Tonight's City Council Meeting Could Be a Long One

Posted in
Tonight's City Council Meeting Could Be a Long One

This evening's Sheridan City Council meeting could go into the wee hours of the night, or morning for that matter, as there are a number of big issues on the agenda. Sheridan Mayor Dave Kinskey.

Kinskey says that a familiar topic will be addressed as well as some changes to the Municipal Court system.

Be sure to join us Tuesday for more detailed information from tonight's Sheridan City Council meeting. The meeting will get underway at 7 pm in Council Chambers on the 3rd floor of City Hall; it can also be heard live on AM 1410 KWYO.

view counter

here is the thing

it is fairly well known that the existence of 'Spice' is a result of marijuana being illegal.
It was created as a way to get the effects (or similar) of marijuana in a 'legal' substance.

If "Spice" is made illegal, clever people will likely work to develop a new alternative 'legal' substance (almost certainly more dangerous than the existing Spice and more dangerous than marijuana).

As history has shown, making substances illegal doesn't "stop" the use/abuse of them, it just pushes them underground and makes obtaining them more risky/dangerous. Also it increases public taxpayer costs by increasing arrests/prosecutions and increasing incarceration levels.

I'd have thought that we as a society would be able to learn from history by now...

How did I know that was

How did I know that was where you were coming from. Do you know anything about meth, heroin or cocaine and the effects they have on society?

Point Is

If a product is "currently un-regulated in Wyoming" how does the city of Sheridan suppose it has the authority to ban it? We are still in Wyoming, right?

It's a freedom issue, just like extending building codes and imposing taxes. Creeping socialism that constantly attempts to chip away at our liberties.

I've been defending liberty for decades and it was nice to see the American people stand up and yell, "Stop" on Nov, 2. (except for the local tax re-imposition, of course.)

And what happens in socialist Europe is of no relevance, here.

Give me Liberty or....

Cities can pass laws. States

Cities can pass laws. States can pass laws. The federal government can pass laws. It is really quite simple. I would think that you would be pleased that a local government is making this decision instead of the feds doing it for us.

Spice is a new and potentially dangerous drug. As this and other drugs emerge, laws are going to be passed to make them illegal.

This has nothing to do with socialism. This has to do with public safety. One of the most basic and important purposes of our government.

If there is no federal law

If there is no federal law regulating Spice, how do the states within the country have the authority to ban it?

Spice is currently unregulated at the national level, but the states have passed their own laws doing so. Likewise, even though there is no state law regulating Spice, cities within Wyoming could probably pass their own laws doing so.

However, that was not the point of my post. I was illustrating that objecting to a ban simply because the substance is currently legal is not a strong argument.

Authority?

From where does the city derive the authority to ban a legal product? Can they cite the exact paragraph in the US or Wyoming Constitution?

Is the reasoning that "spice" causes some damage? If so, then cars should be banned, since more people die of auto accidents than any other cause.

What's next Pepsi or Coke? Does the nanny-welfare, police-state ever stop growing?

Are the "do-gooders" emboldened, because they re-imposed the one percent tax back on us?

Better learn when to stop trampling our freedoms. There are unintended consequences.

Give me Liberty or....

Ever hear of the 10th Amendment

Cato you ask where in the constitution it gives the states the right to impose this ban, well its called the 10th amendment. Which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Which means the states are free to make their own laws if the constitution doesn't cover a certain issue.

Why don't you do us a favor,

Why don't you do us a favor, and go research spice. Then come back and have an intelligent conversation with the rest of us. If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't be comparing it to soda.

Pepsi?

The soda ban was an example of the "slippery slope" arguement, that warns of the dangers of imposing laws on each other, that serve only to limit personal liberty.

Please consult the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution....as a favor, to lovers of Liberty.

Give me Liberty or....

Give me Liberty or....

While I am all for

While I am all for preserving liberty - as it is one of the primary principles behind our country's existence - not every reasonable law needs to be specifically backed by the Constitution. For example, I don't believe the Constitution contains anything regarding the speed of motor vehicles in residential areas, but a law imposing restrictions on how fast a person may drive in town is probably a good thing.

Most excellent

Your post really makes alot of sense, very good rationalization. With that in mind.

If we apply and impose restrictions that are applied with the intention of doing a good thing, shouldnt we apply this concept to everything?

Who would write these good things to impose upon society? I thought all laws were reasonable, otherwise they would not exist. Right? What if my unalienable Right to Pursue Happiness interferes with someone elses right to pursue happiness? Should I not pursue and according to whose guidelines? Rationlization can be very dangerous.

