Oh, nice one. King K-Y. Well, he is slippery, so I suppose it fits.
Posted on 09/16/2004 5:04:47 AM PDT by publius1
Most of them are already. Explosives. Radioactive material. Medicines. Tobacco, etc.
Ah, the argument for seatbelt and helmet laws rises its head in another form!
If "affect" is the test for legitimacy of government intervention, kiss liberty goodbye; my choice of which brand of bread to buy "affects" others.
Cheer up, citizen! The borg will accept you.
Legal medical marijuana in Canada (really horrible stuff) is about the same price as illegal marijuana in the U.S.
Legal medical marijuana in California ... need I go on?
All "legal" marijuanas you mention are subject to far more stringent government restrictions than apply to alcohol or are being advocated here for marijuana.
Oh, nice one. King K-Y. Well, he is slippery, so I suppose it fits.
Explosives. Radioactive material. Medicines. Tobacco, etc.
Marijuana?
Apparently the courts you're referencing edited out the first part of Jefferson's comments, just as you have done, in order to make that determination, if they considered them at all. It's called "selective omission", and falls squarely into the realm of intellectual dishonesty.
Sure. Like alcohol, I wouldn't want someone driving under the influence of cannabis, or operating heavy machinery while on cannabis, or any number of things.
it should definitely be regulated.
I have no problem with it being illegal, it's just that I think legalizing crack and crank would be even worse than legalizing cannabis.
Anyone who wants to get illegal drugs can get them. Swiftly and easily. Drug usage is way up since the WOD started. The jails are full of people who want to feel better. The country is coming apart at the seams.
It's working just fine.
it should definitely be regulated.
But, like alcohol, otherwise legal (for adults), right?
Maybe. But it is unlike alcohol in one respect - almost no one smokes cannabis because they just enjoy the taste of it. They smoke it solely to get high.
As I've pointed out, it's not fair to prevent me from enjoying a cool lager with my cheesesteak just because some bum wants to get ripped on Everclear. That doesn't precisely analogize with cannabis.
When I drink an alcoholic beverage I may choose something with less alcohol content or more, depending on what flavor or taste I want. People who smoke cannabis will always choose the stuff with the most THC.
Am
NOT
for doing away with FREE SPEECH in principle.
I do wonder if we need to refine the definitions or parameters of it somewhat. I realize that's a slippery slope.
So is the one of pretending all Free speech is not dangerous to our survival.
YES, CFR is hideous. Soros is probably a favorite bed partner of all of them, at least philosophically.
But our founding fathers realized that a society which forsake the founding beliefs--essentially Judeo-Christian beliefs--which ceased to be MOSTLY good--would cease to exist.
Soros is DILIGENTLY, ENERGETICALLY--WITH GREAT POWER setting about to shred the foundations of our culture even more than they already are.
Not many people drink alcohol solely for the taste, and many post smokers seek no stronger a buzz than what two beers provides. The line here is much more blurred than what you seem to think.
So you have never been high? Or mellow? Or relaxed? Or had a buzz from any of your drinking? You only have had a drink for the taste? Can't you find a taste you like without any alcohol in it?
post smokers --> pot smokers
The implication you seem to be making is that when you drink, you always drink the same amount, and adjust your alcohol intake by the alcohol content of the beverage. I don't think anyone's buying it.
Certainly, one could argue that the government should not be interfering with the free market. But, that's a whole different argument.
"Their deal may have been with farmers of wheat, corn, tomatoes, peppers, or whatever else, but that should certainly have no bearing on my backyard garden."
You're starting to slide off the issue. The issue was limited to the wheat farmers, since not too many non-farmers grow their own wheat.
"But no, I don't believe that growing a little extra for personal use would have any discernable effect on market pricing on a national level."
OK. You are entitled to your opinion.
The USSC, however, felt that the cumulative effect of farmers growing their own would have a substantial effect on the demand for wheat. I happen to agree.
WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) is a landmark case which defines when Congress may regulate intrastate commerce.
"That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial."
Oh by the way, the court also commented on "price fixing". FYI:
"It is well established by decisions of this Court that the power to regulate commerce includes the power to regulate the prices at which commodities in that commerce are dealt in and practices affecting such prices."
The only high-inducing substance I've ever partaken in is alcohol. I've been drunk a few times, mostly when I was an amateur drinker.
Or mellow? Or relaxed?
You don't need drugs to feel either mellow or relaxed.
Or had a buzz from any of your drinking? You only have had a drink for the taste?
In the past, certainly. Now I drink only for the taste. As a husband and father I don't think it's a good idea to put myself in a condition where I cannot trust myself to drive, in case my family needs me.
Can't you find a taste you like without any alcohol in it?
Sure I can. I just think that some wines or beers are the best things to accompany certain foods.
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.