Posted on 02/25/2015 7:36:18 AM PST by MadIsh32
I'm not going to argue over stats.
It's true - I don't believe the marijuana industry will forcefully invade our country, kill our people and seize our land because they would like to see marijuana legal.
Marijuana is just Hitler invading the Sudetenland. If he isn't stopped there, he won't be stopped till the battle of the bulge, and he may very well even win. If you think this issue is restricted solely to weed, then you are naive.
It's like Homosexuals wanting "civil rights". A little further down the road, and they are shoving "gay wedding cake" down your throat.
And by Neptune's hairy blue balls, what difference does it make *HOW* it happened to become Legalized? That has no bearing on the CONSEQUENCES of legalized drugs. Had China voted to do the same thing voluntarily, it would have still wrecked the country.
And this discussion is about marijuana, not opium.
That you are attempting to draw a distinction between the two implies that you do not see them as equal, but isn't *YOUR* argument that people have a right to use whatever recreational drugs they so chose?
Well do they?
If I were you, I wouldn't want to either. It's hard to defend made-up ones.
Marijuana is just Hitler invading the Sudetenland. If he isn't stopped there, he won't be stopped till the battle of the bulge, and he may very well even win. If you think this issue is restricted solely to weed, then you are naive.
Marijuana was essentially decriminalized in Ohio (among other states) almost 30 years ago. Yet, your breathless predictions about the destruction of society have not come to fruition. How strange.
They're not made up, I just don't take you people seriously enough to bother looking crap up anymore. You'll simply ignore it, or reject it anyway. You aren't strong on facts because you don't care what the facts are.
Marijuana was essentially decriminalized in Ohio (among other states) almost 30 years ago. Yet, your breathless predictions about the destruction of society have not come to fruition. How strange.
What a silly little child you are to think these things happen on the schedule of one human life. It took China 70+ years to fall apart, and that was with a much stronger drug. Marijuana is just the foot in the door. We have a long way to go before the consequences start getting severe enough to be noticeable by the addlepated.
Perhaps you don't care what comes after you've gone, but I happen to believe we have an obligation to our progeny.
This nation will tolerate pot just fine. The drug war against pot is nothing but a big government welfare scheme to keep cops employed.
My bigger issue is some jackass from Utah telling my hometown how to govern itself.
lol
This really doesn’t change much at all.
If you smoke in front of the US Capitol, you might get arrested if the Capitol Hill Police aren’t being lazy.
If you smoke in your home, the police will turn a blind eye.
This codifies it. I don’t need anyone telling me what plant I can or can’t smoke. I’ll leave the nanny state for the communists
You do realize, right, that just about EVERY illegal drug has been with humanity going back (well, not 10 million years, there was no such thing as humanity 10 million years ago, but 10 thousand years or more. Why do you think drugs like heroin and cocaine are some new-fangled thing? China produced opiates back to antiquity. Cocaine has been around at least for hundreds of years.
What is relatively new is the criminalization of such drugs. That occurred for the first time in the US during the 20th century. Why did marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. get criminalized while alcohol and nicotine did not? (Of course alcohol did get criminalized, but that was repealed. How did that work out?)
It’s not about whether it’s fair or not to criminalize marijuana (or any other drug). It’s about whether or not the government has the power to do so and whether or not it’s good public policy to do so. I am quite certain that the Federal government has no Constitutional right to criminalize any drug. If I am wrong, show me the clause in the Constitution that grants that right. I would also contend that criminalizing drugs is in principle no different than things like bans on certain types of foods that are bandied about in some localities. The government is asserting the right to control what you put into your own body based solely on the fact that it is bad for you. I reject the notion that government should have such power over the citizenry.
No doubt you have black helicopters following you too.
My bigger issue is some jackass from Utah telling my hometown how to govern itself.
From all the evidence i've seen so far, you're home town could be better governed by pretty much anyone not from there.
Which will be coming along shortly.
You honestly seem to think those are new arguments and that they are persuasive. Neither is true.
Of course you have no problem with this, you are a nanny state psuedo communist. Having someone from out of town who claims to support liberty tell a town what to do is right up your alley. So is welfare for the police
It is ending not with a bang, but with a whimper.
The potheads will bring full-on socialism to this country, count on it.
Translation - you made up a stat, got called out on it & now you're trying to backpedal.
What a silly little child you are...
Your insecurities are showing again.
You take yourself far more seriously than I do.
So you disregard all stats offered in rebuttal to your position on the grounds that they're suspect because they're offered in rebuttal to your position ... and you decline to source the stats you offer in support of your position because they're challenged only by those who don't agree with your position.
I'm sure you enjoy your self-contained bubble of reality ... but why do you bother posting about it, since it can't possibly persuade anyone who isn't already bound and determined to agree with you?
It’s very presumptious of you (and our government) to think you decide how much liberty we can handle before we descend into anarchy. It’s simply not your call.
As Edmund Burke explained:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
DC Mayor: City to Legalize Pot Despite Threat From Congress
Feb 25, 2015, 4:28 PM ET
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gop-congressmen-warn-dc-mayor-legalize-marijuana-29216967
Meth is pretty bad, not to mention dangerous to produce as well. Hardly anyone actually bothers killing other people over pot, it’s a wild weed and easy to grow, or it just grows. AFAIK, the people who use meth or coke are a very different crowd from those who use pot.
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.