we aren't allowed to do anything that somebody is afraid we might hurt ourselves in....

next thing you know? you are qoing to be required to wear bike helmets to walk after you've had two drinks

---

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Bigfoot:
It is interesting to see what I (a smoker....though currently in my 6th or 7th attempt to quit) started when I suggested we switch the places of pot and cigs.

I take it that everyone that has posted here since then is all up for legalizing pot then???

---

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged |