Posted on 06/17/2010 7:52:51 AM PDT by pissant
Former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin said Wednesday night that law enforcement should not focus its energy on the “minimal problem” of marijuana.
Palin made the comment during an appearance on the Fox Business Network with Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).
The libertarian Paul said enforcing marijuana restrictions specifically and war on drugs more generally is a “useless battle,” a point Palin somewhat agreed with though she was clear that she does not support legalization.
"If we're talking about pot, I'm not for the legalization of pot,” Palin said. “I think that would just encourage our young people to think that it was OK to go ahead and use it.”
“However I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts,” Palin added. “If somebody's gonna to smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems we have in society.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I don't make the claim that any of it is healthy, but all things in moderation, right?
As far as meth and heroin and such being legal or illegal, I don't really have an opinion. Only those who truly need to be weeded out would choose to do those drugs. They are just another form of natural selection. If those drugs were legal, the selection process would just move faster.
I mean really, if heroin were legal would that make you more inclined to try it??????
Then why are they still hanging people?
Singapore has one of the highest execution rates (per capita) in the world.
To stop the organized crime portion, you make the stuff legal. Do you remember Prohibition? Oh, right, this is different, you'll say.
Maybe even pop a pain killer or xanax to boot
???????????
The reason this will upset some conservatives is that they think more people will smoke pot, and it will turn them into liberals. Pot actually serves a great purpose: it’s the easiest means by which to give a liberal an economics lesson. “Dude, you notice how when everybody has some, it’s like really cheap; and when you can barely find any, it’s like totally more expensive?” Guaranteed to elicit an “Oh wow” if properly delivered.
This will probably NOT be the most popular post but the only time I have ever considered purchasing the stuff was when I was taking care of two immediate family members during their terminal cancer days. The chemo and radiation was taking such a toll that both persons literally ate nothing or a half a piece of dry toast a day. The weight loss was extreme and their body didn’t have enough energy to enjoy even their last few months. The pills prescribed would constipate them so badly that it became another health issue. Also, they would be sleepy and lethargic and the stronger medicine was kept for the final days so a tolerance during the first few months wasn’t built up. I have never tried pot and had no idea even where to go for it. All I am saying is every drug has a useful purpose in limited cases. So many people use prescription meds and I wonder if a legal joint here or there for a small amount of time wouldn’t help people. I guess I see another side of the story. Keep the addictive, liver damaging pills for extreme cases and let the medical community allow marijuana for limited use in other ones. Just a person who dealt with this on a sadder level.
Let us review the issue a little more deeply. Singapore HANGS a handful of serious criminals each year. The total number of people losing their lives to drugs is very limited as a result (including the criminals). In the US, mortalities from drug use as well as all the homicides in the drug trade add up into the 10’s of thousands annually.
Which policy is the deadly one???
Tell that to the 800,000 or so Americans who will be arrested for possessing it this year.
Seems then it’s a 2-for-1: you eliminate the 1/3rd dealing drugs, and you can redirect your police to eliminate the other 2/3rds.
Who is advocating that? Where is that in the original article or any post in this thread?
As my Singaporean friends told me, something had to be done, something soon and something draconian so it would work. They ended the problem in one generation.
Yes, there are still druggies in Singapore, but they are so few that resources are readily available for those who want off drugs. For those who want to continue, there are small islands off the coast of Singapore where they are exiled so they can continue to be useless without robbing their fellow citizens-- or worse.
As for the drug dealers, they hang maybe three to four dozen per year. That's a whole lot less than the number of drug related killings in any similar sized city in the United States.
As I said, I think marijuana should be treated outside this system, because potheads are too lazy to steal. However, I'm not aware of anyone in Singapore ever being hanged for dealing marijuana because the amount they would have to have is so large as to render this draconian penalty moot.
Not me. I'm a 48 YO man with some semblance of wisdom. But how many 15 through 20 year olds have much wisdom? Alcohol is only addictive to a small % of people who try it. Of the hundreds of people I've known who drink, I can think of 3 or 4 that became alcoholics. My mom has been drinking for 62 of her 80 years, and still enjoys a rum & coke or a couple glasses of wine every other day. My nephew got hooked on heroine while living in europe at 15 yo. He's yet to recover, 10 years later.
Anyone who wants to do drugs...already is...
LOL! I'd go even a step further: Give the most productive illegal aliens a green card for every druggie which their countries of origin agreed to host in exchange.
Not just "gonna" but "gonna to", which really makes no sense. The whole point of using "gonna" is slurring "going to" into one word.
Palin does not talk like this, so I'll have to assume the typist does.
Well said, Sarah!
I completely agree with you.
Has this abated Singapore’s drug problems? No.
Has our WO(S)D abated the USA’s drug problems? No.
Mortalities from drug use are optional. Let the buyer/user BEWARE.
Mortalities from drug prohibition and the associated war on both sides of the issue is government-sponsored.
1. Some of the people are not interested in doing good. Some consciously behave quite to the contrary. 2. It seems this has always been so, and there is no reason to expect a change any time soon. 3. A portion of that group is attracted to government, and the power it offers, and this also appears to be a constant.
4. Many such people have acquired government control, and have done some of the most awful crimes committed by man.
Therefore, to me, it seems insane to design a government dependent on good men. Completely hallucinatory to rest the fate of your liberty on that. Madness.
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.