Sheriffs Try to Overturn Legalization of Pot in Colorado

Time ^ | March 05, 2015 | Tessa Berenson

[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?”

[DiogenesLamp]

No it doesn’t. It would be a waste of time. One can teach algebra to a horse but it doesn’t mean the horse will learn anything. You’ve got an opinion and facts simply don’t get any attention from you.

Physician, heal thyself.

[philman_36]

This may come as a shock to you, but human life hasn't evolved much in the last century.
What aspect of "human life" hasn't "evolved" in your opinion?

You know, the binding receptors that the chemicals act upon.
Oh, like the CB1 and CB1 2 cannabinoid receptors present on the surface of cells in different parts of the central nervous system?

You're right, they're still around so we haven't "evolved" them out of ourselves after several millennia, much less a mere century.

What was your point again?

[philman_36]

Yes, sugar and coffee are exactly like Opium.

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say.

sugar

coffee

opiates

Now how can you possibly say "sugar and coffee are exactly like Opium"?
It looks like they all have a different molecular structure to me.
Or were you being intentionally vague with your statements once again?

[philman_36]

...to illegal drugs.

There are no "illegal drugs", there are controlled substances.

For instance, a person can get a prescription for Desoxyn which is Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.

It isn't "illegal" at all or it couldn't be prescribed!

[philman_36]

Once again, it was the civil war that caused widespread opium addiction, (to treat wounded soldiers on both sides) and continuing and growing problems thereafter.
You're so ignorant on this issue it's embarrassing to say that I've agreed with you on other issues in the past!

THE MYTHICAL ROOTS OF U.S. DRUG POLICY: SOLDIER'S DISEASE AND ADDICTION IN THE CIVIL WAR
The historical record shows, however, that Soldier's Disease is a fanciful reconstruction of the past by writers I 00 years or more after the Civil War. There was not, to my knowledge, a single mention of Soldier's Disease, Army Disease, or any other sobriquet referring to addicted veterans, until a half -century after the Civil War; not one addict was noted in any writing or statistic compiled during or immediately after the Civil War; and reports of addicted veterans who began using during that War are only rarely mentioned throughout the rest of the 19th Century.
Soldier's Disease is a modern creation that has very little to do with the facts of 19th Century drug use. Rather, it is an idea which fits, which shores up, modern drug policies. It is an assertion about what opiates are supposed to do, applied to a past situation.

[philman_36]

See 285.

[muir_redwoods]

I’m already healed. The situation that exists, is wasteful, stupid, destructive, ineffectual and Constitutionally suspect and backed by you. I’m healed.

[ConservingFreedom]

it's an argument against legal pot only if an individual's productivity is not his to diminish if he chooses. If you want to say your statement was not an argument against legal pot but merely a rambling tangent, that's fine.

That was pointing out one facet of detrimental aspects to society drugs bring.

And that detriment is relevant to pot law only if an individual's productivity is not his to diminish if he chooses.

you have no positive argument for your cause.

Wrong as usual - the positive arguments for pot legalization are: it will stop putting pot profits in the hands of criminals; it will make possible the effective regulation of pot, e.g., age limits; and it will respect the principle that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights.

The death penalty for drug dealers is a perfect example of justice.

Dealers regularly kill each other, yet every resulting 'vacancy' is quickly filled - criminalization has made the profits too large to resist.

10-years hard labor for the users.

"Drug abuse in Iran rising despite executions, police raids" - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3256793/posts

[ConservingFreedom]

There was not, to my knowledge, a single mention of Soldier's Disease, Army Disease, or any other sobriquet referring to addicted veterans, until a half -century after the Civil War; not one addict was noted in any writing or statistic compiled during or immediately after the Civil War; and reports of addicted veterans who began using during that War are only rarely mentioned throughout the rest of the 19th Century. Soldier's Disease is a modern creation that has very little to do with the facts of 19th Century drug use.

NICE find!

[ConservingFreedom]

I know several people who died from Alcohol too, but the US made a conscious decision to tolerate the death and destruction from that drug. Why some people seem to think we need another one is beyond me.

We decided that the 'cure' of banning alcohol was more harmful than the disease of alcohol use and misuse - why some people seem to think the opposite is true for pot is beyond me.

[ConservingFreedom]

Out gunned, yes

And resulting loss of public legitimacy is as plausible an explanation for the end of the regime as the effects of opium use.

[DiogenesLamp]

What was your point again?

Do try to keep up. The point was that we are not immuned to what happened to China because we still have the same physiology.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now that’s funny. Your sarcasm meter appears to be broken.

[DiogenesLamp]

Splitting hairs is not much of an argument.

[DiogenesLamp]

You're so ignorant on this issue it's embarrassing to say that I've agreed with you on other issues in the past!

You think finding some screed written by a Libertarian to justify modern drug usage is compelling? I assure you it's not. Everywhere I look I see Libertarians writing these historical revisions in an effort to normalize drug usage.

The Queers do the exact same thing. To hear them tell it, every famous person in History was queer, and it used to be accepted by society.

In a previous argument on this subject, I had some "legalize drugs" advocate trying to tell me that drug interdiction was all about racism. He even provided quotes to prove his point.

Turns out the quotes were made up bullsh*t which originated from some Pro-Drug kook who wrote a book in the 1990s.

History revision is utterly common among pro-drug advocates.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m already healed. The situation that exists, is wasteful, stupid, destructive, ineffectual and Constitutionally suspect and backed by you. I’m healed.

Don't think so. You appear incapable of grasping that there are worse possibilities than what we have now. It appears that from your perspective, legalized drugs would be a wonderful utopia instead of a mass death nightmare.

You are simply suffering from a "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence." mentality. You see the bad on this side of the fence, and you therefore think that the other side will be better because this side has so much bad.

No, the other side has even more bad.

[philman_36]

So you give no sources to substantiate your assertions and ridicule and denigration is all you have. Duly noted.

[DiogenesLamp]

And resulting loss of public legitimacy is as plausible an explanation for the end of the regime as the effects of opium use.

China had a revolution in 1911. That was ~50 years after the end of the second opium war. Do you really think that the loss of respect for the government of China from being defeated by the British would wait 50 years to manifest itself?

[ConservingFreedom]

Do you really think that the loss of respect for the government of China from being defeated by the British would wait 50 years to manifest itself?

You, on this very page: "Yes, 60 years is a very short time for a nation that has existed for nearly four thousand years."

[DiogenesLamp]

So you give no sources to substantiate your assertions and ridicule and denigration is all you have. Duly noted.

I'm a slow learner, but I eventually figure things out. If sources are routinely ignored by your side in this discussion, why should I make the effort to cite them?

I actually think I waste too much time arguing with people who are completely unpersuadable, and all I get from tracking down and posting sources is nothing. Why should I bother? This isn't really a rational discussion, this is a bunch of monkeys screeching at each other while pretending to engage in rational debate.

I know there is a cottage industry among Libertarians engaged in mucking up and re-writing any events which doesn't conform to what they wish to believe. Opposition to drugs is RACISM!!!!! It's RACISM that so many blacks get arrested for drugs!!! Drugs are MEDICINE!!! They cure CANCER!!!! We want to enrich CRIMINALS, because we like CRIMINALS!!!!!

When you cut through all the bullsh*t, you find at the bottom individuals who like drugs, and want them to be legal, and who are willing to slant, or make up evidence to support their agenda. They just don't care what the truth is.