Posted on 02/10/2016 5:29:44 PM PST by JediJones
Hydrocodone and insulin cure no diseases - are they not medicine?
“If you want to argue that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco and should be legal, go ahead (although I’d argue to the contrary)”
“What are your arguments to the contrary?”
Even minor use of marijuana makes people more likely to yield to temptations and cravings instead of following the Ten Commandments; it takes a heck of a lot of alcohol to get a person to such state (and people can smoke as much tobacco as they please and it won’t affect their minds). Marijuana is a mind-altering drug, and we as a society have an interest in people having inhibitions and proper respect for morality. You may disagree with my values judgment, and you have every right to do so, but I still have a right to differentiate between a marijuana joint and a mug of beer. And if you notice that my argument could be extended to stand for the proposition that drinking alcohol until inebriation is as worthy of proscription as smoking a joint, then you’d be correct.
“I suspect you’re right that a marijuana dependency is less intense than for other drugs and thus less likely to lead to user crime. But the incentives and resources for dealers to commit crimes are exactly the same.”
One would think that the drug-legalization crowd would have matured enough that their arguments today weren’t the same as in the liner notes to a Cypress Hill album from 30 years ago. (I take that back, the argument has improved somewhat; legalization proponents no longer talk quite so much about how hemp is a really strong fabric that may be used for clothing and stuff ... so of course it should be good for smoking.)
“Hydrocodone and insulin cure no diseases - are they not medicine?”
At best, marijuana is like a “natural” aspirin (like ginger pills or something). And there must be many other chemicals and/or plants that persons could imbibe for pain relief while suffering from nausea, although none of them has a few million recreational users lobbying for their legalization.
The hypocrisy of certain Republicans, who claim to be Conservative, strict constructionists, but would seek to over-turn local laws on local subjects, is one of the things which seriously undermines our ability to appeal to youthful idealists. "Hypocrisy" is the first line of attack by Leftist Professors on College campuses, who systematically strive to undermine the Conservative principles of students who come from traditionally minded families.
It just might!
I loathe articles that start with a few sentences then have a big BUT....
This one does. And something from 1990. 26 years ago Trump said blah blah blah. Whatever.
Marijuana keeps people from dying from AIDS wasting.
there must be many other chemicals and/or plants that persons could imbibe for pain relief while suffering from nausea
Probably - so what? Should there be an upper limit to the number of medications available for a given condition?
Evidence? My personal (past) experience with both substances is that for each one, low degree of intoxication meant low likelihood of yielding to temptations and cravings.
What is illogical is to argue that (i) marijuana is a "harmless" drug that makes people loose and relaxed and no threat to anyone but simultaneously (ii) drug addicts are dangerous people forced to kill to afford illegal drugs.
No contradiction - (i) relates to effects intrinsic to the drug, whereas (ii) relates to an incentive structure that is heavily affected by factors such as legal status that are not intrinsic to the drug.
(I note in passing that I have never claimed that marijuana - or alcohol, or a bacon double cheeseburger - is "harmless" and very rarely have I seen anyone else claim it; and that I've never claimed nor seen anyone ever claim that drug addicts are "forced" to commit crimes. Watch those straw men.)
Completed it.
We have enough problems with drugs coming over the Mexican border. You think that when a state allows their production that they won’t make it over the border into other states?
If that doesn’t happen even one time, then it would be a state issue and states’ rights would apply. But once one drug makes it over the border, it becomes an issue for the federal government.
Bwahahahahahahahahaah!
I take that back, the argument has improved somewhat; legalization proponents no longer talk quite so much about how hemp is a really strong fabric that may be used for clothing and stuff
Yeah, they seem to have outgrown that argument, which was always just a pretense, as is it's "medicinal value", which is the new pretense. I'd prefer an honest "we just want to high out of our minds".
So you support the New Deal Commerce Clause. Right?
Once one drug makes it over the border, the specific items that have crossed a state border become an issue for the federal government. Similar items that have remained within a single state's borders remain none of the feds' business.
No pretense - the National Academy of Sciennces' Institute of Medicine reports: "there are patients with debilitating symptoms for whom smoked marijuana might provide relief. [...] Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." - Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base (1999)
I'd prefer an honest "we just want to high out of our minds".
Legally competent adults who want to get a little or a lot drunk or high must in a free society enjoy the liberty to do so.
Your delineation of possible problems does not extend the functional role of the Federal Agency. It is the difference between a functional role and outright usurpation.
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.