Questions for the Free State Project People

[d_goddard]

marijuana "criminals"

Sapphire! This is an excellent phrase! Marijuana users and marijuana dealers are, collectively, marijuana criminals.

The same way that people who own guns & sell guns in Washington, DC are "gun criminals"

[Beth221]

I wasnt actually calling users criminals, because I believe they are not.  Same with the "gun criminals"  Falls under that victimless crime thing.  Can one commit a punishable crime if there is no victim?  Why is it when I do something illegal, to myself, the government is right around the corner to arrest/threaten me?     

[Tom Ploszaj]

Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.

Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service. And the particular piece of community service that they should be sentenced to is the building of the wall across the US-Mexico border. The money from the fine they paid will go toward buying materials to build the wall.
The rationale behind this is that most of the pot comes from Mexico, so once that wall is built, the pot will dry up. So in essence, marijuana users will be punished by helping to correct the problem that they propagated by purchasing the marijuana.

As for marijuana dealers, I haven't decided if the punishment for being a marijuana dealer should continue to be jail, or if they should be punished by having a much heavier fine, and a much lengthier sentence of community service building the wall than the users have. One side of me says that marijuana dealers are scum, and a scourge upon society, and there's absolutely no way they should get out of going to jail. But another side of me sees the argument that we really need more labor for the wall -- and badly. So I'm actually not quite sure which one of the abovementioned punishments dealers should get.

Luke,
I notice many flaws in the issues you posted but I will let others point them out.
I chimed in wishing you do further research along with common sense and input from others here and elsewhere to see that it is the prohibition and not the marijuana that is the problem of any marijuana related problems.  To fine a non violent person is wrong for their personal choice, say in their use of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol or type of food intake.  As a scientist I have seen where "bad" science about drugs, environment and in life itself is given the "Stamp of approval" by the government and nothing else is accepted.  As an EMT for 35years I have yet to recall being called even one time to "help" a person due to their use of marijuana.  Most if not all of my non trauma calls deal with people that abuse the other three plus the very few calls dealing with hard drugs.

I may be incorrect but it appears that you believe in responsibility for ones self.  By the very reasons that you came to this site and are interacting with us gives me reason to suggest that you believe in smaller government and personal liberty and freedoms.  I wonder though what part of the FSP Intent that you do not agree with.

About the FSP, and its   
Statement of Intent
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. "

You may need to sit back and question yourself if what you believe about not only drugs but the role of government in peoples lives really makes sense when you analysis the facts and then ask yourself if it may be a pre-conditioning that is preventing you from questioning what you have been taught.  I am not a libertarian and as others know I do not agree with everything that is said, done or believe in here (or elsewhere) but I will not prevent nor deny others their visions or routes and will assist where I can those that are for the principles of the FSP Intent, personal Liberty or Freedom.

[Luke S]

marijuana "criminals"

Sapphire! This is an excellent phrase! Marijuana users and marijuana dealers are, collectively, marijuana criminals.

The same way that people who own guns & sell guns in Washington, DC are "gun criminals"

No. The people who own guns in Washington DC are not gun criminals because the Second Amendment to the US constitution gives them the right to do so. Any statuatory law criminalizing them for owning guns is a lower law than the constitution, and is therefore null and void. So this DC law obviously may not be enforced. And if that's what these DC city officials are doing, then these DC city officials are in fact the lawbreakers, since they are now guilty of conspiracy to deny rights granted under the Constitution, and thus they are the ones who should be punished.

As for selling guns, I don't know. The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention selling guns, it only mentions possession. But then again, I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution saying that one of the government's duties is to regulate the sale of guns, and I really don't know what interest they could fulfill by restricting the sale of guns if they can't use it to restrict the possession of guns (which according to the Constitution they can't do). Anyway, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I really don't know these things. But for now, my personal opinion is that because of the 2nd, they can't ban the sale of guns in DC, or anywhere else.

[Caleb]

Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.

Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service. And the particular piece of community service that they should be sentenced to is the building of the wall across the US-Mexico border. The money from the fine they paid will go toward buying materials to build the wall.
The rationale behind this is that most of the pot comes from Mexico, so once that wall is built, the pot will dry up. So in essence, marijuana users will be punished by helping to correct the problem that they propagated by purchasing the marijuana.

