Fourth marijuana conviction gets Slidell man life in prison

neptunechimney wrote: I am surprised. It is a manifestation of the nanny state and seems inconsistent with your sig line. If people want to stunt their life's with MJ it should be there right to do so. Why not be apathetic on the side of freedom.

If the majority of the people want the freedom to intoxicate themselves with marijuana for recreational purposes then they will incorporate that into the laws of their state. If they don't then they will continue to have laws and punishments against doing so. I'm good either way since I have absolutely no intention of abusing that substance and keeping myself in a state of fogged consciousness on a regular or continual basis. I'm good with allowing the republican form of government in this state to decide the issue either through the elected state representatives of the people or by a direct vote of the people via the initiative process. None of us gets to do everything our heart's desire simply because our heart's desire to do so and this is not an exception to that.

Consent of the governed doesn't mean consent of everyone who is governed, it means the consent of the majority of those who are being governed. Convince the majority that it should be allowed and all is good. If you can't reach that point however then you either live by the rules of the society or you pay the penalty for violating those rules if and when you are caught violating them. Currently the majority of the citizens in Colorado think that marijuana should be available only to treat debilitating conditions, not for recreational intoxication. It isn't that they haven't been asked that question, it is simply that they have decided against it when they were asked.

Article II Section 1 of our state constitution says it all:

All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.

The laws of the state are founded upon the will of the citizens of the state. If the will of the citizens changes, so too will the law.

PrintSmith wrote: It isn't that they haven't been asked that question, it is simply that they have decided against it when they were asked.

When has legalization been on any ballot? I must have missed in in my fogged state of consciousness.

Amendment 44 was a proposed amendment to the state statutes submitted for referendum in the 2006 general elections in the U.S. state of Colorado. The amendment proposed the legalization of the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for any person twenty-one years of age and over, as long as marijuana use does not occur in public. The measure was eventually defeated at the polls by 60-40 percent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_A ... %282006%29

You should fog your brain less often TM, this was only 5 short years ago. Remember what I said earlier about retention, memory and recall of information presented when one was intoxicated?

I had forgotten about that. Well, if it was a fogged brain in 2006, then it was just beer. I tried a bit of MMJ after getting my license for a back injury. It didn't help, so I quit. I really wish it did help because narcotics are too addictive so I can't use those. I just hobble around in pain most of the time. Glad there's folks out there like you who try to decide for me what treatments I can and can't use.

It is folks out there like me that expanded your options for treatment with the passage of Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution TM. If you want to direct your displeasure somewhere, direct it where it should be directed, to those who seek to consolidate all power of governance within the federated government such that the voice of your fellow citizen in Colorado is of no consequence.

towermonkey wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: It isn't that they haven't been asked that question, it is simply that they have decided against it when they were asked.

When has legalization been on any ballot? I must have missed in in my fogged state of consciousness.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics ... d-1857.ece

PrintSmith wrote: It is folks out there like me that expanded your options for treatment with the passage of Amendment 20 to the Colorado Constitution TM. If you want to direct your displeasure somewhere, direct it where it should be directed, to those who seek to consolidate all power of governance within the federated government such that the voice of your fellow citizen in Colorado is of no consequence.

Sorry, I guess I mistook you for someone who is against the use of MMJ as well as RMJ (recreational).

That's what happens when you don't care what I think. If you had read what I have been posting you would have seen my posts that clearly indicate that I am a proponent for, and would myself use, marijuana for medical reasons. I think the manner in which it has been implemented is nothing but a big game to allow recreational users access to it and strengthen the case for outright legalization, but I recognize that it does have legitimate medicinal qualities just as opiates do.

I don't smoke pot, don't plan on smoking pot, but can't think of any truly compelling reason it shouldn't be legal.

Your posts are almost always very lengthy and I tend to skim them. As I said, sorry. As far as legitimate medicinal qualities, pain relief doesn't seem to be a strong point, but decreasing nausea associated with various cancer treatments is a very good use. My MIL, who would never have touched the stuff otherwise, was losing weight rapidly while going through chemo. This was many years ago and back when I smoked recreationally. I talked her into trying it out and she got through the rest of chemo by using it. Actually gained a little weight back.