Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Original Seeds Store
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
what law is the WOD based on
    #355546 -

were in the constition does is say the goverment can enforce a way of life or protect non-violent poeple from themselves


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: hunterthompson]
    #355687 -

they're protecting society because drug addiction has external costs and drug use poses dangers.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #355983 -

i hope you dont actually believe that. the external costs you speak of would fall on the elite classes; as such, drug use interferes with polarization of wealth. and protecting economic inequality actually harms the community at large.
it can also be easily shown that the actual dollar cost of drug prohibtion far exceeds those of drug use. but the cost of prohibition falls not on elite corporations but on we the people.


The Syngenor

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: hunterthompson]
    #356069 -

For those not attuned to sarcasm, I will point out that the esteemed Doctor's question is of course is rhetorical.

The War on Drugs is clearly unconstitutional. It is not even open to debate.

Sadly, unconstitutional laws get passed all the time. Politicians don't give a rat's ass mainly because the majority of their constituents don't, either because said constituents are unaware that these laws and regulations violate the constitution, or they are aware but feel that it is okay to make an exception "just this once".

Sheep.




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Syngenor]
    #356079 -

Drug overdose deaths have costs to society.

I didn't specify the amount in dollars, but drug use does have an external cost.

> it can also be easily shown that the actual dollar cost of drug prohibtion far exceeds those of drug use.

That does not mean that drugs don't have consequences


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #356083 -

Kid writes:

"That does not mean that drugs don't have consequences"

That also does not mean that anti-drug laws aren't unconstitutional.




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Phred]
    #356170 -

> That also does not mean that anti-drug laws aren't unconstitutional.

Put it this way, I think you'll always find *something* that can make a law both constitutional and unconstitutional.

For example in Canada you have certain freedoms to the point that they can be 'reasonably demonstrated in a free and democratic society' (nevermind the "notwithstanding" clause). That gives a helluva lot of leeway as to what freedoms a person can or cannot have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the matter really only comes down to the lawyers and the judges in each case.

Anyway, I would love it if you could show me where in the constitution of the USA it says that all people have the right to intoxicate themselves.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #356209 -

Regardless of what the constitution says, then war on (some) drugs is against human rights.
How can a government possibly have the right to dictate to you what substances you can put into your body? They say it is in the name of safety and for the benefit of society, but anyone who cares to do even a small ammount of research into the war on drugs can see that it is causing more social problems and is responsible for far more deaths than the drugs themselves. There has never been a more blatant case of 'cutting off you nose to spite your face'.

Take care

Phil


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Phyl]
    #356218 -

> How can a government possibly have the right to dictate to you what substances you can put into your body?

The rationale is that if you can't control yourself and therefor make yourself a dangerous (and/or expensive) person from using drugs then you loose that freedom.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #356232 -

The rationale is that if you can't control yourself and therefor make yourself a dangerous (and/or expensive) person from using drugs then you loose that freedom.

I know the rationale, but it is totally fucked up an hypocritical. I thought part of being a person involved taking respoonsibility for your own actions. If someone acts irresponsibly, then that should be addressed regardless of whether they are on drugs. What about the people who use drugs in an informed responsible manner, or as part odf their religions? Prohibition laws ammount to nothing more than sanctioned discrimination against these people.

How does using (Illegal) drugs make you any more dangerous/expensive than someone who chooses to skateboard? Skateboarding causes far more injuries than illegal drugs. More peope die from car accidents every day than do from taking drugs in an entire year. Should these also be banned in the name of safety? or would that be taking things too far? Surley if banning cars is carzy, then banning drugs is also crazy when you compare the evidence of the dangers of both.

It is totally hypocritical that we are allowed (And somewhat encouraged) to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol, whilst other drugs are illegal. Why? Because the government makes huge ammounts of money from the tobacco and alcohol companies, that's...
Smoking tobacco is one of the most dangerous ways there is of taking a drug, and the drug it's self, nicotine, is more addictive than heroin and Crack.
In this country MANY people die every year as a result of alcohol use. Alcohol is particularly dangerous as it is one of the few drugs that is dangerous in both the short and long term. It is also addictive and causes dementia.

