Posted on 12/21/2005 9:39:56 AM PST by Know your rights
[...] Organizers blasted the federal Drug Enforcement Administration for targeting businesses that are legal under Proposition 215, a California law that permits marijuana use for medical treatment. Demonstrators said the action would restrict access to regulated pot shops for seriously ill patients. [...] "They didn't do any arrests, just took drugs and computers," said Paula "Cookey" Brown. "It just seems like a straight armed robbery." [...]
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
People suffering racial discrimination is not even in the same league as dopers having to do without.
You sound like Cultural Jihad when he used to accuse people not agreeing with his pro-illegal immigration agenda of "equating murder with misdomeanor border crossings".
Here's another example that might hit closer to home for you. Do you feel that true Chinese Catholics (not followers of the official ChiCom version of the Church are morally OK in practicing their banned religion? I certainly do.
And again, for the record, the disclaimer, I'm not equating freedom of religion with marijuana use.
Best non sequitur I've seen in a while.
No, it isn't.
Fine. Unless you're attempting to compare the two, there's no need to even bring up racial discrimination.
Sure looks that way to me and others, jmc813. Religious persecution, racial discrimination, gender inequality ... that's one thing.
But dope? C'mon. People didn't complain this much when alcohol was banned.
What number would you consider a threshold? If, say, a million people break a certain law, is it then time to re-evaluate the penalty, or the law itself?
Alcohol is legal. Do you mean the government prohibition of the sale of alcohol to minors? You're saying that's unjust?
"Further, explain how taking a person's freedom for smoking a dried weed serves justice?"
So you're suggesting that people who smoke dried weeds are thrown in prison? A bit over-the-top today, eh?
People who smoke marijuana are breaking the law. NOT arresting them makes a mockery of the law and does not serve justice. Do you believe in the rule of law? Or not?
Some states have done just that and have decriminalized possession of marijuana. New York chose to pass the Rockefeller Laws ("re-evaluate the penalty" goes in both directions, btw).
Since we have yet to see any drastic changes to the law, we obviously haven't reached that threshold.
(A million? There's about 20 million people who do illegal recreational drugs.)
A million? There's about 20 million people who do illegal recreational drugs.
Can I assume you agree with the notion, then, that it's time to re-evaluate the penalty of the law itself with regard to marijuana on a federal level?
You bet!
Since about 17 of those 20 million are involved with marijuana, that seems to be the drug to focus on -- I say we increase the penaly to discourage use. You agree with THAT notion?
Not at all. The effects of marijuana use pose no serious threat to the user or to society. Therefore, marijuana use should not be criminalized. If anything, I'd rather the federal government focus on more pernicious drugs, like cocaine, heroin, and meth.
Oh, you're asking me if I thought Prohibition was unjust? Of course it wasn't unjust. The people actually voted for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to implement it. Please tell me why you think that action was unjust. Can you? Can you really?
No, you can't. Prohibition was a mistake -- an unpopular law that lasted a mere 13 years. The people recognized their mistake and corrected it. For you to look back on that decision and call it an overturning of an injustice is totally unfounded and just plain wrong.
"But to automatically equate the two is folly."
I did this?
"And I submit that controlling someone's lift to the extent that drug (and other) laws do is profoundly wrong and unjust."
Nobody is "controlling" anybody's life. Nice try. If you choose to use drugs, there's a penalty.
What's wrong and unjust is a minority of the people attempting to force the rest of us to protect their supposed "right" to immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destuctive behavior. How is that "just", forcing me and my family to live next to drug addicts and drug dealers?
You're saying they DO pose a threat to the user, just not a serious one? I agree, and that's one reason to prohibit it.
As to the "threat to society" -- IF the legalization of marijuana resulted in a doubling of teen use, would that be enough of a threat to our society to maintain the illegality of marijuana? Or don't you care about that?
IF the legalization of marijuana resulted in a tripling of marijuana use among adults (with no reduction in the use of other drugs, like alcohol), would that be enough of a threat to our society to maintain the illegality of marijuana?
I'm just trying to get a feel for your definition of a "serious threat to our society", which I'm guessing is a very high bar (I thinking your "serious threat" = Bubonic Plague).
I'm saying marijuana use, in and of itself, does not pose a significant threat to its users. Its effects are so insignificant that no level of government should be concerned with its prohibition. I believe state and local government should regulate its use in the same manner state and local governments regulate alcohol use or tobacco use.
As to the "threat to society" -- IF the legalization of marijuana resulted in a doubling of teen use, would that be enough of a threat to our society to maintain the illegality of marijuana? Or don't you care about that?
