Posted on 09/21/2014 1:39:21 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Hundreds of military veterans received marijuana free of charge on Saturday. The unusual event included free medical marijuana and edibles.
Organizers designed the event specifically for veterans, but members of the public were also welcome.
A handful of Denver area businesses teamed up for the event specifically for veterans, but members of the public were also welcome. Hundreds lined up to get into the largest event ever hosted by Operation Grow4Vets. …
(Excerpt) Read more at denver.cbslocal.com ...
It is a perfectly sufficient argument actually.
It is insufficient to grant an enumerated power.
It is a perfectly sufficient argument actually.
I commend your consistency - but the conservatives of that day opposed the enactment of the 'progressive' policy of Prohibition.
I truly don’t care who was for or against prohibition nearly a century ago. Alcohol has been a part of society for thousands of years and it’s use is not inconsistent with natural law. Drug addiction is an entirely different demon. Drug addiction has never been considered acceptable in society. It is little different than homosexuality as far as natural law is concerned. As such, the federal government is well within their right to prohibit drug addiction.
Conservatives learn the lessons of the past.
Alcohol has been a part of society for thousands of years and it’s use is not inconsistent with natural law. Drug addiction
Why are you comparing alcohol USE with drug ADDICTION? Pot, the subject of the original post, is less addictive than the drug alcohol.
is an entirely different demon. Drug addiction has never been considered acceptable in society. It is little different than homosexuality as far as natural law is concerned.
If you're really restricting yourself to addiction, then has addiction to the drug alcohol ever been considered acceptable in society, and is it compatible with natural law? Or if you meant to address use, then note that drugs were legal for well over a century in this country - and explain exactly which natural law the use of the drug alcohol but not other drugs is "not inconsistent with."
As such, the federal government is well within their right to prohibit drug addiction.
Which section of the Constitution gives the federal government that authority?
It is a perfectly sufficient argument actually.
I commend your consistency - but the conservatives of that day opposed the enactment of the 'progressive' policy of Prohibition.
Alcohol has been a part of society for thousands of years and it’s use is not inconsistent with natural law.
Now you're changing your tune ... should or should not alcohol be banned because we don't want doctors, school-bus drivers, etc. to be alcoholics?
You suggest that because we tolerate one evil, we are left with no choice other than to tolerate another evil? I reject that logic.
Why are you comparing alcohol USE with drug ADDICTION? Pot, the subject of the original post, is less addictive than the drug alcohol.
Because people like you insist on suggesting that because we tolerate alcohol use/abuse, we have no choice but to tolerate marijuana use/abuse as well.
If you're really restricting yourself to addiction, then has addiction to the drug alcohol ever been considered acceptable in society, and is it compatible with natural law?
acceptable? that's debatable and highly dependent on who you ask. But it is tolerated? As alcohol use has been with mankind longer than the bible and has been present in nearly every human culture ever, I conclude that it's use is clearly compatible with natural law. The abuse of alcohol has been just as prevalent and, as mentioned previously, has been tolerated to varying degrees by various cultures throughout history.
Which section of the Constitution gives the federal government that authority?
The same section that gives them the right to take money away from one man who has made wise life choices and then give it to another man who has made poor life choices.
Beyond that, a state doesn't have a 10th amendment right to pass laws which violate the security of other states. The legalization of chemical abuse does just that. What if Colorado passed a law that trafficking of humans for sex or servitude? There is no constitutional section that specifically authorizes the federal government to prohibit such activity but, yet, they do.
You suggest that
I state that between post 101 and 104 you changed your tune. For the second time: should or should not alcohol be banned because we don't want doctors, school-bus drivers, etc. to be alcoholics?
Why are you comparing alcohol USE with drug ADDICTION? Pot, the subject of the original post, is less addictive than the drug alcohol.
Because people like you insist on suggesting that because we tolerate alcohol use/abuse, we have no choice but to tolerate marijuana use/abuse as well.
I never said that. I'm pointing out that the principles you profess to apply to marijuana also apply to alcohol yet you refuse to come to the obvious conclusion that you should support a ban of alcohol.
