Rick Van Wickler, Nurse Patricia Smith, & Bob “Weeda Claus” Constantine Testify for Legalization

Despite your detraction, I'm willing to bet Ian can spell mesmerize correctly.

Public schools tyrant?

According to the Federal Government's own "highest law" it is "illegally illegal". Meaning the Feds never had the granted power to harm people for peaceful self determination. Even the Feds made a constitutional change when they temporarily outlawed alcohol. Not so with a less harmful substance, cannabis.

Articles 9 and 10 of the U.S. bill of rights are a good place to start there. In NH, articles 2, 7, 10, and 18 are worth noting.

Of course it can be argued that nobody has ANY moral authority over anyone that doesn't harm another. I tend to agree with that argument.

Trolls rule!

There is somthing SO WRONG about the idea of pot being taxed. It's like blaspheme

Yes, david, it's like blaspheme, or blasphemy as the case may be, except for the fact that it isn't like blasphemy at all. Unless you consider pot to be your god.

Well, do you, david?

At apporxiamatley 43:00 man says;

"If we put this to the people then we wouldn't be having this discussion"

Unfortunately the same can be said of abortion and gay marriage.

That pesky republic always getting in the way of anarchy!! Man!!

"At apporxiamatley 43:00 man says;

“If we put this to the people then we wouldn’t be having this discussion”

Unfortunately the same can be said of abortion and gay marriage.

That pesky republic always getting in the way of anarchy!! Man!!"

I can't believe I'm agreeing here, but I do. My fundamental disagreement with a percentage of the FSP is this, they want a form of representative government that decides things for me. I don't. I don't want anyone in control of any facet of my life but me. I don't want some person telling my girlfriend that if, say, the condom breaks and she is pregnant, that it is illegal for her to have an abortion. I won't presume to know enslave, but do you think that if we have the government like you would want it, and the people vote and decide to outlaw all abortion, do you believe that abortion will suddenly go away? The answer is no, it will move to the back-ally or what have you, it will be a dangerous practice where people are harmed in the process because they don't have ready access to all the tools you would need to abort a pregnancy.

The same could be said about drugs. The reason you see violent beheadings and cartels and gangs is due to the fact that people want drugs, violent people are willing to take the risk to make money supplying drugs, and so many horrific things are happening because of the level of risk that comes with trafficking in illegal narcotics and the people this work attracts. If the risk wasn't there, and the market could supply people with weed and what have you, reputable companies would be involved, innovation would take place, and prices would drop and the cartels would slowly die off because the market has lost the need for them, or they would legitimize and the danger would still go away.

There is nothing wrong with the message of liberty, I challenge you to debate me on any point you might have, anything, I am not a nasty person, I will never insult or demean you, I just want to help you understand any concerns you might have, I don't see you as a troll, I see you as a person who disagrees with a the concept and I'd just like to have a discussion.

Sorry, also to clarify, I know a large percentage of people participating in the FSP take the stance of no government involvement in things like drugs, abortion, marriage, etc. I am speaking more to the part of the project (minarchists) who persist in believing in this fairy-tell that if we just get a group of people elected that do want to leave people alone, we can have legal drugs, no taxes, and what-have-you. It's a myth. People attracted to power want to have some sort of a measure of control over people's lives. If I can opt out, fine, that works for me, but my understand is that that participatory democracy involves the illusion of compromise (ie, the majority of people agree that we should pay 10% of our money into X, so 10% of your earnings will now go to X). This assumes that the percentage that don't want 10% going to X will now have to give up that 10% under duress. That is wrong.

I'm willing to acknowledge that a gradual move away from government might be more fruitful, but we should still focus on helping people understand that force is not something that we can compromise on, force is always wrong.

Chase – the 'so brave' bit you continually post was mildly amusing the first 3 times you used it; however, at this point, it has sort of been overdone and is like….eh. Surely you can think of something a bit more insulting with a smidgen of chuckle in it can't you.

Don't be so davidesque.

Atta boy lil' justy. Keep swinging. You'll hit one off the tee one of these days.

youse WISH youse were "davidesque" … a holy grail to be shrived for

matt i give you a sincere compliment and you repay me with this vitriol?

A TRUE HERO!

a holy grail to be shrived for ? Does that have anything to do with what matt was talking about?