Lots of people hunger for a daddy/nanny figure.
Posted on 10/22/2009 9:55:01 AM PDT by steve-b
In an act of merciful sanity, the Obama administration has made good on its promise to stop interfering with states that allow the medical use of marijuana.
Clink-clink, hear-hear, salud, cheers, et cetera, et cetera....
It's a good move, long overdue. But is it enough? Not quite.
The debate over whether Americans ought to have the right to be stupid -- or to make other people seem more interesting -- continues apace after 40 years of the (failed) "war on drugs."
Arguments for and against decriminalization of some or all drugs are familiar by now. Distilled to the basics, the drug war has empowered criminals while criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens and wasted billions that could have been better spent on education and rehabilitation....
States' rights and conservatism are old friends -- except when they're not. While many Republicans nurse a libertarian streak, the party has been selective in its support of federalist principles. George W. Bush's administration refused to honor states authorizing medical uses of cannabis, for instance, but aimed to return abortion and marriage issues to state jurisdictions.
In a column for the Colorado Daily, Corry argued that conservative principles of smaller government directly conflict with laws that try to control what we put into our bodies. Alcohol and cigarettes -- not to mention 700-calorie cheeseburgers -- are inarguably more harmful than a little reefer, she wrote.
The decision not to raid dispensaries or punish people who benefit from marijuana use, though commendable, falls short of what's needed. At the very least, when jobs and cash are in short supply, legalizing marijuana would seem both prudent and profitable....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I know Steve-b is posting this to get a rise out of people and poke them in the eye, but on this subject I agree.
It’s time to change the drug laws. Let’s do a moratorium on pot in general. Rescind the anti-marijuana laws nationwide for the next three years. If people start acting like potheads and doing the “reefer madness” behavior then, and only then, will we discuss re-criminalizing marijuana.
I, for one, think it’s time to reexamine our anti-marijuana drug laws.
I thought it was posted to create more chances to make more doper jokes and to trash libertarians.
Maybe it was posted for all of us to say things like “wow man” and “whoa”. LOL!
You have to understand the underlying goals of the left.
Sure, this was the right, Constitutional thing to do,
but they only support it because they believe it will serve to undermine our traditional Western Culture.
If it were something like, say, local control of education, they’d oppose it, because local control on this issue would serve to bolster traditional Western Culture.
The ACLU is a great example of this observation - they defend the “free speech rights” of klansmen, etc, not because they believe in free speech for all, but because such a group is detrimental to society. On the other hand, they are completely silent on freedom of religion issues when the religion is Christianity.
I agree that American have the right to be stupid. I don't especially have a problem with people taking drugs and potentially messing themselves up. What I DO have a problem with, is the government taking a good chunk of my paycheck to fund social programs to help people who have messed up their lives.
End the Great Society.
De-fund the Nanny State.
THEN we'll talk about legalizing drugs.
If my state had a referendum on decriminalizing marijuana, I would vote against it. On the other hand, I agree with 0bama on this one and would go a step farther and say there should be NO federal drug laws of any kind.
You have to look at the underlying motivation.
Adding another substance to the arsenal that will help destroy more lives, the left and the shallow thinking libertines are all for that.
Then work to end those social programs. It's going to be close to impossible to protect everybody and try and make all the ways people can mess up their lives illegal.
You’re absolutely right about the left and the ACLU wanted to undermine western values. The left would like nothing more than the country to become a bunch of hollow-eyed potheads.
But it’s time for marijuana to RETURN to it’s LEGAL status.
As for public education, let’s get to work on dissolving the Dept of Education completely. Don’t reform it, end it.
Don’t mend it, end it. That should be our slogan for public education.
End drug laws first.
Ditto.
My emphasis is on working to end social programs, to shrink the size of the federal government, and to retain more of my own hard-earned money. Later on, I would consider legalizing drugs.
I always get the feeling that Libertarians want to legalize the drugs first, and then, secondarily (if they're not too stoned) see about that whole "shrinking the gov't" thing.
1) I don't see the two as related. On the drug issue it's simply none of the Feds damn business. On shrinking Gov, this should always be attempted. Linking the two is like holding something unrelated hostage for what legal reason?
2) I think it's far more than JUST libertarians who want an end to this non-Constitutional federal authority.
Worse than Cigarettes for Cancer "The discovery suggests that marijuana smoke may be as harmful, or perhaps even more toxic, than tobacco smoke. In fact, study researchers say that smoking three to four marijuana cigarettes a day causes as much airway damage as smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day."
Many homeless people got that way because of substance abuse. Many poor people depend on government checks because substance abuse blocked their path to a good education or good jobs. Many children grow up in broken homes because of substance abuse.
The War on Poverty was a major reason for the growth of government. Poor people need help. Poor people need my money. It takes a Village to raise a child.
Government is not big solely because the downtrodden make bad choices -- but the sorry plight of the downtrodden is used as an excuse to make government big.
Legalizing drugs will exacerbate this trend and increase the number of people who expect others to take care of them.
The order of events is important -- as Gen. Longstreet said, "We should have freed the slaves first, and THEN fired on Ft. Sumter."
I prefer to see social programs drastically cut back before I approve steps which are likely to result in a whole lot more people who think they are entitled to receive social programs.
