Yes. Get em' off the streets and off the voter rolls. Many of these types commit other crimes related to using their illegal drug. They can seek treatment in jail if they wish. In my state, nobody will stop them from cleaning up if they want to.

At no point is this "economic" terrorism. Your throwing out a term to make your arguement sound better - when its not accurate.

The only way this would be terrorism is if a business had an obligation to hire more workers and refused. No small business has any such obligation (unless they have previously agreed to do so for incentives, etc.). No private business has any responsibility to the general public regarding its own growth of employee numbers.

This is where the left leaning side goes so wrong in its call for "free enterprise" - its not FREE if its weighted down with the expectations and demands upon society to somehow cure the social ill of unemployment - even at the cost of the business itself. Business has one obligation - to make a profit. That is anathema to the folks like OWS - and why any refusal to "hire more people" when its "possible" to do so is somehow "economic terrorism".

If a company makes a profit through illegal or unethical means - I have no problem holding them accountable. But to claim that their refusal to hire more people is somehow "terrorism" is inaccurate, inflamitory and intentionally misleading.

So you favor taking the Constitutional right to vote away from anyone who uses illegal drugs?

I favor upholding the law - in which anyone convicted of a felony (including felony drug charges) loses their right to vote. So - if your using illegal (hard) drugs - then that would mean you would be committing a felony. So yes... In those cases I support it.

Not only is it in keeping with the law - it also makes good sense. One defense against governmental tyranny is an educated electorate. A drugged electorate does not provide the same defense.

Show me in the US Constitution where it says that.

That's only "the law" in Kentucky and Virginia.

Taking the right to vote from drug users means you're also taking the right to vote from people you're voting for :O:

No, it is only the law that you can lose your right to vote for LIFE in 2 states. Other states allow for a restoration of rights after certain criteria have been met.

Amendment 14;2

The only other voting rights were the removal of barriers for age, race, sex and previous servitude.

Would that fall under the 5th Amendment?

"No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Would the right to vote fall under Liberty?

:hmmm:

TLAM - Amendment 14;2 makes it clear that a man (at the time of the amendment, only men could vote) could lose his right to vote via "treason, or other crime". It is not specified what other crime is. Due to the fact that it is not specified, it (as with so much else), falls to each soveriegn State to determine.

I say decriminalize drugs. The "War on Drugs" is allowing the cartels to make more money, and it's an infringement on personal liberty and it's costing billions of dollars in a stupid fight against human nature.

Ron Paul has it right:

Leave it up to the states to decide.

I personally think drug users should be hung on piano wire at halftime during Monday Night Football.

Before the game we can honor Goldman Sachs, WaMu, Bank of America, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac for their contributions to todays society.

Wouldn't this affect about 80% of the football fans - those who watch the game with a can of beer in their hand? :03:

I always say alcohol has killed more people than pot...

But it sure does feed the Prison complex..Alot of private run county jails and prisons taking state money for each inmate they incarcerate.

Lock up more, need more prisons, need more cops, need more laws...

We give harsher sentences for weed posession, than if you burglarize someones house. Simply because there are more pot smokers than house burglars.. Law of large numbers..etc





(Not a pot smoker, I get tested for my job :03:, so calling a dirty drug user who should be thrown in a gulag is out)

The problem with the war on drugs is that it - like so many other "conflicts" we have fought in the last 50 years - is that it was never fought like a true war.

If we truly wanted to stop the influx of hard drugs into this country - we could. You won't eradicate it entirely, but if you restrict the supply enough - there won't be enough to go around. Not every hillbilly in the backwoods can manufacture cocaine. Sure, you will still have some domestic production - mainly meth - but you could take a HUGE bit out of the real drug problem.

Pot.... do we really need to spend time on that subject when there are a lot more deadly substances out there? I won't say legalize it right now - but stop the outside sources and move on. Tackle the biggest problems first.

As for the issue of how we treat "soft" drug offenders vs violent criminals or thieves - there is a disparity that should be rectified.

EDIT - still don't have a problem with taking the right to vote away from a drug user though - including a pot smoker. Stoned and w/ munchies does not a wise voter make.