Boehner Launches Effort to Defend Gay Marriage Ban

[BWT]

Why is pot illegal? How is it worse than alcohol? Why not just ban alcohol also? Oh wait, we tried that in the 1920s. Why is pot illegal?

Oh yeah - it is a 'gateway drug.' See, people who do hard drugs started with pot. Not to mention, they started with coffee. And water before that.

Why not make all guns illegal - they kill lots of people. Oh, it is the person who kills someone, not the gun. Why is it not the driver who kills someone, not the drug?

... You're a reasonably smart individual, and I think that's an understatement.

Can we retire the arguement of "Guns aren't bad, neither are drugs." Why not say a knife isn't bad neither are drugs? Why not say 20 lbs of PVC 2'' pipe isn't bad neither are drugs?

Why do you guys select guns? The similarities are simply that certain groups of individuals want them banned, that's all guns and drugs have in common. That's it.

Drugs affect states of mind, they do, I've drank before, I know what it does to me, I know I've lost coordination, I know I was drunk, big shock.

Different drugs have different side effects, frankly, some more severe than others.

ETA: I mean I can understand and respect the "I don't want the government to tell me what I can and can't do" argument, but the "Guns and drugs are the same" carries no weight, IMHO.

[TROOPER]

Wasn't the idea of a "civil union" bounced around before? It was legally no different than a marriage in the rights it gave to the partner, but it just wasn't called "marriage". If gay people wanted the same rights, they'd have jumped all over that and been done. The problem is they want to redefine the word "marriage".

[BWT]

Wasn't the idea of a "civil union" bounced around before? It was legally no different than a marriage in the rights it gave to the partner, but it just wasn't called "marriage". If GAY people wanted the same rights, they'd have jumped all over that and been done. The problem is they want to redefine the word "marriage".

It's the truth dude, it really is.

It really is social engineering, I forget who said that, I think Ben B., but it really is.

Social Engineering (noun)

the manipulation of the social position and function of individuals in order to manage change in a society

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ ... ngineering

[silencertalk]

I heard on the news that a man stabbed his husband, and I had no idea how to parse 'his husband.'

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regio ... ion=recent

[BWT]

I heard on the news that a man stabbed his husband, and I had no idea how to parse 'his husband.'

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regio ... ion=recent

...

C'mon.

Really?

[doubloon]

There is no parallels to be drawn between an inanimate object and a substance ingested by humans to alter their state of mind, other than some people don't like one or the other or both and think they should be banned.
...

Gambling isn't even an object, animate or inanimate, yet it it can be the focus of a crippling addiction.

The Colorado River toad is an animate object that can be illegal to possess depending on intent.

These are just two examples, there are plenty of things that can alter a persons state of mind animate, inanimate and incorporeal.

Your reasoning around inanimate objects vs ingested substances has no logical foundation, the justification for your distinction is nonexistent. Inanimate vs ingested carries no weight.

Pot is "animate" (possessing or characterized by life) until it's harvested and dried ... I think most mind altering substances ingested by humans are inanimate.

I'm really not joking about this, I don't understand your distinction based on the word "animate".

So let's start with you should be able to do what you want with your body. Take drugs, not wear a helmet or seat belt, sell it for sex, etc. But I would not automatically include abortion, as I don't consider a fetus to be 'your body.' ...

Where "animate" is concerned Robert has it right. A life, a human life, has inherent, inalienable rights and is entitled to protection even when it cannot protect itself. However, anyone capable of putting together two thoughts should be allowed to live or squander that life however they choose ... but only their own life, not the life of someone else.

[doubloon]

Wasn't the idea of a "civil union" bounced around before? It was legally no different than a marriage in the rights it gave to the partner, but it just wasn't called "marriage". If GAY people wanted the same rights, they'd have jumped all over that and been done. The problem is they want to redefine the word "marriage".

Agreed, I think it's about the money (insurance, taxes, etc.) but Robert thinks it's about principals.

[BWT]

There is no parallels to be drawn between an inanimate object and a substance ingested by humans to alter their state of mind, other than some people don't like one or the other or both and think they should be banned.
...

Gambling isn't even an object, animate or inanimate, yet it it can be the focus of a crippling addiction.

The Colorado River toad is an animate object that can be illegal to possess depending on intent.

These are just two examples, there are plenty of things that can alter a persons state of mind animate, inanimate and incorporeal.

Your reasoning around inanimate objects vs ingested substances has no logical foundation, the justification for your distinction is nonexistent. Inanimate vs ingested carries no weight.

Pot is "animate" (possessing or characterized by life) until it's harvested and dried ... I think most mind altering substances ingested by humans are inanimate.

I'm really not joking about this, I don't understand your distinction based on the word "animate".

So let's start with you should be able to do what you want with your body. Take drugs, not wear a helmet or seat belt, sell it for sex, etc. But I would not automatically include abortion, as I don't consider a fetus to be 'your body.' ...

Where "animate" is concerned Robert has it right. A life, a human life, has inherent, inalienable rights and is entitled to protection even when it cannot protect itself. However, anyone capable of putting together two thoughts should be allowed to live or squander that life however they choose ... but only their own life, not the life of someone else.

Really? Is that because it's inconvenient to your argument or because you can't refute it?

Dude we should ban car bumpers if we ban drugs. Right?

I mean they should be banned, if we ban drugs.

