Victory Pipe Tobacco to be the only blend available soon?
Meh, who am I kidding... the only thing available to smoke will be pot.
Lane Closing in US--Should I Worry?
- Thread starter homesteader
- Start date
- Status
Meh, who am I kidding... the only thing available to smoke will be pot.
Which is precisely what the antis don't get.
Bingo. And if smoking does indeed fall under a legal right, it also falls under legal control. Enough votes and it's gone completely.
Literally every activity between tilling the soil to accept seed, and my striking a match to the pipe, is carried out by the voluntary action of an adult, without violating the rights of anyone else.
Any restriction on these transactions is placed by an authority that imposes its judgment over that of an adult individual who is not violating anyone else’s rights. There are many justifications for the state nannying its citizens, and people seem to love their governments doing so (as we reliably keep voting them in), but the justifications are not on the grounds of rights.
Voluntary yes, but once the plant becomes a product, it falls under the FDA for drug content.
Oh, sure. No argument there. I’m Canadian, I am very accustomed to government regulations. If I hold the match wrong I’ll get a fine. Governments have the power and the authority.
I’m just not convinced it’s about rights, certainly not the ones they used to talk about in 1789.
Most likely not. More like, "Because we said so."
I stand in awe of your right assertion. Please accept my apology for my seemingly improper use of a brilliant quote. Have a good evening, my friend.
No offense implied nor intended. George Orwell painted an eerily accurate picture of what we are looking at today. My intention was that none of the powers that be view the things that we enjoy as necessary rights. Many apologies.
There's not a thing you can do about it so, don't worry ... adapt as necessary. But, don't worry or fret over it.
Once certain people decided the Constitution was flexible, could be bent to suit the electorate without amending, the venerable old paper lost a lot of it's cachet. The rules can now be changed on the whim of a judge with little or no attention paid to the US Constitution.
It's not about the politics, it's about not having any certainty.
It's not about the politics, it's about not having any certainty.
Democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Why does a "right" have to be listed in order to make it so? Rights are self evident, laws are from men in suits.
Because of legal implications. A felon is denied the right to bear arms and so forth.
A "Right" as enumerated in the Bill of Rights is God given and cannot be infringed upon. A "right" which is not so enumerated isn't "God given" and as such is subject to government(s) deciding leagality.
"A felon is denied the right to bear arms and so forth." There is a lot of discussion as to the right of the various governments to deny guaranteed rights. Fascinating discussions indeed. So far the judiciary has held certain rights may be denied to certain people. Which for all intents and purposes means, no "Rights" or "rights" are indeed guaranteed in the hands of judiciary.
I understand the legal definition of a right. I guess the liberty lover in me still believes that a true right can't be dictated by others.
- Status