Yes, it makes sense. Since it would likely result in MORE freedom
and LESS aggression. Even though the goal is not ideal, the
direction is correct. Any "regulation" is less regulatory than
outright prohibition. Although you are correct in that
"prescription-drug-like-regulation" would likely be "not much
less".
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
-----------
I have personnally argued for the legalization of marijuana under
the
pretext that it be regulated. Somehow though, I believe
that "regulation" would result in government "regulation",
something
like alchohol or tobbacco products to ensure safety. Therefore,
I
feel a bit hypocritical in arguing for the right to choose to
smoke
marajuana as a personnal freedom, but under the direction of Big
Brother. DOes this contradiction make sense? I believe it is
partly
libertarian and partly anti-libertarian I suppose.
Thanks for the reply.
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