See above. A reasonable marijuana "legalization" scheme would undoubtedly include certain restrictions aimed at reducing underage use of marijuana. I don't advocate underage people using drugs or alcohol at all.
IF the legalization of marijuana resulted in a tripling of marijuana use among adults (with no reduction in the use of other drugs, like alcohol), would that be enough of a threat to our society to maintain the illegality of marijuana?
Adults should be free to make their own decisions, yes? If marijuana legalization results in more adults using marijuana, why would that threaten our society in any way? As I wrote earlier, the effects of marijuana use are tame compared with the effects of alcohol use, tobacco use, cocaine use, heroin use, meth use, oxycontin abuse, etc.
I'm just trying to get a feel for your definition of a "serious threat to our society", which I'm guessing is a very high bar (I thinking your "serious threat" = Bubonic Plague).
I think meth use poses a serious threat to our society. I think heroin use poses a serious threat to our society. I think cocaine use poses a significant threat to our society. Does that help a bit?
Aw, geez. The old harm vs. no harm argument. You'd have more credibility with that one if you could point out just one society/government in all of recorded history that used that philosophy as a guideline for their laws. It's a Libertarian utopian wet dream.
"And that is inherently unjust.
Oh baloney. Calling it unjust doesn't make it so. Because a law is against certain immoral behavior does not make it unjust.
"And by the way, if prohibition was "a mistake", as you so correctly pointed out, why, then, do you sanction penalizing pot smokers?"
Huh? You see some relevant connection between the two? I don't.
"Refer to your own post (#60). In response to my question about why you thought prohibition was just, you responded that alcohol was legal, implying that legal = just."
Hey, refer to this. I never said that all laws were just, nor did I ever say that the implementation of those laws equated to justice. Got it now?
You're the one doing the generalizing here, not I.
"Once again, by this reasoning, you blindly equate the law with justice."
Again ... huh?
What's with you and this law & justice fetish? There is nothing inherently unjust about a law against immoral behavior. Most of our laws are against immoral behavior. What's your problem with that?
"And once again, limiting behavior for the sake of limiting behavior isn't the proper function of government."
Oh, so you think society prohibits drugs just for the sake of prohibiting drugs? No other reason?
"yet you believe that someone else's drug use is forcing you to protect their rights?"
Watch it, bucko. I never said that, and that's the second time you put words in my mouth. Fair warning -- once more and were done. I have better things to do than spend half my posts correcting your f^&$ ups.
Nobody's drug use if forcing me to do squat. I said if anything is unjust it is forcing the majority of society, against their will, to protect the supposed "right" of people to do drugs. Which is what you would have us do.
"And if drinking alcohol socially isn't "immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive", how does someone smoking pot with the same or similar frequency deserve those labels?"
Getting drunk IS immoral, hedonistic, selfish and destructive. Drinking is not.
"How the heck does legalizing pot "force" you to live next to junkies or drug dealers, any more than legalizing alcohol force you to live next to Ted Kennedy???? "
No clue, huh? Let me spell it out for you. Since pot is illegal, I can have the junkies and pot dealers moved far away from me and my family. I couldn't move Ted Kennedy with a forklift.
"that you don't take behavior-modification laws as "controlling", but you think the lack of them is."
Laws against immoral behavior leave people with a choice -- they are not "controlled" or forced to do anything. 20 million illegal drug users will attest to that fact.
I have no choice if drug dealer is legally allowed to move in next door -- not like I do today.
"And by the way, it's very likely that legalizing pot would pretty much do away with pot dealers"
30% of pot smokers today are underage. If history is a guide, with legalization, that number will go up. So, with half the marijuana market being underage, you're telling me this "pot dealer" will go away and get a real job. Really? Promise?
Oh, what a wonderful world you Libertarians live in. Let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
We legalize marijuana and the pot dealer will sell to kids. Unless marijuana will be legal for everyone.
The pot dealer will sell other illegal drugs in addition to marijuana. Unless you're planning on legalizing all drugs, including prescription drugs.
The pot dealer will sell high THC pot. Unless you think the government will allow that.
The pot dealer will sell pot laced with other drugs. Unless they're legal also.
The pot dealer will turn from an importer into an exporter, selling our legal marrijuana to countries where it remains illegal. Unless, again, you assume the ROW will follow The Great Satan's lead.
So yeah, given those assumptions, the pot dealer will go away.
"and I doubt seriously that the number of users/abusers would increase significantly."
Your "doubt" is based on what ... hope? Certainly not on history. In the late 70's, pot use was TRIPLE the lowest level since then. And it was illegal, mind you.
"I don't avoid pot because it's illegal"
Which doesn't mean a thing.
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.