ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Sorry I'm not your type I'm older than 13
Legal to grow and possess illegal to sell
- Thread starter ChesusRice
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Wow...good one. You really zinged me, Prohibitionist. Pfft.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Rob. Why don't you start your own thread were people can discuss your philosophie?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Why did you derail your own thread with false allegations of pedoism, then carry it on for a long time ?
You also failed to defend your assertion that your law proposal didn't have elements of prohibition within it. It clearly does, since you would make it illegal to sell. Ahem THAT'S a prohibition.
I can leave "your" thread, maybe... Funny how you claim on one hand the thread is "yours", then before the figurative ink is dry on your comment responding to my fucking with you on your avatar "theft" you claimed ownership means something else. I'm not surprised.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Not false. You say a 13 year old can consent to sex with an adult.
Now let's get back to why you don't want to start a thread about your philosophies
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
I'll try again but only use what I've posted previously.
My answer was basically, the child can't consent and the adult must leave that child alone. No "shoulds" or "I believes" here. There is no situation where sexual relations between a child and an adult is acceptable. Under the legal system of the US, children cannot legally consent to have sex with an adult. This includes teenagers when they are legally under the protective custody of their guardians. This system is put in place to protect the child and its enforcement is guided by the wishes of the child's parents.
Statutory rape law applies when one of the partners is much older than a teenage partner and that person does not restrain their self from sexual relations. The law puts the responsibility for making the decision on the adult that wants to roll in the hay with the youngster and gives the parent a way to threaten that adult in case they make a bad choice. It also gives parents recourse in case their child is harmed by an adult through a sexual act.
So, what you have said is nonsense. The hypothetical 17 year old is under no legal obligation whatsoever and their eagerness to consent is meaningless. The 21 year old woman, however is under a legal obligation to disappoint young Romeo. When she doesn't then she runs the risk of legal hassles from Romeo Sr and his wife.
Regarding that other nonsense about coercion and philosophy stuff. Well, keep up the fight. But I'm not interested in master debating with you. If you want to pick another specific topic to discuss I'll be glad to talk about it.
How about this one. DuPont has been embroiled in lawsuits where claimants found wells and surface water polluted by hazardous chemicals leaching from the company's waste dumps. Whole communities have been poisoned by their waste. What if your neighbor was DuPont and even though they promised not to, DuPont poisoned your air, ground water and well water. As in the other cases, you are no longer able to use your land or even live on it. Also, you and your family have come up with health problems associated with this toxic waste including birth defects that require life long health care costs for one of your children. DuPont denies they have done anything wrong. What non coercive measures would you take to make yourself whole?
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
A legal obligation ? That's funny. People have no obligation to obey anything simply because its legal but also violates that persons freedom of choice to control their own body. Got news for you, you have a (chuckle) legal obligation not to use cannabis. Are you going to run and ask nanny if it's okay? Tell on your neighbor like a good nazi about jews hiding in an attic? That was a legal obligation wasn't it?
People had legal obligations to return runaway slaves to their masters too, didn't they? While I'm helping them escape will you be "telling on me" due to your legal obligation?
I know you aren't interested in topics which readily expose your contradictory actions, you've proven that by your diversions and inability to refute what I've said, instead you quote some legal horse shit like a prohibitionist as if owning / controlling other people that CAN consent is something that is a good thing. It isn't.
If a person cannot or hasn't consented, meaning they do not possess the wherewithal to consent, then they should be left alone. We apparently agree on that idea, well I do, all the time, you do SOME of the time. You make an exception for government to not have to follow that idea.
If a person can consent to a relationship, denying them that freedom of choice doesn't protect anybody, it simply imposes on their freedom. I'm not cool with imposing on the freedom of people that are capable of running their own lives, you seem to be.
Here, since I'm better at answering questions than you, (you suck at it) ...the answer to your Monsanto question and to clarify your improper context of the use of the word coercion is...
If my neighbor, whether Monsanto or not has caused a harm to me or my property, defensive actions are an allowable option. Any person harmed should be restituted if they can prove the harm right?
That doesn't mean it (defensive force) must be employed as a first option though, or it needs to involve violence, there is always the possibility of finding another just solution. In a free market, those solutions wouldn't be limited to using the same monopolistic entity that has already granted the corporation / protected status to Monsanto though. Your nanny state granting a corporation immunity in order to protect guilty people is part of the problem.
When I say I oppose coercion, I mean that I oppose the use of offensive force which initiates aggression. In contrast to that, defensive force to repel initiated aggression is every persons right. I think you've failed to differentiate between the two kinds of force and that may be a source of your confusion.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I already said I was afraid of talking over your head. When you come crashing in on the thread riding one of your three girly harleys spouting prohibitionist rhetoric and I easily verbally bitch slap you back to Doltville I would feel bad, well, a little bit...maybe.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Leave it to you to compare schools with molestation.
You cannot provide restitution to a victim of molestation or pedophilia. You can only punish the creep and make efforts to prevent he /she will not have the opportunity to do it again...hence why they are not allowed to live next to schools
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
It would be hard to provide a quid pro quid kind of restitution, but that doesn't mean the victim wouldn't agree to some other kind.
I didn't compare schools to molestation, I compared that in both instances force is used or threatened to ensure an unwilling or non consenting person comply. You don't ever address your advocating force some of the time and then disavowing it others. You are living a contradiction.
Punishing a person does nothing to enable the victim to be compensated does it? Also when you incarcerate a person and do not have them restitute their victim, you "punish" the people that must pay to maintain the incarcerated person.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
ummm you are the one saying restitution . I say it can't be done to victims of certain crimes.
