Posted on 02/28/2009 8:55:36 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
GLENN BECK, HOST: Marijuana brownies, anyone? This is the worst — the people in our green room, I'm happy to say it's clear they've never been high.
I'm going to ask you what's wrong with this picture. Chicago is trying to fix $50 million budget — their budget gap by taxing car rentals in suburban areas. And now, California is talking about legalizing marijuana and taxing marijuana to solve their budget problems.
Rob Kampia is the executive director for the Marijuana Policy Project.
How are you doing — how are you doing, Rob?
ROB KAMPIA, MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT: Doing well.
BECK: All right. Do you smoke marijuana? Do you have any those marijuana's...
KAMPIA: Occasionally.
BECK: Occasionally?
KAMPIA: Yes.
BECK: It's against the law, you know.
KAMPIA: Yes. So, is speeding, a lot of people do that, also.
BECK: Wow. OK. You used to work for NORML, did you not?
KAMPIA: Yes.
BECK: Yes?
KAMPIA: Fourteen years ago.
BECK: Fourteen years ago. And is it true that you quit working with NORML because they were stoned all the time and that's all they really wanted to do was get high? They weren't serious about changing the laws?
KAMPIA: No, everyone there is very serious about changing the laws.
BECK: Really? OK.
KAMPIA: And the reason that — the reason that I left and started up the Marijuana Policy Project because I wanted to focus almost exclusively on lobbying and ballot initiatives.
BECK: OK. So, tell me because — look, I'm a libertarian. You want to legalize marijuana; you want to legalize drugs — that's fine.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
A 35 year old quote - in light of the bastardization that leftists have made of his definition - no longer applies.
Sorry. But thanks for playing.
What I have read, and granted, it is likely to be coming from Christian Conservative sources within Holland (where my family is from), it is national legislation which is being offered, and a national push to rid themselves of their liberal thinking. Their social system is all but collapsed under the weight, and their welfare system cannot keep up. It is not local cities (I had no idea).
> push to rid themselves of their liberal thinking
I’m all for that myself but whether pot is legal or not doesn’t matter in that regard. That are bigger wheels which have to be turned. Legal pot just frees up the police a bit and provides the government with some taxes (not a lot as only few people smoke it and usually only when they are young).
And focus on the huge Governmental Machinery that would be placed in effect to run the Department of Dope...
I would exchange the War on (Some) Drugs machinery for the Department of Dope machinery in a heartbeat. The War on (Some) Drugs is responsible for untold encroachments on our liberties from no-knock warrants to asset forfeiture to Know Your Customer banking regulations.
” I won’t say pot killed him, but it sure as hell didn’t help. “
It wasn’t pot that ruined his life. It was, unfortunately, his own personality. If he couldn’t have gotten pot, he would just have gotten something else, with the same likely result.
Another reason to get rid of the WoSD. Are you seriously advocating the invasion of Mexico by the US . . . just to stop people froom enjoying a bong hit every now and then?
What is funny about your statement is who you will find standing with those libertarians- Many of the Hunterites, the Keyes crowd, the Tancredo folks, and *some* of the Thompson set. IOW, the rock-ribbed Reaganites are the ones who stand with them and defend them. It is the "Big Tenters" that threw the Libertarians under the bus. And it is a shame.
The goal of the War on Drugs must be clearly articulated. Is it to have every American become as healthy as possible? That's a dangerous premise. Is it to minimize welfare rolls? There are easier ways to achieve this than to empower a police state. Where is its federal interest? If it's at the border, then put it at the border.
Let states decide the legality/illegality of growing pot for private use, of using pot, and of selling pot. See what happens in states based on the laws they enact. Perhaps some lessons will follow, for good or for ill. But keep the FedGov out. The WoD is just an excuse to keep local police addicted to federal money, which is itself a drug. It is a drug that gives recipients overweening pride, diminishes sympathy with one's fellow citizens, and removes one's independence. It creates jackboots and opportunists.
But what you fail to see, is the long term damage and apathy that hedonism creates. It usually winds up in an Oligarchy of some form or another.
I don't know how I'd survive without people like you telling everyone else how to live their lives.
I thought this was a site dedicated to freedom and liberty and the Constitution?
You and I are in agreement on this point. It is the unfortunate result for anyone with an "addictive" personality type. It is, in the end, a weakness in the spirit.
But here is also where I must part ways with you too- As I said upthread, it is the nature of things that one gets more of what one endorses... The damage already done within our society by legalized means of getting high are already boundless- Those of "weak spirit" far outnumber those who are strong enough to handle their vices with decorum, as I am sure you can agree.
And that effect does impact us as a nation- in destroyed lives, destroyed families, injuries, bastard children, and etc... For that reason, I am loathe to add to the problems that do already exist by sanctioning any other means as being "legal".
“What do you see as the role of government, and how does making Marijuana illegal apply to that role?”
I don’t think marijuana should be illegal.
You're right. I'd say half of the most successful and influential people I know like to smoke fairly often.
