Posted on 07/20/2009 11:11:12 AM PDT by cryptical
A New York Times article on Sunday discussed the debate over whether more and more potent types of cannabis affect the levels of addiction to the drug. This particular issue has become part of the larger debate over whether marijuana should be legalized or decriminalized.
Antidrug activists say that if the drug is legalized, more people will use it and addiction levels, made worse by the increased potency, will rise too. Legalization advocates note that pot addiction is not nearly as destructive as, say, abuse of alcohol. What would be the effect of legalization or decriminalization on marijuana abuse and addiction?
(Excerpt) Read more at roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com ...
Sorry, not for the lack of laws, anarchy and immoral, evil and pagan behavior in society...
Are you sorry for not being able to construct a complete sentence that contains an identifiable subject and conveys a complete thought?
Not at all sorry for wanting to have laws in our society for illegal activities... :-)
I'm not sorry for not having laws against legal activities. Any more circular worthless circular observations you care to make?
<How about the people you don’t see who have college degrees, have good paying jobs and enjoy a quite life and just want to be left alone to their own devices and keep the government at bay
Thank you. I am a taxpaying, working, highly educated American. I don’t like to drink. I would like to have the occasional joint at home without worrying that I would lose various licenses, do 5 yrs in jail, or whatever.
I don’t know if folks here know it, but in many college towns you are allowed to carry personal amounts of weed and the sanctions only kick in for relatively large amounts (where it looks like the person is dealing). There aren’t any more car accidents, murders, child abuse or anything else just because dope has been relatively de-criminalized. I’m not going to go out and start shooting libs just ‘cause I had a joint...
Sorry if you think enacting laws against illegal and immoral activities is something that is circular and/or something that you don’t want “government” involved in... LOL.. (like some say...).
There are enough others around who will continue enacting such laws... but feel free to continue pushing for anarchy and mayhem..., if you wish...
I knew a guy who was an absolute basket case until he had his mid morning duobie. Then one every two hours throughout the day and one before bedtime. Smoked the real strong stuff too.That sounds like self medication for an anxiety disorder. None of the dopeheads I've known were addicted. The ones that burned out and became losers were that way before the dope.But he wasn't addicted. /s
ditto's.
Some libertarians have problems with the logic and reasoning of that statement. Most of us don't want drugs legalized and we want protection for the unborn and the sick and the elderly. What is so difficult about that, eh?
The substance will be legal but smoking it is already prohibited most everywhere.
That means that there's not a law on the books you're opposed to.
Ain't no wonder the government is out of control.
Some libertarians have problems with the logic and reasoning of that statement. Most of us don't want drugs legalized and we want protection for the unborn and the sick and the elderly. What is so difficult about that, eh?It's difficult because conservatism is about freedom, both economic and social. Whining and legislating what you can or can't do is for democrats. Are you anti-gun too? After all, guns kill way more people than dope. You *must* want to protect the sick and elderly from evil guns. /s
Nothing, as long as you either leave it to that States to take care of, or can point to the enumerated power that was originally intended to empower the federal government to do it.
I think the problem here would be that currently drug testing is for illegal drugs, not things that impair. I don’t think there is anything an employer can do about employees use of something that is legal. If marijuana is legalised, and employment was based on simply drug use, then that would eventually have to involve alcohol and tobacco use, I would think.
This is precisely what’s wrong with so much of what passes as “conservatism” these days. Conservative statists are just as reprehensible as liberal statists, IMHO. And Star Gazer (or whatever his handle is) is illustrative of the fundamental idiocy at work here.
“But lets not lose the main focus here, which is the *relative* harmlessness of marijuana use. Its not cocaine; its not heroin; its not downers. Its not even alcohol. If alcohol is to be legal, then, a fortiori, marijuana should be legal.”
Oh, I completely agree. There’s certainly a case to be made, anyway - one I happen to agree with, but not everyone does.
What gets me is that absolute refusal to even consider the unintended consequences of the New Deal Commerce Clause and the "substantial effects" doctrine that the federal drug laws are based on. The end is justifying the means, and there is no amount of collateral damage that's unacceptable.
I happen to agree with you on all but the drugs, and all 4 of those have advocates on both sides. Abortion and pedo have clear victims. Drugs don’t have the victims. With the gay marriage thing, it’s hard to identify clear “victims”, but gay marriage isn’t illegal or legal, it’s just impossible if marriage is between a man and a woman.
With the drugs, I’d say just leave it up to the states.
Most conservatives realize that not every problem in the world requires a heavy-handed government solution. In fact, I think it's safe to say that conservatives know that the *vast majority* of problems don't need any kind of government solution at all. Hand in hand with that conservative notion is the idea that, as a general rule, people should be free to do what they want.
This is not to say that conservatives favor total anarchy or no restrictions on individuals- clearly they do not. It's just that conservatives understand the importance of keeping the government limited to a few narrowly-defined responsibilities, and using the government only when really necessary.
As a conservative, why do you believe that marijuana smoking by adults is such a serious problem that it calls for a complete government ban on the substance and punishment for anyone possessing it?
If you applied the same reasoning to any other substance or activity, would you be just as comfortable with the conclusion you reached?
It would be the same as for monogamous marriage versus polygamy, or homosexual marriage versus one man/one woman marriage, or sex with kids at 12 years old (or whatever young age) versus being an adult, or killing kids versus not killing kids, or prostitution versus no prostitution, or a whole host of other things that come under laws set up by society because of the moral stance it takes and the source for 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.