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 ...
So you would allow the government to pick that age? They decide that say, a 25-year-old is competent to do drugs and one who will be 25 next month is not?
You wouldn't allow the individual to prove personal competence, nor would you leave the decision to the parent. You would allow the government to make that decision.
Fine. Just so I understand. (As though anyone could understand such a convoluted, self-serving explanation.)
Yes, but that would have been a lie. I don't lie.
Government already makes those decisions. Do you oppose that?
That is a lie.
"I consider myself a conservative but smoke(MJ)on occasion,I guess that makes me a liberal." I'm w/you 100% on that.I smoke on occasion,and am conservative on most issues.What non smokers fail to see is that there is a big diff between MJ and drugs like crack,meth,heroin,etc.Personally i'm surprised that so many of these post's are positive.Must be a lot of "closet libs" here at FR:)
As a lurker on these posts for years, I don't think it has anything to do with changing the minds of one side or the other.
The answer to the question of, "How does that work?", is which side brings the best legal arguments.
In that light, if I were the judge of the debates, the 'winner', hands down, on the constitutionality of the federal laws prohibiting marijuana use is the PRO crowd.
I can find nothing in the constitution enumerating this power to the feds.
Which of course only de-legitimizes the FEDERAL WOD. The second prohibition would be just as wrong even if it was only prosecuted on the local or state level.
Legal arguments are just one facet. There is a question of fundamental individual rights which is far more important.
Our little friend Robby asserts that there is a right to have others do or not do as he sees fit even if they are not violating anyone else's rights.
He claims a "right" to raise his children in what he considers a perfect world.
In my view, such a right could be exercised against his existence since I would assert my right to raise my children in a world where tyrants like him who seek to overpower others to their own bizarre will should not exist.
Of course, such ruminations are childish.
Hope u don't mind me butting in here dmz,but Afghanistan supplies hashish as well as heroin.Not much hash produced in Afghanistan any more as heroin is much more profitable,and of course heroin addicts tend to be steady customers.
Well this must be the one thing on Earth that I would agree with Soros, Sperling or Lewis on. But what's in it for them? It's always about money to those guys.
No, marijuana can't be good, because it's bad. We already know it is evil, so it can't be good. Marijuana cannot have any medical uses because that would mean it's not entirely bad. </sarcasm>
No problem with you butting in (sort of the name of the game on an internet forum)...see my #91
To me, the legal arguments are always the issue because it is only through the passage of man-made laws whereby we lose individual rights.
To think that I could go to jail for years simply for growing those plants! puLLEZE!
I will never understand how any conservative constitutionalist could argue FOR these laws.
I bought my teen-aged daughter a used car and shortly thereafter she was pulled over for a taillight that was out. They asked to search the car and she let them. They found a small butt from a marijuana cigarette on the passenger side floorboard. That cost her a night in jail and cost me $4000.
That's been some years ago but still steams my a$$!
You are right. $$$$$
I would like first to see the source of that statistic.
Baloney.
Bet?
My point is that if you only argue about laws which have been enacted or are proposed, you are getting close to agreeing that laws in and of themselves define rights.
Rights exist whether or not laws respect them or usurp them. The people like Robby boy, assert that rights do not exist for some, and that others that do not exist, (group rights) can be asserted. That is incorrect, not to mention liberal.
Agreed.
Hmmmm. I thought it was the people, through their elected representatives, who made those decisions. You say "government" the way others would say "dictatorship". Feeling helpless today?
No, I don't oppose the people setting standards for society.
And here I thought you did. But, it appears that you're willing to set aside your principles just to get your precious drugs legalized. Federal government mandated regulations and restrictions? No problem, says Protagoras. Just please make drugs legal.
Your statement about a lie referring to my statement about it being a lie (that I lie) .... is a lie.
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.