Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 06/11/2005 12:08:33 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:

Duplicate: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420584/posts



Skip to comments.

One Reporter's Opinion – Never Legalize Pot!
Newsmax ^ | Friday, June 10, 2005 | George Putnam

Posted on 06/10/2005 2:29:28 PM PDT by Nachum

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: SoVaDPJ

Just because its a plant doesn't make it not bad. Some plants can kill you if you eat them.
I would be against pot if someone wanted to open a Pot store next to my house. Which, judging from my neighborhood, they probably would.


61 posted on 06/10/2005 6:24:40 PM PDT by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: SoVaDPJ
Because they can't charge you $100 a pop for it, tax it, and tell you when you can use it.

It's that simple.

The good news is that virtually anyone who needs it medically can get all they want cheaply. It is the largest cash crop in California. The Feds can't stop it and they hate that.

62 posted on 06/10/2005 6:24:42 PM PDT by Nachum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: escapefromboston

First, we're not talking pot store. Personally, I'm talking a plant. That you grow. A plant. They said that you couldn't grow your own pot because it would interfere with what you might buy from another state.

Poinsettias are poisonous. No one is outlawing poinsettia. Nor hollyberries. Nor belladonna. Nor mistletoe.


63 posted on 06/10/2005 6:33:55 PM PDT by SoVaDPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: hurly

"so now anecdotes trump data!"

In the drug war, they always have--as the opinions of the authoritarian nannies have always trumped the Constitution.


64 posted on 06/10/2005 7:00:46 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib; KarlInOhio

"Considering that alcohol has non-intoxicating uses, its legaility really has nothing to do with the question of allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes."

Right, marijuana has no non-intoxicating uses at all. /sarc

I'm not going off on the notion that medical marijuana makes sense--it generally IS incrementalism by leftists, with notable exceptions embodied in the Constitutionalist freepers here--but to say that pot is all just about an addict's high with no medical usage or no non-intoxicating uses makes no sense.

Watching "Hemp for Victory" alone should tip you off to that.

The plant was made illegal through sensationalism and propagandizing, and remains illegal only through the same. Anyone arguing against its legalization simply can't make an argument for banning pot that they couldn't make against cigarettes or booze. And many of those WoD advocates would make those arguments against cigarettes or booze, failing to see the distinction--but most all of the same crowd that crows here about cigarette laws regulating private eating places would never accept similar local laws banning them from carrying a Bible or a baby or a gun into those places.

I think it all boils down to 'hippies bad.'


65 posted on 06/10/2005 7:16:08 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (<-- sick of faux-conservatives who want federal government intervention for 'conservative things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: escapefromboston

Honesty is extremely rare in this world and to be treasured where it can be found. In the meantime, each of us has to make the best judgement we can with the information we have at hand, guided by the principles that keep us civilized.


66 posted on 06/11/2005 1:15:36 AM PDT by thoughtomator (The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SoVaDPJ

Do people normally smoke or eat belladonnas? I suppose if you just wanted to grow pot in your house and just admire its natural beauty no one would really have a problem with it.
As I said I really don't care if someone smokes grass but if they legalize it , someone will open a pot store and that pot store will probably open up near my house.


67 posted on 06/11/2005 3:14:56 AM PDT by escapefromboston (manny ortez: mvp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
Right, marijuana has no non-intoxicating uses at all. /sarc

...Anyone arguing against its legalization simply can't make an argument for banning pot that they couldn't make against cigarettes or booze.

Easy to say when you allow yourself to simply ignore arguments that contradict your assertions. Is that you, Dr. Dean?

68 posted on 06/11/2005 4:35:29 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: escapefromboston

"I suppose if you just wanted to grow pot in your house and just admire its natural beauty no one would really have a problem with it.'

Yes, they would. It is illegal to grow the plant, illegal to possess the plant. But, AND THIS IS MY POINT, the argument used by SCOTUS can apply to your tomato plant.

"someone will open a pot store"

I grow tomatoes, but I'm not opening a produce store next to your house. If it's legal to grow the plant on your property does not immediately translate into stablishing "pot stores." This is a specious argument.

But mostly, I suggest you move the hell outta that neighborhood.


69 posted on 06/11/2005 5:04:10 AM PDT by SoVaDPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Bernard
I'm hard-pressed to understand why the active, useful ingredient in MJ can't be distilled or synthesized and provided through means other than through the traditional delivery system.

It's simple.

"The active, useful ingredient in MJ" is a naturally occuring compound, and therefor cannot be patented.

Follow the $$$. Or in this case, the lack of $$$.

70 posted on 06/11/2005 5:09:18 AM PDT by bikepacker67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson