Posted on 11/28/2012 12:57:41 PM PST by Renfield
“Recent studies have shown that marijuana causes brain damage. This damage is worse the younger a person starts. You have to be a sadist to wish this drug on any society.”
Well here is the problem.
It’s illegal now, so how are these people getting brain damage if the law is “protecting” them from it? How, after decades of the law “stopping” this are these people getting brain damage?
So the question is what is a better way of preventing this from happening other than locking millions of people up when it isnt doing anything to stem overuse?
They should be free to not hire. Many hospitals will fire staff if they smoke cigarettes.
If a company stipulates up front that you will be terminated for pot use, then that is what that person will have to abide by.
It’s a plant.
Companies are refusing to hire people who use a completely legal substance - tobacco. They can set the terms of employment. If using a substance impairs their ability to do their jobs, they should be able to fire them, or refuse to hire them.
See post 58.
And ping Jim if ya want. I’m pretty sure somone with their panties in a was has already “reported” me. I don’t care.
See my tagline also. I’ve had it up for years. And it expressly applies to pro-dope liberaltarians. Based on the fact that this is a pro-God, pro-Family website, I make NO APOLOGIES for taking such a critical stand against pro-dopers.
I use as much strength as I can in not making it personal and replying with insults. Even though I’M often insulted, but until and unless I’m told by JR that FR is a pro-Drug site, then I’m taking him at his word that this place is pro-God and pro-Family.
Even though he tolerates so many pro-druggies.
I dont care what he reminded people of, he didnt stipulate that YOU can amend his statement to include whatever pet issue where you want to be shut down reasonable discussion.
Dont get some insane idea that the sides on this topic are Conservative Vs. Liberal, because I can tell you from the times I’ve talked about this with actual liberals, and libertarians, the views do not fall where you assume they do.
#1 How do you know they arent there now? Do you think that just having a law saying you cant will stop it from happening?
As I said, I don’t want ANOTHER couple million. That does not imply there aren’t any there now, does it? Legalizing it only makes more. If you remember the bold experiment of the legal drinking age at 18, you know the truth of that statement.
#2 You gave what should be the actual conservative position in that if you want to be a stoner, you be it on your own dime. That it will not be the taxpayers responsibility to bring you back if you overindulge. Ruin your life if you want, but it is your life.
And the rest of it wouldn’t follow? The regulations, licensing, taxing and expanded gov? Please. We all know better.
It remains a terminating offense at the company I work for. Pee tests are still in place. I imagine it is handled the same way alcohol is handled - they can’t stop you from imbibing on your own time but you better not have a trace of it in your system on their time or you’re outta there.
Noticed that also. Seems control of other people’s lives is O.K. We just argue over what it is that we want to FORCE people to do or not do. Ironic isn’t it?
Personally I don’t smoke pot. Tried it in HS and hated it.
But your ‘logic’ would also preclude MANY of the signers of the Declaration of Independence from being here, were they living today.
My question to you is how do you revere such potheads and the document they developed when it was obviously the product of several drug altered minds? And btw, if you read up, several were opium smokers as well. No one thought they were drug crazed zombies.
Can’’t have it both ways. Either believe the “Reefer Madness” BS of the post prohibition drug warriors or the vast majority of human history.
Sorry but your statement is fought with logical fallacy. I’ll never be a pro-drug ‘campaigner’ but I’m not gonna go full lib when history paints a far different picture of what actual ‘conservatives’ had to say about the matter through their very actions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2962365/posts
I have not read the comments, but, this thread needs this link.
An injunction against what? Removing a law from the books?
We disagree. I understand your position. I think you understand mine.
Libertarianism in some of its positions is a purely conservative thing. In some other manifestations (National Defense) it is abjectly liberal. So, one must pick and choose.
For example, legalization of pot could be looked at as a Federalism issue, and a states as laboratories of democracy opportunity. That’s reasonable. We can see how it works in Washington, and proliferate (or not) the policy based on its effect.
Freedom includes the freedom to do stupid things. That’s a pretty conservative position.
So, we disagree. Fine. We can both be on FR with our 95% agreement on everything else, and find that our perspective on conservatism differs in this one area, and not have to be peeved or use lots of bold capital letters.
:-)
I’ve talked about this with actual liberals, and libertarians, the views do not fall where you assume they do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes. They do. Liberals like Barney Frank and Ron Paul are pro-dope. Can you name me one credible conservative who is pro-dope?
Thumbs up to a man willing to respect the Tenth Amendment, even if it results in policies you may oppose.
Too bad most Drug Warriors piss all over it if it suits their agenda. They just don't care about the Constitution.
So much for conservatives not wanting to tell people what to do. I really thought that was just a liberal trait. Thought we all supported the 10th amendment and states’ rights? I can see opposing the legalization in your own state, but it stops there.
I knew that was coming. I also knew I should have added “Do not add Bill Buckely on this list”.
He’s dead for one thing. And was not a SoCon.
LOL, you’re a funny guy.
Here is my opinion: I think the greatest danger of pot use is children’s access to it. Currently, in many high schools, it is easier for kids to get weed than alcohol. I believe it should be a state issue, and only then should be highly taxed and controlled, even expensive, with prohibitions against dealing and growing. If our borders were sealed, and pot could only be obtained under strict supervision and control, its use may decline, as it has in Portugal. That is a better and more humane solution, I think, than continuing to throw kids in jail with a system that clearly hasn’t worked. Not only that, but it would severely diminish the cartel violence and trafficking.
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.