Give me death or give me liberty. Which is it? One or the other, no compromise.

In general, my position is

In general, my position is that if a person is not harming anyone else by their actions, the government should stay out of it. As an example, I am in favor of drunk driving laws because a drunk driver could hurt or kill an innocent person. However, I am not in favor of seatbelt laws because if you don't buckle up you are not endangering other motorists.

Their is always someone that

Their is always someone that has to insult someone else's intelligence, When they don't agree with the others point of view. I noticed you said "US" I resent you including me in your statement! I don't agree with you and i'm sure other dont as well.

This is the second time

This is the second time someone has posted a message here complaining about the idea of banning a "legal product."

Synthetic cannabis is currently unregulated by the state of Wyoming, but it is illegal in about a dozen US states and many foreign countries including the U.K., France and Germany. I am guessing that it was legal in those areas at the time they considered passing laws to ban it.

Isn't nearly everything legal before it is banned? It seems to me that there would be little point in banning an illegal product.

Rational

Lets ban tobacco products, firearms, perscriptions drugs with negative side effects, flu shots, etc.

Everything is cause and effect. Does that mean we should ban everything that can hurt a human because the state says so or the feds say so?

Alcohol was legal, then illegal, and now legal again. What does that mean?

I dont know, maybe ban everything that causes any harm everywhere and then life would be better for all. Lets ban all people from doing things that might cause them harm. Who are these people that have become masters of morals to tell anybody right from wrong. They must be perfect to do that. Rational is not always right. Less laws more enforcement.

So now you cant buy spice in Sheridan. It does not show up on any drug tests. How are the police going to work around that? How can spice actually be tested to prove that it is spice? What if the user mixes it with another substance, such as tabacco or another spice? Legal ramifications are expensive. Who pays? We do.

"spice"

i think the issue is where does it end. someone else posted about teenager drivng into a house, let me ask you this how many people have gotten drunk and gotten in car accidents? do you think alchohol should be illegal? TV has destroyed an entire generation of kids, should TV be illegal? technology has commited genocide against the youth of the entire world by destroying brains. i'm not trying to start an arguement, but where does it end. tobacco kills, soda makes kids fat, therefore basically waiting to die of heart disease or diabetes, should McDonalds be illeagal? Cars alone kill more people everyday than just about anything, do you want the city to tell you that you now have to walk to work. where's the sense of personal responsibility, it's always someone elses fault. Anyone think to ask these kids why they're expirimenting with drugs. why don't parents wake up and give their kids a swift kick in the pant and deal with it themselves. Just food for thought.

So should we just give up

So should we just give up and legalize all drugs? Say "screw it"?

Drugs are illegal. This is just making a new version illegal? We are not talking about crushing everyone's civil liberties.

yes

yeah actually that's exactly what i think should happen. it's a pretty well known FACT (and i do mean fact) that the few countries that have legalized recreational use of drugs have seen drug use go down amongst both adults and kids because it's not "cool" to do something thats not really rebellious. i know i smoked cigarettes until i was 18 then i quit, i drank heavily until i was 21 then i quit. do you see a pattern? most kids just want to rebel against authority that's why they listen to the music they do, dress the way they do, and do drugs. Does anyone remember prohibition, making alcohol illegal did nothing except create an illegal market for it and cause crime in the U.S. to sky rocket. if you want to see crime and drug use go down take the mystery away from it, educate kids, and force parents to be parents and keep track of their kids.

Exactly Right

About 99 times out of 100, freedom is the right course to choose. Every time we allow a new law to come into being, we are limiting personal freedom a little more.

Do we have too much freedom in America, today? I think not. If you think substance X is bad for you....then YOU should choose not to injest it. But you will NOT Force your "opinion " on others.

It's called freedom of choice and personal ownership. These are core principles of Liberty. Thanks for standing up for freedom.

Give me Liberty or....

Give me Liberty or....

Cato- I think that it is

Cato- I think that it is obvious that if we dont want to injest a substance ourselves then we dont. Its the ones that choose to injest a substance and then become a danger to society. Laws are made to protect other in society because many of the people who choose not to take precautions in certain areas then become a hazard to society. Example- the car that drove into the house and the individual was huffing. You and I know that its probably not the wisest thing to huff air dusters let alone drive while doing it. But then we have those individuals who dont think of the consequences of their actions or dont care. If there is a law at least there is a consequence and possibly a deterent. I really dont care if Spice is legal or not but we do have to look at how to protect society because some people out there dont really care about how their actions affect others.

SheridanWyoming.com