If you're really restricting yourself to addiction, then has addiction to the drug alcohol ever been considered acceptable in society, and is it compatible with natural law?
acceptable? that's debatable and highly dependent on who you ask. But it is tolerated? As alcohol use has been with mankind longer than the bible and has been present in nearly every human culture ever, I conclude that it's use is clearly compatible with natural law.
Theft has has been with mankind longer than the bible and has been present in nearly every human culture ever - is theft compatible with natural law?
The abuse of alcohol has been just as prevalent and, as mentioned previously, has been tolerated to varying degrees by various cultures throughout history.
You keep moving the goalposts - the subject was not USE nor ABUSE but ADDICTION.
Which section of the Constitution gives the federal government that authority?
The same section that gives them the right to take money away from one man who has made wise life choices and then give it to another man who has made poor life choices.
So, none. Or are you saying that because we tolerate unconstitutional welfare programs, we have no choice but to tolerate unconstitutional drug prohibition?
Beyond that, a state doesn't have a 10th amendment right to pass laws which violate the security of other states. The legalization of chemical abuse does just that.
How? Some counties allow alcohol while others don't - do the former violate the security of the latter?
What if Colorado passed a law that trafficking of humans for sex or servitude? There is no constitutional section that specifically authorizes the federal government to prohibit such activity but, yet, they do.
I doubt it - have any evidence that they do?
I have been consistent throughout the debate. We are not morally, ethically, or legally obligated to tolerate one evil simply because we have deigned to tolerate another and there is no argument you can make to invalidate that logic. I have to leave for work in 15 minutes. Much as I would love to continue this increasingly convoluted dialectic, I presently have no more time for this. I have to go work hard now so I can pay taxes to subsidize the poor decisions made by this nation’s growing legions of alcoholics, drug addicts, and whores.
No, between posts 101 and 104 you changed your tune on whether alcohol should be banned.
We are not morally, ethically, or legally obligated to tolerate one evil simply because we have deigned to tolerate another
That's a red herring - nobody here is making that argument.
No, I didn't. I stated that alcohol was compatible with natural law and never suggested that it should be banned. You suggested that it was only logical for me to conclude that alcohol should be banned if I felt that marijuana should be banned and I repudiated your logic.
That's a red herring - nobody here is making that argument.
No, that is the general crux of your argument, that because we tolerate one evil we are in some way obligated to tolerate another evil.
The degrade the Nation, continues.
You said in post 101 that not wanting doctors, school-bus drivers, etc. to be alcoholics "is a perfectly sufficient argument" for banning alcohol.
You suggested that it was only logical for me to conclude that alcohol should be banned if I felt that marijuana should be banned and I repudiated your logic.
I showed your defense of alcohol applied equally well to theft.
No, that is the general crux of your argument, that because we tolerate one evil we are in some way obligated to tolerate another evil.
Wrong - you yourself correctly state my argument just above: it is only logical for you to conclude that alcohol should be banned if you feel that marijuana should be banned.
If alcohol is, as you say, an "evil" then how can it also be "compatible with natural law"?
How does individual liberty for adults "degrade the Nation"? Does the legality of the drug alcohol for adults "degrade the Nation"?
If you can’t see it, already- how could anyone explain the ongoing degradation of Our Nation, to you. Idiocracy is rampant- by the NEA/MSM undermining our youth, to believe that hedonism is their highest goal. Pot is a very big quotient in that formula. I have watched this phenomena grow, since the ‘60’s.
to believe that hedonism is their highest goal. Pot is a very big quotient in that formula.
How is pot more hedonistic than alcohol?
You cut and paste, and then act indignant to my words. Hey, I hope you get exactly, what- you are looking towards.
No, any "indignation" is all in your head.
Hey, I hope you get exactly, what- you are looking towards.
What I was looking towards was your answer to my question - so far I haven't gotten it.
Why would you care, if dope, is more hedonistic, than alcohol?
How is pot more hedonistic than alcohol?
Why would you care, if dope, is more hedonistic, than alcohol?
If it's not, then your explanation for the degradation of our nation would imply that it should have happened when Prohibition ended, if not sooner - and also imply that maintaining the ban on pot won't help unless we also ban alcohol.
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.