Posted on 01/26/2014 9:10:57 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Mr. Norris, with Washington and Colorado recently legalizing pot smoking and their football teams (Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos) being in the Super Bowl, some have asked whether there is going to be added marijuana use during this year’s Super Bowl. And President Barack Obama recently said that he doesn’t think marijuana is as dangerous as alcohol. What do you think, Chuck? Is it? – “Trying to Make Sense of Sensimilla” in Seattle
I understand the arguments for the legalization of marijuana: It can generate tax revenue. It can reduce illegal supply and demand. It can strip power from cartels and lessen crime across and at our borders. And it isn’t so dangerous as other illegal drugs or alcohol.
You’re right; President Obama even claimed one of those arguments when he recently told New Yorker Editor David Remnick, “As has been well-documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life.”
Obama explained, “(Smoking marijuana is) not something I encourage, and I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.” But then he added, “I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.”
With the president entering the cannabis conversation ring, debate has intensified around the nation. But what’s the truth in the alcohol-vs.-marijuana dispute?
This past week, CNN reported on some extensive studies and evidence surrounding the topic, especially in comparing use, addiction, withdrawal and the effects on using motorized vehicles.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
anyone who thinks sex with a minor is okay should be shot
Rejection of Natural Law and Original Sin ALWAYS leads to the rationalization of almost anything, Too old, Why not just “ take the pill and go home” and die. Physical defect? Why not kill it in the womb now? Sex with children?
“why is it abuse? Below the age of twelve or so, a child may not be particularly interested in seeking sexual relations but that doesn’t mean he or she will not voluntarily accept and enjoy them.”
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin010.pdf
sickening that people could think like that and still be considered sane
You understand. And when non-trusting (fearful), control minded people encounter something they don't care for, they ban it and to hell with the consequences.
Thus, we have tried to ban guns, alcohol, every drug, including and now especially cigarettes, sex, riding without a helmet or driving without a seatbelt and to what end?
Certainly not liberty. Not when the answer is because those "things" are misused by a minority of those who do use them, NO ONE can have them or the freedom to decide for themselves and accept the consequences.
But...Human nature must be controlled by those who know best, so we must take those toys away, while exaggerating their danger as justification for the good of all. Right?
“Do you think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken.
There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
– Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
That's really what you believe? ROFL! Oh man. You've a sick mind if you really believe that, and if you believe that website is anything less than a smear-campaign effort. Good luck with that.
No.
Thalidomide is banned in the US for administration to pregnant women, true. It is currently used in the US to treat leprosy and multiple myeloma, and number of off-label uses, all of which are serious or life-threatening medical conditions. It could be administered as an antinausea drug, I suppose, but why bother when Zofran is far cheaper and less problematic?
You can write the editors of Clinical Pharmacology and tell them they’re wrong, but I don’t think they’ll be very keen.
5.56mm
I’m happily re-reading Dostoyevsky’s “Notes from the Underground”.
My take away now as it was then is, F**k you, I am man that thinks for myself.
The left propose straw men arguments to further their cause
I see you found UK website with which you would like to slime libertarians. You could just as easliy quote Fred Phelps and say all Baptist are foul screaming lunatics. Now remind me again who is using staw men?
While I’m not a libertarian, and think it is ultimately at odds with basic human nature, I do admire the fact that it is the one political philosophy out there which treats grown-ups like grown-ups, and demands that they bear the sole cost for their decisions.
The main argument against “free will” (outside of morality) in America is that government programs subsidize bad behavior and life choices. Therefore, until the government programs are removed and each person truly has to survive on their own merits those who work (make good choices) will pay for the freewill of others (who make bad choices). This is not freedom.
A morbidly obese person in America can receive free housing, food, and health care. Remove the government and they would have to change their lifestyle.
A fornicating drug user receives free housing, food, and health care. Remove the government and they would have to change their lifestyle.
Career criminals are provided for while incarcerated and provided the same when free to commit more crimes. Remove the government and society would remove them permanently. A career of crime would end the life of the criminal.
Single mothers no longer require a working father because government has removed the consequences.
The lazy are paid to be.... lazy.
Etc - etc.
I was raised by parent’s who told me “actions have consequences”. This is no longer true in America. Libertarians promote an argument that ignores reality.
My neighbor’s life-choices in the United States impact my life because government and society hold us both in the same web. The choices of one affects the other as he and I both travel on the same roads, but only one of us pays for it. His refusal to work raises my taxes. His refusal to care for himself raises my health care costs.
The old ways before government programs were very effective. Families (traditional) took care of family members. Each person receiving help had to face those helping him/her each and every day. The pressure existed to shame others to make good choices.
Our redistributive government destroyed the traditional family and removed the moral pressure to contribute. Meanwhile, modern libertarians are stuck on legalization as some kind of mythical path to freedom?
My rule of thumb has always been that anybody who loudly claims to be a Libertarian (”Outright”, or otherwise) is most likely a Liberal, until proven otherwise.
bump
It`s not molestation according to libertarians if there is consent.
The Libertarian platform is vague with no mention of consent laws.
The Libertarian platform is vague with no mention of consent laws.
The Libertarian Party platform seems pretty clear to me:
Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.
Note the two requirements. The first is that there is consent. The second is that the parties are adults. Adults means not children.
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.