Only In Indiana. . .

[Palehorse]

http://www.wthr.com/story/29285722/several-arrested-in-indianapolis-south-side-raid

http://www.wthr.com/story/29290354/first-church-of-cannabis-prepares-for-first-service


Only in Indiana, can one see simultaneous news stories that display the contradiction in this state over Mary Jane; you can smoke it in a tax exempt church but you cannot grow it?

What if the growing operation is to supply the tax exempt church?

Seriously? Get your act together Indiana! 

One example of some true failed leadership in this state. . .

[Henry Hawk]

http://www.wthr.com/story/29285722/several-arrested-in-indianapolis-south-side-raid

http://www.wthr.com/story/29290354/first-church-of-cannabis-prepares-for-first-service


Only in Indiana, can one see simultaneous news stories that display the contradiction in this state over Mary Jane; you can smoke it in a tax exempt church but you cannot grow it?

What if the growing operation is to supply the tax exempt church?

Seriously? Get your act together Indiana! 

No argument here.  It is up there with No Alcohol sales on Sundays. 

[Y]

Neither government nor society has a legitimate interest in what a person puts into his/her body.

[Y]

Anyone else catch the Indianapolis police chief, Rick Hite, equating Bill Levin with Jim Jones:

http://wishtv.com/2015/06/26/authorities-pot-users-face-arrest-at-church-of-cannabis/

"As Jim Jones once did in our state, he led a group of people to a place of no return. We don't want to happen ever again in our history. We want to send a message — this is not the way to challenge a law," Hite said.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2015/06/26/cannabis-church-leader-horrified-link-mass-murder-suicide/29355613/

"But as Jim Jones once did in our state, he led a group of people into a place of no return," Hite said. "We don't want that to happen ever again in our history. And we want to send a message: This is not the way to challenge a law. And you certainly can't expect the police to stand by and watch it happen and not do something about it."



Hite's rhetoric smacks of the 1930's reefer madness, and what's worse is that with Indy being in the throes of a tidal wave of murder and gun violence that Hite chooses to focus on this, a non-violent act, and then equate it with the actions of a religious psycho murderer.

[Bo D]

Neither government nor society has a legitimate interest in what a person puts into his/her body.

Until it infringes on the basic rights of others.

[The Troll]

Neither government nor society has a legitimate interest in what a person puts into his/her body.

  I think the government should set up clinics to give all the drugs a drug addict wants.  As long as he or she puts in in their body or nose, let them have it.      The drug problem would soon solve it's own  problems.    Let them in the front door and drag them out the back door and throw them in a slit trench or dumpster. 

[Y]

Until it infringes on the basic rights of others.

Can you give me a scenario where what one puts in his/her body can infringe on someone else's rights?   

[Bo D]

Can you give me a scenario where what one puts in his/her body can infringe on someone else's rights?   

Easy ... when someone drinks to the point where they can barely walk, then climb into a car and ... I'm sure you know where I'm going with the rest of this.

[Purplelady1040]

Easy ... when someone drinks to the point where they can barely walk, then climb into a car and ... I'm sure you know where I'm going with the rest of this.

Or being high on drugs and doing the same thing!

[The Troll]

Easy ... when someone drinks to the point where they can barely walk, then climb into a car and ... I'm sure you know where I'm going with the rest of this.

  There is one thing, you will never see someone high on pot get arrested for speeding.   

[Y]

Easy ... when someone drinks to the point where they can barely walk, then climb into a car and ... I'm sure you know where I'm going with the rest of this.

Of course, I knew exactly the line you were going to take and you're wrong - just like PL - and your incorrect line of thinking is exactly why drug laws are resistant to change and we have ridiculous laws surrounding drinking.

The the only act which should be chargeable is the one where someone's person or property is injured/damaged etc. - those are the only instances where another's rights are actually infringed.  Otherwise, neither the state nor society should have any interest.

[Bo D]

Of course, I knew exactly the line you were going to take and you're wrong - just like PL - and your incorrect line of thinking is exactly why drug laws are resistant to change and we have ridiculous laws surrounding drinking.

The the only act which should be chargeable is the one where someone's person or property is injured/damaged etc. - those are the only instances where another's rights are actually infringed.  Otherwise, neither the state nor society should have any interest.

No. I'm not wrong. And you yourself admitted it when you wrote "the only act which should be chargeable is the one where someone's person or property is injured/damaged etc."

Maybe I should have been more explicit and finished my statement - "then climb into a car and injure a person or property"

[Y]

Yep, you are wrong, and why did you think I made that point?

You included the act of drinking and then the act of getting into a car and then the act of driving, none of which infringe on anyone else's rights.   

One of the major problems with our laws is that, like you, other acts besides the only pertinent one get included which muddies up our legal system and actually infringes on our rights.

[Bo D]

Yep, you are wrong, and why did you think I made that point?

You included the act of drinking and then the act of getting into a car and then the act of driving, none of which infringe on anyone else's rights.   

One of the major problems with our laws is that, like you, other acts besides the only pertinent one get included which muddies up our legal system and actually infringes on our rights.

Are you trying to say that we have a right to drive drunk (or otherwise impaired?)

Yes, I agree that I have every right to get drunk (or high in my case  ) and I have every right to drive a car, but the combination of those two states can be deadly.

[Y]

Are you trying to say that we have a right to drive drunk (or otherwise impaired?)

I'm saying what I've said.  The state's and society's only interest are in those direct acts where, in this scenario, a person or their property is injured/damaged etc..