Porn, Pot and Abortion

Exclusive to FreeRepublic ^ | 2/27/2009 | DouglasKC

[DouglasKC]

Porn, Pot and Abortion

You may have read that the Obama administration has altered United States government policy and has sanctioned "medical" marijuana by ending raids on "clinics" where "medical" marijuana is passed out.

The use of quotes in the paragraph above is deliberate. It's my view and the views of millions of conservatives that there is no such thing as "medical" marijuana...or at least in the way it's being presented to the public.

"Medical" marijuana is simply a term for pot being sold for profit under the guise that it helps a plethora of medical problems. The "clinics" are essentially drug dens that are attempting to gain a little more respectability. It has been the policy of the United States government to raid and shut down these clinics.

Now here's the problem. There are many so called conservatives that support these drug dens. They say that it's a states right issue. That this isn't a power delegated to the United States government.

Clearly this is a debatable point. For example I would offer that it's in the best interest of the country to ban something that is in the worst interest of the country. For example if we had a communist power develop a drug that would make our citizens lazy and unproductive then nobody would argue that we should allow this power to freely distribute this drug in the United States. There would be no hew and cry about "states rights".

But nonetheless there are those who have seized upon the issue of "medical" marijuana as the ultimate expression of states rights. That's fine. That's their rights as Americans. But here's what I wish.

I wish they would be honest and apply the same standard to abortion and pornography. I wish they would stand up and proclaim that abortion and pornography are in the same league. Because if you want to embrace their viewpoint you MUST embrace pornography and abortion.

Abortion, by their logic, should also be a state right. Pornography, by their logic, should also be a state right. Yet the federal government has mandated, by court decisions and law, that the support of these issues are the law of the land.

Now I happen to believe the opposite. I think these two issues are so dangerous to the country as a whole that they SHOULD be banned nationwide for the common welfare of the union of states.

What happened? It's easy. Religious morality stopped in government. We went from a nation governed by religion based morals a government based on amoral, or immoral principles. And let me make it clear..when I say religious morals I'm talking precisely about Judeo-Christian morality...or at least what this morality used to be.

And here's what these so called new conservatives fail to conserve. They fail to conserve the religious morality that stopped our leaders from ruling from a non-principled viewpoint. They fail to conserve the idea that right and wrong don't come from man or man's laws, but from God, the creator of man. They fail to conserve the notion that certain things are repugnant to God and to those who have His morals.

They have taken up the mantle of the 60's generation. Sex and drugs. Don't tell us what to do. We don't like your morals. Once they succeeded in tearing down God, they began working on the government.

John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Oh so true. Without morals and religion our constitution fails. It breaks. It doesn't work. It's inadequate. It can be twisted and shaped to whatever viewpoint the rulers want.

Pot. Abortion. Pornography. All of these are issues that a moral people and a moral government instinctively reject. But remove morality from the equation and anything goes. God save us.

[DouglasKC]

Go back and read post #6 again. Trying to lump abortion in with pot and porn is an apples and oranges argument. Furthermore, it's disingenuous because your forcing conservatives to resort to argue in absolutes. Pot and porn isn't as cut-and-dried as abortion is. Just because we oppose abortion doesn't mean pot and porn should be banned too.

If you're arguing from a states rights perspective it does. To be consistent abortion, pot and porn should all be states rights issues. Yet the only one defined as an issue of liberty and freedom is pot. I'm just saying attack the fedgovs position on porn and abortion as much as you do pot. Post about how abortion should be a state right. Tell us about how the federal government shouldn't be telling women what do to because it's not their purview.

I'm at least consistent. I think the fedgov should make the decision on all these things and they should decide to ban them because they're harmful to people and dangerous to society. Of course they won't do that. Too many people have drank the kool aid and believe that accepting and tolerating evil is "freedom" when it's just the opposite.

But Douglas, pot is very prevalent and it's already illegal. I mean, what are you going to do? Wouldn't it better if it was regulated with strict laws for abuse or buying for minors, education about its use like the "Just Say No?"

