Posted on 12/22/2009 1:47:42 PM PST by AJKauf
A truly sad story about a 23-year-old Panama City man dying while being subdued by Bay County sheriff’s deputies has reawakened the debate about the legalization of marijuana. On December 11, 2009, Andrew Grande choked on a plastic bag full of marijuana as police attempted to arrest him on a violence charge. A video shows police valiantly trying to save his life once it became apparent that he was having difficulty breathing.
Two talk show hosts in Panama City have been discussing the case in the early morning hours — and revealing a divide on the right. Burnie Thompson of WYOO, the libertarian, has called Grande “a casualty of the war on drugs” and contended that because marijuana is illegal, Grande felt “compelled” to swallow a bag of it to avoid punishment.
Nonsense, says Doc Washburn on station WFLF. He invited former Congressman Ernest Istook from the Heritage Foundation and Tina Trent, who blogs on crime, to speak about the dangers of marijuana to the user and to society. Trent indicated that Grande had faced probably only a misdemeanor charge; she pointed to studies showing that the illegal drug trade flourishes despite the legality of marijuana in certain states and other countries. And legalizing marijuana will remove the freedom employers now have to test for the judgment-impairing drug.
The position on the legalization of marijuana provides the point of departure from the traditional libertarianism of Barry Goldwater. In abandoning the duty to enforce social order, today’s libertarians have made a devil’s pact with the pro-drug forces of George Soros and company.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
Every toke symbolizes a thumb in the eye of Western values. So it follows that in order to maintain our culture, we need to criminalize this drug.
Justifying a ban on marijuana because that's the only way to keep us all from turning into pierced and tattooed Phish fans.
Amazing.
No need for anyone to tell you that.
You said it yourself and you are correct.
When meat is criminalized, will you become strictly vegan, or will you become a criminal for a steak? Meat is bad, you know. Bad to eat, cruel to animals, & bad for the environment. It must be so, for the Gov’t & lots of SCIENTISTS say so, right?
Perhaps ground “meat” will be a misdemeanor & whole cuts a felony! Will you illegally buy meat only for yourself, or will you buy some for your family & friends, & thereby become a dealer & child abuser? This surely warrants the death penalty, doesn't it? If you bring the illegal meat home, will your home be confiscated as a “meat house” where meat is illegally prepared & consumed? When a SWAT team invades your home, shoots your dog, & ransacks your property, looking for illegal food, will you proudly attribute it to “justice served”?
Just as meat eaters & gun owners are vilified by the likes of PETA & the Left, Drug users (except Rush, of course) are vilified by folks such as yourself. And for exactly the same reason: Because you disagree with how OTHER people conduct their PRIVATE lives & you are wiling to criminalize their behavior, but not your own behavior. The result has been a completely failed Drug War, a vast increase in the police state, & a Federal Gov’t that knows no bounds.
FYI, check out Genesis 1:29 in the Bible. What part of that is wrong, or subject to political interpretation?
I'm drawing the line when they criminalize alcohol, tobacco, firearms, transfats, junk food, incandescent light bulbs and driving around without wearing a seatbelt.
Oh!.......nevermind.
As usual, you are WAAAAYYYY behind the conversation. I’m sorry I didn’t use the sarc tags for the simpler folk.
I have posted many times that Antonin Scalia is a hard-core New Deal justice on the Commerce Clause whenever drugs are the issue because that is the conclusion he wants but everyone is terrified of a constitutional amendment to support it even though the practical result is the same. Counterintuitively, pernicious drug laws have been more persistent than the Prohibition Amendment was precisely because their general applicability in promoting a multitude of pet causes has been found more self-serving that a specific Amendment was.
The U.S. Congress is working as hard and fast as they can to kill small business AND the insurance companies.
The war on (some) drugs is what emboldened them in this regard.
What's your point?
Okay, I’ll assume all of your comments are sarcastic from now on.
Have you ever talked to a person smoking or on drugs? I have. In fact due to this person smoking and using her dog’s urine as her own; this other girl and I had to take two drug tests in order to catch her.
When I first noticed something was not right; I would ask her a question which she would start to answer then completely space out. I asked my friend if this girl was on drugs. She didn’t say; but she knew that she was.
I was in New York watching a play. I was on medication; so I pulled out a pill. You wouldn’t believe how many of the staff rushing over to me when all I did is take a pill which was legal.
I am not sermonizing; but it doesn’t make it right being drugged all of the time.
Of course it does. Notice is a very good custom not a principle of law. Even if I hated an employer, I would not leave without giving notice.
It may not be long before the liberals fix all law and custom and then we serfs and our children will work for who, where, when, why, what and how they say we will according to their infinitely benevolent will:
"The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start."
As long as you admit that you cannot tell the difference between a normal statement and very obvious sarcasm, then I guess we have a deal.
I believe in turn-around as fair play.
Do Budweiser and Coors delivery men shoot each up on a daily basis in your neighborhood?
I know it’s early, but I’m nominating you for most ridiculous post of 12/23/09. I know it’s nice to just be nominated, but I really hope you win.
You beat me to it.
If it were legal or at least decriminalized, there would be 750,000 less arrests eash year also. The prisons are already overcrowded, no need to stick a pot smoker with a murdered or rapist.
“Vices are not crimes.”
Ok, let’s stick your nuts in a vice and squeeze...
No crime intended... :)
Typical.
Two excellent posts. I notice no one bothered to offer a rebuttal. Well done. Thank you.
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.