Well I guess that's it then. If a doctor wants to prescribe LSD because he and the patient believe it infers a medical benefit, then so be it. If a doctor wants to prescribe heroin to a patient because they both "believe" it infers a medical benefit, then go for it. Belief trumps empirical evidence and rule of law.
These concepts do not apply because they're not true. "States rights", "freedom", and "liberty" are not true?!
I guess that depends on what subject you're defining with them. Conservatives wouldn't define having men having sex with 16 year old boys as "freedom", "liberty" or "states rights". Liberals would. Conservatives wouldn't define letting hookers run around neighborhoods unimpeded as liberty, liberals would. Conservatives wouldn't define killing unborn babies as liberty, liberals would. And conservatives wouldn't define smoking pot as an issue of liberty, while liberal would.
Laughable nonsense; alcohol has sent many lives into noonproductive oblivion ... and triggered far more violence than marijuana. And if we're criminalizing "potential to harm our society" where do we stop? Ban junk food? Enforce bedtimes for adults?
Abusing alcohol makes the user die much faster than abusing pot. Pot makes its users docile, stupid and susceptible to liberal propaganda. Since they can remain in this docile and stupid state for decades they make the perfect voting bloc for liberal propaganda.
Infinitely faster, in fact, since virtually no one dies of pot.
Pot makes its users docile, stupid and susceptible to liberal propaganda.
No scientific data backs up this non-fact, and that's not for lack of looking.
Since they can remain in this docile and stupid state for decades they make the perfect voting bloc for liberal propaganda.
As opposed to knee jerk drug warriors, who make the perfect mindless voting block to be manipulated by hysterical appeals to phony drug crises.
There is strong evidence that marijuana has medical benefits. Marijuana need not be smoked ... and whether those benefits outweigh the harms of smoking is not for government to decide.
Conservatives wouldn't define having men having sex with 16 year old boys as "freedom", "liberty" or "states rights".
Minors don't possess the full rights of adulthood, which is why I don't support legalizing marijuana for minors.
Conservatives wouldn't define letting hookers run around neighborhoods unimpeded as liberty
No, they'd call for regulation (including zoning) instead of a futile and counterproductive criminalization.
Conservatives wouldn't define killing unborn babies as liberty
Killing, unlike marijuana sale or use, violates rights.
And conservatives wouldn't define smoking pot as an issue of liberty
Sure they would.
And if we're criminalizing "potential to harm our society" where do we stop? Ban junk food? Enforce bedtimes for adults?
I didn't see your answer to this question.
Pot makes its users docile, stupid and susceptible to liberal propaganda. Since they can remain in this docile and stupid state for decades they make the perfect voting bloc for liberal propaganda.
So it's OK to ban things that make people vote liberal? Attending Harvard? Reading the NY Times?