Posted on 12/02/2018 11:29:00 AM PST by Simon Green
...And as I tucked into my first vegan mockburger on the plane home – nicely pink inside, my tastebuds honestly couldn’t distinguish it from the real thing – it left me thinking, why are we so willing to wield the nanny state when it comes to cannabis but not something like meat, which does real social harm?
.....
Take a step back and it seems bonkers that our political leaders hold firm on outlawing weed but seem loth to invoke the nanny state where it’s most needed: in avoiding catastrophic climate change. We won’t succeed in this unless we persuade people to fly less and eat less meat and dairy.
......
That’s a gargantuan task, made harder by the demotivating knowledge that your own efforts are only likely to matter if others match them. Yet the most politicians do is half-heartedly conjure up a few green taxes in the hope they’ll nudge people in the sort of right direction. But they’re not effective enough, and also hit the poorest most.
Time for the nanny state to get more radical. We should start by banning altogether things that have literally no function, such as bottled water in a country where it’s actually safer to drink tap water. And take a leaf out of wartime Britain – climate change is no less existential a threat – and ration activities such as flying and eating meat.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
A government that can control what you eat can control who you have sex with.
So, let’s eat our meat baked in a pot pie!
Methinks the author’s thought process is clouded by cannabis
Well it’s the Guardian so consider.
Say, here’s a thought:
Why not just leave people free to make their own decisions
without the nanny state running their lives?
Mega Dittos!
Cannabis is damaging in that people whose brains are damaged to the point where they are incapable of caring for themselves become a burden on society. On the other hand, what in the world is the "social harm" of eating the way we evolved to eat? Can the author of this piece even explain that without falling back on vague claims of "climate change"?
Before anyone answers "the Commerce clause" (which is technically the mechanism through which most federal drug regulation springs...more on that later), keep in mind our predecessors had to pass the 18th Amendment to prohibit the manufacture, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages nationally...AND THEN pass the 23rd Amendment to repeal Prohibition.
The Commerce Clause is undoubtedly one of the, if not THE, most abused and twisted legal vehicle when it comes to federal overreach. People who correctly cherish the Rule of Law rightly rail against such abuse, while statists and Dems/libs LOVE it.
Furthermore, if someone's WANTED to regulate what you eat via federal legislation (again..a power not found in the Constitution) I can promise you, it's be through the CC.
Therefore, if anyone supports federal regulation of cannibus without a Constitutional Amendment vis-à-vis the Commerce Clause, the rightful response is "Et tu, Brute?" Congratulations...you are a philosophical cousin of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, the New Deal, the left wing of SCOTUS, Obamacare-lovers, and pretty much every two-bit left wing/Dem since the 1930s who tried to regulate away the right to keep and bear arms.
...and I hope you LOVE tofu.
These are the kind of people who want to ban Happy Meals from McDonald’s. Either because they are parents and too weak to say ‘No’ to their children, or because they are too fat and on a diet.
‘Climate Change’: The lie that never ends. The similarities between this and ‘Witchcraft’ are numerous. Cons never give
up the con.
I hear the Chocolate ration is being raised to 20 grams!
Warming up the ‘stakes’ as we speak. You know, for burning climate accepter heretics.
Then again, you can have your weed and eat beef here in NV, uh, Calvada, now. For now on the beef anyway.
It goes well with Victory Gin.
Listen, Sherlock, if your aim is having people eat less, legalizing weed is the exact opposite way to get there.
‘Therefore, if anyone supports federal regulation of cannibus without a Constitutional Amendment vis-à-vis the Commerce Clause, the rightful response is “Et tu, Brute?”’
By that train of thought there should be vending machine on every street corner selling not only pot but Heroin, Opium, Fentanyl and whatever else you want to push. The government’s no.1 job is to protect the general population. That the are not really doing a good job of that remains to be seen. Trying to make sure we don’t become a nation of deadheads is part of that job.
Not to worry, there is plenty of soilent green.
Yes, it does.
Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves. I can't let this argument go uncontested.
This line of thinking is VERY harmful. What you are suggesting is that it is right and proper for tax payers and people who make good decisions to be forced to mitigate harm of the people who make bad choices. THIS IS THE PROBLEM....not Cannabis.
Someone smoking their brain into mush has ZERO impact on you. Someone forcing you to pay for someone who has smoked their brain into mush DOES have impact on you.
Your quarrel is NOT with Cannabis. It is with socialism. Making the type of argument that you are making is only normalizing the idea that it is right for society to take responsibility for the bad choices of it's citizens and that by extension, it is proper for society to then attempt to dissuade individuals from making bad decision.
Because european law starts from a different foundation than ours. They were a natural for it because kings just morphed into socialist bureaucrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.