So you concede it's dangerous? If not then why have strict laws for abuse? Why not let minors have it? Why educate against it? And if it's so dangerous why legitimize by legalizing it?

All three have been in existence since our nation's founding. States were permitting abortion even in the 1800s. There was never a time when abortion was completely banned in this country. Of course I'm not advocating it, I'm just saying that the notion of America always being pure and pristine is false.

Things like abortion, porn and pot were held in check by religion and morality. Sure there have always been amoral and immoral people. But the standards of American society have traditionally been higher than their standards. Today though we have to embrace the lowest common denominator or risk being called judgmental, homophobic or jack booted thugs.

[little jeremiah]

Bookmark.

[little jeremiah]

Interesting.

[nufsed]

The federal government has no business arresting people for what states declare to be legal, unless it’s something spelled out in the constitution.

[nufsed]

There are chemical problems with meth houses which shouldn’t be allowed in a residential neighborhood by city code.

[Mr. Blonde]

If you're arguing from a states rights perspective it does. To be consistent abortion, pot and porn should all be states rights issues.

Don't most people concede that if Roe v. Wade was overturned it would again give states the right to regulate abortion? This is a Web site where most if not all are pro-life which means they take the next logical step that it should be banned by all states. Or maybe I'm reading everyone wrong and they want congress to regulate based on the commerce clause. I prefer the state's to have more power, but that hasn't been the popular reading of the constitution for 70 years.

Pornography is to a certain degree regulated by the state. Oklahoma has some pretty strict laws regulating the sale of pornography. Of course all that means is within a mile of every border there is an adult video store. It can't be entirely a state issue because it is also a first amendment issue. The first amendment has been incorporated and applies to the states. They are free to regulate as long as it doesn't violate the first amendment, or as long as everyone in the state is fine with with the regulation and doesn't bring suit.

In the case of medical marijuana it is a state's rights issue to most people because it is used within a state and doesn't leave the state. At least in theory of course. The Supreme Court ruled differently and so that is the law of the land. If there were legalization it would not be a state's rights issue as it would most definitely fall under the commerce clause. Presumably the state's would get some say in regulation within their borders the same as with alcohol.

So you concede it's dangerous? If not then why have strict laws for abuse? Why not let minors have it? Why educate against it? And if it's so dangerous why legitimize by legalizing it?

Driving a car is dangerous. I would say per capita much more dangerous than smoking marijuana. We legitimize it by not making driving illegal. Yet it is still regulated by maximum speed limits, minimum speed limits, lower age limits, etc. I'm sure you know the rules of the road. Life is dangerous. Government can't and shouldn't protect us from every danger in life. If the danger is faced by one person they should be free to decide to take it on. It is only when the risk to society is great and outweighs people's right to liberty that government should step in. I see no evidence that the risk to society posed by marijuana is enough to justify prohibition. Especially when so many people seem to be helped by using marijuana as a pain killer.

[Bryan24]

Something is better than nothing. We playing the “we can’t define it” game now and you can get everything imaginable, and beyond, piped straight into your home.

[DouglasKC]

Don't most people concede that if Roe v. Wade was overturned it would again give states the right to regulate abortion? This is a Web site where most if not all are pro-life which means they take the next logical step that it should be banned by all states. Or maybe I'm reading everyone wrong and they want congress to regulate based on the commerce clause. I prefer the state's to have more power, but that hasn't been the popular reading of the constitution for 70 years.

I used to think that way. But if something is really horribly wrong, like abortion, then letting a state do it reflects on the whole country. It's like slavery. We didn't say "Well, it's okay if SOME states have slavery because it's a state right."

It can't be entirely a state issue because it is also a first amendment issue. The first amendment has been incorporated and applies to the states.