The huge social problems caused by drugs are a direct result of prohibition. Before prohibition there was no drugs 'Problem' to speak of. Yes, some people used drugs (Far fewer than under prohibition) but there was no problem with that.

Fortunately Europe are beginning to relise the futility of the war on drugs, and things are beginning to change. Portugal has now decriminalised all drugs, Many have decriminalised cannabis (Britain has decriminalised in part of london - Woo Hoo), and I don't think it will be long until full legalisation is considered.

Take care

Phil


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Phyl]
    #356249 -

> I know the rationale, but it is totally fucked up an hypocritical.

I agree.

I was just bringing up the point that from the gov't's view, they've justified it to themselves, so, it's kinda like, "what the fuck you gonna do?" We already know it's total BS to put people in jail for drugs. I don't know when the majority of lawmakers are going to see that and actually do something about it.

> I thought part of being a person involved taking respoonsibility for your own actions.

Drugs influence behaviour. Addictions seriously fuck up your behaviour. Psychotic episodes can cause you to kill people. How much of this behaviour is your fault? Some might say you're 100% responsible, but could you've really predicted you'd have a psychotic episode?

> If someone acts irresponsibly, then that should be addressed regardless of whether they are on drugs.

Thankfully this has changed esp. with regard to alcohol. Men used to get off rape charges b/c they were drunk (and that was a valid excuse).

> What about the people who use drugs in an informed responsible manner, or as part odf their religions?

What about the people who use drugs in an informed responsible manner? Unfortunately, it's a risk. Many responsible adults take that risk. Many have their lives fucked up because of it. It sucks.

> How does using (Illegal) drugs make you any more dangerous/expensive than someone who chooses to skateboard?

When you skateboard you are in control of you're behaviour. It's not like, say, someone getting high and driving a car, or possessing a gun in the street. It's not the same thing as an addict stealing or robbing to fuel his addiction.

> Should these also be banned in the name of safety?

The problem is that in the case of cars, cars have a function for our society. Sports are glorified. Drugs are seen as hedonistic pursuits.

> It is totally hypocritical that we are allowed (And somewhat encouraged) to smoke tobacco and drink alcohol

Yes, it's fucked up. AFAIK, it's because those are the white man's drugs.

> It is also addictive and causes dementia

Not to mention Korsakov's syndrome, which is probably one of the most frightening types of brain damage I've ever heard of. Funny how LSD and mushrooms don't cause brain damage. They might cause perceptual changes, but they're no real threat. I agree, it's stupid.

> The huge social problems caused by drugs are a direct result of prohibition.

I'll agree with some aspects of that. We wouldn't have as many rip-offs, roberies, or possibly homicides. But alcohol has a relation with crime too and it is legal. Therefor it's reasonable to believe that though legalizing drugs would reduce some social problems, it would cause a rise in other problems.

Anyway, in the end, I hope it should be obvious I was just raising the point, not supporting the WoD in any way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Phyl]
    #356260 -

Take the alcohol and tobacco thing a bit farther. What is the only threat to their cornered market? If drugs became legal there would be so many other and safer ways to get fucked up. But the tobacco and alcohol lobbies are so big. Kid I think you are alone on this topic with you opinions.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #356267 -

people don't get all routy when they are shroomin or stoned, but you sure as hell do when you are drunk. Who is not in control of themselves when they are on drugs let alone that the fact that you chose to take them shows you are in charge of yourself. Kid you sound like an ignorant bible banger. Get you facts straight and give us at least 2 reasons for prohibition. So let me get this straight a 44 year old father of 2 with no violent record and a war vet, is not responsible to decided weather or not he should eat 3 grams of something that grows from the earth.

against proibition
1. quality control
2. loosing tax money
3. robberies because of black market prices
4. no treatment because of Manditory minimums
5. caters to lower class citizens and keeps them down
6. people die in no knock raids
...........If you want more tell me.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #356328 -

I don't know when the majority of lawmakers are going to see that and actually do something about it

They have in Britain. The police force have introduced a system of warnings for cannabis posession in Brixton, which if sucesfull will be expanded to the whole country. This means you get no criminal record for posession of cannabis.
There is also one major paper which supports full legalisation of all drugs, and recently a number of high profile people have come out in support of this.

