I'm surprised he didn't say "a harmless flower, given to us by God, which grows naturally in the wild and has been used for centuries."
Of course that also describes poppies -- but what the heck, he's on a roll.
"Poppies will make them sleep."
Posted on 03/17/2006 2:13:06 AM PST by freepatriot32
Neither freepatriot32 nor winston2 are 12 years old. They were the folks being referred to by me.
Where on earth do you come up with your rebuttals? You must pull them straight out of your ass.
Are you paranoid? I asked you what a niave drug warrior was. You respond by telling me you don't want to dance.I have no idea what your rambling statement means. Apparently you analyzed my thoughts without knowing anything about me or my views on the subject.
What does Dimetap have to do with weed?
Just trying to learn here.
I'm surprised there are any drug legalization advocates on a conservative forum such as FR.
Now, I can understand a conservative who challenges the commerce clause constitutionality of the federal drug law. Or a conservative who advocates that the drug decision be made at the state level. Or a conservative who argues that certain aspects of the drug war (asset forfeiture, no-knocks, possession penalties) need to be revised.
Some of these I actually agree with.
But a conservative who argues for recreational drug legalization, especially those who call for the legalization of all drugs? No, I don't understand those "conservatives" at all. Because they're not -- they are the liberals and the libertarians and the anarchists, and their views are not the views of conservatives.
"The second kind of drug legalization advocate is the honest American who has been duped by the left."
Exactly right, and duping the honest American is what these advocates do best. They do it with their medical marijuana claims -- but the latest and best example of this was the City of Denver marijuana legalization initiative, I-100.
One billboard depicted a battered woman and a man standing behind her, presumably her abuser, with the message, "Reduce family and community violence in Denver. Vote Yes on I-100."
This leads the voter into thinking that I-100 actually had something to do with reducing family and community violence. The actual logic behind the ad was that smoking marijuana would reduce the consumption of alcohol which would reduce domestic abuse.
But rather than make that (questionable) claim directly, they choose instead to mislead. Look, if what you're doing is right and good, there's no need to obfuscate.
Here is a quote that you may recognize. See how it fits with this.
People have been asking repeatedly for you drug "warriors" to furnish evidence that marijuana is dangerous or bad. You have been utterly unable to do so.
When our government banned marijuana, they came up with the lies that marijuana was dangerous and bad. It was and is propaganda that is simple for even the stupidest to understand and has been repeated over and over until the lie has become the truth.
The following quote says it all.
"All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
I'm surprised he didn't say "a harmless flower, given to us by God, which grows naturally in the wild and has been used for centuries."
Of course that also describes poppies -- but what the heck, he's on a roll.
"Poppies will make them sleep."
Making it legal for 12-year-olds to smoke this "harmless flower". You favor that?
You can still buy it, you crybaby.
Then prohibition is discussed...and the crime that resulted from the dealing of alcohol...
Then someone always has to talk about people driving while being and high despite no one ever condoning such a thing.
And every pithy debate must include the usual stoned out airhead pot smoking jokes. I like good drunk jokes too.
Then we hear about the unsubstantiated megapower of weed these days compared to weed those days. Just to frighten viagra popping baby boomer parents who used to smoke.
Then someone says that Congress enacted it so it's legal. and the classic States Rights arguments go on for a while... until the slavery trump card is played as it always is....
So I say again, those are some of the same arguments you'll hear on these threads. And strangely enough they always start with someone who at first acts like they "want to understand"... and then YOU ARE ADDICTED to pointless chattering chat. The first postings free. :-)
So what? You were referring to a "harmless flower". I am asking you if this harmless flower may be smoked by 12-year-olds?
If not, them maybe it's not so harmless, huh?
Hey there. Yeah I meant the stuff in Sudafed anyway. My mistake. Actually I do get by pretty good with the Walmart brand of Afrin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paulsen:
I'm surprised there are any drug legalization advocates on a conservative forum such as FR.
Now, I can understand a conservative who challenges the commerce clause constitutionality of the federal drug law. Or a conservative who advocates that the drug decision be made at the state level. Or a conservative who argues that certain aspects of the drug war (asset forfeiture, no-knocks, possession penalties) need to be revised.
Some of these I actually agree with.
Yet you two totally ignore FR's third type, those of us who are Constitutionalists..
Most of us agree with JR's take on the issue; - he said:
"-- I don't honestly know whether I could live with legalized drugs or not. All I'm trying to do is get a real debate started. I know that the current drug war is a colossal failure, and I know that it is destroying our Constitution.
I want my rights back.
All of them. Don't you? You asked a while ago, why I allow the people who are for legalized drugs to post. Well, many of them are not as nutty as you might believe. They take a purely Constitutional stand and from that viewpoint I have to agree. --"
From: Jim Robinson 43 05/25/1999 00:26:04 PDT
I already did that. But your response, if you recall, was that marijuana doesn't kill you so therefore it's not dangerous. Remember?
Now, how does one argue a point with a person who is that ignorant?
Same thing. Dimetapp and Sudafed both contain pseudoephedrine. They are both still available without a prescription, but they're now behind the counter and available on a limited basis.
The pseudoephedrine contained in these products and others were being used illegally to manufacture methamphetamine. Rather than banning these products or making them available by prescription only, Congress chose instead to merely limit the sale.
As a result, meth production has dropped significantly. This means fewer labs blowing up, fewer children poisoned by the process, and fewer expensive environmental cleanups.
"Actually I do get by pretty good with the Walmart brand of Afrin."
You're lucky. They only thing that worked for me was Tavist-D, and the FDA pulled it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how you made the leap from images of cannabis leaves painted on some adult's house to "12 year-old" but - back to the cannabis leaves on the adult citizens house. I think has the right to decorate his home in the way he chooses.
Your debate seems to compare the evils of alcohol to the evils of weed. Does anybody ever suggest going without any mind altering substances as a better option? Or, is the debate usually centered around which drug, alcohol or weed, is better and less dangerous? I really haven't followed the subject much here because it's a debate that is unwinnable.
But, does anybody stick up for a straight way of life?
The straight way of life is fine. It is all about freedom and you are most certainly free to make that choice.
I was more interested in how the debates shape up. I have tried to keep my views out of it and was more interested in hearing other points of view. This is one of those battles that are interesting to watch from the sidelines. So, does the battle always center around weed versus booze or are other ways of life discussed?
One side tries mainly to keep it centered around the fact that marijuana was illegally banned and that it is harmless with absolutely no documented deaths ever having been attributed to marijuana use. It is absolutely non-toxic.
The other side pulls in the "ALL drugs are dangerous and should be banned and what if 12 year old kids get their hands on the stuff" and all the hysterics possible.
Neither side makes the least bit of headway with the other side.
Pretty much any municipality will have laws against "disturbing the peace". If his actions are indeed "breaching the peace" then he could be charged under those ordinances. He's not. Go figure.
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.