That's the problem. It's not a first amendment issue. Clever leftists removed morality and ethics from government and then argued that it was. The first amendment is in our constitution primarily because of political speech. They didn't look down the road and envision an America who's ideal expression of freedom was to show every conceivable expression of sexuality.

In the case of medical marijuana it is a state's rights issue to most people because it is used within a state and doesn't leave the state.

Slavery, abortion, drugs, porn. Putting leftist propaganda aside, they're all harmful to our nation.

Driving a car is dangerous.Life is dangerous. Government can't and shouldn't protect us from every danger in life.

Okay, you concede that there is danger in smoking marijuana. Got it. And absent morality you could make the case that government can't make any laws.

Once that the risk to society posed by marijuana is enough to justify prohibition. Especially when so many people seem to be helped by using marijuana as a pain killer.

They seem to like getting stoned. No surprise there. Getting stoned is why people smoke marijuana in the first place.

[DouglasKC]

The federal government has no business arresting people for what states declare to be legal, unless it’s something spelled out in the constitution.

So if a state declares that it's legal to have sex with infants and kill them afterwards the federal government has no recourse? Everyone else has to sit and watch it happen?

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[nufsed]

If that’s legal in your state you have more problems than pot and porn. Next!

[DirtyHarryY2K]

I sgree with Charlie Daniels..

Lyrics (Simple Man)

I ain’t nothing but a simple man
Call me a redneck, I reckon that I am
But there’s things goin’ on that make me mad down to the core
I have to work like a dog to make ends meet
There’s crooked politicians and crime in the street
And I’m madder than hell and I ain’t gonna take it no more
We tell our kids to just say no
And then some panty waist judge lets a drug dealer go
And he slaps him on the wrist and he turns him back out on the town
Well, if I had my way with people sellin’ dope
I’d take a big tall tree and a short piece of rope
And hang ‘em up high and let ‘em swing till the sun goes down

Chorus:
Well you know what’s wrong with the world today
People done gone and put their Bibles away
There livin’ by law of the jungle not the law of the land
Well the good book says it, so I know it’s the truth
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
You’d better watch where you go
And remember where you’ve been
That’s the way I see it I’m a simple man

Now, I’m the kind of man that wouldn’t harm a mouse
But if I catch somebody breakin’ in my house
I’ve got a twelve gauge shotgun waitin’ on the other side
So don’t go pushin’ me against my will
I don’t want to have to fight you but I durn sure will
So if you don’t want trouble that you’d better just pass me on by
As far as I’m concerned there ain’t no excuse
For the raping and the killing and the child abuse
And I’ve got a way to put and end to all that mess
You just take those rascals out in the swamp
Put them on their knees and tie ‘em to a stump
And let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest

Chorus

[Mr. Blonde]

That's the problem. It's not a first amendment issue. Clever leftists removed morality and ethics from government and then argued that it was. The first amendment is in our constitution primarily because of political speech. They didn't look down the road and envision an America who's ideal expression of freedom was to show every conceivable expression of sexuality.

You can say that, but the Supreme Court including conservative justices disagrees. Personally, I'm more in favor of the widest reading possible of all of our rights. What is your ideal expression of freedom? I'm not saying pornography is, but I don't think that is true of a majority of Americans either.

What are the harms that pot poses to the nation? How are they greater than other substances/activities which are legal?

Okay, you concede that there is danger in smoking marijuana. Got it. And absent morality you could make the case that government can't make any laws.

I said all of life was dangerous, that doesn't mean the government has the right to regulate our life to eliminate those dangers for us. Government is present to help society flow and operate as smoothly as possible. It isn't there to protect us from ourselves. I don't think speeding laws are based in morality, but the government can still make them because it allows for the freer flow of people which helps our society.

Getting stoned is why people smoke marijuana in the first place.

Is this the only reason people take oxycontin, morphine, codeine etc?

[Mr. Blonde]

So if a state declares that it's legal to have sex with infants and kill them afterwards the federal government has no recourse? Everyone else has to sit and watch it happen?