Addictions seriously fuck up your behaviour.
That's not true. Addictions under prohibition fuck up your behaviour.
The only thing about the addiction that fucks up your behaviour is the need to get your drugs, and actually being high. If drugs were legal there would be no need to steal to support your habbit, as a regulated supply will be enormously cheapr than the current illegal market. People would also be able to regulate the ammount of the drug they took, as they would know the strength of the drugs they purchased, and could avoid being high when the situation required it eg work.

Psychotic episodes can cause you to kill people
The evidence for drug induced psychotic episodes is flimsy at most. If some drugs did bring out psychotic episodes, these would have come out on their own eventually. The issue here is more about dealing with psychotic episodes rather than controling when they happen.

Some might say you're 100% responsible, but could you've really predicted you'd have a psychotic episode?
No, but could you have predicted the big pile up on the way to work as you got in your car? Could you have predicted dropping the boiling water down your chest when you filled up the kettle? To ban taking a substance because of it's dangers when our lives are filled with far more dangerous activities every day is just hypocritical.

Many have their lives fucked up because of it. It sucks.
Again this is because they are then forced into dealing with criminals, and being forced to pay extortionate sums of money for an uncontrolled, unregulated product.

When you skateboard you are in control of you're behaviour.
Yes, but if you compare the act of going skateboarding against the act of taking a drug, you'll find that there is a much greater risk involved with skateboarding.

It's not like, say, someone getting high and driving a car, or possessing a gun in the street
These things are not connected to the legality of the drugs, and should be dealt with separately.

It's not the same thing as an addict stealing or robbing to fuel his addiction.
Which again wouldn't be nescesarry if a legal supply was available.

Drugs are seen as hedonistic pursuits
No, only ILLEGAL drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are an accepted part of our society. One of the aim of legalisation is to remove the social stigma that surrounds drugs and drug users.

But alcohol has a relation with crime too and it is legal. Therefor it's reasonable to believe that though legalizing drugs would reduce some social problems, it would cause a rise in other problems.
I think overall it would reduce social problems. Alcohol is one of the few drugs that promotes violence in some people, and this is the cause of most social problems. By legalising drugs people would be able to choose which drug they used, and wouldn't be forced to use alcohol for their relaxation. This would result in far fewer alcohol users as IMHO it's not a particularly plesant drug, and therefore fewer alcohol related problems.

Take care

Phil


Edited by Phyl on 07/17/01 02:29 PM.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: hunterthompson]
    #356681 -

> people don't get all routy when they are shroomin or stoned, but you sure as hell do when you are drunk.

Not everyone gets rowdy when drunk. Actually in my experience most people don't tend to cause any disturbances when drunk. They act a little silly. Just like people who are stoned or shrooming.

> Get you facts straight and give us at least 2 reasons for prohibition.

So what facts did I get wrong? And if you actually read what I had to say I wasn't supporting the WoD. I think it's entirely unfair.

> So let me get this straight a 44 year old father of 2 with no violent record and a war vet, is not responsible to decided weather or not he should eat 3 grams of something that grows from the earth.

Irrelevant points: 44 years old (call this an adult). Father of two. War vet. 3 grams of something from the earth.

I'll remake the question: So let me get this straight an adult (with no *violent* [?] record) is not responsible enough to take drugs?

In some cases yes, in some cases no.

