Not at all, I have real evidence too, but that doesn't work either. Here's an example of real evidence.
Did it work?
Posted on 03/05/2015 6:14:02 AM PST by Ken H
The lawsuit brought against the state claims sheriffs are faced with a "crisis of conscience"
A group of sheriffs will file a lawsuit Thursday against Colorado for its legal marijuana law.
The lawsuit says legalizing pot on a state level while it’s still illegal on a federal one creates a “crisis of conscience,” USA Today reports.
Colorado is “asking every peace officer to violate their oath,” Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, the lead plaintiff in the suit, said. “What we’re being forced to do … makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?”
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
have a few Doritos. I wrote intoxicated driving went up.
fatalities have been going down for decades due to dwi laws and care safety improvements.
much of the legalization push comes from the plaintiff lawyers. The want pot legal because when it is illegal, they are unable to make a lawsuit happen.
No thanks. If I wanted to be stupid, I'd just smoke some weed or something.
The British east India company is completely irrelevant to this discussion. That experience is nothing, nothing like today’s situation.
Ignorance and intolerance makes one stupid, not "weed or something".
That's so funny. :)
Real conservatives, follow the Constitution. Real conservatives follow their own moral guide, usually the Bible. They don’t make up fantasy and insert it at will, in either. The Constitution is a limiting document, nothing not written explicitly in it is even remotely constitutional. To invent powers within it, doesn’t just invite immorality, it is immorality.
I am not a Libertarian, not even a little, but I do believe in the rule of law, of which the federal and state constitutions are supreme over their respective laws. No federal law the not expressly authorized by the U.S.Constitution, or state law by state constitutions, is even slightly legal, or right, even if your your intentions were good. It’s not just similar to how leftist do things, its the exactly the way leftists justify their own statist ambitions.
If you want federal law to ban something it must be authorized, therefore amend it, it’s that simple.
Abortion is murder, no queston about it, it should be prosecuted as such. Sexual predators especially child predators should be treated the same as murderers, as far a I’m concerned, that would eliminate most of homosexuality right there. If some dope fiend commits a crime such as robbery, or murder or whatever, by a means prosecute them for those crimes, by abiding by those state laws.
While we’re on the subject, I would also get rid of most prisons. Someone convicted of a crime, should have to make recompense to that person, or perons. If not possible, or if you simply can’t be trusted to not harm others I believe you should be removed from society not by prison, but by execution. Also once recompense is made, you should be a full citizen once again.
All of these are still state powers not federal. The federal government basically exists to make sure we aren’t invaded, which they are not doing, and to make sure the states play somewhat nice with each other and their populaces, which it also isn’t doing. Also to provide for those abilities. Most everything else is up to the states. Most of the federal government’s actual constitutional duties it ignores, while destroying the powers of the people and states.
But please, go ahead and keep calling me lawless, because I believe the federal and state constitutions must be adhered to in all places, not just a chosen few. To do otherwise is lawlessness, and lawlessness invites more of the same.
opium trade
Early in the 18th century the Portuguese found that they could import opium from India and sell it in China at a considerable profit. By 1773 the British had discovered the trade, and that year they became the leading suppliers of the Chinese market. The British East India Company established a monopoly on opium cultivation in the Indian province of Bengal, where they developed a method of growing opium poppies cheaply and abundantly. Other Western nations also joined in the trade, including the United States, which dealt in Turkish as well as Indian opium.
Britain and other European nations undertook the opium trade because of their chronic trade imbalance with China. There was tremendous demand in Europe for Chinese tea, silks, and porcelain pottery, but there was correspondingly little demand in China for Europe’s manufactured goods and other trade items. Consequently, Europeans had to pay for Chinese products with gold or silver. The opium trade, which created a steady demand among Chinese addicts for opium imported by the West, solved this chronic trade imbalance.
"More Colorado drivers in fatal crashes positive for pot, study says" - "But the data the researchers use does not reveal whether those drivers were impaired at the time of the crash".
fatalities have been going down for decades due to dwi laws and care safety improvements.
And pot legalization did not halt that trend.
much of the legalization push comes from the plaintiff lawyers. The want pot legal because when it is illegal, they are unable to make a lawsuit happen.
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. And who can they sue when pot is legal that they can't sue when it isn't?
—Yes we do, because to allow the unfettered use of drugs will result in a collapse of government.-—
Oh, dear Lord—then please explain: how did the Federal Government exist or survive from 1789 until the 1920s?
—Alcohol comes closest, but we had a vote on that and the nation decided to accept the level of death and destruction that it causes. —
No, there was no ‘vote’ on it. Your Representatives in Govnerment were responsible for banning it based on some hysterical agitators. After society was turned upside down and racked with crime, those same Representatives un-banned it. There was never a referendum by the people in either instance.
Same thing with the FDA. Don’t conservatives rail against ‘unelected bureaucrats’ making law? Oh, I see, only in select circumstances until your delicate sensibilities are offended.
See also: trans fats, tobacco and coming soon: sugar. Enjoy your nanny state.
What difference would it make to the citizens of a nation to learn that they are being destroyed for profit instead of for fun?
What, another one of you popping off with this nonsensical and misleading claim?
Hint, We didn't have laws against nuclear weapons either, and for the same reason.
You are going to win the argument just by making people too weary to keep repeating themselves.
You just never give up on anecdotal evidence, do you?!
Rather intolerant, wouldn't you say?
Not at all, I have real evidence too, but that doesn't work either. Here's an example of real evidence.
Did it work?
But only YOU are trying to make a correlation between opium and marijuana!!!
Rather intolerant, wouldn't you say?
Don't know about that, but he appears to have been rather accurate in his observation. It has been noted that all of the worst Presidents we've had so far (after Wilson) won their office on the basis of Women's votes.
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.