HURT: Now that I have to pay for it, it is my business

The Washington Times ^ | July 15, 2014 | Charles Hurt

[2ndDivisionVet]

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

Politicians here have not even figured out how yet to implement their new law requiring us to pay for everybody else’s health care, and already people are clamoring to legalize drugs that are, at the very least, hazardous to their health.

The good people of Colorado and Washington state can now buy and smoke pot without violating state laws. The movement to do so is spreading among other states like a hot tropical virus through a detention facility on the Mexican border.

I, for one, have never really cared one way or the other if people choose to smoke pot. My experience is that it appears to make most people dumber and slower. But it also seems to make some people happy and fall asleep, which I view as a real positive. Especially the part about putting them to sleep.

But I certainly don’t think that my long-developed and strongly held views against using drugs should be inflicted upon other people to whom I have no responsibility. Nor do I believe that someone else’s devotion to a weed pipe in any way impinges upon some high morals or precious views that I might hold.

I don’t like cats. But I don’t want to outlaw cats...

[sten]

he’s a capital ‘L’ Libertarian ... the drug centric party. this s significantly different for the personal responsibility/ small govt/ moral lifestyle mindset of the founders

please make the distinction

[HiTech RedNeck]

And no, I will not accept your deflection. I will speak as needful in a truly objective view, which is not necessarily YOURS!

[sten]

tax revenues in CO have increased less then 1%

[HiTech RedNeck]

Indeed, you can find the term “libertarian” with a small “l” used in a positive sense in Ronald Reagan’s own exhortations, and they are in keeping with the general tone of his exhortations which are to hope and purpose rather than to despair and aimlessness.

Somehow, America got on through the 19th century without demonizing any intoxicant. It seemed like such an easy, such a facile remedy to social ills to ascribe demonic attributes to something like rum, which never leaped unbidden unto someone’s soul.

The bible clearly points out that humanity’s genuine interest is not in fighting “flesh and blood” or “things that perish with use” but a literal kingdom of hell made up of literal demons that have their own military structure of authority and which besiege the world. They can no more be banned by human law than the tides of the ocean can. They can only be fought by inviting God into each and every personal heart.

[HiTech RedNeck]

But if it is by virtue of one single product, that is a fair bump.

[blueplum]

I wonder if this moron would mind it if the doper worked on his car brakes or on the jet engines of the airline he would book a flight for.

If we're talking grown adults, after reviewing the NIH and NHTSA reports, I think I'd rather have a weekend stoner working on my brakes than a lunchbreak drinker. They may be a tick slower but they're apparently more careful. To wit:
NHTSA data for young adult drivers:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/Marijuana+&+Alcohol+Combined+Increase+Impairment

reaction time under live driving conditions:
no alcohol/no thc = average reaction time of 4.65 seconds
Thc only = 4.65 plus 0.9 second delay
Alcohol at BAC 0.1 is "far more impairing" than THC alone. (that would be a beer on lunch break, btw, for those brake fellows or guys over at the maintenance bay)

NHTSA report on traffic fatalities [all age groups],
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/26000/26600/26685/DOT_HS_808_065.pdf

"Among the 625 drivers who had BACs at or above O.lO%, the responsibility rate [for a fatality crash] was an extraordinary 94%,"
and, "In the absence of alcohol, no drug or drug group evidenced a driver responsibility rate significantly different from the drugfree control group." (page 111 marked as page 99)
and, "The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers, as was found previously by Williams and colleagues (1985). While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.(page 112 marked as page 100)

and, lastly, NIH weighs in - complex problem solving:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11682259

"Although marijuana significantly increased the number of premature responses and the time participants required to complete several tasks, it had no effect on accuracy on measures of cognitive flexibility, mental calculation, and reasoning...acute marijuana smoking produced minimal effects on complex cognitive task performance in experienced marijuana users."

Trix are for kids. Pot, like alcohol, is for adults. Isn't it time to put Refer Madness to bed?

[Objective Scrutator]

You need to incorporate both love and fear into spreading God's Word, because He, His Son, and the Holy Spirit extensively speak on both. With only love and no fear, you can manipulate God's Word into whatever blasphemous New Age nonsense you want. If we only speak of love without incorporating paternalism, then the receiver may misinterpret this as God being complicit with him accepting welfare checks.

Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.

On publicity (the Muslims and their taqiyya are very concerned with this):

Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

[HiTech RedNeck]

There’s nothing wrong with spiritual “paternalism.” God has the right to dictate what form the love takes... but my point is that it is 24K genuine, and that people also tend to vastly UNDERestimate grace.

The problem is when earthly governments proudly step up and pretend to being those comprehensive paternal factors. They can’t be. Never could, never will. The attempt to do so, in fact, defines liberalism quite well!

[silverleaf]

LOLOLOL!!

[Ken H]

The order matters a great deal, and allowing people to put absolutely anything they want into their bodies might be a fine idea -- but first they need to abolish my responsibility to pay for their little adventures.

Can we assume that includes the types of food people eat, since obesity costs taxpayers $$$ in health care?

[MadIsh32]

Exactly. Fat people (in particular in rural America) clearly have higher levels of heart disease and diabetes which costs Americans far more in health insurance than stoners will.

[ClearCase_guy]

I just want government charity stopped. That’s my point.

I believe that changing laws so that drugs are more available will lead to some disrupted lives and therefore a greater need for government charity.

My #1 priority is ending government charity.
I’m not interested in new laws that alter in any way how people eat.
I’m generally not interested in new laws of any kind.
I’m open to relaxing laws that allow more freedom in what drugs people might take.
But people need to be in a position where there is no safety net: they must be responsible for themselves, because there is no government charity. Then — if they want to use drugs, I suppose it’s none of my business.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

It’s till enough to put stars in the eyes of some politicians.

NOTE to self: When selling 30 round magazines from the trunk of your car, don’t eat local cooked Colorado food. Bring your own from out of state!

[Objective Scrutator]

We are anti-abortion because we know that life begins at conception, but this argument makes a specific appeal to Christianity. The secular humanist religion believes that life increases in worth based on how many cells it has and how well its nervous system is developed _ should we respect that belief? Yes, abortion is an extreme case, but the point is that we shouldn't have knee-jerk reactions against paternalism.

Do you think that Lawrence v. Texas was a reasonably decided court case? A community which wishes to impose anti-sodomy laws should be allowed to do so, as the argument is majoritarian and, more importantly, moral. The Bible unequivocally advocates that we keep the laws of the Old Testament, and is also unequivocal in stating that those are laws to be enforced, especially since those laws are specific to the point that misinterpretation is idiocy or deceit. Any changes to the laws from the OT are specifically mentioned in the NT.