> 3. robberies because of black market prices

So, you can be a responsible drug user, responsible for your actions under the influence of a drug, but if you rob someone, then it's the underground economy's fault?

> 4. no treatment because of Manditory minimums

You don't have to walk in to a treatment centre in possession of drugs to be treated for a drug problem.




Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Phyl]
    #356684 -

> Addictions seriously fuck up your behaviour.
That's not true. Addictions under prohibition fuck up your behaviour.

Nononono. Being addicted to something affects your mood and the way you think. This has nothing to do with the legal status of a drug. Alcoholics behave in inappropriate manners. DXM abusers are a fucked up bunch (trust me). Prohibition adds to some of the problems of addiction, but even so, if someone's addicted to a legal drug, they still might steal to support their habit. There have been cases of alcoholics breaking into liquor stores at night just to get drunk. That has nothing to do with prohibition.

> People would also be able to regulate the ammount of the drug they took, as they would know the strength of the drugs they purchased, and could avoid being high when the situation required it eg work.

I don't think you understand the word addiction. When you're addicted you have serious problems regulating the amount of the drug you're taking and are at risk of taking it in dangerous situations (eg// driving -- in my province if you're an addict of drugs or alcohol they'll probably suspend your drivers license to hopefully keep you from driving under the influence).

> The issue here is more about dealing with psychotic episodes rather than controling when they happen.

A person cannot control him/herself while having a psychotic episode. They're unpredictable; rare; but they do happen, and when they do happen you're left with the problem of a psychotic person on the loose.

> To ban taking a substance because of it's dangers when our lives are filled with far more dangerous activities every day is just hypocritical.

People would argue that economic functionality is more important that personal freedom. I'm not saying it's right, but that's why vehicles are in existence.

> It's not the same thing as an addict stealing or robbing to fuel his addiction.
Which again wouldn't be nescesarry if a legal supply was available.

That doesn't make sense. If you're an alcoholic you still have to pay for your alcohol. What if you run out of money?

> Alcohol is one of the few drugs that promotes violence in some people, and this is the cause of most social problems.

Alcohol does not directly cause someone to become violent. It can release violence through behavioural disinhibition in people with anger issues or violent tendencies. Marijuana can do the same thing; just because you only see people getting stoned and not harming people doesn't mean it doesn't happen; just as I know that because I've never seen anyone get in a fight when drinking doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Any chemical that alters your behaviour can potentially motivate you towards violence.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Kid]
    #356695 -

Being addicted to something affects your mood and the way you think. This has nothing to do with the legal status of a drug.
Having an uncontrolled addiction can cause you to behaviour to be affected, but a controlled addiction does not. For a program of legalisation to be succesful it would also have to offer support programmes for people who may get into this situation. Prohibition makes it impossible to control your addiction.
All addictions can be managed if the person who is addicted is willing to accept help. Maintenance doses of drugs can be taken by addicts which do not have a noticable effect on the user, but hold off withdrawal symptoms. Cigarettes are a good example of this, as they supply addicts with a maintenance dose of nicotine.

There have been cases of alcoholics breaking into liquor stores at night just to get drunk. That has nothing to do with prohibition.
Yes, people with uncontrolled addictions may let the addictions run their lives, however most (Virtually all) addicts will have their addictions under control if it is within their power to do so (Again, look at smokers). If someone acts inapropriately then they should be dealt with accordingly, and their actions should be a totally separate issue to the drugs they have taken.

Trials in a clinic in Liverpool in the 1980's showed that by supplying the local population of heroin addicts with maintenance doses of heroin, crime rates in the local area fell by 15 times, not one single person on the programe died or became ill as a result of their drug use, and nobody on the program contracted HIV. The subjects of this trial were able to rebuild thier lives and become fully functioning members of society. Unfortunately once this trial started to show it's success, the government withdrew all support without any explanation.

I don't think you understand the word addiction
Being an addict myself, I think I do.

