Posted on 07/13/2004 3:59:12 PM PDT by Piedra79
Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great. The laws aren't exactly indefensible, because practically nothing is, and the thunderers who tell us to stay the course can always find one man or woman who, having taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder. But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that every rapist began by masturbating. General rules based on individual victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very difficult to defend.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
From NRO, "Perfect; Marijuana Advocates Forget to File for Ballot"
NV election officials do have a sense of humor though, so this Nov's ballot contains the following:
What was the question?
Never lost anyone to smoking pot, however lost my brother to a out of control drunk driver...
Maybe that should have been "pro-legalization". Still, I believe there are a few I've encountered on these threads who could be classified as pro-drug. Just my opinion.
"You'll probably find that every WOD type here has never lost someone for 15 years in prison for a "crime" with no victim other than the user himself."
I'm not into the WoD hysteria in the first place, from either side. As for your example, I have ever even heard of that happening to someone in the realm of my experience. I doubt it has happened enough to warrant wholesale decriminaliztion, but I would never want that to happen to someone for just smoking grass. Seems clearly disproportionate to me.
Travesties of justice are not arguments against criminal penalties per se, only the scope and administration of those penalties.
I think the WOD is at the root of much of our criminal justice problems. A huge waste of resources that could be better spent.
Prohabition failed. Why don't we learn from history?
You say you are a young man searching for a political point of view. If so, and even if not, it would behoove our latest generations to remain sober insofar as possible in a world full of mind altering substances, at least, at least -
until of such an age where you can make a rational decision for yourself. I suggest say, 35 or so. There are worse drugs out there, say, Television, but in general, try to avoid them. Television, you'll note, doesn't require a warning label. Think about that.
"Never lost anyone to smoking pot, however lost my brother to a out of control drunk driver..."
I had a friend who lost her son that way. He was helping a man and wife with car trouble and a drunk man plowed into the scene, killing all three.
That is a hard way to lose someone you love, and I am sorry it happened to you.
Thank You....I think if it wasn't for Mothers Agaisnt Drunk Drivers many people would still be killing people with a slap on the wrist and with a slimy lawyer being able to get there case dropped to a reckless driving charge..
My brother was killed in 1976 at the time the guy was so drunk he ran the red light not seeing my brother who was 17 yrs old he was killed instantly. The Judge at the time said everybody runs a red light not even addressing the guy was drunk out of his gord!
"It's no sillier than some of the things John Walters says about it. The difference is, we're paying him to say it."
You lost me here, since my comments were concerning "normal persons who happen to disagree with decriminalizing marijuana use". John Walters isn't in this group.
Oh boy, this is gonna be a fun thread to watch!
The tragic thing about the WOD is that marijuana made a real difference back during a *real* war - WW II. Hemp for Victory (http://www.crrh.org/hemptv/docs_victory.html) was a film made by the US Government showing just how important it was. Well worth watching.
Just don't drive or pilot. Personally I think laws should not exist unless the have proven social utility. Current drug laws are counterproductive in the extreme.
I also think there's a big difference between decriminilization and legalization. Speeding is an offense, but not a crime.
The people who "disagree" with legalization on FR are the main users of hyperbole. They are also people with problems: Either they are fanboys of cops and narcs, and live on the periphery of law enforcement, like Badeye, who runs a background check operation and hobnobs with bent cops, or they are narcs themselves.
In both cases, these are the kinds of people nobody wants to associate with. They NEVER come out to freeps. They know they would not be welcome.
The only studies embarassingly showed stoned drivers were less likely to wreck. Which makes sense if you consider the number of jazz musicians and skaters (meaning on boards, not ice skates) that perform at elite levels while under the influence of the demon weed.
Also consider the number of prescription psychoactive drugs people use while driving and working. It is not surprising that there are many psychoactive drugs that do not have a large negative effect on driving performance.
Also check out the hazards of driving while sleepy. If you take Benadryl, it is a dead certainty you are a bigger danger on the road than a pothead.
If you think marijuana makes you a grave danger on the road before checking the facts yourself, you have been successfully propagandized. Yes, the DEA is exempt from laws forbidding government agencies from deliberately lying to the public.
What exactly are you saying?
I think that you are saying that you are against legalizing pot, but that you know or have known many, that they don't get arrested, and that you would not turn them in. Is that correct?
You would not turn them in, but its okay for other people to decide to prosecute them. Is that what you are in favor of?
Both extremes overuse hyperbole.
I'm not a narc or a cop "fanboy", but I also don't believe in legalization of marijuana or hate cops (my Dad was a fireman, however, and did not like cops!). There are shades of gray between the blacks and the whites.
I don't understand how not coming out to freeps means anything. When did that become mandatory? I thought it was voluntary.
"You would not turn them in, but its okay for other people to decide to prosecute them. Is that what you are in favor of?"
The pot smokers are taking a known risk, since pot has been deemed an illegal substance; and it's THEIR risk (not much of one, if you ask me, since the arrest rate seems microscopic in practice). Your "other people" are law enforcement, whose job description includes "deciding to prosecute them".
This is reality. Within this reality, I have no desire to narc out acquaintances who are mere users of marijuana--provided they keep it to themselves. They are not welcome to fire up around me. (None of them do.)
Ha! My first post on FR was along the same lines. The subject still merits careful thought. Thanks for posting.
Didn't have to confess. Lots of things started to happen when the money dried up. Do you think the drug dealers are going to continue to protect the cop who has been shaking them down after they are out of the drug business?
It means that Drug Warriors fear the people. As well they should.
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.