Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legalize cannabis? Not so fast, say medics
Bermuda Sun ^ | June 22, 2011 | Raymond Hainey

Posted on 06/22/2011 11:34:42 PM PDT by AustralianConservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-326 last
To: AustralianConservative

Neah. It would be LSD “Donald Duck” stamps. At least that is what is was when I was trooper in Germany in the 11 ACR. Its kind funny watching a Cav troop trying do PT “under the influence.” Dolts.

But I’m not really sure what difference is between a pothead and a drinker.


301 posted on 06/23/2011 5:40:54 PM PDT by Little Ray (Best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

“I am stating a fact that they raised honest, responsible, self-sufficient adults. “

I’ll bet they raised drug abusers. But maybe the kids learned something from their parents’ dissipation and avoided it in disgust. I hope so.


302 posted on 06/23/2011 6:10:34 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

You lose the bet. The oldest doesn’t smoke pot or tobacco and doesn’t drink alcohol. He has worked full time since he was 15 (his choice and he finished high school) and got a degree in graphic arts, put his wife through the CO School of Mines and now is an instructor and the director of a music school. The next boy became the most sought after stone mason in the county by the time he was 25 and was married and owned his own home at the same time. And a boat. And a big diesel truck and two ‘68 Camaros. Their daughter is 21 and has worked since she was 18. None of them abuse drugs.


303 posted on 06/23/2011 6:20:55 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
But maybe the kids learned something from their parents’ dissipation and avoided it in disgust. I hope so.

That is in no way true. There is no "dissipation" (whatever that means) in them and their kids love them like no parent-child relationship I've ever seen. Both boys were men in the best sense of the word (honest, trustworthy, responsible and working) by the time they were 16 years old. He raised them the way any Marine would.

304 posted on 06/23/2011 6:24:00 PM PDT by TigersEye (Who crashed the markets on 9/15/08 and why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

“You left out the creepy part of being a drugs pusher on your fellow countrymen children.

Shame on you.”

Yeah...go ahead and just make stuff up...

Strawman parade.


305 posted on 06/23/2011 6:35:20 PM PDT by Crim (Palin / West '12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
So...maybe you should post the rest of the story. BTW, this is from your link to Merck.

I did not post selectively from the link, as you imply. I posted the first paragraph, which summed up the conclusions. It is considered poor etiquette to post multiple page references. I included the link so others could read the exculpatory evidence they seem to want to think does not exist. I hope you read the entire link and were open to the objective information.

It’s not harmless.

Heh, who said it was?

I can’t help but believe that smoking pot isn’t akin to smoking cigarettes, but with a much better mellow.

If the conclusions in the Merck manual are correct, then it is not akin to smoking cigarettes. To wit:

(Merck) There is no evidence of increased risk of head and neck or airway cancers, as there is with tobacco.

My final point is that if you think your state should outlaw it, fine. If you think that the federal government has the power, under the constitution, to outlaw personal intrastate use of marijuana, well that's too bad.
306 posted on 06/23/2011 7:02:23 PM PDT by andyk (Interstate <> Intrastate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: KDD

Then in red:

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Your ignorance can ruin your soul.

Study to show theyself approved.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:


307 posted on 06/23/2011 8:53:35 PM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

One difference between a pothead and drinker is life expectancy. But in any case, I never did buy the pretend two wrongs make a right argument. Beer is bad – so I’ll legalize LSD & pot? Not buying it.


308 posted on 06/23/2011 9:41:26 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Puckster
I guess you and I interpret those verses differently.

My conception of God may well be different then yours.

Therefore I will oppose your attempt to declare your religion “superior” to mine and will fight against any encroachment of any religious group that wishes to gain the civil power of law enforcement...thereby instituting a theoracy in government. Dominism is heresy

309 posted on 06/23/2011 9:44:02 PM PDT by KDD (When the government boot is on your neck, it matters not whether it is the right boot or the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: KDD
I've never mentioned anything of the sort.

Instead of fearing God you fear everything else.

“I guess you and I interpret those verses differently.
My conception of God may well be different then yours.”

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Christ is the author, the Word of God, through him there is no interpretation.

Without him.....only interpretation.

God is not a concept, he is life, and that more abundantly.

310 posted on 06/23/2011 10:23:32 PM PDT by Puckster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

No...you have good genes. ;o)


311 posted on 06/24/2011 12:07:13 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Age, skill, wisdom, and a little treachery will always overcome youth and arrogance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000
I do. ;-)

Thanks for letting me disagree with you. :-)

312 posted on 06/24/2011 12:10:41 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I have good genes, too.

You’re a good FRiend. You can disagree with me all that you want. ;o)


313 posted on 06/24/2011 12:15:05 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Age, skill, wisdom, and a little treachery will always overcome youth and arrogance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: andyk

To your final, and most important point, this is a debate each of the states should have, and not the feds.

My state has medical marijuana laws, and they are abused.

Despite your references to Merck, my daughter is a PharmD who works with the public and not in a pharmacy. Based on her experiences, she disagrees with you.

So, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.


314 posted on 06/24/2011 12:24:25 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Age, skill, wisdom, and a little treachery will always overcome youth and arrogance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000

May that be rare and mild and soon forgotten. :-)


315 posted on 06/24/2011 12:31:29 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Never!

Or, at least never until tomorrow. ;o)


316 posted on 06/24/2011 12:35:13 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Age, skill, wisdom, and a little treachery will always overcome youth and arrogance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000

Umm, not the friendship, the disagreements. (did I take that right?)


317 posted on 06/24/2011 12:42:16 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000

Oops! No, I didn’t take that right. You meant ‘friendship.’ Doh! lol


318 posted on 06/24/2011 12:43:43 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

This. ;o)


319 posted on 06/24/2011 12:47:28 AM PDT by dixiechick2000 (Age, skill, wisdom, and a little treachery will always overcome youth and arrogance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: dixiechick2000

LOL It must be time to put my typers to bed.


320 posted on 06/24/2011 1:09:27 AM PDT by TigersEye (Wranglers not Levis. Levi Strauss is anti-2nd Amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Your going to have a bunch of stoned drivers looking for an open 7-11 to cure their munchies...I wonder what the different reflex time is between being stoned and being not stoned when driving...Don’t think we need to add people stoned on pot to our problem with drinking and driving..jmho


321 posted on 06/24/2011 1:13:08 AM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

Actually, my argument is the converse: Beer (and wine and whiskey and rum and...) isn’t bad, so why is pot?

Also, we allow lots of things that significantly reduce life expectancies, from cigarettes to gay sex to motorcycles. I just don’t see that as an anti-pot argument.

The way I see it, Law Enforcement, in its war against (some) drugs is more of a threat to life, liberty, and property than potheads and legalized pot. It is not that I’m crazy about legalizing pot, but that I’ve had it “up to here” with cops kicking down doors and coming in with weapons ready over pot.


322 posted on 06/24/2011 4:51:58 AM PDT by Little Ray (Best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

So you’re sick of cops kicking down doors? So let’s have no laws, according to your logic.

No one is forcing potheads to break the law. They are responsible for THEIR actions.

In any case, many of these allegedly bad policemen find that these potheads are not just smoking pot.

“LSD lollipops for kids, anyone? Oh: And don’t break down my door.” I wish more backsides were whipped.


323 posted on 06/24/2011 3:36:54 PM PDT by AustralianConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: AustralianConservative

Not going to buy the “if there is some restraint on law enforcement then we might as well have no law enforcement” meme you seem to be pushing. The only reason to “kick down the door” is if whatever you suspect is on the other side is worthing killing or dying for. Otherwise, you should accost the suspect away from the area, and/or serve the warrant while he’s not home. Politely. And don’t shoot the dog unless it actually bites (and i capable of actually doing damage to an armored cop).

Pot was not always against the law. The laws against were put place largely thanks to a racially charged crusade against pot by the rather corrupt Randolf Hearst in his newspapers (”Reefer Madness” ring any bells with you?). Didn’t seem to be much of a problem back them. As far as I can tell, making pot illegal was mostly part of a works project for cops put out work by the end of Prohibition. It doesn’t serve the public good and it remains works project for cops and prisons today.

Doesn’t matter if they find the alleged pot smoker was doing something else. The cops can feel free to get a warrant for whatever that something else is.


324 posted on 06/25/2011 6:28:51 AM PDT by Little Ray (Best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: goat granny
.Don’t think we need to add people stoned on pot to our problem with drinking and driving..jmho

I understand your concern, and there are lots of ways to respond to that - the most relevant probably that there are already laws in place in most locales that prohibit impaired driving.

However, my bigger point is to say that I have no problem with states handling this as they please. The federal government does not have the power to prohibit the individual intrastate use of a product or substance. They can no more constitutionally prevent you from using marijuana than they can prevent you from using a lightbulb manufactured within your own state. However, that's exactly what they're doing.
325 posted on 06/25/2011 12:50:51 PM PDT by andyk (Interstate <> Intrastate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: andyk
I agree with you 100 percent, its not the feds business but the states. Only problem is drivers cross state lines. If one state allows, there is no way to contain it to only that state.. The commerce clause has been beaten to death by the feds. But the state can handle such problems much better than Washington...

I am tired of light bulbs, toilets, showers, tree removal, designated wet lands, EPA, BATF, Dept. of Education etc, etc, etc, being dictated to the states and its citizens.. The federal government could be cut in half by eliminating all the alphabet soup departments. Only need the Dept of Defense, the rest are just make do jobs and ways for the citizen to be hamstrung..

When I had the farm, there was 2 acres with nursery tree's. Next door and behind my property was a corn field. For some reason I went to the township office to get a plat of my land....where the nursery trees were was actually designated WET LANDS. Had a time getting that fixed. I was in the middle of farm land. God must love idiots he found so many jobs for them with the government..

(Sorry God, didn't mean to slur you) :O)

326 posted on 06/25/2011 1:27:21 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-326 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson