Our Justice Department, marijuana, illegal entrants and adhering to our Constitution


And yet again, here, I’ve been on topic; pointing out that enforcement of marijuana laws is pointless, because technology makes it futile.

So you’ve agreed to stop, right?


Your opinion of what is “pointless” is irrelevant to the topic which deals with what is and what is not within the limits of our Constitution.



No, you are wrong John.

The Constitution does not offer any power for enforcing such laws, because it recognizes that to do so is destructive and pointless.

It upholds the divinity of the individual; to interfere with this, to police people for what harm they may do to themselves, is only an act that invites further societal disaster.

This is because the Constitution is humble; seeking to constrain power in recognition of the limits the human condition places upon us, while the meddling impulses embodied by prohibition laws are not. Those laws are motivated by the mistaken impression that our world is somehow perfectible, and that the human condition can in someway be cured.

Anyone well read on Thomas Hobbes, or simply some of the more brutal stories from the Old Testament, or has spent any amount of time in a decaying urban environment, would know just how mistaken this latter impression is.




Thanks for agreeing with me. :blush:

When you look up again, I’ll just take that as your apology. B)




You mean sovereignty, right?


To tell the truth, I hear Jordan Peterson use them interchangeably, so I’m not sure if one is more right than the other.


Interesting (didn’t watch the videos – don’t have time atm). Means two different things to me. Divinity literally suggests something is divine, god-like. I expect a humanist philosophy might refer to humans this way. Sovereignty is more about authority.

I took your meaning. Thought it might have been a typo type thing. Was curious if it wasn’t. I’ll prolly come back and try to catch the video when I have a few minutes.