3 ms·
I get the point he is trying to make, but my problem with this argument is that it seems to be based on an idea that the default is that a thing is illegal unti
by nisse72 13y ago
I get the point he is trying to make, but my problem with this
argument is that it seems to be based on an idea that the default is
that a thing is illegal until a law explicitly allows it, which is
contrary to the way I've always understood things to be.
In other words, in some (perhaps distant) past, marijuana was not
illegal until a legislator decided to pass a law prohibiting its use.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y agoit seems to be based on an idea that the default is that a thing is illegal until a law explicitly allows it. I didn't get that idea at all, and I think you are misreading it. Many examples are given of things that recently were or still are explicitly illegal. If you want to read up on when Marijuana was made illegal, you can start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_th... but I'm not sure of the relevance.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y ago“I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast.” - Ronald Reagan Marijuana prohibition was pushed by Reagan because he didn´t liked hippies, not based on anything palpable. Problem is not law enforcement, it´s the way bogus legislation gets pushed on "democracy" without direct involvement of the people.