Ohio voting on Abortions and marijuana

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:So you're not ok with, say, Covid mandates but you're fine with mandates about what people do to/with their own bodies when you agree with it?

It isn't a "mandate" to make murder illegal!

How many people are "murdered" by weed?

Casey Jones wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

I don't live in a country where elections are won or lost on the topic of abortion.  Personally, I find the whole thing abhorrent.

Abortion has not been on any ballot, Federal or otherwise, until now.  This was an amendment to the State Constitution.

Roe v. Wade was just forced on the public - legislation through judicial fiat.  It was bad law, illogical and incongruous, and done TO forcibly mandate abortion throughout the US.

Abortion is a CRIMINAL matter.  Criminal law is the prerogative of the various States.  The US Constitution makes this clear.

If the State of New York wanted to make abortions free, and Utah wanted to punish it with a firing squad (it was considered homicide in Utah until Roe) then NEITHER position has anything to do with the Congress or Federal Government.

This is the way it had been all along, until the consolidation of power by the Left.  Some states allowed, say, fireworks; or open carry of sidearms; or marriage of 12-year-olds.  Or of first cousins.

Other states did not.  Each state had the prerogative to determine how they would live.

This forcible, extralegal mandate of Roe was WHY it had become a hot-button issue.  Support it, and a candidate supports an Elite Ruling Class making edicts and impositions on faraway people in states that disapprove.  Reject it and criticize it, and the candidate is advocating Federalism - what the Left would mockingly call "States' Rights."

I am not certain that these issues were decided by the voters. Just as the "voters" didn't install Joe into the WH.

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:So you're not ok with, say, Covid mandates but you're fine with mandates about what people do to/with their own bodies when you agree with it?

It isn't a "mandate" to make murder illegal!

How many people are "murdered" by weed?

One never knows because no one is talking, no one dies immediately and no accurate stats are kept on this anyway. There is TONS of literature on the harmful effects of weed but, like the WuFlu "Vaccine", whatever real data exists is dismissed immediately as "misinformation" by potheads, junkies, criminals and those who make a living off of selling/dealing/growing weed.

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:So you're not ok with, say, Covid mandates but you're fine with mandates about what people do to/with their own bodies when you agree with it?

It isn't a "mandate" to make murder illegal!

How many people are "murdered" by weed?

One never knows because no one is talking, no one dies immediately and no accurate stats are kept on this anyway.  There is TONS of literature on the harmful effects of weed but, like the WuFlu "Vaccine", whatever real data exists is dismissed immediately as "misinformation" by potheads, junkies, criminals and those who make a living off of selling/dealing/growing weed.

One never knows?  So 'potheads' are criminals and junkies too?  The vast majority of people have smoked weed over the years and I don't know any who have died from doing so.  If people choose to smoke weed I consider that their business, not yours or mine or anyone else's.

One of my friends raised her children on her own, saved bought and renovated her own house and has worked hard and paid taxes her whole life and still does.  She rolls a joint every Friday night after work and smokes it to relax.  That's her business and she should be able to do that without being labelled a criminal.

People who wish to force their views on what others do with their own bodies are no better than the Democrats. More people die from eating peanuts than smoking weed. Should we ban peanuts?

This is why there should always be a clear separation between church and state imo.

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:So you're not ok with, say, Covid mandates but you're fine with mandates about what people do to/with their own bodies when you agree with it?

It isn't a "mandate" to make murder illegal!

How many people are "murdered" by weed?

One never knows because no one is talking, no one dies immediately and no accurate stats are kept on this anyway.  There is TONS of literature on the harmful effects of weed but, like the WuFlu "Vaccine", whatever real data exists is dismissed immediately as "misinformation" by potheads, junkies, criminals and those who make a living off of selling/dealing/growing weed.

One never knows?  So 'potheads' are criminals and junkies too?  The vast majority of people have smoked weed over the years and I don't know any who have died from doing so.  If people choose to smoke weed I consider that their business, not yours or mine or anyone else's.

One of my friends raised her children on her own, saved bought and renovated her own house and has worked hard and paid taxes her whole life and still does.  She rolls a joint every Friday night after work and smokes it to relax.  That's her business and she should be able to do that without being labelled a criminal.

People who wish to force their views on what others do with their own bodies are no better than the Democrats.  More people die from eating peanuts than smoking weed.  Should we ban peanuts?

This is why there should always be a clear separation between church and state imo.

' ....... there should always be a clear separation between church and state ....... '

Yes, many problems of the world come from no separation of powers.
Presidents should not be able to give pardons. That is a judicial matter.

on a smaller matter - no one has ever died of an overdose of pot
with alcohol that happens often.

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:So you're not ok with, say, Covid mandates but you're fine with mandates about what people do to/with their own bodies when you agree with it?

It isn't a "mandate" to make murder illegal!

How many people are "murdered" by weed?

One never knows because no one is talking, no one dies immediately and no accurate stats are kept on this anyway.  There is TONS of literature on the harmful effects of weed but, like the WuFlu "Vaccine", whatever real data exists is dismissed immediately as "misinformation" by potheads, junkies, criminals and those who make a living off of selling/dealing/growing weed.

One never knows?  So 'potheads' are criminals and junkies too?  The vast majority of people have smoked weed over the years and I don't know any who have died from doing so.  If people choose to smoke weed I consider that their business, not yours or mine or anyone else's.

No, one never knows because the statistics are "accidentally" deleted, manipulated, altered, etc. And yes, I consider potheads who drive automobiles, school buses, trains, planes, etc. to be potheads, junkies and criminals. Not to mention the gateway drug effects that marijuana has on the human body. Or could it be that you don't consider them human beings? Any parent who smokes weed rather than taking care of their children is also a criminal!


One of my friends raised her children on her own, saved bought and renovated her own house and has worked hard and paid taxes her whole life and still does.  She rolls a joint every Friday night after work and smokes it to relax.  That's her business and she should be able to do that without being labelled a criminal. [/quote]

Right, nevermind her CHILDREN, HOMEWORK, SNACKS, DINNER, LAUNDRY, ETC. It's all about HER and her NEED to "relax"...

People who wish to force their views on what others do with their own bodies are no better than the Democrats.  More people die from eating peanuts than smoking weed.  Should we ban peanuts? [/quote]

Just because something is against the law does NOT mean that it is "banned". Criminals couldn't care less about the law and just do whatever they please anyway. That is why we have law enforcement, courts and LAWS! Should we "ban" peanuts? Why not, we FORCED certain folks to take an experimental "Vaccine" via injection into their body so I guess we should "mandate" and "ban" everything...

This is why there should always be a clear separation between church and state imo.[/quote]

You know I've heard libs talk about the supposed "Constitutional" separation of church and state. Interesting enough, it's NOT in the Constitution. It's NOT in the bill of rights. The right to bear arms IS in the Constitution and Democrats are doing their best to eliminate that fact. Now isn't it interesting that libs want to "ban" certain things that are Constitutional and legalize other things that ARE NOT there?

Casey Jones wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

I don't live in a country where elections are won or lost on the topic of abortion.  Personally, I find the whole thing abhorrent.

Abortion has not been on any ballot, Federal or otherwise, until now.  This was an amendment to the State Constitution.

Roe v. Wade was just forced on the public - legislation through judicial fiat.  It was bad law, illogical and incongruous, and done TO forcibly mandate abortion throughout the US.

Abortion is a CRIMINAL matter.  Criminal law is the prerogative of the various States.  The US Constitution makes this clear.

If the State of New York wanted to make abortions free, and Utah wanted to punish it with a firing squad (it was considered homicide in Utah until Roe) then NEITHER position has anything to do with the Congress or Federal Government.

This is the way it had been all along, until the consolidation of power by the Left.  Some states allowed, say, fireworks; or open carry of sidearms; or marriage of 12-year-olds.  Or of first cousins.

Other states did not.  Each state had the prerogative to determine how they would live.

This forcible, extralegal mandate of Roe was WHY it had become a hot-button issue.  Support it, and a candidate supports an Elite Ruling Class making edicts and impositions on faraway people in states that disapprove.  Reject it and criticize it, and the candidate is advocating Federalism - what the Left would mockingly call "States' Rights."

One thing that does come out in these threads regarding referendums that cover such things as abortion and pot in individual states is a clear picture of those who grasp and appreciate the meaning of individual liberty, an understanding of the U.S. Constitution, and the meaning of federalism vs. anti-federalism.  I'm not so bothered by those who live outside this country as I am am with U.S. citizens who have so little understanding of where government control is, and isn't, appropriate.  

