Fair point for debate.
However, most of the folks arguing against the Federal WOD are not argung a "pro-dope" position, no matter how many times you make the claim.
It is part of getting the Federal government out of areas not authorized by the Constitution such as healh care, education, the environment and welfare policies.
You should inform yourself of this by reading the mission statement of Free Republic.
Yes, the owner of this site agrees with my position on the WOD.
Are you going to tell him to go to Amsterdam?
Are you going to tell him to go to Amsterdam?
Can I ask you a question? Please be objective.
This is the second time that you all on the pro-drug side on this thread(EagleEye was the first I beleive around reply #86) have implied that "the owner" agrees with you.
JMO, but can't you all on the pro-drug side leave "the owner" out. You, like I, have no idea what he thinks and believes and to pull out "the owner" "crutch" that I read all too often on these types of threads shows your perpensity, IMHO, to hide, behind another person, instead of your own arguements, Ken H.
No matter how many times you deny it, if there's no WOD we're a 'pro-dope' nation. Blaming the problems of addiction on the WOD is a common straw argument on these threads. "Medical Marijuana" is another (fervently put forward- ad nauseum- by the person who started this thread). As I said, Amsterdam is the petri dish example of the way it will be if you folks get your way.
It is part of getting the Federal government out of areas not authorized by the Constitution such as healh care, education, the environment and welfare policies.
Agreed, government doesn't belong in people's lives. But protecting my rights from the certain effects of a stoned society may necessarily involve curtailing what you believe to be 'your rights'. And if you think "welfare policies" have run amok today, wait til every high school kid needs to be in detox- and YOU have to pay for it.
You should inform yourself of this by reading the mission statement of Free Republic.
Irrelevant. Last time I checked there wasn't a litmus test for discussion on this forum as long as the rules of conduct are followed. JimRob has never and I dare say WOULD never impose his opinions on me.
Yes, the owner of this site agrees with my position on the WOD.
I have no idea why you addressed this statement to me. In any case, Jim Robinson has never demanded lock-step adherence to any view, least of all his own. He runs a discussion forum. If dissent bothers you, well, play somewhere else.
Are you going to tell him to go to Amsterdam?
If he asks, I'll tell him. He hasn't asked.