Posted on 01/13/2014 5:41:21 PM PST by SeekAndFind
It's starting to appear as if marijuana users have become the homosexual lobby of the chemically dependent. What do I mean? Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson could mention one sexual behavior (adultery) as disqualifying someone from the "kingdom of God," but mentioning that "other" sexual behavior? That's a boycottin', pardner! Likewise, there's no shortage of articles about the perils of smoking tobacco -- about how it causes lung cancer, emphysema and premature aging; about how it's a dirty, nasty habit -- all without indignant smokers crawling out of the woodwork to protest, between hacking coughs, that their passion is being unfairly demonized. But dare imply that inhaling copious amounts of marijuana smoke may not be one of Dr. Oz's top ten health recommendations, and, well, the potheads cometh.
[SNIP]
While most agree that casual drinking -- one or two drinks -- is fine and may even offer health benefits, it's universally acknowledged that drunkenness is destructive, ugly and reckless. In accordance with the old PSA, "If you have to drink to be social, it's not social drinking," it's accepted that if you have to get inebriated to deal with life, you have a problem.
[SNIP]
So I'll say that if you want to have one or two small puffs of a marijuana cigarette, fine. But you've crossed the line if you get high.
Deal?
This puts the lie to the alcohol/pot comparison. There are millions of casual drinkers who may have a beer or glass of wine with dinner but have no intention of getting tipsy. Except, however, for the few who use pot for legitimate medical purposes (and I'm dubious about the necessity of this, mind you), the goal of a marijuana smoker is ever and always to get high (drunk). The intention is always to alter his mental state.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
My brother graduated from HS in 65 (he’s 7 years older than me). He says pot was just starting to show up in our smaller Midwestern town when he was in HS.
Legal marijuana will only mean more alcohol deaths because marijuana smokers drink and smoke. Why do you reject the traditional intoxicant alcohol? You think you can do better with pot? That’s a laugh
Everybody gets victimized in some manner or another. Everybody certainly feels victimized at some point or another.
The 1910s/20s for my grandparents, and the 1940s/50s for my parents. They never even heard of “marijuana” until they reached their adult years, and it was likely from a magazine article at that.
Much later, I went through my entire high school years and college years without ever seeing a single person smoke a marijuana cigarette. Not the kind of crowd I’d hang out with.
I didn’t reject it. It’s a personal choice. But it’s a fact that alcohol is more toxic, more dangerous and results in more deaths and societal costs than marijuana. Why do you defend it so vigorously?
Was going to say that this topic is the easiest way to bring out the Libertopians... :p
Laboratories of democracy. The problem is the "substantial effects" doctrine of the Commerce Clause has muddled what started out as a clearly enumerated power into an open-ended usurpation that has no objectively discernible limit.
Of course it’s about money. This is the U.S.A. after all.
And the nannytarians.
The utopians are you guys who want to use the power of the state to “FIX” all our problems.
Whereas you people will use an incident of irresponsible pot usage to justify your war on drugs and the atrocities that commits on the Constitution, I don't. Its as simple as that. People do dumb things whether there's a law or not.
But think what all those bad rulings could do in a Constitutionalist’s hands. If every human action is “in commerce”, then every government action must be. How many local, county and state zoning, licensing and permitting ordinances are restraints on trade or limitations on the 50 state free market America is supposed to be. It’s a very sharp blade that cuts both ways if we let it.
Keep hacking at the roots. That’s where the real change will come from.
Eliminating those restraints is the only direction it was intended to cut. Those bad rulings serve no purpose in the hands of a Constitutionalist. It would be a tool that would not fit his hand.
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.