Posted on 03/08/2014 6:12:42 AM PST by PaulCruz2016
There are things you expect to see at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and there are things you don't. One of the things you probably don't is an audience cheering and applauding arguments for legalizing pot and bemoaning the war on drugs.
A panel titled "Rocky Mountain High" held Thursday afternoon started out as a debate between Mary Katherine Ham of Fox and Hot Air and Christopher Beach a staffer for former Drug Czar William Bennett's radio show. But as the debate wore on it became clear the real disagreement was between Beach and the overwhelming majority of the audience.
The Q&A portion of the panel lasted well over an hour. Person after person stood up to challenge Beach's position on the war on drugs or the dangers of pot. Toward the end of the 100 minutes it had become a kind of joke. After one tough question by someone who clearly favored legalization, Beach turned to Ham and said "I guess that one's for me."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
It’s too bad that you are so obsessed with yourself that you insist on pinging entire threads to your posts.
You need to grow up and lay off the theatrics.
Step up the fed enforcement!
You sound to me like you should be the next druggie colleected by the narcs!
I class users the same as muslims, the only good one is a dead one!
Thank-you for your apology. I accept it.
At least I don't assert that anyone not willing to use the iron fist of the government to enforce my sensibilities is the enemy (a moral reprobate in support of whatever it is you're railing against).
Also learn to lay off the trolling and personal attacks, and carrying grudges from thread to thread.
By what authority?
You sound to me like you should be the next druggie colleected by the narcs!
Are you drunk, because I gave seven points of failure for supporting the War on Drugs and this is the response I get? Pathetic.
(BTW, I predicted some would would say exactly this.)
What personal attack?
PS — your detestable behavior towards myself and others has earned you a reputation (in my opinion) for being a personally-attacking troll even to those of us who would otherwise agree with you.
“Do you also think that heroin, cocaine, rape and pedophilia have been made illegal just to provide busywork for the prison unions?”...what you did was through in rape and violent type of issues with children, when all I was commenting on was drugs. That is not fair nor legit. I also am correct that I never wrote that it is all concocted for the industry of prisons and their unions. You once again twisted what I said. It is like you cannot even get my meaning. You are one judgmental person. Obviously, as I wrote, the motives are all good, but things get all screwed up in the works, and we end up having a cycle of people going to prison and becoming more hardcore, all over addictions. I don’t know that that is the answer, it certainly hasn’t stopped the millions of pot smokers, just as prohibition never worked. So for you to write the beginning of the end, just because CPAC was seemingly wanting pot to be legalized, I think is more judgment.
I wasn’t present for whatever threads you were talking about, but on this thread Shark is absolutely correct.
The “War on Drugs” cannot be justified under the Constitution. Moreover, it has unquestionably ballooned the scope and power of the federal government. By twisting the Interstate Commerce clause to include commerce that everyone agrees isn’t “interstate” at all, it has made a mockery of the Founders’ plan for us.
Expanding government to save people from choices we don’t like isn’t conservatism. It’s the exact opposite.
I live in Colorado too. We now have a very profitable industry operating legally and paying taxes. Do you have evidence of crime or violence? I have yet to see a downside.
Of course it is. EVERYTHING is a diversion.
But in the end it is a crap product that will stall a ton of American lives from being productive and we will get them all on public assistance.
Until you can pay for the damage I suggest you don’t advocate for this disaster.
Attempting to wrap the disaster in a flag is the worst as well IMO.
My point is and remains that a likely increased health risk associated with marijuana use is carefully avoided on these threads.
I see you are no exception. Oh, and BTW.....marijuana was illegal and has been made legal. Nicotine has been legal all along. And neither are good for you.
How am I wrapping a disaster in the flag? Isn't the War on Drugs already a disaster "wrapped in a flag" (or at least 'conservative'?
Until you can pay for the damage I suggest you don’t advocate for this disaster.
To think like that is to oppose correcting fundamentally flawed policy/"laws" — consider the GCA and it's prohibited persons
, the law is ex post facto in its nature and therefore prohibited by the Constitution, but you could argue against repealing it because to do so would allow "bad people" [felons] to carry arms.
But in the end it is a crap product that will stall a ton of American lives from being productive and we will get them all on public assistance.
So?
Isn't the real question here how much authority the federal government has to dictate the parameters of your life?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis
“Just say no”, Nancy Reagan.
The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. […] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, to dispense with the warrant requirement.
If Congress decides that the “‘total incidence’” of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. […] the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
It is urged that, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, § 8, clause 3, Congress does not possess the power it has in this instance sought to exercise. The question would merit little consideration, since our decision in United States v. Darby, sustaining the federal power to regulate production of goods for commerce, except for the fact that this Act extends federal regulation to production not intended in any part for commerce, but wholly for consumption on the farm. The Act includes a definition of "market" and its derivatives, so that, as related to wheat, in addition to its conventional meaning, it also means to dispose of by feeding (in any form) to poultry or livestock which, or the products of which, are sold, bartered, or exchanged, or to be so disposed of.
projected increase tax revenueas the
public use. (See Kelo)
right to privacyunder the ninth amendment which prohibits the several states from enacting penalties for abortion… while the same right to privacy amounts to naught in the Affordable Care Act, or with respect to domestic spying ("[meta]data collection").
for their own goodit itself an adequate reason to impose, via authority, something contrary to what a person might will?
Probably because you misspelled “refrained” in your original Post. LOL
There are so many to choose from;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3131520/posts
Leni, the Repubs have opened themselves to this because so many have, through their open hostility to the tea party, revealed that they are actually RINOs. Too many repubs have shown me they are really democrats in disguise - they don’t care about our founding principles at all - they just want to keep the money flowing THEIR way.
People are sick of being played for fools and are looking for an alternative. So when the libertarians pop up and say, “look at us - we have the principles NONE of the people that have run for president on the republican ticket have had, nominated by the Republican Powers that be, like McCain and Romney” - people sit up and take notice.
How many times does the Republican power elite think they can kick the base and laugh about it, without a revolt starting to foment? Not saying it’s a great idea, but I understand it. Even Rush has been subtly warning the elites.
"warning the elites."
Actually what distinguishes those whom you euphemistically refer to as "the elites," is that they are perhaps the most obvious example of those being "played for fools."
Those bent upon destroying the heritage of the Founding Fathers, have been more successful playing the Republican Corporate types as fools, than they have with just about any other group. The trick is focusing the target group on immediate wishes, rather than their actual long-term interests. (For example, see Another Variation On Demonic Theme.)
The game, literally, is as old as Genesis. The most effective answer is not to puff up the egos of the foolish dupes, but to identify their folly for what it is.
William Flax
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.