Excellent rebuttal to just one of Prager's idiocies - others are found in responses to Prager's screed at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2996034/posts.
Considerate liberals are always willing to take time off from their anti-tobacco ranting to explain why legalizing dope is a good thing.
“Reefer Madness” from 1936”? I think it’s theater run was over well before 1966.
I have to agree. Dispense with the hysteria and see what happens.
Way past time to drop the persecution. We’ve got much bigger fish to fry!
Guy needs to let go of that bong. My kids teach skiing with dozens of ski and snowboard instructors in their teens and 20s. They tell me you can always tell which ones are on weed—they tend to be sloppy, aimless, and mentally slow on the uptake. What's really sad, they say, is when you can see the same kid—a teenager—seem to "shrink" psychologically and physically from year to year, instead of growing bigger and brighter.
My observation of my fellow Baby Boomers was similar. Habitual users I knew seemed to lose focus and self-discipline. A lot of narcissism and depression, with bad effects on work and marriage. There's probably some self-selection going on here, too—with people inclined to those problems more attracted to getting high.
Glad to see someone still understands federalism. FReepers who support prosecution of cannabis users wouldn’t be so annoying if they would at least acknowledge that the interstate commerce clause gives the fedguv no power to outlaw the intrastate use.
There’s a very good reason why they call it ‘DOPE’.
Marijuana was a gateway drug to stupidity Ca and Co are proven test cases.
Slackers dead beats and other losers love the stuff,they are to stupid to fix problems so they just hang out in utopia land.
Reefer Madness was made by the same man who made Maniac (later billed as Sex Maniac) and bought Freaks from MGM.
You weaken your argument by treating the films of Dwain Esper and Don Sonney etc. as principled indictments of depravity. They were exploitation filmmakers (one step away from carnival barker) showing glimpses of t!ts and a$$ with "moral" lessons to be learned by the roadshow audiences. They even screened sex ed films to segregated audiences (complete with birth of a baby sequences) and pumped noxious fumes so that patrons could "see" the "shocked" and "nauseous" audiences who'd witnessed their overhyped bits of four walled entertainment.
Iceberg Slim must’ve been wrong on marijuana too. He said it made his prostitutes too lazy to go to work.
As our society spirals downward into wider tolerance and defence of every form of sexual immorality, infanticide, drug use the citizenry bemoans the dishonesty and lawlessness of the institutions of church, government, academia and news media, yet many, like the “free to use drugs is freedom” crowd cannot see the connection between the two, action and result.
Is there a study that quantifies how many people use cocaine before any other substances?
And without legalizing cocaine and heroin, there will still be illicit drug trade.
Even with legal alcohol sales, there are still home distillers who face tax revenuers.
(A) the culture CELEBRATES its use.
(B) why dissuade use if there are no health implications, drains on productivity, or other negative effects? It's like abortion, right? Just some dead tissue, no shame in doing it.
Meanwhile MAAD seeks neo-prohibition of alcohol (and has been since the 1980s) and smoking nazis/lawyers/states have targeted tobacco for big financial shakedowns for decades as well.
A bit late to think that pot or anything else can be legalized without total restriction, prohibition on its actual use. Employers can even prohibit employees from smoking tobacco in their non-working hours. Would doping be akin to homosexuality? A lifestyle choice above such discrimination?
Gay marriage and pot legalization. Brought to by the mindless libertarians. Bunch of cave ins. If pot was legal in 1776 we never would have driven out the British.
I think all drug use should be legal. However, I also think it should be damned difficult to find a job, obtain custody to children, operate certain types of machinery (cars, boats, etc.), run for public office.
I think it ought to be difficult to buy insurance if you use it. I think lenders should be able to test and either not loan users money, or charge them higher rates (higher risks mean higher rates).
Use it in the military, lose a stripe and some cash. (destruction of government property - just like a hangover before movement or a sunburn that puts you in sickbay). I think colleges ought to be able to test for substance use before giving students admission (again, higher risk means higher drop out rate).
I think it should be taxed. I think those people selling it without paying the tax, or buying it without paying the tax should have a lien put on their personal property.
Let the free market discriminate on the basis of risk, and don’t sue them for it. The science is pretty clear, so let the actuarials reign and let the courts protect the businesses (this is the weak part in the argument).
I always told my kids in high school baseball that marijuana could be extremely destructive to their developing brains, and that no amount of cool could mitigate that. That if they had to smoke pot, I thought they should wait until they’re about 25 years old. They were good kids though. It never really became an issue.