Hmmm...2 + 2 = what? Plus, the government derives a LOT of income from the alcohol industry. Why not add to it by taxing pot?
I agree.......the penalties for simple possession of pot are far worse than the drug itself......
What you are doing is forming a circular firing squad on yourself. You claim it is the tax money going to cure addiction(which MJ doesn't really do)and MJ is NOT responsible for illnesses tied to other drugs. To top that off there is far more money(YOUR TAX MONEY)being spent on the war on drugs than has even been spent on rehap or hospital bills for druggies. Think about all the swat teams, what were they invented for? How do they fund the extravagant equipment most police forces couldn't normally fund? Through your tax dollars and stealing assets from people, many of whom were totally innocent, in order to buy armored vehicles(what police force needs an armored vehicle), full auto weapons etc.
We are spending much, much more on the war on drugs than would ever be spent after drugs were legalized.
The truth is, people who use your argument are really moralistic people who want to pick and choose the parts of the constitution to be enforced.
BTW, before you say it, I don't use drugs and never have.
And think about this. The cost of prohibition far outstripped any alcohol rehab and hospital treatments incurred before and after prohibition was lifted.
The West was won on wine, booze, weapons, drugs, bibles and money. Not a bunch of prigs sitting around looking at decorative tapestries.
I had always thought that a great little collation of gun owners, property rights, drunks( me ) and drugies could be harvested for political support. Too bad Obama is capturing the pot heads, who vote and would like to see the police state, feds, search and smash acts suppressed, and property rights supported. But try to get that reality past elite, upper income, wife swapping, boy chasing drunks in the timorous GOP/RNC.
Take true SCOTUS gun right action. Nothing from the GOP for decades and then the Libertarians do all the leg work in the courts. Which kind of proves my point about the NRA and the GOP, they never wanted to establish the 2nd Amendment because then their gravy train would come to an end. No one would need to send them any money. They'd be out jobs. So, they like any other bureaucracy didn't solve the problem they kept it going. Which is the GOP modus operandi. The GOP loves the Democrats. With out the left, who would give these party hacks the time of day? That' why the GOP is afraid of conservatives. We are the threat, not the Democrats.
Sorry, I don’t follow your logic. Either people believe the Federal Gov has a legal Nanny-state role in protecting people from themselves or they don’t.
We are at the point where I say quit working, accelerate the revolution and become part of the problem. Have the state spend more, borrow more, break the buck, run the printing presses and ruin everything. Sometimes it's easier to rip down a house, then remodel it. Governments are just forms. Who give a fig about a bunch of buildings with bad, fake Greek columns? If Washington got nuked tomorrow, the crops would grow, math would not be forgotten, and boys would chase girls. What of true importance comes out of any state capital? Nothing.
The world is littered with thousands, more, countless ruins of administrative, paper pushing, tax eating, order dictating 'capitals'. The only ones who who miss them are the servants, the slaves and those that grew fat and rich off the power of the state to steal wealth from the productive.
Lots of people hunger for a daddy/nanny figure.
You’re making the mistake of thinking drugs make the loser. That’s not how it goes. Losers are losers, some do drugs, some drink, some manage to screw up their lives without any chemical help at all.
As for all the social spending, there are many excuses the government uses but they’re just excuses. The percentage of poor people never changes, no matter how much social spending we have, no matter how many psychotropics are illegal, we still get the same section of society that’s poor.
Is that a joint in his hand or did they move on to opiated tea already? ;-)
Want to do something interesting? Look at the history of the socialism and later communism in the United States and compare when drug abuse and subsequent drug laws began to occur. There is a not so coincidental parallel I think....
Amsterdam eventually got tired of the nuisance, and the same will eventually happen here with "medical marijuana."
I think the Mao era was kind of hard on druggies.( people kept nodding off on the re-education lectures, that kind of thing )
Prohibition did not work for alcohol, it does not work for marijuana. Pot is very profitable, so much so that dealers will risk heavy jail time to sell to schoolkids. Take away the profit incentive, and crime will go way down, as it did after Prohibition was repealed.
In the 30's the U.S. was still a moral society. Good was embraced while evil was shunned. Everyone had to succeed or fail on their own merits. We did not have a nanny state. We do not live in that society anymore.
Bullcrap. While better than a sharp stick in the eye, this move is significantly flawed in a couple ways.
First, the hypocrisy of the left discovering federalism only on issues they like. I realize the right isn't squeaky clean on this either.
Second, on the specific approach taken. Saying prosecution "isn't the best use of time" without changing the law. That doesn't give the public at large reliable legal guidance because future administrations might reverse the policy, or this one might if they have a change of heart. Also, it fails to give individuals any legal haven, even in the immediate term while the policy remains in effect. "Not the best use of time" is hardly a binding legal opinion. Some US attorney might decide he was going to prosecute a particular case anyway, and what's going to be the accused's defense? "But your boss said prosecuting me was a waste of time"? Also, leaving laws on the books that aren't viewed as important engenders disrespect for law in general. If a law isn't important enough to enforce, repeal it. Lastly, we already have FAR too many laws on the books. They should be actively engaged in a search for ones that can be streamlined or repealed. Instead, even the ones they claim they don't believe in they leave on the books to rear their heads again at some unforeseeable time. repeal
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.