Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania Voters Back Marijuana, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds

Quinnipiac University ^ | April 06, 2015 | n/a

[Wolfie]

We're gonna smoke it anyway,..

Damn right.

[DiogenesLamp]

That's certainly arguable, but let's just say, for one moment, that you are correct in that assumption. Seems to me they are not doing a very good job of it.

Really? Compared to what? According to DrugLibrary.org, Opium usage in China was at 50%.

Then, in 1906, the incredible happened. After over a hundred years of steady demoralization, with half her population opium addicts, or worse still, making enormous profits out of the trade, China determined to give up opium.

I will point out, "DrugLibrary.org" is a pro-drug legalization web site.

So is our percentage of the population using drugs around 50%? If not, then It would appear we've been having quite a lot of success.

[dware]

“Be like China” - that’s your answer, huh? Just how did China do it? How many camps and gulags were setup? What did they do with the addicts? Lock em up in a nuthouse or just shoot em. Perhaps you’re on to something here...after we eradicate drug use, China style, perhaps we can look to them for more democracy, too?

[DiogenesLamp]

“Be like China” - that’s your answer, huh? Just how did China do it?

Didn't read the link, did you? The link tells exactly how China started doing it.

More than that, you just don't bat an eye before moving back into attack mode again, do you?

I answered your point by showing you that *NOT* having a drug war resulted in far more death and misery than having one, and you then launch into a spiel about camps and gulags and such. No, those came later. (Under the Dictator that unfettered drug use will always bring.) China's first attempt to solve the problem was not nearly so horrible.

Here's the link again. You can read about *HOW* they tried to solve the drug problem at first.

[dware]

Didn't read the link, did you? The link tells exactly how China started doing it.

Honestly, I couldn't care less how China did it. We're not China. Interestingly enough, from the little I scanned of the article, appears some good old whiskey barrel slashing was employed. Kinda like we did back in the 20's, during alcohol prohibition (that worked great, huh?)

[muir_redwoods]

"Easy. The same part that allows the federal government to ban chemical and bacteriological weapons."

Explain then, if you can, the need for a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Thanks.

[DiogenesLamp]

Explain then, if you can, the need for a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Thanks.

I'm not going to indulge the childish libertarian argument that drugs=alcohol.

[muir_redwoods]

So, you admit you can’t answer a simple, civil question to explain your own assertion.

[Liberty1st]

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, both alcohol (& nicotine, which I was heavily addicted to for 20 years) are DRUGS....& are oftentimes addictive ones at that (unlike marijuana). Continue turning your tail betw your legs & running away in fear when you are brought face-to-face w/ the facts, that’s you choice.

Muir asked you a very simple & honest question. Please answer it.

[DiogenesLamp]

So, you admit you can’t answer a simple, civil question to explain your own assertion.

I admit I'm tired of answering the same old Libertarian talking points over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Read back in my messages and look at the first hundred times i've answered this question.

[Liberty1st]

Like your typical Saul Alynski Leftist, DiogenesLamp tries to change the subject, fully ignore it by refusing to answer, or throw an insult in order to embarrass the person asking the question.

[DiogenesLamp]

Muir asked you a very simple & honest question.

It isn't honest, it's part of a long ongoing propaganda war falsely equating alcohol to all other drugs and implying that we have to be "fair" to other brain altering chemicals. I've dealt with this question so many times i'm fed up with dealing with it.

No, drugs and Alcohol are not the same thing. We don't have to treat them the same way because we have no obligation to be "fair" to all brain altering chemicals. Society made a tacit decision to tolerate the 85,000 deaths per year from Alcohol along with all the other misery and damage caused by it.

My normal response to when Libertarians bring up Alcohol is to do this:

"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!!! They get alcohol!!!! I want my WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!"

[Liberty1st]

Diogene, hat’s total BS & you know it. I reckon that YOU will be the one crying after more & more States make marijuana legal again. Marijuana prohibition is slowly dying, & there is nothing you can do to turn things back. BTW, I’m not a Libertarian, I’m a strict Constitutional Conservative. :-)

“Right after you tell me which clause bans nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. You go first.”

There is no such Clause, those weapons are simply the advancement of the styles of weaponry over time. So what? Gunslingr3 asked you an honest question, too. Why are you so afraid of answering them?

[DiogenesLamp]

Diogene, hat’s total BS & you know it. I reckon that YOU will be the one crying after more & more States make marijuana legal again. Marijuana prohibition is slowly dying, & there is nothing you can do to turn things back. BTW, I’m not a Libertarian, I’m a strict Constitutional Conservative. :-)

They are making drugs legal at the same time they are making homosexual marriages legal, and for the same reasons. You and other drug supporters are pawns on the vanguard of societal decline. The country is going into the toilet and drug legalization is just another front being pressed by the forces of evil. It is no accident that it is happening now.

There is no such Clause, those weapons are simply the advancement of the styles of weaponry over time.

So are drugs. They didn't have chemical or biological agents back in 1787, but they do now.

[muir_redwoods]

You asserted that the government could ban something the government decides is a threat. The government once decided alcohol was a danger and got a constitutional amendment to deal with it.

When does a perceived threat require an amendment and when can the government deal with one by fiat?

[muir_redwoods]

By the way; unnecessary as it should be, let me state that the strongest drug I use is black coffee. I don’t use alcohol, nicotine or anything else.

[DiogenesLamp]

Trying to come at it from the back door now? Again, i’m not interested in indulging comparisons between Alcohol and other drugs. Alcohol is legal. Get. Over. It.

[muir_redwoods]

You have no logic to your position
Get.Used.To.It.

[Liberty1st]

"So are drugs. They didn't have chemical or biological agents back in 1787, but they do now."

And marijuana was in the US back then, too -- even back to the late 1600's...or did you not know that? George Washington even wrote about his growing marijuana....& after reading the words that he used when describing what he did, it is easy to believe that he smoked it & enjoyed the buzz just like we do today.

I understand the homo thing. I get it COMPLETELY. It bothers me, too. But please remember that our nation's 1st federal drug laws were written back on the early 20th Century. They came from the PROGRESSIVE Movement, from the same people that gave us alcohol Prohibition (along w/ other drugs being prohibited at the Federal level) & the income tax -- not from the Conservatives. Conservatives ***used*** to value to rights of the States & the People to govern themselves, except in areas that were specifically given to the Feds in Article I, Section 8; & according to what James Madison wrote in Paper #45 of The Federalist Papers, they were "...war, peace, negociation & foreign commerce" & that was it. Nothing else. The States have the power to be as restrictive or as lenient on the in-State growth, sale & possession of marijuana as the People or the Legislature please, including the use of the death penalty (which I am personally in STRONG favor of for other crimes, but we can talk about that later & don't get me started).

[DiogenesLamp]

And marijuana was in the US back then, too -- even back to the late 1600's...or did you not know that?

Yes, they used it for something sensible called "rope." They certainly knew better than to smoke it.

George Washington even wrote about his growing marijuana....& after reading the words that he used when describing what he did, it is easy to believe that he smoked it & enjoyed the buzz just like we do today.

I'm sure that it is. I have talked to Libertarians long enough to realize that they think everything is connected to pot. They are like homosexuals arguing that every famous person in history was "gay." They simply project what they want to believe on to famous historical figures.

our nation's 1st federal drug laws were written back on the early 20th Century.

You think so?

They came from the PROGRESSIVE Movement, from the same people that gave us alcohol Prohibition

I think clean food and properly labeled drugs are one of the good things to come from that era.