Like alcohol, some folks have a natural propensity to handle it's effects without any real addictive traits, beyond a certain jittery shortness of temper if denied the opportunity to imbibe...
Right again. Everyone is different. Anyone I tell that I smoke doesn't believe it and I have to pretty much smoke in front of them to prove I'm not joking. The propaganda is so strong they cannot believe what they see. I've quit instantly for federal contracts with no side effects. Quitting coffee after a few late nights gave me night sweats, pain and jitters though. Alcohol makes me feel sick and stupid for days. So again, everyone is different. The law should be based on what people do. Not what species of herb they hold.
By the same token, I have known plenty of people who have been the epitome of the "stupid pothead" stereotype. One of my good friends was such a pothead. He could barely keep his life together, and lived for getting high. He died at 50, broke and out of luck. I won't say pot killed him, but it sure as hell didn't help.
I'm sorry about your friend. Maybe he was stupid before being a "pothead"? This is the case in the few potheads I know. Some live for getting high, but why should the state dictate what victimless entertainment productive, law-abiding citizens could enjoy? Whats next, watching too much TV? Video games? Donuts? Promiscuous sex? All addictive, dangerous and possibly fatal to certain people. If your friend was really addicted, he was hurt enough by addiction. Why add jail, fines and a criminal record to put a nail in the coffin? Do we give criminal records to nonviolent alcoholics? No, we treat them. Your friend needed help and not a criminal record hanging over his head.
I just don't get it. Maybe all you drug warriors don't realize that pot is easier to buy than cigarettes(no ID needed). Prohibiting a plant is only possible in a 24/7 surveillance police state. Maybe not even then, since it is also commonly available in prison.
LOL>
No. He was an exceptional person before his love affair with the bud began- Good ol' boy from Texas too... Pot just took all his "want to" right away from him. He still held jobs fairly well, but went downhill all along. Classic pothead story, really. Went from being a pretty good nail-bender to working the late shift at the 7Eleven. From building his own house to living in a travel trailer. "Wasted" potential.
I don't mean to demean my friend's memory here, I just want to show that there is truth to both sides of this debate, and probably alot of gray in-between.
why should the state dictate what victimless entertainment productive, law-abiding citizens could enjoy? Whats next, watching too much TV? Video games? Donuts? Promiscuous sex?
Promiscuous sex is victimless? That is a statement I cannot agree with.
Your friend needed help and not a criminal record hanging over his head.
I agree with you to a degree, but a less permissive and accommodating culture would have helped him far more.
I just don't get it. Maybe all you drug warriors don't realize that pot is easier to buy than cigarettes(no ID needed). Prohibiting a plant is only possible in a 24/7 surveillance police state. Maybe not even then, since it is also commonly available in prison.
I probably know more about the street than most folks here, and I probably know more about prison too. I know how things work. I can get anything, anywhere, anytime.
And as to the "You Drug Warriors" thing, I am not your average "drug warrior". I agree with the principle. As I said a couple times upthread, one gets more of what one endorses. IMHO, we already have enough legal ways to get high. IMHO, I do not want any legal entity saying it's "OK" to get high at all. It is *not* victimless. Adding more "OK" ways adds to the problem.
Having said that, I am *not* happy with the federal scope of the drug war, nor am I happy with it's performance. I do believe the feds have the right to control interstate trafficking, and to wholly prevent international trafficking, especially across that damnable southern border. But I do not agree with the length to which they have subverted states rights, nor the ability of the state to control what happens within it's own sovereign borders.
As to the control of marijuana itself, I find legalizing it in order to tax it to be as unpalatable as legalizing gambling was- What an onerous, and stupid mistake. Compromising such a moral principle can do no one any good, and true libertarians should rightly be against it on both counts. Lending credence to yet another intoxicant leads to more moral terpitude, which leads to more laws to prevent the moral terpitude, which gives the state more control. This has been he state of our decline for the last 50 years.
By the way, This is not an entirely unreasonable point of view. I don't know how it could be applied specifically, beyond already existing DUI/DWI laws...
It is only an "irony" because you mischaracterize. This libertarian and many others, including Ron Paul, favor legalization but DO NOT advocate a tax on the product. Now...perhaps you will find a better argument for your position.
-snip-
The study was funded by the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the Dutch Ministry of Health.
http://www.ucsc.edu/currents/03-04/05-03/drug_study.html
_____________________________________
I've seen government figures that show The Netherlands had a lower rate of heroin addiction than Singapore or the U.S. in the mid to late 1990's. I'll try to dig them up if anyone requests.
Even IF people weren't more religious or moral and they only went to church they at least recognized that there was a standard to live up to. This standard permeated culture and society. It was an authority higher than man. Once removed the standard became whichever lawyer could make the cleverest argument and who could appoint more judges that agreed with their viewpoint.
I've seen that argument too. It's like saying that laws against pornography are wrong because they did just fine without all those laws in the 1700's. It's crazy logic.
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.