I got a pretty great chuckle out of the idea of pot users being the group who builds the border wall. I can see it now:

"Whoa, dude, these bricks they're like hard but they're also soft. They're like sand, if you rub them sand comes off, but like, they're also, like, hard, like steel, only not like steel. But hard like steel. Kind of like a penis, if you think about it. hard. but soft. It's like they're sandy, but at the same time inpenetrable. But if they're made of sand, that makes them, like, glass, or chemically, or maybe, spiritually, the same as glass. But not glass, cause you can't see through it. But I wonder, I bet you can see through it. Like, maybe you just have to be at the right vibration or pulse or...I don't know the word, but I think like, if we were in a different phase, or dimension, we could see through the bricks. Whoa. That's like, really deep. I'm tired."  Lays down, and looks up at the sky. "Dude ... do you think those clouds are like ... alive? I mean, we don't know what they're thinking ..." 

Supervisor: "Get to work!"

"Whoa! Dude, he's like angry, man, what's up with him?"



Seriously, I won't build your wall. I'm morally opposed to xenophobia. Now what are you going to do to me?

[Pat K]

LOL!! perfect Caleb.

[Jim Johnson]

LOL!! perfect Caleb.

Caleb needs more dot, dot, dots... like... that's cool Caleb... wait... what........  why's that guy all pissed at people for... smoke'n pot and building walls don't go together.

[dalebert]

Caleb needs more dot, dot, dots... like... that's cool Caleb... wait... what........  why's that guy all pissed at people for... smoke'n pot and building walls don't go together.

Yeah, I think after a good smoke, I'd just wanna lay down and look at the clouds too. Fuck the damn wall. Fuck the chain gang boss. Cool Hand Luke wants it so bad, he can go build it himself. "Yeah boss! Whatever you say boss! I'm shaking that branch, boss. See! I'm shaking that branch!"

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey Luke,
Guess what, the federal government couldn't make marijuana possession illegal, constitutionally. The first federal laws against marijuana could only tax it into oblivion. They would have had to amend the constitution like they did to prohibit alcohol.

In fact the only thing the feds can do is regulate the interstate commerce of it. Check out what Clarence Thomas' opinion was in the Raich case before the supreme court... He said show me the commerce. The conservative position would be I can grow the herb in my own backyard and the feds would have no jurisdiction.

[J’raxis 270145]

But then again, I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution saying that one of the government's duties is to regulate the sale of guns, and I really don't know what interest they could fulfill by restricting the sale of guns if they can't use it to restrict the possession of guns (which according to the Constitution they can't do).

Nothing in the Constitution gives them a duty to regulate drugs, either—unless you're going to point to something like the commerce clause, or the "necessary and proper" clause, or one of the other holes-big-enough-to-drive-a-truck-through... which if you believe can be applied to drugs could also be applied to guns.

[J’raxis 270145]

Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.

Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.

And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?

[Jim Johnson]

Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.

Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.

And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?

If Luke doesn't believe in jailing marijuana users, maybe they can go to jail for not paying their fines.

Then if marijuana users don't want to go to jail, then they can be shot. 

[J’raxis 270145]

Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.

Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.

And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?

If Luke doesn't believe in jailing marijuana users, maybe they can go to jail for not paying their fines.

Then if marijuana users don't want to go to jail, then they can be shot. 

That's the inference I was hoping to get him to draw—that no matter how "lenient" a government punishment may appear, it is always backed by the threat of death.

[d_goddard]

No. The people who own guns in Washington DC are not gun criminals because the Second Amendment to the US constitution gives them the right to do so.

This kind of thinking is why Madison insisted on the 9th amendment. You should read it.

Suppose 66.67% of the people get together and amend the US Constitution, repealing the 2nd amendment.
Does that mean that suddenly you'll give up your guns, or become a criminal?

NO!

The right to self-defense is innate. Inherent. From God, if you will.
It does not come from anything written by humans.

[FTL_Ian]

Actually, I do not believe that marijuana users should get jail.

Instead of jail, I believe that marijuana users should be sentenced to fines and community service.

And when they refuse to pay the fine or do the community service?

I'll second that question.