You never answered why you disagree with pedophiles not being able to live next to schools
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Unless the pedophile is a quadraplegic that has no means of transportation the restriction of living near schools is an arbitrary feel good measure rather than something that does any good.
You are big on those though so I understand.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If I stole your secret collection of pilfered ladies underwear and burned it, I couldn't restitute you by returning your treasures to you, but you could agree to another form of restitution or a monetary sum couldn't you?
I oppose pedophiles and I oppose schools or anybody else controlling property or people that they have no right to control.
The solution might be the pedo agrees as part of his restitution to steal you some more underwear for your collection...everybody wins!! (sorry, long day, but I probably owed you one)
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
A person over 21 is legally obliged to decline sex offered by a person under a legal age, which varies by state. Let's just say the state has a misdemeanor charge if the age of the minor is 17. It doesn't matter what the child says. Prostitution or whatever. The adult is responsible for what happens. What confuses you (apparently) is that people sometimes make choices that are in conflict with the law. Go ahead and spout your philosophy or whatever you like, the law says the adult is responsible for the choice to have sex with a minor.
Your analogy regarding MJ is reasonable in the case of a 17 year old that seduces a 21 year old. In the case of an adult having consensual sex with a 17 year old, its reasonable to question whether or not anybody is harmed. In the case of MJ use, nobody is harmed so I don't know why its on the books but it is and I chose to ignore it but participated in rolling the law back so that I'm no longer breaking the state law, the federal law, well, that's going to take longer to eliminate. The law regarding sex with a 17 year old is really about giving parents leverage to keep the offender away from their kid. If parents think this is a harmful relationship, don't you think they should be able to do something about it? Please describe what you mean regarding defensive force if this is the option you would suggest.
Please note that I'm agreeing that a child may agree to having sex with an adult at practically any age. However, the child's or minor's negotiated consent is irrelevant. A child or minor can not legally consent to sex.
Your analogy regarding hiding a runaway slave in the 1850's is a bit of a stretch but again, the law was clear. Don't get caught and nobody gets cited. The morality of hiding a runaway slave is different from the morality of an adult having sex with a minor. Just saying...people make choices some good, some bad but we all make choices. We might choose to break the law as a form of protest but that's different from your hocus pocus imagining the law will go away on its own because coercion and stuff.
As with slavery in the south and MJ in Oregon, if you don't like the law, get it changed. You spout philosophy but its meaningless without some sort of action to change the order of things. Go ahead and stand on your soapbox but you look a bit ridiculous.
I'm not sure what you mean regarding defensive force. Please recall that the scenario I posed was regarding DuPont and that there was already substantial harm. Your property is unusable, wells are polluted, surface water is polluted, the air is polluted, you and your family are sick from the toxic waste and DuPont is claiming they didn't cause the problem. DuPont covered up what they were doing and your family didn't know what hit them until it was too late. This is based upon a real life issue. I can provide you a link to an article if you like. Please describe what you mean by defensive force in this case.
I find this to be an interesting statment from you: "Any person harmed should be restituted if they can prove the harm right?" I agree completely. DuPont will oppose any restitution and deny any proof you may have whether or not their denial is baseless. Would you use the courts to force them to repay you? Of course, this would be coercion. Is there any non coercive means to employ to make yourself whole?
Last edited:
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Back on
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Why not follow the Spanish system?
Wanna grow?
Grow.
But keep it all on your private property.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
One possible way of resolving disputes is listed below, as far as the rest of your post, I'm not sure where to begin, it's sort of ripe with opportunity to be refuted. I'll consider doing that in another post later...maybe today, but I have lots of work to do today. Enjoy your day..
You should note when arbitration via the free market really begins to catch on, the anachronistic government courts will be further exposed as biased and incompetent. (like most people don't already know that)
Excerpted from an article in Reason Magazine -
My TV show on "market magic" this week looks at other things markets do that we're always told only government can do—like run courts.
People frustrated by legal bureaucracy and tired of waiting endlessly for government courts to make decisions now have alternatives. They can go to private arbitration companies and have their day in court without ever entering a government courtroom. An ABA survey of lawyers found 78 percent said arbitration was more efficient than government.
"But maybe the for-profit arbitrator is not fair or your opponent bribes the judge!" say market skeptics. That can happen. But if an arbitration firm gets a reputation for making flaky decisions or taking bribes, customers just don't use it. It goes out of business. That's how the free market works.
By contrast, badly run government courts, like other government agencies, never go away. When they fail, they just claim to be "underfunded" and demand more money. Congress usually gives it to them.
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
But why should Nutrient Companies be the only benefactor in this new found revenue stream??
Don't we need to protect China's Shipping lanes for the benefit of Exxon and Apple?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
What do you propose ?
Are you in favor of an interventionist government deciding who can grow, how much they can grow and whether or not individual people can sell, buy or trade cannabis without a third party dictating the terms?
Grandpapy
Well-Known Member
Good question. It really depends on your goal. If you want to tax it because it will increase law enforcement cost, damage to the environment, then the same should be done with our Oil coming out of the ground.
Likewise The US should be giving me money to find new strains, modes of transfer of depositing THC in the body, smokeless environments, Bong/Pipe design, and give me incentive and awards for breaking my old grow records.
You know, like the Oil Industry. Why should they care if you are driving on shitty roads, it increases oil consumption.....
Or is it too expensive to be fair?
Of corse not.
Likewise The US should be giving me money to find new strains, modes of transfer of depositing THC in the body, smokeless environments, Bong/Pipe design, and give me incentive and awards for breaking my old grow records.
You know, like the Oil Industry. Why should they care if you are driving on shitty roads, it increases oil consumption.....
Or is it too expensive to be fair?
Of corse not.
Last edited: