Think weed is harmless?

[Bamafan1973]

Yes, the act of growing plants is still victimless.

It wasn't for the 14 people who were killed.

 

[Hiland Arms]

It wasn't for the 14 people who were killed.

Again, the plant didn't drive the train or kill anyone. Blunt force trama caused by an idiot who decided to get intoxicated and drive a train did.

 

[Hiland Arms]

And what caused the blunt force truama? The engineer being high on pot (per his own admission.) Try explaining the whole victimless crime thing to the families of the 14 people who were killed. Bet they would see that one quiet differently.

Driving a train while intoxicated is not a victimless crime, obviously.

 

[fslc94]

Just say “yes”…..

 

[kodis556]

If you don't like the laws work to change them, don't choose to arbitrarily refuse to follow them. That's the way every criminal thinks. They also consider themselves smarter than everyone else... that's why so many of them end up in incerated.

These "lists" are arbitrarily created by unelected bureaucrats. Disagreeing with the bloated behemoth that is our .gov/alphabet agencies on a simple matter of common sense does not make one a criminal.

 

[wolfmanrogers]

These "lists" are arbitrarily created by unelected bureaucrats. Disagreeing with the bloated behemoth that is our .gov/alphabet agencies on a simple matter of common sense does not make one a criminal.

Actually, that's exactly what it does.

 

[Hiland Arms]

Actually, that's exactly what it does.

Wait? Did you just say disagreeing with the government makes you a criminal?

 

[wolfmanrogers]

Wait? Did you just say disagreeing with the government makes you a criminal?

Not the simple act of disagreeing, but if "disagreeing" means breaking the law, then yes. You're technically a criminal.

Even if you or I don't agree with it.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Gun ownership is a constitutional right, using pot isn't. In fact pot is a controlled substance.

"Consistent therewith, the FDA and DEA have concluded that marijuana has no federally approved medical use for treatment in the U.S. and thus it remains as a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law."
.

Wickard vs. Filburn, like Roe vs. Wade, was wrongly and politically decided by SCOTUS. This is the case that eventually permitted the criminalization of home pot growers for personal consumption.

The federal government's regulation of personal use drugs is not permitted under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Let's not advocate for unconstitutional, tyrannical, drug regulations.



Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S.Ct. 82 (1942): Case Brief Summary - Quimbee

 

[Hiland Arms]

Not the simple act of disagreeing, but if "disagreeing" means breaking the law, then yes. You're technically a criminal.

Even if you or I don't agree with it.

Thanks for clarifying that. Because what you quoted and your response was saying that simply disagreeing was criminal. I was hoping you wasn't that far gone.

Being a criminal isn't so bad anyways. Hiding runaway slaves was once a criminal act, hiding Jews was once a criminal act. Today collecting rainwater or feeding homeless people are often times criminal acts. Being a criminal in a world run by tyrants is often the morale thing to do.

Jesus was law breaking criminal after all.