Posted on 12/14/2005 9:27:54 PM PST by Mojave
The George Soros-funded campaign to legalize marijuana has run into a problem. Joseph Smith, convicted and sentenced to death for the abduction, rape and murder of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia, has been exposed as a pothead. In an unsuccessful ploy to spare his life, his attorneys argued that he was a drug addict, used drugs on the occasion of the Brucia murder, and began his involvement with drugs by smoking marijuana. It looks like marijuana didn't have many "medical benefits" in this case.
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
I never said it did (although if some people switched from legal violence-inducing alcohol to legal marijuana, that would likely mean less violence).
And yes, many of these violent people are alcoholics and should be institutionalized.
So only those alcohol users who are addicted and violent should be institutionalized? Makes sense to me ... but the same restrictions should apply to institutionalizing users of other drugs.
You are using violence as a strawman in advocating the legalization of drugs
No, I'm using it to point out that your professed goal of "leav[ing] the innocent and the sane alone" does not fit your proposed policy inasmuch as you treat the more violence-inducing drug less strictly (and surely we agree that violence is the epitome of not "leav[ing] the innocent and the sane alone").
My agenda is to reduce violence, drug abuse and homelessness, regardless of the substance
If that were true, you would treat the addictive violence-inducing drug alcohol comparably strictly as other drugs.
As far as alcohol vs marijuana, true.
By an large, those who use marijuana are not violent.
I would agree, by and large. However it does not answer any issues of violence by those who use both, individually or simultaneously. I don't see the issue as one of drugs vs alcohol, but of the mentally ill self-medicating themselves with either or both. The drug problem in the USA did not explode, as it did, until after the passage of the CMHC Act. The medications available in the hospitals at the time (and now) were worse than the mental disease. Once the mental patients were out, they sought medications that were more tolerable and the path was usually alcohol, then pot, then..? And frankly, I don't blame them.
But we're just posting past each other on this thread. Your agenda is to legalize pot for recreational intoxication. I really don't have a problem with that any more than booze. However, those who are severely, mentally ill, should be rounded up and hospitalized first and the situation watched carefully for those who are prone to substance abuse. Those would go into institutions as well. And my position is not that I favor depriving persons of their liberty, but of the realization that we don't really have effective treatments for bi-polars, psychotics, depressives and other mental illness. Better that they spend their lives getting high, in a garden-like setting with a high fence as well, than hanging around off-ramps.
From homelessness, to drug abuse, to firearms issues, the mentally ill have effected American society more than the public realize. Since the American Psychiatric Association gained so much influence in the federal government through the Kennedy's during the 1960's, the inmates have been in charge of the asylum. Much as illegals have been in charge of the border.
That is an excellent reason to support legalization.
And points out the hypocrisy of the dopers. Any hypothetical link to alleged beneficial effects of dope gets proclaimed loudly, but they choke on their own medicine.
The police seized marijuana, amyl nitrate and valium from his house of horrors.
Too.
Must've been the weed, then. Before he took one puff of the Devil's Weed, he was probably an ordinary, run-of-the mill, tax-paying, mother's son. But that first toke on a joint: that turned him into a homosexual serial killer cannibal.
Too.
I agree with you that a compelling case could be made to restrict or prohibit those particular drugs, especially at the state and local level. What I don't understand, however, is how you don't understand that by lumping marijuana in with those particular drugs, and focusing on it as intensely as you do, you weaken your argument for prohibiting or restricting the use or sale of all illicit drugs. After all, you wouldn't buy into a doctor's over-all health program if he insisted that amputation was the best way to cure a hangnail.
You brought him up.
The nose is attached to the camel.
You're worried about the nose of a gerbil and ignoring the elephant that's already in the room, stomping around, and busting up the furniture. Again, I'm convinced you don't know the first thing about marijuana.
Weak . . .
The agenda is the camel, the disingenuous posturing notwithstanding.
You compared Gacy to Kincaid. Gacy turned out to be doper.
Disingenuous how?
No. Legalization would be premature without the amendment or repeal of the CMHC Act of 1963 and the re-implementation of mental hospitals as well as a realistic national policy regarding the mentally ill.
In other words; "You can't get there from here".
Probably drank coffee too.
Your agenda is to legalize pot for recreational intoxication. I really don't have a problem with that any more than booze. However, those who are severely, mentally ill, should be rounded up and hospitalized
No disagreement so far.
first
Why first?
I've never seen an article that said Joe Toke was sick, smoked marijuana, and felt better, so therefore marijuana is good medicine ... as Clown Kincaid argues re marijuana and violence.
You skipped all the medical marijuana posts? Really?
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.