Posted on 11/23/2018 8:58:41 AM PST by Red6
In a nation founded on limited government and individual liberty, that's the wrong question. Professional wrestling and reality TV have no socially redeeming benefits; they are legal because they violate nobody's rights.
There are two kinds of potheads, potheads that want to smoke, snort, eat, vape and essentialy worship pot and potheads that want to make immense profits selling pot to potheads.
Oh, I just thought of the third kind, which may actually just be a type of the second since they thrive off the governments “war” on drugs.
7
“Acceptance doesn’t correlate to legal status - alcohol and tobacco are unchanged in legal status yet few people are drinking or smoking.”
That wasn’t my point.
Your theory seemed to be that there will be no significant growth in the number of pot users due to legalization for recreational use. My point was it is too early to say that. My theory is that there will be a significant growth in the number of users because of the legal blessing and subsequent social acceptance - there are people currently not using because it is illegal will now participate. Legal and general social acceptance of drinking and tobacco has been long established.
“Acceptance doesn’t correlate to legal status - alcohol and tobacco are unchanged in legal status yet few people are drinking or smoking.”
That wasn’t my point.
Your theory seemed to be that there will be no significant growth in the number of pot users due to legalization for recreational use. My point was it is too early to say that. My theory is that there will be a significant growth in the number of users because of the legal blessing and subsequent social acceptance - there are people currently not using because it is illegal will now participate. Legal and general social acceptance of drinking and tobacco has been long established.
“In a nation founded on limited government and individual liberty, that’s the wrong question.”
Not necessarily. But I think I see where you are going.
Boiled down, US Constitution is one of limited powers, and there should be no federal involvement in this issue. The reality is that the federal government is not one of limited powers. If supporting pot legalization moves the US as a country back toward limiting the federal government’s powers to what is enumerated in the Constitution, then bring it on - all sorts of other things will need to be addressed - Social Security, Medicare, EPA, etc etc. The reality is that the left will only buy into this rediscovery of the 10th Amendment to get recreational pot legalized. For the right to buy into it, ...oaky, it gives a chance that other issues can be decided on the 10th Amendment. I think the reality is that none of the other current expansion of federal government outside its Constitutionally limited powers will not be touched by the judiciary and especially not Congress.
But my question on social benefit is still a relevant question, under current federal law, or whether the issue is moved to the states and the people under the 10th Amendment. It’s nice to argue about risk, cost, benefits, until we can’t find a benefit. “Violating nobody’s rights”, I generally agree with that principle, but it isn’t absolute. It can’t be used to ignore the significant health concerns on individuals and imposed on society about pot. Society’s non-pot smokers have an interest ...Let’s just say we disagree.
There's no reason to expect that
[...] Acceptance doesn’t correlate to legal status - alcohol and tobacco are unchanged in legal status yet few people are drinking or smoking.
Your theory seemed to be that there will be no significant growth in the number of pot users due to legalization for recreational use. My point was it is too early to say that.
Backward - YOUR theory is that there will be "a huge growth in the numbers of people who smoke pot"; MY point is that there is no evidence for YOUR theory, and that the available evidence weighs against YOUR theory.
Legal and general social acceptance of drinking and tobacco has been long established.
Perhaps - but despite any "general social acceptance" use has been dropping.
That’s why mine is a theory.
In retrospect, I would change the word in my theory from “huge” to “significant.” But I stick with my theory. Let’s see where we are in 10 years.
I tried it when young and my hubby did too.....still against it....
Not supporting pot defederalization will make any other Constitution-based arguments against big government a hypocritical con job.
“Violating nobody’s rights”, I generally agree with that principle, but it isn’t absolute. It can’t be used to ignore the significant health concerns on individuals
Tobacco, alcohol, and fast food pose significant health concerns for individuals; what degree of government restriction do you think a conservative supports there? As much as is currently the case with pot?
You need a lobotomy. F**k you, I’m done with you.
it’s two seats. the republican vote + the libertarian vote > tester + the democrat fudge vote (a few hundred votes).
but I understand why you’re trying to paper over the second senate seat; when they attack DJT’s next SCOTUS nominee with a bigger, better version of that poor, confused blonde chick, we’re going to wish we had put the libertarians in camps.
I still haven’t looked at the house races; it took me three minutes to determine that your first statement was wrong. I don’t know at this point how much wronger you are.
perhaps then, you will understand the value of social order.
Actually, the Pub would have needed at least 1337 more votes. And is there hard evidence for this "democrat fudge vote," or is it something you choose to believe so you can have more to blame on libertarians?
it took me three minutes to determine that your first statement was wrong.
Which statement was that? I made no statements about the Senate (other than my backed-by-verifiable-facts statement about Tester's absolute majority).
Begs the question you keep ducking: why should we expect legal marijuana to be more harmful to social order than legal alcohol has been?
montana is notorious for sketchy elections. no voter id law, the indian vote (which tester lives or dies by) is utterly erratic, and it’s 7% of the electorate.
when you start sounding like al sharpton protecting all the hidden alcoves of creepy dem votes, I think that you should perhaps rethink things.
. . . and it’s weird that you call republicans “pubs”.
the legal pot advocates can't carry the argument on it's own merits, so they complicate it with alcohol.
you're muddying the waters, and hoping you can sneak a few more states through during the confusion. the whole movement is something of a fraud.
Reload the bong and have another go at that explanation.
montana is notorious for sketchy elections. no voter id law,
Have these been shown to yield a "democrat fudge vote"?
And unless this alleged "democrat fudge vote" would be less in the absence of a Libertarian candidate, it's irrelevant to your claim that libertarians cause a "carnage" of Pub losses.
the indian vote (which tester lives or dies by) is utterly erratic, and it’s 7% of the electorate.
"Utterly erratic" meaning what exactly? Prone to swings from one election to another? If that's it, so what?
when you start sounding like al sharpton protecting all the hidden alcoves of creepy dem votes, I think that you should perhaps rethink things.
LOL! When you start comically misrepresenting calls for evidence as "protecting" - and in the manner of Sharpton at that - you're losing on substance.
. . . and it’s weird that you call republicans “pubs”.
Scrape that barrel.
I'm not ducking it. I'm rejecting it. it's a talking point. it's a bumper sticker.
No, it's a question; yes, your evasions are transparent and feeble.
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.