You have a warped view of marijuana if you think this is equivalent. Despite that where constitutional law is concerned, generally yes states have been left to regulate crimes within their states themselves. Recently the Supreme Court has ruled that it is up to states to regulate firearm possession at schools. I'm quite sure if this actually happened, the federal government would use other means to make the state come around. The preferred method is withholding tax money for roads.

[Doe Eyes]

What about the idea that willfully violating the law in this way leads people to believe that it is OK to ignore the law?

The Federal Government will no longer interfere with the laws of the individual states. There is no violation of the law.

[little jeremiah]

My sentiments exactly!!!!

[SmallGovRepub]

“I’m not a scholar of the bong, nor a horticulturalist, but I thought the main reason to cull the female from the male plants was because only the female plants produced “useful” levels of THC.”

Well, hemp was big business back then. They were bringing in hemp seeds from all over the world trying to improve strains to improve yields, fiber quality and so on. If they are trying to cross one variety with another what they would do grow two plots separated as much as possible remove the males from the plot to be pollinated by another variety, and then pollinate the flowers with pollen from the other plot. There is really no evidence that our founding fathers were using “hemp” for medicinal purposes or as an intoxicant. If that really was going on we'd see writings about it, recipes and so on from that period. You will see this sort of thing from many decades later around the mid 1800s. It was stating to be used as a medicine here then and some people were using it for recreational purposes too. Most of this was all imported hashish at the time though. The hemp they were growing probably wouldn't get you high, just like the ditchweed still growing from our hemp production days won't get you high. They were breeding it to be a fiber crop.

[DouglasKC]

You can say that, but the Supreme Court including conservative justices disagrees.

Of course they do. The judicial system was one of the first targets of the left. Pornography is NOT free speech. Anyone with half a brain and an ounce of morality knows this. It's only when morality is removed from our judicial system that it becomes a question.

What are the harms that pot poses to the nation?

It turns people into leftists.

Okay, you concede that there is danger in smoking marijuana. Got it. And absent morality you could make the case that government can't make any laws.
I said all of life was dangerous, that doesn't mean the government has the right to regulate our life to eliminate those dangers for us.

So is pot harmful or not? You said if we legalized it we could regulate to keep it away from kids. If it's NOT dangerous then why can't kids light up doobies?

Getting stoned is why people smoke marijuana in the first place. Is this the only reason people take oxycontin, morphine, codeine etc?

Sometimes. But nobody who is pushing for legalization is doing it because they think it's a wonder drug. Let me correct that. Those who have been deceived by leftists into believing this may push it. But primarily it's pushed by leftists who want as many Americans as possible to smoke it so they will question the values they've been raised with.

[Mr. Blonde]

So what is pornography? Is it all obscenity? When does it start? Can it ever be considered political speech? What other speech would you like to limit?

It turns people into leftists.

That is interesting considering the number of people who I know who smoke/did smoke weed who are conservative. And really, is "turning people into leftists" the best you can come up with?

What do we not regulate? We regulate water, food, driving, walking, working conditions are they all dangerous? To differing degrees, but for the most part it is good that the regulation of these things happens. Just because we should regulate it doesn't mean it is some great evil. I believe firmly that whatever danger is posed by marijuana it is far less than alcohol. When I say we regulate it I am just guessing that we will do it in a manner similar to tobacco and alcohol the two legal products it is most similar to. Do you advocate making those substances illegal? Do you object to the way they are regulated? I'm guessing the reasons we regulate their use and try to prevent youths from using them are equally valid for marijuana. It isn't about morality, but about health and development and being aware of the risks. At some point we have to let everyone decide for themselves what risks they want to take with their own body. Legal adulthood seems as good a marker as any.

Are people imagining that marijuana helps them with their pain? Or are they all plants of the "leftists"?

[SnakeDoctor]

I noticed you failed to respond to the crux of my post — you simply responded to the throwaway line at the end.

SnakeDoc