ZOT!!
Posted on 04/26/2013 8:31:00 PM PDT by Mason880
My thought is certain recreational drugs, such as marijuana, should remain off legal limits for the under 18 year olds, but become legally available when used in the proper environment. In many ways, pot is quite similar to alcohol, in that they should be used responsibly. My thought is to make the sale of marijuana less profitable by making it legal for home use. Personally, I don't smoke anything now, and do not want the smell of tobacco or pot on my clothes should I visit a public place, such as a shopping mall or bus stop. I know this idea has been kicked around for years, and hasn't really gained traction. My concern is, even if pot was declared legal and open for adult use, how would those newly arrived Mexcian gangs deal with this market loss? Would they end up trying to raid, ruin and close down any public seller of these formerly illegal substances? I think for the first few years, there may be such push back and attempts at intimidation by those losing business to the open market. Its' not really my fight anymore, but, so many cities say they are inching toward bankruptcy, this new open market may help to boost city funds. Yes, it would be a bold step in the cold, deep waters of chance. But it may work. We go rid of prohibition of alcohol, and the country survived the gang's angry wrath back then too.
Obama would like nothing more than a few million more Americans stoned out of their (useless, unproductive) minds.
Ayep. Makes me cry.
Really? Can I say anything I want when in your house? You damn sure can't in mine. Guess I'm a fascist.
I can’t take credit for the artwork, It is really a portrait of Peter the Kitty and is from the permeant collection of
(MOBA) Museum of Bad Art., its online, under portraits. They have many extraordinary works on-hand.
That should read “permanent”
I'm sure, if WFB wasn't as dead as a doornail, he'd agree the feeling's mutual. Personally, I don't do a lot of speaking ill of dead people's personal feelings and habits. But that's just me. If you want to trash him, go right on ahead.
The fact that there would have been no conservative movement, nor President Reagan, without him is irrelevant. Guy favored drug legalization, so pi$$ on his grave. Carter deserved a second term, so no good words for WFB.
(/s)
So by your standards, I can’t criticize Ted Kennedy, FDR, the Rosenberg spies...because they are all dead. Okay.
It’s so like the Dems to react from the position of the cult of hero worship and teams. ”He scored a game-winning touchdown, so shut up.”
You may think he created the conservative movement; I think ge did it irre parable harm by 1. branding it as upper crust elitist, and 2. marginalizing the JBS.
I think his magazine created the conservative movement, and there were a lot more people involved besides WFB. But he created the forum for the others to pool intellects. Yes, they were "upper crust," but this was an intellectual movement. Upper crust is where you find those people. I never thought of it that way.
The subject of drug legalization was a huge single-issue that put WFB at odds with the movement.
Conservatives have a great point on drugs. Drugs do great harm to the individuals involved, and because of the extent we've socialized those costs we have to do what we can to stop their use. Keeping them illegal is the means to that end.
Libertarians also have a great point. We made drugs, admittedly a bad societal ill, illegal, but it has done nothing to stop the use of the drugs. Rather, it has fostered a very large culture with no respect of other laws, like Breaking and Entering, Robbery, etc. Plus, because we have socialized the cost of fixing the broken people, we need to stop doing that. No paying for other peoples' self-inflicted wounds.
In WFB's perfect world, where people who don't partake don't pay for people who do, it makes no sense to have laws making criminals of those who do the drugs. Admittedly, we don't live in a perfect world, but that is the world WFB was talking about. That's what theoreticians do.
I'm with you, that's not the world we live in. But it's useful to consider what would work in a world we don't live in sometimes. There's a big difference between our perfect world and the Democrats' though...we don't use the entire country as a great big laboratory. We have fifty labs, and they should be allowed to test hypotheses. And in the immediate here and now, that means the Feds need to stop trying to destroy people in states that are testing things.
California long ago approved pot use for medical reasons. The Feds have busted and financially ruined people for farming to meet that market. While meeting strict State requirements in terms of safety and quality of product (they were strict. No use of certain fertilizers and pesticides, food-quality handling, etc), they were afoul of the Feds. That ruins the laboratory so we don't know anything new abut how things would work.
2. marginalizing the JBS. I think they should have embraced John Birch Society, but they didn't like libertarian. They liked the power structure of gubmint, but they wanted to be the ones wielding the power.
Who pays for those who use is relevant to drug laws only if drug laws reduce use - but there's no evidence they do. What we do know is that they cost tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to enforce, hyperinflate drug profits, and channel those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.
That’s just a gift that keeps on giving to this bunch.
Winner!
ditto's!
“Why does this come down to leaving my kids with anyone.”
I think it’s a good illustration.
People like to say a pot smoker equals a beer drinker. Well, it doesn’t.
‘Cause if your Dad has a beer with his hot dog, you’re comfortable leaving your kid with him. If you Dad sits there smoking a doobie, you’re not.
If you’re honest about it.
Enjoy your ZOT pro-drugs pusher. :)
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.