Posted on 08/11/2016 3:07:14 PM PDT by Ken H
I think it's safe to say the majority of hedonists are Democrats. The vote was 55-45, with counties that are heavily "progressive" having more lopsided votes for legalization, suggesting it was Democrats that mostly voted yes.
These days many Republicans have abandoned their traditional moral postures and embraced nihilistic libertinism, so I'm sure there were plenty of Republicans that thought "why not?"
http://data.denverpost.com/election/results/amendment/2012/64-legalize-marijuana/
Also even if it were to be treated as tax burden (though again I would see a natural opening for church ministries) — we wouldn’t be paying for as much police and jails any more. Or lawyers, for that matter. Lawyers are another gift that keep on giving. Reasons for vast carve outs into our constitutional rights would also disappear.
Nowhere here am I saying the slightest thing in favor of getting addicted. It sucks, it is antisocial, it can lead to hell if not learned from, it is simply sad. HOWEVER, it doesn’t inherently need to spell a crime wave if dealt with as what it really is, a neon sign indicating that we have a God problem, or rather a walking out on God problem.
If you like to spend tax dollars on prosecuting and jailing potheads then by all means cut a personal check.
Some of us find it a complete waste of money and police time.
It wasn’t “nihilistic libertarianism” that was the reason for all manner of medications being available at the neighborhood drugstore for the asking, in the late 1800s.
If it is illegal, then those breaking the law should be punished . If not, why have the law in the first place?
Banning things has become more and more a “feelgood” measure in these modern times, where it is difficult even to keep abreast with what has and what yet hasn’t been banned.
And I'm just high on life!
Marijuana was never prohibited at any time in history until the Progressives Era. The claim that mj prohibition is a traditional moral posture is nonsense.
“If not, why have the law in the first place?”
There you go. I have no desire to punish people who smoke pot.
No crime has been committed.
a state issue. not a federal issue. Only a federal issue if we’re talking interstate commerce or importation.
I agree with you, but I think we are in a shrinking minority. I'm told pot is the answer to just about everything, but at my age, I think that I will stick to my coffee and telling kids to get off my lawn.
Yup, we have “bad facts” here.
Public intoxication was frowned on, sometimes severely.
One other problem here is the welfare state. If we left the care of habitual addicts and drunkards to the goodwill of churches and other charity (who could preach gospel to them), and did not try to carry them on a national dole, we would be in a better shape morally and financially. But whining liberals have rendered the idea of such an accommodation difficult.
Best way to get the libertard votes. Allow nature to be exploited.
I’d work with a pot smoker anytime before a drunkard.
Funny how snap judgments come unfastened.
There you go...throwing that L word again. Conservative are all for it...unless of course it’s something they don’t like. In that respect no different from rats...
Good. The less nanny state we have, the better!
I personally think potheads are idiots, just like smokers, alcoholics, and meth heads. They should be treated as such. Jailing them profits the prison industry, so I am for a more liberal attitude towards them. But liberalism today means not freedom, but gubmint subsidy. So, in no time, pot legalization becomes gubmint pot subsidy where taxpayers are forced to pay for the weed. Fairness and all.
Many idiots think that republicanism is synonymous with conservatism.
Yes they do.
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.