Posted on 02/27/2009 8:34:48 AM PST by DouglasKC
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.
I was on a heated thread the other day arguing with pro-drug liberaltarians. I was outnumbered.
Just as you and I are in the small minority on this thread.
In case it isn't obvious...
And Jim Robinson and the moderators will not take a stand.
This isn’t a Republican board it’s a conservative one and Libertarians are conservatives, even more so than most republicrats or democans.
Jim says tough noogs (he said something else, but you catch my drift). Now, please drop this and return to debating the subject without personal attacks.
I know liberals that won’t let their boys do anything without a helmet, and supervision. Poor kids are being raised as male orchids.( could be why in my observation that more gays come out of liberal homes ).
Anyways, take street bum drinking Sterno, or rubbing alcohol.
Meth is what is called ‘Nazi Marching Powder’. It was, in fact, used by the German Army.
Besides the abuse, what bangs people up, is the impurities of ‘home made’ meth. But you see this in boot leg moonshine too, with the ethyl alcohol with high rates of methyl alcohol causing the famous ‘blindness’. Does booze alcohol (ethanol) make you blind? No. Does amphetamine( pure meth ) make your teeth fall out? No. Does home made, poor quality, rot gut meth, phosphine, methylamine, acetone, chloroform, iodine white phosphorus, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen chloride/muriatic acid, hydrogen iodide, lithium/sodium ruin your health? Hell yes.
By the way, pure meth is proscribed for kids, usually males, that day dream too much. Nice eh? One end of government is making addicts do rot gut meth, and another end of government is pushing meth on young males that are bored by gooberment/feminist schools.
Hey, think for a minute. Socialist school nurse gives young red head Bill meth( Desoxyn ) for his ‘ADD’. Odd how the meth explosion coincided with the ‘ADD’ scam. Like the kid leaves school, has been pushed through his years of puberty with government meth, and then what?
I doubt if any of the well known drug companies would want the liability or the reputation.
Besides, Amsterdam tried to relax their drug laws and now they realize their mistake. If it weren't for the behavior of meth addicts and potheads, their drugs of choice would be legal.
so do we ration them out so no one gets high and kills innocent people? LOL....will not work. you are trying to rationalize away something that destroys humans. we were not meant to be drunk or high...our bodies are not made for that...they deteriorate rapidly in those circumstances.
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."
“religious nanny-statism? how is that different from any other for of communism?”
different playbook, same goal
Or the answer becomes to have no law and let anarchy, chaos and social destruction rule.
Thank you. Same causes, different decade, different tactics.
“pot being sold for profit”
Sounds like a good idea.
Yep.
Well, we've all seen just how well federal control of abortion regulation has worked out - pro-life states can't be pro-life in their laws. That's the thing about Frankengov. You want him to do just your bidding, but eventually he'll tear down your village and kill YOUR sacred cow.
If we didn’t have a system, a racket, a group crime done by criminals that we have now, that takes money at the point of a gun from working people of all stripes and delivers it to layabouts, scammers, dopes, druggies, slothful, slatterns and their government paid minions.....those people would starve.
Drugs are self punishing, if left alone.
Government ASSISTS druggies.
Stop the taxes. Stop the assistance, handouts, clinics, half way homes, payments, food stamps and the ‘drug problem’ will end it’s self naturally. One way or another.
If this is too harsh, you are of course free to spend YOUR money, and YOUR time by taking in these individuals.
No he wasn’t but he didn’t advocate making drugs illegal either. You could to to the general store and get laudnum and knock yourself out is you so chose. He also didn’t put a prohibition on alcohol. Nanny statism and religious statism don’t coordinate well with the constitution.
Pot doesn’t make people rob steal or rape it just makes people goofy and hungry.
That's a valid argument if your objective is to argue that the existence of porn or pot means that the Constitution should no longer be in effect. If that's the case, then there's no constitutional argument against Obama's legitimacy as President, or any of his programs.
Yeah. And millions of women will be killed by coat hanger wielding hacks instead of being able to get safe abortions. And pornography is a victimless crime so give us the liberty to indulge in it.
I'd have thought that folks would have learned from Prohibition ... Apparently not.
Learn what? That it's demise was ended by a socialist President? That this socialist President (FDR) first weakened prohibition laws and then led the fight to repeal it?
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.