They have so much in common, inanimate objects and substances people abuse.

[Illuminated_one]

My grievance with banning drugs is that the federal government was never given the authority to do so in the first place. If I remember right (and please correct me if I'm wrong) drugs are banned under the interstate commerce clause. Which would be the same bullshit excuse they use to ban firearms.

I can understand states outlawing intoxicating substances, but to just ignore the limits on federal government for the sake of practicality in banning them is asinine.

This was my 2 cents worth.

[silencertalk]

This is your brain on drugs:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/ ... hln?hpt=T2

[BWT]

My grievance with banning drugs is that the federal government was never given the authority to do so in the first place. If I remember right (and please correct me if I'm wrong) drugs are banned under the interstate commerce clause. Which would be the same bullshit excuse they use to ban firearms.

I can understand states outlawing intoxicating substances, but to just ignore the limits on federal government for the sake of practicality in banning them is asinine.

This was my 2 cents worth.

I kind of walk a balance of I think that it's none of the Government's business and I see nothing good coming from the recreational usage of some drugs.

I've seen enough people throw away their lives that it's hard for me to say "Sure, go ahead and do that." or "make that more accessible and unpunishable."

I wouldn't recommend doing cocaine to anyone, so it's a struggle of my political beliefs that the Government isn't in place to be a nanny state and, that dude's going to die at 30 of a massive heart failure after financial ruin because he used one of the most addictive substances on the planet.

[doubloon]

...

Really? Is that because it's inconvenient to your argument or because you can't refute it?

I can't understand the distinction you are making between an inanimate object and a drug. All I'm trying to do at this point is understand it.

What you want banned or not banned seems completely arbitrary to me. It seems like you're saying you want to ban "mind altering substances" but not "inanimate objects". So, I'm trying to understand the difference and whether or not you think "mind altering" incorporeal things should be banned as well. Is the issue whether or not something is mind altering or is the issue that it is a drug? Should we ban things like foxglove? There are plenty of naturally occurring substances that can be used as drugs.

...
Dude we should ban car bumpers if we ban drugs. Right?

I mean they should be banned, if we ban drugs.

They have so much in common, inanimate objects and substances people abuse.

I'm not in favor of banning drugs. Your statement would make more sense if you said "We don't ban car bumpers so we shouldn't ban drugs.".

You asked earlier

...Why do you guys select guns? ...

It's because the similarities between drugs and guns are dead-on. Both can be used for good or bad.

A "thing" cannot be criminal only an "action" can be criminal.

I own a gun, owning a gun should not be a crime. I choose to use that gun to hunt some dinner, the use of the gun in this context is still not a crime. Should I choose to hunt something protected or out of season then I've committed a crime but the gun has nothing to do with the crime. I choose to use that gun to kill the guy at the 7-11 because he shorted me a quarter when I bought a blueberry slurpee ... killing the guy is a crime, the gun is not a crime, someone may argue the blueberry slurpee could be a crime.

I own some morphine, owning morphine should not be a crime. I choose to use that morphine to relieve my pain, the use of the morphine in this context should not be a crime. I choose to use that morphine to stop my neighbors heart because he plays his Herb Albert CDs too loud while I'm trying to watch Mannix reruns ... killing the guy is a crime, the morphine still should not be a crime.

My argument is the substance/object itself should not illegal/banned. Whether it is a gun, a knife, a bumper or a drug it's not the object that is inherently evil it's how the object is used and just because an object has the potential to be used for evil that does not mean the object should be illegal or banned.

The AK-47 is a perfect example, this is a weapon that has been used to do quite a bit of evil in the world but that doesn't mean the weapon is evil and should be banned. Destroy all the AK-47s in the world and the will be replaced with something else the next day.

...
I kind of walk a balance of I think that it's none of the Government's business and I see nothing good coming from the recreational usage of some drugs.
...

Why only "some drugs"? How do you pick which drugs?

[Illuminated_one]

I agree with you there BWT. I have a good friend that screwed up his life and ended two others when he was driving after huffing.

I have not, and will not touch any of the illegal drugs including marijuana. I have no interest.
But I think the real issue is the federal government seizing power it was not given.
Let the states ban what they will. It is THEIR place to do so, not the federal govt.

[silencertalk]

And while the Federal Govt can legally block highway funds from states which did not adopt a 21 drinking age, this was an outrageous move and that is what elections are for - to take such people out.

[jppd47]

And while the Federal Govt can legally block highway funds from states which did not adopt a 21 drinking age, this was an outrageous move and that is what elections are for - to take such people out.

OPEN ALCOHOL CONTAINERS IN MOTOR VEHICLES
"If a state does not have a law that complies with the federal mandate, a total of 3% of a its annual apportionment of federal funds in the Interstate Maintenance (IM), National Highway System (NHS), and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding allocations must be transferred to the state’s Section 402 Highway Safety Grant Program (23 U. S. C § 154). These funds are not lost to the state. The state continues to get all of these funds, but it must spend them differently than it might have had they not been subject to the transfer."

"...14 states, including Connecticut, do not have complying laws and are subject to the transfer"

[amatac]

Didn't anyone tell you that politics and guns don't mix...wait thats alcohol and politics...or is it politics and religion? Anyway, who gives a F--k? As long as my Marine grunt brothers are not having to deal with any of this s--t in the field I don't care. That's the last thing that they need right now.