Posted on 06/10/2005 2:32:31 PM PDT by Nachum
I agree ... but punishing adults for non-rights-violating acts is quite bad. The stigma must be created through voluntary means.
From your statement, it logically follow that it would be better to make access to alcohol as restricted as access to marijuana currently is. The problem is that we tried this during Prohibition, and it caused more problems than it solved ... just like anti-marijuana laws cause more problems than they solve.
With their latest ruling on this issue, SCOTUS disagrees with you.
What you refuse to let sink in, is that people around here aren't supporting recreational drug use when they say they don't want the People using the government as agent for ridding the community of someone who has a viewpoint they find distasteful. I would never wear a t-shirt that says "I support recreational drug use," but I sure as hell don't want the federal government stepping outside its boundaries yet again and I'm going to call a so-called conservative on it, when he says it's a-okay with him, because the end justifies the means! Especially when they're your ends, not everybody's, and they're based almost entirely on how you feel about the issue. Give me a break, I can't believe I am even bothering with this thread still.
And you have NOT answered the question of state law vs. federal law, which is 100% essential to the entire discussion as far as I'm concerned. Please don't reply any more though, as I think you've had ample opportunity to discuss the issue and I really don't want to talk to you any more.
Did you catch Thomas Sowell's article?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1422370/posts
Perhaps it is a poor argument, unless you consider that pot is already the dope of choice by kids. They can get it so easily, the legality is incidental, and they fool the straight folks so easily, too. It then becomes easier to fool 'em regarding other things.
You can attempt to portray the stuff for losers and geeks, but as long as johnny cool is rebelling with the stuff it will be seen as harmless and cool it will be a tool of rebellion.
I think drinking is the first drug of choice & it would remain the drug of choice, even if pot was made legal. Liquor comes in yummy, soda pop flavors. Ritalin & other drugs in that family, also a huge problem, but you don't see many of the anti-drug people demanding that they get added to the list of "illegal" drugs. You're right tho, the legality is incidental.
You can attempt to portray the stuff for losers and geeks, but as long as johnny cool is rebelling with the stuff it will be seen as harmless and cool it will be a tool of rebellion.
I recognize the pitfalls to my approach. Finding a way to turn johnny cool... Put the smartest marketers on the task.
Perhaps I see it too simply. Decriminalize it. The illegal market will fall like a rock. The challenge and rebellion will be removed. The rebels will find a new way to shock us.
I agree!
The illegal market will fall like a rock.
On the bottom end, yes. Top level will seek out other products.
The challenge and rebellion will be removed.
The challenge wouldn't end. It would change. Tons of older brothers & sisters would face different pressure. Kids learn who has the "cool" parent. Government discovers something new to put "sin" taxes on & politicians find they have new money to inflict some new "program" of some sort on us.
The rebels will find a new way to shock us.
Course they will & we curse them with the Mother's curse, "I hope that someday you have a child just like you!"
I know I'm being simplistic, still, but its my opinion, based on personally observed anecdotal evidence, that most kids think parents who don't patronize them with lies as 'cool'. Maybe not 'hip' but they'll do, they're alright, they're 'cool'. When a parent tells a kid, "I don't know, enlighten me," it does a world of good for the kids esteem and for the communications between the two.
When you say decriminalize do you really mean decriminalize or do you mean legalize? The word "decriminalize" means different things to different people. Several states are said to have "decriminalized" marijuana because they have removed the threat of jail for first time marijuana possession offenders. It is still illegal even simply to possess a small amount of marijuana in these states, and there certainly isn't a legal market for it like there is for alcohol. My guess is this isn't the sort of "decriminalization" you are talking about. You have more in mind legalizing it and regulating it similar to the way we do with alcohol today. If so, to avoid confusion it would probably be better to say it that way than to say marijuana should be "decriminalized."
Punishing adults is good, they need to be responsible for their illegal actions.
Only a ticket for minor use, but the grower, dealer and distributer rightfully get hammered.
Alcohol is restricted legally, you may not be intoxicated behind the wheel, you know you can't be disorderly in public or go to work intoxicated because of the danger and liability, nor can you care legally for kids while drunk.
So alcohol does have restrictions and hammers the abusers.
It would be rediculous to say, "heck we all think recreational illegal drug use is bad, but by golly, the goverment stepping in to uphold the laws surrounding them is being pure evil..." Makes no sense to me and is totally inconsistant.
Regarding the T-shirt, you of course can wear it, but the issue I brought up was that if you did, all the FR people at a rally except for the dopers would IMO shun you as to not be associated with a pro-illegal drug agenda.
Had nothing to do with the government and free speech, it was refering to the fact the being pro-illegal recreational drugs is a very liberal/anarchist view.
Regarding state and federal law, we have both and have to abide by both, it's that simple.
The tougher of both standards usually applies.
Decriminalize it!
"Auntie Pinko" of the extreme left DU agrees with 68 and your view 100%, because that is a conservative view????
http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/02/68.html
I agree, but that is not the kind of "cool parents" I was talking about. I was talking about the kind that will pick up the QB for thier kid's party & call their lawyers if the cops show up at the door, after the neighbors called, cuz some kid was pukin or passed out on their lawn. Their kid will pull out some pot. Their friend will be shocked & whisper something about the parent being there. Without fail, the response will be, "that's okay, my mom/dad is cool."
When a parent tells a kid, "I don't know, enlighten me," it does a world of good for the kids esteem and for the communications between the two.
Well shoot, that's "Parenting your Teen 101" & yeah, there are plenty of parents that missed the course. I know, cuz their kids tell me or my kids tell me. :o)
You can't possibly be this dumb, so I'm going on the assumption that you're just yanking my chain now. I never suggested we pick-and-choose which laws we follow -- I'm simply trying to point out glaring jurisdictional iconsistencies. And I asked you to stop pinging me.
Do not bear false witness against me! I never said that I approved of recreational drug use. I don't! Got it?
That right there indicates being a bit messed up in my opinion. You have that totally reversed. On God's side it is considered "DEATH TRAFFICING"
You are the one wishing for the death of sinners, not I.
This is not the first, nor I am sure the last time that I disagree with the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with them, that recreational drug use is evil. I disagree with them, for thinking that "repression" is going to eradicate recreational drug use.
You wanna try to change my mind, it better come straight from the Word.
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.