Posted on 09/11/2012 12:21:05 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
This November, voters in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington will consider ballot measures to legalize and regulate marijuana, much as alcohol and tobacco are taxed and regulated. In this first in a series of "one minute debates" for election 2012, three writers give their brief take on the issue.
The 'yes' case is argued by Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The 'no' position is offered by David G. Evans, a special adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation. And a middle path is suggested by Kevin A. Sabet, who has worked on drug policy under three presidents of both parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
2. No: Legalization will increase use – and health, social, and economic costs.
3. A middle path: Find ways to access medical benefits without legalization
Pro-dope liberals waiving the white flag on the WOD to show up in 5, 4, 3...
George Schultz, Casper Weinberger and William F. Buckley all supported legalizing marijuana. Are they liberals?
If you didn't want to have a debate on the merits of drug legalization why did you post this thread?
Yes.
For a free society, we sure spend a lot of time trying to control other people’s behaviour.
“...why did you post this thread?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I like messing with the liberals here at FR.
Tell me, which section do you personally believe delegates authority to fedgov to overrule the states on medical marijuana?
“I didn’t see the Constitution mentioned in the article or in your posts.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There’s a reason for that. It’s called the 10th amendment.
LOL. I’m guess I’m guilty, if by “pro-dope liberal” you mean someone who sees no difference between pot and booze and thinks the states should each be free to legalize or ban it as they see fit.
So which section of the Constitution do you personally believe delegates authority to fedgov to overrule the states on medical marijuana?
There will never be significant taxes to collect.
Growing pot is easy, and fun, and there is no complicated processes needed to light it up and inhale for getting high.
Making a Marlboro, or a bottle of Scotch, or even a decent beer is totally different.
*fixed*
At least get the terminology right
Prohibition DID work.
The USA was a Nation of drunkards. Temperance groups were successful in turning this nation around. And after awhile Prohibition was repealed, but the drug alcohol still remains our number one social disease and is still highly restricted.
Only a fool wants to replace booze with a far greater danger to America
Actually pot and tobacco are about the same in difficulty. Anybody can grow, anybody can dry it, anybody can smoke it. BUT your quality is based on the seed stock of what you’re growing, how well you keep the bugs away, and how well you dry it (too fast and too slow both have problems). Even booze, it’s actually pretty easy if you’re will to spend the time to do it right. People tend to have other things to do with their time, which is why they buy instead of make.
Pro dope liberals vs. dopey Freeper.
WHO here is saying the Constitution “delegates authority to fedgov to overrule the states on medical marijuana?”
I’ve not said that. Why do you say that?
It only took two posts. You’re quick.
Prohibition didn’t work. It didn’t stop people from drinking, it drove out formerly legitimate businesses, and gave tons of money to organized crime. That’s not working, it made the problem worse by adding gun fights.
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.