What irritates me, is the number of people who label themselves as "Conservatives," but couldn't be further from the mark.

If we don't stand for protecting the lives of the innocent, then we're not worth the dust from which we were made.

If we deny adults the ability to make free choices of what to, and what not to, ingest, where do ALL choices end?  Fattening foods?  Legal cigarettes?  Pickles? Where to live?  Who date/marry? What?  Where? and Why?  What are the guidelines, and who should be given the authority to decide?  

Who the heck does anybody think he is to be making such decisions for me?

2cent wrote:

Casey Jones wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

I don't live in a country where elections are won or lost on the topic of abortion.  Personally, I find the whole thing abhorrent.

Abortion has not been on any ballot, Federal or otherwise, until now.  This was an amendment to the State Constitution.

Roe v. Wade was just forced on the public - legislation through judicial fiat.  It was bad law, illogical and incongruous, and done TO forcibly mandate abortion throughout the US.

Abortion is a CRIMINAL matter.  Criminal law is the prerogative of the various States.  The US Constitution makes this clear.

If the State of New York wanted to make abortions free, and Utah wanted to punish it with a firing squad (it was considered homicide in Utah until Roe) then NEITHER position has anything to do with the Congress or Federal Government.

This is the way it had been all along, until the consolidation of power by the Left.  Some states allowed, say, fireworks; or open carry of sidearms; or marriage of 12-year-olds.  Or of first cousins.

Other states did not.  Each state had the prerogative to determine how they would live.

This forcible, extralegal mandate of Roe was WHY it had become a hot-button issue.  Support it, and a candidate supports an Elite Ruling Class making edicts and impositions on faraway people in states that disapprove.  Reject it and criticize it, and the candidate is advocating Federalism - what the Left would mockingly call "States' Rights."

One thing that does come out in these threads regarding referendums that cover such things as abortion and pot in individual states is a clear picture of those who grasp and appreciate the meaning of individual liberty, an understanding of the U.S. Constitution, and the meaning of federalism vs. anti-federalism.  I'm not so bothered by those who live outside this country as I am am with those who have so little understanding of where government control is, and isn't, appropriate.  

What irritates me, is the number of people who label themselves as "Conservatives," but couldn't be further from the truth.

If we don't stand for protecting the lives of the innocent, then we're not worth the dust from which we were made.

If we deny adults the ability to make free choices of what to, and what not to, ingest, where do ALL choices end?  Fattening foods?  Legal cigarettes?  Pickles? Where to live?  Who date/marry? What?  Where? and Why?  What are the guidelines, and who should be given the authority to decide?  

Who the heck does anybody think he is to be making such decisions for me?

NY City once had a " Republican" mayor that spent 4 of his last years in office trying to ban sodas that were more than 16oz . Bloomberg thought all should be like him but in the way he thought and if you weren't than he'd make a law that forced you to . Its didn't work out for Bloomberg

Daily Bread wrote:

2cent wrote:

Casey Jones wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

I don't live in a country where elections are won or lost on the topic of abortion.  Personally, I find the whole thing abhorrent.

Abortion has not been on any ballot, Federal or otherwise, until now.  This was an amendment to the State Constitution.

Roe v. Wade was just forced on the public - legislation through judicial fiat.  It was bad law, illogical and incongruous, and done TO forcibly mandate abortion throughout the US.

Abortion is a CRIMINAL matter.  Criminal law is the prerogative of the various States.  The US Constitution makes this clear.

If the State of New York wanted to make abortions free, and Utah wanted to punish it with a firing squad (it was considered homicide in Utah until Roe) then NEITHER position has anything to do with the Congress or Federal Government.

This is the way it had been all along, until the consolidation of power by the Left.  Some states allowed, say, fireworks; or open carry of sidearms; or marriage of 12-year-olds.  Or of first cousins.

Other states did not.  Each state had the prerogative to determine how they would live.

This forcible, extralegal mandate of Roe was WHY it had become a hot-button issue.  Support it, and a candidate supports an Elite Ruling Class making edicts and impositions on faraway people in states that disapprove.  Reject it and criticize it, and the candidate is advocating Federalism - what the Left would mockingly call "States' Rights."

One thing that does come out in these threads regarding referendums that cover such things as abortion and pot in individual states is a clear picture of those who grasp and appreciate the meaning of individual liberty, an understanding of the U.S. Constitution, and the meaning of federalism vs. anti-federalism.  I'm not so bothered by those who live outside this country as I am am with those who have so little understanding of where government control is, and isn't, appropriate.  

What irritates me, is the number of people who label themselves as "Conservatives," but couldn't be further from the truth.

If we don't stand for protecting the lives of the innocent, then we're not worth the dust from which we were made.

If we deny adults the ability to make free choices of what to, and what not to, ingest, where do ALL choices end?  Fattening foods?  Legal cigarettes?  Pickles? Where to live?  Who date/marry? What?  Where? and Why?  What are the guidelines, and who should be given the authority to decide?  

Who the heck does anybody think he is to be making such decisions for me?

NY City once had a " Republican" mayor that spent 4 of his last years in office trying to ban sodas that were more than 16oz . Bloomberg thought all should be like him but in the way he thought and if you weren't than he'd make a law that forced you to . Its didn't work out for Bloomberg

Yeah, that God Complex thing doesn't seem to go over too well with many.

[quote="RV"]

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:

RV wrote:

Red Lily wrote:So you're not ok with, say, Covid mandates but you're fine with mandates about what people do to/with their own bodies when you agree with it?

It isn't a "mandate" to make murder illegal!

How many people are "murdered" by weed?

One never knows because no one is talking, no one dies immediately and no accurate stats are kept on this anyway.  There is TONS of literature on the harmful effects of weed but, like the WuFlu "Vaccine", whatever real data exists is dismissed immediately as "misinformation" by potheads, junkies, criminals and those who make a living off of selling/dealing/growing weed.

One never knows?  So 'potheads' are criminals and junkies too?  The vast majority of people have smoked weed over the years and I don't know any who have died from doing so.  If people choose to smoke weed I consider that their business, not yours or mine or anyone else's.

No, one never knows because the statistics are "accidentally" deleted, manipulated, altered, etc. And yes, I consider potheads who drive automobiles, school buses, trains, planes, etc. to be potheads, junkies and criminals. Not to mention the gateway drug effects that marijuana has on the human body. Or could it be that you don't consider them human beings? Any parent who smokes weed rather than taking care of their children is also a criminal!

One of my friends raised her children on her own, saved bought and renovated her own house and has worked hard and paid taxes her whole life and still does.  She rolls a joint every Friday night after work and smokes it to relax.  That's her business and she should be able to do that without being labelled a criminal.

Right, nevermind her CHILDREN, HOMEWORK, SNACKS, DINNER, LAUNDRY, ETC. It's all about HER and her NEED to "relax"...

People who wish to force their views on what others do with their own bodies are no better than the Democrats.  More people die from eating peanuts than smoking weed.  Should we ban peanuts?

Just because something is against the law does NOT mean that it is "banned". Criminals couldn't care less about the law and just do whatever they please anyway. That is why we have law enforcement, courts and LAWS! Should we "ban" peanuts? Why not, we FORCED certain folks to take an experimental "Vaccine" via injection into their body so I guess we should "mandate" and "ban" everything...

This is why there should always be a clear separation between church and state imo.

You know I've heard libs talk about the supposed "Constitutional" separation of church and state. Interesting enough, it's NOT in the Constitution. It's NOT in the bill of rights. The right to bear arms IS in the Constitution and Democrats are doing their best to eliminate that fact. Now isn't it interesting that libs want to "ban" certain things that are Constitutional and legalize other things that ARE NOT there?

What you've done is to create strawmen to argue with yourself and that's a very disingenuous ploy. No statistics have been "accidentally deleted, manipulated or altered" and there is no evidence that pot is a gateway drug. It's been around since the year dot. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the Covid debacle nor does it have any relevance to the vax whatsoever.

Right, nevermind her CHILDREN, HOMEWORK, SNACKS, DINNER, LAUNDRY, ETC. It's all about HER and her NEED to "relax"...

^^^ this is particularly offensive, judgmental and just plain WRONG! I'll leave it at that because I'm quite angry that you have made up LIES to sit in pious judgment of someone you know NOTHING about.