Originally posted by Bardock42
I think we should have pot tax free...it never ever harmed anyone ever.Now churches, those buggers should be taxed to kingdom come, I'd say. Much more dangerous drug than Marijuana can ever hope to be.
Those dead people in Africa killed for witchcraft...would agree with you if they were alive. 😐
Originally posted by RobtardIs there a precedent? NO. They would still have to serve their term since they were convicted out of an old law, I believe. It's not fair, but I think it works like that, however, it would dispense with such charges that are totally a joke in the future! No more prisons built and taxes from the sale(s) of cannabis would help get this country out of debt. It would also force the police to concentrate on real or more serious crimes. I am sure the people in prison would start appealing their sentences though. That might make a new precedent!! Appeals Courts always have precedent over lower trial courts, but then it might go to the Supreme Court. Never Know...lol...It sure would be interesting!
One interest of discussion, if marijuana became legal, what would happen to those poor fools in prison taking shaft because they were convicted on marijuana charge.Would they have to serve their term, or would it be forfeit, is there a precedent for something like this?
People have been smoking varieties of herbs from ancient times. Trying to halt it will never change the behavior of people just like prohibiting alcohol didn't change anyones behavior.
Making it legal and federalized and taxing it would be a much better option, IMO
Just to let you know a precedent is when a court has to or must follow older court rulings. In this case or cases, there are no court rulings to SET as to a precedent in this matter. If people come forward, such as those in jail, then if a court ruling is found in their favor, then that would set (one precedent) in that jurisdiction, but other states must follow to make it a Federal precedent or it must at least go to the Supreme Court to set the Final precedent.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Those dead people in Africa killed for witchcraft...would agree with you if they were alive. 😐
But they're dead and thus can't complain. Bardock can't do anything because he's a Libertarian and since they didn't hurt him and the people they hurt aren't complaining it's immoral for him to interfere.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But they're dead and thus can't complain. Bardock can't do anything because he's a Libertarian and since they didn't hurt him and the people they hurt aren't complaining it's immoral for him to interfere.
I think you mistake libertarians for the Watchers or something 😐
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you mistake libertarians for the Watchers or something 😐
Watchers won't interfere even if they asked.
Also you once mentioned this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle, as a primary principle of Libertarianism.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Watchers won't interfere even if they asked.Also you once mentioned this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle, as a primary principle of Libertarianism.
Yes. Though I'd argue that religions do initiate aggression and that the people that are the victims of this aggression do not want it. And whether they are dead afterwards has little bearing I believe.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThat strongly depends on your interpretation of the non-aggression principle, I'd say.
Proactively stopping them would be going against it. You can defend someone who is being threatened but once that person is dead there's nothing you can do without violating the non-aggression principle except wait for them to try to hurt someone again.