Illinois: You can't carry a firearm, but marijuana is OK

[esh21167]

Just another example of the fine politics of Illinois and Chicago.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews

[mikal90]

Its a Democrat thing. They know if the voters stay stoned it easier to get elected. Ask Pelosi.

[Steve_NEPhila]

Marijuana should have always been legal, so is the bearing of arms. What happened is that the state and the people permitted the Government to defile its founding document and deny the people their rights. (when it comes to bearing arms)

I would bet that few of you knew that 100 years ago one could walk into a drug store and buy opium, cocaine and marijuana! Is this the "progress" progressives want? Here is the schematic, take something away, make it punishable by heavy consequences, offer to let you "have" it back under heavy taxation and regulation. Wow, who is for that?

[esh21167]

Marijuana should have always been legal, so is the bearing of arms. What happened is that the state and the people permitted the Government to defile its founding document and deny the people their rights. (when it comes to bearing arms)

I would bet that few of you knew that 100 years ago one could walk into a drug store and buy opium, cocaine and marijuana! Is this the "progress" progressives want? Here is the schematic, take something away, make it punishable by heavy consequences, offer to let you "have" it back under heavy taxation and regulation. Wow, who is for that?

Point well made in principle. What part of the Constitution makes drugs illegal? But I guess that's why the slippery slope exists. Someone, somehow, (We the people through elected representatives) has to determine what is legal/illegal and that should reflect the will of the public of each state.

Some of the libertarian viewpoint would argue that heroin and hypodermics should be sold in grocery stores.

[win67]

I would bet that few of you knew that 100 years ago one could walk into a drug store and buy opium, cocaine and marijuana! Is this the "progress" progressives want? Here is the schematic, take something away, make it punishable by heavy consequences, offer to let you "have" it back under heavy taxation and regulation. Wow, who is for that?

...and it was mostly the hero of liberalism, FDR, who did that.

Yes, that's the progress they want. People of my parents' generation are always telling me how the hippies in the 60's and 70's were deeply distrustful of government, especially with the draft and all. It seems nowadays the "hippies" (if you can call them that) and liberals trust government more than anyone else:

"The government should regulate and tax everything so the capitalist pigs won't take advantage of us and the people will be forced to make choices that are better for them."

Progress towards China and the USSR, yes. But that's the magic of labels, as also seen in the Obama "Hope" campaign- what "hope" or "progress" is, is left undefined so that it can be whatever an individual voter wants it to be. Also makes it harder to argue against.

[xxthe_beastxx]

What part of the Constitution makes drugs illegal?

The US signed on to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treati...onvention.html

I am having trouble finding out if the Senate properly ratified this. If they did, the drug war is properly Constitutional.

Article II Section 2 provides for this power and Article VI says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

[mpan72]

Point well made in principle. What part of the Constitution makes drugs illegal? But I guess that's why the slippery slope exists. Someone, somehow, (We the people through elected representatives) has to determine what is legal/illegal and that should reflect the will of the public of each state.

Some of the libertarian viewpoint would argue that heroin and hypodermics should be sold in grocery stores.

I do not agree. It should not be what the majority wants. It is about individual rights. If it dosen't hurt others it should be legal.

[wanneroo]

I think the end goal within 20-30 years is totalitarian statism and a good way to get there is to have everyone stoned and out of their minds. Right now you have an intense focus on the part of government to roll back individual freedoms, especially those in the Bill of Rights and also driving up the costs of private commerce and things we need like energy and food and it's all done via regulation and taxation.

So you can't have the toilet you want, lightbulb you want, fuel nozzle that works and doesn't spill fuel everywhere, washing machine you want, soda size you want, the gun you want to protect yourself, yet be as stoned out of your mind and stumble around society all you want. Makes all the sense in the world doesn't it?

[JenniferG]

Pot is the way the government keeps you stupid and dependent upon them. Pretty effective too.

[internet troll]

I think the end goal within 20-30 years is totalitarian statism and a good way to get there is to have everyone stoned and out of their minds. Right now you have an intense focus on the part of government to roll back individual freedoms, especially those in the Bill of Rights and also driving up the costs of private commerce and things we need like energy and food and it's all done via regulation and taxation.

So you can't have the toilet you want, lightbulb you want, fuel nozzle that works and doesn't spill fuel everywhere, washing machine you want, soda size you want, the gun you want to protect yourself, yet be as stoned out of your mind and stumble around society all you want. Makes all the sense in the world doesn't it?

If you look at history, having everyone stoned is not a way to have a stable government. Look at China during the early 1800's. China had been a premiere power for thousands of years, but as its populace became addicted to opium, (regular people and officials) the country started falling apart.

Opium became such an internal problem that they had to outlawed it which led to wars, rebellions and over the next 100 years was the beginning of the end for dynastic china.

China found out the hard way that a stoned/addicted populace was not beneficial to the well being of the government. It weakened them on many fronts and put them at the mercy of other countries like England that sold the drugs. I don't think that any official with a grasp of history would think that a stoned populace is the way to create a stable government in the U.S.