Posted on 07/25/2006 1:08:16 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Excuse me for a moment while I vent about the mind-boggling stupidity of the autocratic, bureaucratic, right-wing, Neanderthal numskulls who keep pushing an insane, inane, and inhumane holy war against marijuana – which is, after all, a weed.
The most embarrassing thing for these holy warriors is that the weed is winning! They've been at this war since 1937, spending billions and billions of our tax dollars, militarizing our borders, and stomping on our Bill of Rights. They've used phone taps, garbage searches, jackbooted raids, and draconian prison terms to ... well, to do what? To nab peaceful, mellow tokers who aren't bothering anyone, that's what.
Despite 60 years of spending our money, they've failed: 85% of Americans say marijuana is easy to obtain today, a third of our population says they've tried it, nearly 15 million people partake of it at least monthly – and more high school students now smoke marijuana than cigarettes!
Meanwhile, the holy warriors have become more fanatical and thuggish than ever. A marijuana arrest is made every 41 seconds in America – nine out of 10 of them for mere possession. In 2004, 772,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges – more than for all violent crimes combined.
Even sicker, the sanctimonious weed warriors have made it a crime for thousands of seriously sick people to get the medical benefits of using small amounts of doctor-prescribed marijuana. Weirdly, our doctors can prescribe cocaine for patients – but not marijuana. Worse, drug thugs from the DEA and FBI bust down the doors of these patients, seize their dosages ... and haul them to jail.
For information and action to stop this absurd war, call the Marijuana Policy Project: 202/462-5747.
Godwin's Law prevails.
Finally, in the early 60's a lot of the more repressive 'blue laws' were repealed, allowing local government to curb police corruption. -- Although naturally, we went too far; -- we are now nearing the peak of yet another prohibitonary cycle.
No, and I probably won't. I generally don't participate on WOD threads. I only showed up on this one because the article was from Hightower. If it had been by one of the normal libertarian writers, I'd have just ignored it.
paulsen 'echos the line', and lumps Nixon with Morality:
"-- The Controlled Substances Act and Nixon's War on Drugs were in response to rampant drug use in the 60's. --"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lumping marijuana, homosexuality, Jews and Commies into one grand conspiracy, a paranoid Richard Nixon launched America's "war on pot" 30 years ago. Here are the tapes to prove it.
Once-Secret "Nixon Tapes" Show Why the U.S. Outlawed Pot
Address:http://www.alternet.org/story/12666/
Your Shafer Commission didn't limit themselves to marijuana, by the way. They also recommended that the distinctions between licit and illicit drugs be dropped, finding that "the use of drugs for pleasure or other non-medical purposes is not inherently irresponsible".
Bunch of Libertarian whack-jobs.
My testimonial included alot more than just pot. I also used to use LSD, crank, mushrooms, and cocaine. My use of the term "Evil Weed" was facetious. I'm sorry that you think you know more than you do, but I can't help you much from a keyboard. Maybe you'll get lucky and get arrested and sent to rehab before something bad happens to you. Until then, being stoned is the same thing as being a Democrat: mental impairment by choice.
By the 60's, there weren't that many left. And some, like selling alcohol on Sunday, remain.
These were state laws, by the way. You do have this problem with federalism, don't you? I bet fascism would be right up your alley -- centralized government, one leader (probably you).
LOL...Yeah, the real America was sure different than the Hollywood version these Nanny Staters long for.
I think you're right about the peak. This prohibition era will fall the same as the last one.
You're a fake, Eric. I too read Culture Wars.
But there was more drug use in the 60's than in the 50's. Hence the laws.
"...In other words, if your morality depends on the law, you have no morals."
If laws are necessary to control your immoral behavior then, yes, you have no morals. Seems obvious. What that has to do with freedom, I don't know.
Finally, in the early 60's a lot of the more repressive 'blue laws' were repealed, allowing local government to curb police corruption. -- Although naturally, we went too far; -- we are now nearing the peak of yet another prohibitonary cycle.
By the 60's, there weren't that many [blue laws] left.
Do you save face by echoing the facts?
And some, like selling alcohol on Sunday, remain
Big deal. Most rational people ignore such petty prohibitions.
These were state laws, by the way. You do have this problem with federalism, don't you?
Not at all bobbie. I firmly urge that States officials defy federal attempts to infringe on individual rights; -- and that fed officials do the same with overzealous state attempts.
It's called 'balancing powers' paulsen. -- New concept to you?
I bet fascism would be right up your alley -- centralized government, one leader (probably you).
paulsen, more than once you've posted short versions of the communitarian/fascist manifesto. --- Here's a recent one:
. "-- We, as a society, decide which rights we will protect --- We choose not to protect your right to do drugs. If and when a majority of the people decide that we should, then we will. Given that we're a self-governing nation, there's nothing to stop the majority from deciding this. --"
but - you didn't reply to the questions I asked.(winston2)
No, and I probably won't. I generally don't participate on WOD threads. I only showed up on this one because the article was from Hightower. If it had been by one of the normal libertarian writers, I'd have just ignored it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This kinda reminds me of the 5th amendment. Perfectly legal and honorable.
"Do you think cannabis use is dangerous compared to people speeding and committing other traffic violations?"(winston2)
Who cares? And who says cannabis is illegal because it's dangerous?
(results from a popular search engine) Web Results 1 - 30 of about 573,000 for marijuana cannabis "dangerous". (0.33 seconds)
Someone must be thinking of it in that way.
"Do you think the war against cannabis users is a moral issue, public health issue, revenue issue or other?"(winston2)
Probably moral, as are our laws against prostitution, gambling, suicide, pornography, etc. Then again, most of our laws concern moral issues of one sort or another, don't they?
Amazing to have marijuana use (which has no potential for death by overdose) and suicide (How might a law against suicide prevent it?)mentioned as needing laws to prevent their use.
I do always enjoy your debate.
Those exchanges between you and mugs99 and tpaine have just about had me rolling out of my chair!!!!!!!(GRIN)
I didn't say it wasn't dangerous. I questioned your statement that implied marijuana was illegal because it was dangerous.
"Amazing to have marijuana use (which has no potential for death by overdose) and suicide (How might a law against suicide prevent it?)mentioned as needing laws to prevent their use."
To prevent their use? No law prevents use. The law merely says that the behavior is contrary to the standards set by society, and if you choose to act that way, there will be penalties.
I'll let everyone use their common sense to judge whether you be right or I.
(GRIN)
They flooded the streets due to demand. Drug use continued to rise in the late 60's through the 70's -- hell, the DEA didn't even come into existence until 1973.
"We were a drug free society in the sixties compared to today."
Drug use in the late 70's was over double what it is today, and today we have crack, ice, snortable heroin, inhalants, and designer drugs from Ecstasy to GHB -- drugs unheard of in the 60's and 70's.
And your definition is based on what?
Your example of tresspassing involves theft (the use of your property without your permission).
Silly ... trespass is not theft, although both may fall under the broader heading of "the use of your property without your permission."
Since you've decided to weigh in, can you defend Hemingway's Ghost's statement in post #69? Can you tell me how that behavior harms another (as previously defined)? Or do you argue that Libertarians believe laws may be passed against behavior that merely offends another?
Sights, like odors, may permissibly be regulated or even banned if they are sufficiently offensive to a sufficient number. I don't know any libertarians who claim that you have no right to object if your next-door neighbor burns tires in his yard, and I'd laugh at the libertarian who did.
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.