When you're addicted you have serious problems regulating the amount of the drug you're taking and are at risk of taking it in dangerous situations
No that is not true. Addiction simply means that you have a need to introduce a specific substance into your blood stream or you will experience withdrawal symptoms. There is no problem regulating the ammount of the drug that you take, so long as a regulated supply is available. If you have maintenance doses available, these have no discernable effect on your ability to perform, and thus there is not a 'dangerous situation' to take then in. Again look at nicotine addicts.

A person cannot control him/herself while having a psychotic episode. They're unpredictable; rare; but they do happen, and when they do happen you're left with the problem of a psychotic person on the loose.
Yes, but the issue isn't about drugs, it's about psychotic episodes. With or without drugs the psychotic episode is likely to happen at some point. There is a lot of contradicting evidence linking drugs to psychotic episodes, and until a link has been properly established, this is not a valid argument for prohibition.

People would argue that economic functionality is more important that personal freedom
What about the economic implication of the war on (some) drugs?
Think about the huge ammounts of money that are spent on this every year (Including the crime which is a direct result of this). Then add this to the ammount of revenue that would be gained through taxation. We are talking about billions and billions of pounds each year, which is essentially being thrown away.

That doesn't make sense. If you're an alcoholic you still have to pay for your alcohol. What if you run out of money?
Prices under legalisation would be so much lower that financing a controleld drug habbit would not be a problem with a legitimate income. A gram of pharmacutical heroin currently costs only 4 pounds from the legal suppliers. I also believe that doctors should be able to prescribe maintenance doses of drugs to people who cannot afford their addictions. This would totally eliminate the need to steal, and would encourage addicts to break their addictions if they became out of control.

Marijuana can do the same thing; just because you only see people getting stoned and not harming people doesn't mean it doesn't happen
It may happen, but not to anywhere near the same extent that it does with alcohol. A few years ago the british football team played in Holland. British football supporters have a big reputation from drinking large ammounts of alcohol and rioting. This did not happen in holland because the majority of supporters chose to smoke some weed instead of drinking alcohol.
I personally have 3 good friends who have problems controlling their anger when drunk. I know of no-one who has the same problems when stoned. I don't think I'm alone in this.

For violence to be used as an excuse for prohibition, it woul dhave to be proven that the prohibited drugs cause violence on a greater scale than alcohol, and this simply is not true.

Take care

Phil


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: Phyl]
    #356888 -

> Having an uncontrolled addiction can cause you to behaviour to be affected, but a controlled addiction does not.

A controlled addiction. That's an oxymoron.

> Maintenance doses of drugs can be taken by addicts which do not have a noticable effect on the user, but hold off withdrawal symptoms.

Heroin addicts can be given methodone. There are a lot of methodone clinics. Heroin addicts do not require "maintenance doses" of heroin.

> Yes, people with uncontrolled addictions may let the addictions run their lives, however most (Virtually all) addicts will have their addictions under control if it is within their power to do so (Again, look at smokers).

What do you mean look at smokers? Some people smoke two or three packs a day! You can't say that an addiction is controlled just because a person has not committed a crime and call it uncontrolled when they have committed a crime due to addiction. The whole paradox of addiction is "where is the locus of control"? It's arbitrary to define controlled/uncontrolled based on the legality of one's actions.

> Being an addict myself, I think I do.

I meet a lot of people who call themselves addicts and have considered myself an addict in the past too. A lot of addicts have very fuzzy and conflicting ideas about what exactly addiction does to them.

> Addiction simply means that you have a need to introduce a specific substance into your blood stream or you will experience withdrawal symptoms. There is no problem regulating the ammount of the drug that you take...

so you have to take the drug?

> If you have maintenance doses available, these have no discernable effect on your ability to perform, and thus there is not a 'dangerous situation' to take then in.

The maintenance doses get higher and higher as tolerance builds, leading to increased danger of physical (and other) side effects.

> Yes, but the issue isn't about drugs, it's about psychotic episodes. With or without drugs the psychotic episode is likely to happen at some point.

No. Depends on the drug. A completely normal person can have a psychotic episode under the influence. It's not likely to happen with alcohol or LSD (as the media's made it out to be). But drugs like PCP, or DXM (esp. at sigma doses) make psychotic episodes a real concern, no matter how healthy a person may be going into the experience.

> There is a lot of contradicting evidence linking drugs to psychotic episodes, and until a link has been properly established, this is not a valid argument for prohibition.

Actually it's very straightforward. When you're psychotic you've lost any meaningful grasp of consensus reality. Psychotic episodes probably happen pretty often, it's just that most of them don't turn out violent (and so, don't get anyone's attention).

> This would totally eliminate the need to steal, and would encourage addicts to break their addictions if they became out of control.

No it wouldn't, because most people are ashamed to admit that they're an addict and are reluctant to get help (until they're caught).

> This did not happen in holland because the majority of supporters chose to smoke some weed instead of drinking alcohol.

Proove it.

Maybe it's just part of Holland's culture not to get angry. That's simply not enough evidence to say that alcohol has any direct effect on violence and that marijuana diminishes it.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: what law is the WOD based on [Re: hunterthompson]
    #357029 -

kid spends all day polishing his imaginary nobel prizes. what a comedian.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
You misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution [Re: Kid]
    #357116 -

Kid writes:

"Anyway, I would love it if you could show me where in the constitution of the USA it says that all people have the right to intoxicate themselves".

It is clear that you misunderstand the purpose of the Constitution.

The intent of the Constitution is clear. INDIVIDUALS are allowed to act in any manner not specifically PROHIBITED by the Constitution. If we were allowed to do ONLY what is specifically mentioned, the Constitution would have been longer than a telephone book:

"You are allowed to use a telephone"
"You are allowed to dress funny"
"You are allowed to dance in a disco"
"You are allowed to mutilate yourself with piercings"
"You are allowed.... (fill in the blank)"

Conversely, the STATE is allowed to do ONLY what is specifically PERMITTED it by the Constitution.

The purpose of the Constitution was to limit the actions of GOVERNMENT, not of private citizens. The government of the United States is a constitutionally delimited republic (not a Democracy) because the founding fathers saw that the biggest threat to its citizens was government. It is abundantly clear that their intent was to restrict the government to its sole legitimate function: that of protecting its citizens.

To prohibit people from intoxicating themselves on the grounds that they MIGHT be so affected by the specific intoxicant that they may harm another individual is as specious as prohibiting people from driving a car because they MIGHT harm a pedestrian or other driver, or segregating males between the age of fourteen to forty from females because their raging hormones MIGHT cause them to rape.

Prohibiting people from intoxicating themselves on these grounds amounts to prior restraint.



Edited by pinksharkmark on 07/19/01 02:59 AM.



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Kratom Powder for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* supreme court strikes down anti-sodomy laws Anonymous 976 11 06/27/03 04:12 PM
by Anonymous
* William F. Buckley Jr. on Marijuana Prohibition Divided_Sky 461 0 08/23/04 05:29 PM
by Divided_Sky
* The Libertarian implications of traffic laws
( 1 2 all )		 Phred 1,853 32 08/22/04 02:34 PM
by Phred
* What the hell are we going to do about this prohibition???
( 1 2 all )		 DirtMcgirt 947 23 12/12/04 07:12 PM
by kadakuda
* Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 biblical law in america mabus 1,457 13 03/15/04 07:25 PM
by Phred
* The First Amendment - Void Where Prohibited by Law Evolving 3,512 17 02/10/04 01:28 PM
by silversoul7
* Possible legal challenge of psylocybe laws?
( 1 2 all )		 Randolph_Carter 2,779 31 12/05/03 03:24 PM
by Annapurna1
* Changing drug laws
( 1 2 all )		 stan 4,354 22 07/31/02 05:31 AM
by toxick

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
6,515 topic views. 2 members, 1 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 18 queries.