Recommended.
I actually knew a guy that believed the prohibition of alcohol should be tried again. I said, “Dave, it was a failure the first time”. He said the Government just “didn’t do it right”.
I changed the subject.
20 years ago the big popular drug was opiods.
We see how that worked out.
I see THC in a similar place 20 years down the road.
“Prohibitionists have always been Progressive do-gooders, well intended.”
They are not well intended.
Not in the least.
L
I am against legalizing marijuana, and I believe states can and should prohibit it.
But.
If Congress knew in 1917 that the Constitution would have to be amended to grant them authority to pass Federal legislation to regulate or ban alcohol - what changed between 1917 and 1970 to give Congress the authority to regulate or ban marijuana?
I contend that Congress has no such authority.
Pot and alcohol are different. I am an octogenarian and have been around a few years. I have seen bright students become dull and failures after going on pot. I have seen some of them graduate from pot to harder stuff and become tragic sta tistics. It is NOT a victimless drug. The user is the victim. Some of those who I describe were friends or acquaintances.
Do like the left, get their way and then forever after proclaim that “history has spoken” and “the issue is settled” (I have no dog in this hunt, it’s just what the left does).
One, two drinks do not put you into a state of euphoria like marijuana.
Keep it illegal but reduce the penalties.
There are major health issues with marijuana that simply do not apply to alcohol. It does not take heavy use to cause brain damage.
In a way, the drug of choice is irrelevant. The problems of brain damage, loss of ability to be productive, criminal behavior, etc., are symptoms of addiction that are common to all schedule I drugs. And with the current push to legalize schedule I drugs, along with millions of illegal invaders not just invading, but getting welfare, I think that we are about to see the success of the Cloward Piven strategy. Our society can only absorb a limited number of takers before it collapses.
I really wish that drug addicts would not be given any financial support.
I don’t care if it’s legal or not. Legal or illegal, there are problems with either. Which way is best? Ya got me. When in doubt I tend to side with freedom. But I just don’t have a side that moves me on this one.
Many anti-pot people don’t care that much about whether it’s legal. It just makes them feel superior to curse the pro-pot people, just as that worked for the original Prohibitionists.
Do we have a Mothers Against Potheads Driving yet?
It reflects a trend towards the identification of sin with substances or objects rather than with acts and choices of souls.
The article makes a good point about pot prohibition going local. Even here in the SF Bay Area, which is about as pro-pot as you can get, there are recreational shops in the big cities but not in any of the suburbs. I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Concede defeat and move on.
It’s hard to argue that the repeal of Prohibition didn’t seariously harm the country.
I don’t know...ask Dave
The marijuana plant was originally banned due to lobbying efforts by the cotton barons. Hemp (from the marijuana plant) is far more versatile than cotton. Marijuana can be grown with very low levels of THC rendering it useless to smokers, but can be a valuable source of rope and clothing material.
>>Sheppard, a proponent of bank reform and an advocate of women’s suffrage, may have been the country’s most sincere Prohibitionist, but he ended up on the losing side of history.
Except that states and nations are pushing the BAC standard down to Sweden’s of 0.01 (CDC wants to go there incrementally first by dropping to 0.05 and then 0.03). A low BAC that results in misdemeanor in the US will still ban you from Canada as a “felon”.
And cigarettes? Banned by employers even in off hours, penalized by insurers and employers, prohibited in parks, cars with children, and in homes (look at California). And “tax the hell out of it”.
But pot smokers believe that they can toke behind the wheel and smoke in public because they are different after 50 years of demonizing tobacco and beer as “impure poisons” while promoting pot as “all natural” and saying it “cures cancer”.
There is neo-prohibition in this world of demon rum (restricted hours of purchase in all but 3 cities) but we aren’t supposed to notice.
The woman who founded MADD left that organization decades ago because even then it became apparent that the goal was neo-prohibition, she was never against its use even publicly. She didn’t like serious repeat offenders getting ignored or a slap on the wrist.
Recommended.
marker
You say that like it’s a bad thing. Accordingly marijuana proponents are not progressive but regressive. Are not do gooders but do badders. They’re not well intended but they are bad intended.
Marijuana should not be legally available to anyone under 65.