Posted on 08/18/2014 6:28:55 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
Oh, so philosophical consistency is NOT important?
That doesn't follow from what I said. Logic continues to escape you.
Or “I want my New Deal Commerce Clause because weed!”
It's also something nobody on this thread is doing - that's just DL's straw man.
Let us place the threshold at "requiring public assistance." It is my personal opinion that any father who is allowing someone else to pay for his kids should not be enjoying himself, whether it be from drugs or any other cause.
Want to toke or play video games all day? Pay for your kids!
If some private business man makes a good salary, owns a home, pays his/her taxes, etc, but wants to get stoned in their backyard around a campfire every weekend - it’s on them.
And this is eminently less objectionable. You eliminate injury to others (dependents or taxpayers) and you've begin to have a reasonable argument in favor of letting people play with drugs, though i'm not sure whether or not the conditions will remain stable long term.
I’m a father of 3 boys age 9,8 and 3. I never smoked pot. Not once. Yeah, drank some beer in High School, went to keg parties in College, etc. I knew plenty of people who smoked pot, most turned out fine. But no, I don’t want my sons to touch pot. I will always vote against legalization.
Pot doesn't destroy everybody. Neither does alcohol. But it does destroy some. The question is, what sort of losses should we regard as acceptable?
No I don't. You still sound like a neophyte who has no grasp of what drugs do to far too many otherwise innocent people.
This is right out of scripture from the Religion of Pot. I have been hearing this nonsense going back almost a decade, and only the truly pious members of the church of the green weed believe nonsense such as this.
Who are these "Young People" who so report? Stoners? Not a good cross section of the available demographic if you ask me. Sure, Stoner teens can find weed because they've worked diligently to set up their supply lines.
Other kids? Not so much. Unless they know a stoner or something.
I'm all for that ... now how do we enforce it: banning video games and pot? Or something more narrowly tailored?
Nope, but someone in a much more authoritative position knows better than both of us:
County investigation: Michael Brown was shot from the front, had marijuana in his system
Perhaps if you put down the bud you could be clever too.
Come on. You clearly feel that pot should be legal because alcohol is legal. Its classic 2 wrongs don’t make a right. My 8 year-old gets would get this.
And of course, the picture on CNN’s website this morning was Brown in his graduation cap and gown.
It's not escaping, you keep letting it go.
Which bears a very strong resemblance to this guy.
But it isn't straw, it's hemp.
"This survey was conducted by telephone, utilizing a random-digit-dial technique (RDD), in which a pool of telephone numbers was created representing all 48 continental states in proportion to their population, using extensive information concerning telephone number assignments across the country. The random generation of telephone numbers has the advantage of capturing unlisted numbers. This pool of randomly generated telephone numbers was prepared by Survey Sampling, Inc. of Connecticut.
"The random-digit telephone numbers were called, and the household was qualified for participation in the survey by determining that a teen 12- to 17-years old lived in the household (see Appendix C for screening questions). At least four call back attempts were made to each telephone number before the telephone number was rejected."
http://www.casacolumbia.org/download/file/fid/640
Beat that straw man. It's easier than addressing what I've actually said.
BING-BING-BING! There's the baseless accusation of drug use. Your John Walters kewpie doll is in the mail.
Licenses. Issued automatically, and only revoked for cause. You on food assistance? License is revoked. You involved in a DUI accident? License is revoked.
Buying weed without a license, the seller is fined out the @ss and the buyer goes to jail.
Those who can manage their lives with weed can do so, those who cannot can be filtered out. The majority of people who can do so responsibly will keep the minority who cannot under control by seeing the merits of adhering to the law.
It's what we do with cars, trucks, explosives, plumbing, pharmaceuticals, and other potentially dangerous things.
So recriminalize booze, and watch as another Capone is created and murders and maims?
No? So just sit back and watch our LEO's become Nazi death squads murdering citizens and the new Capones?
What happened to the liquor cartels again? Why aren't they still smuggling booze? Why aren't they still making $$$$ off prohibition?
2 wrongs, or Too wrong!
Licenses. Issued automatically, and only revoked for cause.
That would beat the Hell out of the status quo.
Well I recall you did use the word "Alcohol" and you did invite a comparison. If you are making a different argument, it is so subtle that no one can discern it.
The only thing that sticks out is "We need Pot because Alcohol." Again, no other message is coming through.
Perhaps you could rephrase your point without using words like "booze, or Alcohol", then perhaps we could see what you are getting at.
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.