Bongwater19

http://www.marijuana.com/article.php...mode=thread&am p;order=0

I AM FVCKING OFFENDED BY THIS ARTICLE AND THIS MAN. John Walters says that drug addicts should have their voting rights and certain civil liberties forsaken. JOHN WALTERS IS A BAD MAN. drug addicts have rights. the constitution is a blanket spread over us all. when you start cutting holes in it where will you stop? this cannot be allowed, cannot be considered!! i love the constitution, and i hate john walters. his incredible lust for power and ignorant hatred of drugs through the drug war have overshadowed the constitution and our basic rights. he must be stopped.

get this man out of office.

__________________
remember team, surrender the mead for the weed!

vaya

Yup I got the email.

But you gotta love that Bush Administration(if anything, for its comedic value).

__________________
I Wish For Peace Between The Races Someday We Shall All Be One
Coming To The Surface There's Fire All Around But This Is An Illusion

Fly_to_the_moon

what the hell? i just turn 18, and now they say i shouldint vote cause i smoke a lil bit of MJ?

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would think about THIS?????

Shroud

Niteshift

I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH WALTERS

I hope that is clear enough to prevent any misunderstanding.

I just wanted to point out that off the top of my head, I can think of one civil right that is already removed from those who are adjudicated as substance abusers (drugs or alcohol): Firearm ownership.

I'd also mention that simply because he made some statements, I'd hardly go so far as to say the DEA wants to limit voting rights. He hasn't declared it an agency policy or anything like that......he's simply stating his opinions.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Bongwater19

if his opinion were made law it would be unconstitutional to the highest degree. i am also not a fan of rescinding the second ammendment for nonviolent drug offenders.

Niteshift

"i am also not a fan of rescinding the second ammendment for nonviolent drug offenders."

Ok, let's talk about that for a second. How about non-violent felons in general?

AnarchistBarbie

I admit, I'm not in favor of violent criminals [or violent people who have not yet become criminals] having firearms... but I'm reluctant to weigh in against a group of people as diverse as 'non-violent felons' ... doesn't that cover a LOT of ground? Why would I mind if someone who wrote a bad check [say a really big one, and just once] owned a firearm? Check kiting [over 500$ I think] is a felony in CA. Suppose someone wrote a bad check for 1000$ to pay for medical treatment for a child? Should they not be allowed home protection after that?

I don't know that prohibiting convicted felons from having firearms does much to limit violent crime... seems like plenty of violent people have firearms. [Although it seems likely that it would reduce the risk of innocent people being hurt over and over by the same convicted violent felons who aren't in prison]

__________________
Life has no dress code.

Herb Ninja

IMO, Theres a big difference between robbery without violence and smoking weed in private. There is even a big difference between rapist's and robbers even though they sometimes serve the same prison sentence. I think these laws are inconsistent in giving a sentence to fit the crime. Enough about what I think, the question was for bongwater. Peace-

__________________
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies." -Ron Paul

Niteshift

I don't think you can have a truly "non-violent" robbery. Robbery is taking something by force or threat of force, so there is at least the threat of violence present. If it's not there, then it's not robbery, it's theft.

And in most places, smoking mj in private isn't a felony........it is in some, but not the majority. So we're really not talking about them either.

Yes, there are some truly non-violent felonies..........tax evasion, embezzlement, even car theft is non-violent. So is straight burglary..........but now we're starting to get into whether or not it's "victimless".

Felons have been prohibited from owning firearms for years. I don't see that changing anytime in the near future, especially since they've been able to blatantly violate the Constitution and pass an ex post facto law prohibiting firearm ownership by people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.