(BTW, I've never touched the stuff myself, or care to - just think it's senseless to prohibit it.)
Posted on 02/01/2005 10:22:25 AM PST by .cnI redruM
WASHINGTON — Pot. Cannabis. Hemp. Weed. Grass.
The herb takes many names. But in the nation’s capital, where the marijuana lobby (search) was once the recreational diversion of Playboy Magazine's Hugh Hefner, pro-pot special interest groups have crystallized the divergent issues behind the plant and gained a seemingly unified voice.
________________ Puff, Cough, Puff, Cough________________
"It’s a no-brainer. It makes no sense putting old and sick folks in jail for an herb that makes them feel better," said Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project (search), which was established in 1995 by Rob Kampia, a former mainstay at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the first pro-pot lobby in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yes, and our ole pal Robert just asserted the oft used "right to violate other's rights". No such right exists, but the same people keep pretending it does. Their whole house of cards falls without it.
I'm confident that intelligent thinking lurkers will see through such childish assertions.
I do not. I admitted it had been studied, but it's laughable to draw any conclusion from that.
"yet are not bothered by the obvious oversight by the government of the two substances that they prefer."
Oh, who says I'm not bothered? For all you know, I could could be losing sleep every night over this issue.
You want those two drugs regulated, go for it. Write your Congressman. Start a petition. I couldn't care less.
I'm trying to figure out why Dihydrocodeine is a Schedule II drug and not Schedule III. We all have out little concerns, don't we?
Authoritarians come from both parties. And from many different ideologies. The left and the right both want to use government force to get what they want. And both sides are elitists. They hate the idea that people should be left alone to make their own decisions. The people are too stupid you know.
They embrace even the most bizarre concepts to get what they want, no matter how inconsistent they are. They love majority rule if it fits their agenda, but hate it if not. They assert rights when it suits them and make up new ones when it doesn't. Both sides do it. Our little pal Robert has just asserted an old favorite. Hillary does the same thing from a different side of the spectrum. Strange bedfellows.
Silver-tongued rationales for tyranny are a dime-a-dozen historically. Every sleazy regime in the world has employed skilled liars to advance their interests.
Big lies are the easiest to believe, I suppose.
No. What I would like is some consistancy from the legislature, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't have time to begin trying to change the law. But that brings us back to original article (wow hard to believe) That there are groups out there petitioning Congress and circulating petitions. Someday maybe these inconsistant applications of the law will be rectified through their efforts in the proper way. Would you be OK with that or do prefer the selective efforcement we have now?
We have a system whereby some drugs are legal for everyone, some are legal for adults only, some are legal only with a prescription, and some are illegal.
If a case can be made for moving a drug from one category to another, that can be done, and is done all the time. Drugs, for example, move from prescription status to over-the-counter quite frequently.
You do favor all drugs being legal, don't you? Including prescription drugs? Not just marijuana, correct? And to all ages, or would you arbitrarily pick a number and make that a minimum age? Could you then explain and defend your choice of that age?
I never made any since A then B arguement. I am arguing for consistancy, and if you can go back to the scheduling criteria and not see it being applied inconsistantly then I can reason with you no further.
You do favor all drugs being legal, don't you? Including prescription drugs? Not just marijuana, correct? And to all ages, or would you arbitrarily pick a number and make that a minimum age? Could you then explain and defend your choice of that age?
When did Dane and cincy get booted? It was waaay past time.
These drug warriors will never learn...they are incapable of rational thought.
All ages except minors. So yes, like all other things in society, people who are incompetent to make their own choices, good or bad, are restricted from that until they are competent. So, people pick arbitrary ages along with restricting the insane and retarded and senile.
In short, in a rational situation, someone as crazy as you would be restricted. :^}
They were more than drug warriors. They were authoritarians on every subject and at all times. In love with force, they thought use of it by government was what conservatives stood for. Quite insane, both of them. Not to mention the other names there. The Roscoe guy was way over the top, probably a danger to himself and everyone around him.
The libertarian cult's favorite message.
You could have just said you didn't know.
As I said, they're just not needed. What little limp-wristed pro-drug propaganda remains out there, I can certainly handle in a debate.
Especially with people who can't tell the difference between freedom and anarchy.
You haven't a clue about freedom, much less anarchy.
99% of the "Pot Lobby" is financed by a few billionaires. Soros, Sperling, Lewis. Now, why are these guys so concerned about sick grandma who wants her pot. They aren't!
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.