🚀 go-pugleaf

dsprad@stservices.com (David B. Spradlin) Said this:

>In article <4qjd78$ftl@news2.cais.com>, packer@cais.cais.com (Charles
>Packer) wrote:


>> I don't think you really wanted to say that. I call your attention
>> to laws involving three substances: alcohol, tobacco, marijuana.
>> Are all the laws up to date with respect to society's attitudes
>> toward the substances?


>Unless I missed something, those laws were passed by people that were
>elected by the society you refer to.  Did you mean to say that you
>disagree with those laws and therefore they must be wrong?  What it dose
>mean is that the majority of the people that make up society support those
>laws, therefore they exist.  Since you were not specific, I cannot say
>which laws you are refering to that I agree or disagree with.  What I do
>know is this, whether I like a law or not, I still have to obey it.  If I
>feel strongly enough against it, I lobby to have it changed through the
>system.

Oh geez.  You really bought the whole thing, hook line and sinker.
Maybe you need to do a little investigating.  Don't assume that since
they taught you this in high school Civics class, that it is the way
of the world.  The things they taught you in high school about this
being a free country, OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people,
well, that's the IDEAL, not the REALITY.  Pay attention to your
elected officials.  They give away the reality if you watch closely.  

Explain to me how a congressman will knowingly vote for a law that is
OVERTLY flouting the constitution, assuming that the other two
branches of government can take care of it later, in hopes that it
might just slip by, thus subverting the constitution through legal
precedence somewhere down the road??

Money talks, and those who SHOUT get their way.  Explain to me why you
can have a tax added to a cellular phone in Montgomery county, when
most people did not want it.  It was enacted by the very same people
who "they voted for."  Get real.  With the numbers of people in
society now, it is impossible for equal representation.  The idea of a
democratic society falls apart when you reach certain levels of
population. It is made worse when the population is fragmented like
ours.

The government has reached a point where it maintains control, NOT
BECAUSE WE ALLOW IT, but because we allowed it in the past.  Legal
precedence, and all that crap.  There is no hope of you ever changing
a law that you disagree with.   At least not on the federal level.
Maybe you can change a meals tax, or a zoning law.  but that's about
it.  Your chances decrease as you reach the higher levels.  You get to
the state level, no chance.

Of course, I don't believe anyone should break any law, regardless of
their delusional rationalizations. (oxymoron??)  We still have to
follow the order as it is prescribed.  If not, we have an
unconstitutional government AS WELL AS anarchy.  That's a scary
prospect.