Posted on 06/19/2010 9:13:23 AM PDT by nmh
Sarah Palin says recreational pot smoking is "relatively speaking a minimal problem" in America.
...
"I think we need to prioritize our law enforcement efforts," she said. "If somebody's gonna smoke a joint in their house and not do anybody any harm, then perhaps there are other things our cops should be looking at to engage in and try to clean up some of the other problems we have in society."
Allen St. Pierre, the director of NORML, which supports liberalizing drug laws, said Palin's position on pot is perfectly in line with her identity as a politician.
"If you're a populist as she appears to be, it's maybe not that surprising," he told AOL News in a phone interview today.
(Excerpt) Read more at aolnews.com ...
Never said government should allow cocaine, heroine, etc.
All I said was there is nothing conservative about the war on drugs...like the war on poverty it’s been a dismal failure.
“All I said was there is nothing conservative about the war on drugs...it’s been a dismal failure.”
How should society fight this scourge?
DUII is already to the discretion of the officer, if they think you are too drunk to drive, you get arrested. Same thing for pot, if they think you’re too stoned to drive, you’ll get arrested and blood/urine tested. It’s already up to the discretion of the officer, years ago I’ve been given sobriety tests and let go, when they probably shouldn’t have.
DUII is already to the discretion of the officer, if they think you are too drunk to drive, you get arrested. Same thing for pot, if they think you’re too stoned to drive, you’ll get arrested and blood/urine tested. It’s already up to the discretion of the officer, years ago I’ve been given sobriety tests and let go, when they probably shouldn’t have.
“Also, it’s consistent with Conservative principles. Unless we’re no longer for small government.”
There are certain roles even for limited government. One of them is to enforce laws that society deems necessary for its preservation and prosperity. As such I disagree that drug laws and enforcement inconsistent with small government. I’m all for the smallest government possible. I’m also for much more transfer of power to local government and away from the federal government in areas deemed necessary by the Republic.
We should have and enforce drug laws because they’re good for society, most of society agrees with this, and it sets a good example for future generations.
It's an honest one. Drunk driving is a serious offense.
But it's not criminal. Not even a felony, is it?
“DUII is already to the discretion of the officer, if they think you are too drunk to drive, you get arrested. Same thing for pot, if they think you’re too stoned to drive, you’ll get arrested and blood/urine tested.”
Also, the blood/urine tests can detect pot in the body from the day before, or whathaveyou. How will you make charges stick in a court?
So by legalizing pot, you’ll encourage millions more to toke and drive, with little chance of upholding dubious tests for specific levels of THC in the bloodstream, as the testing is not as precise as those for alcohol in the bloodstream. One could always claim it had been smoked a day or two earlier.
Drunk driving is a serious offense.
But it’s not criminal. Not even a felony, is it?
+++++++++++++
It is criminal/felonious depending on the circumstances.
http://dui.findlaw.com/articles/1448.html
Actually a DUI conviction is always criminal.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal-overview/felony-vs-misdemeanor.html
“I think conservatives have every interest in the preservation and prosperity of society - including battling mind altering substances that cause crime, delinquency, violence and death through the churches, families and yes, through legal mechanisms that recognize the interest in society of preventing this.”
Sounds like the temperance arguments for prohibition.
Recognize that my comment had to do with the scale of punishment (presumably indicative of seriousness) -- not with your individual perception of the crime.
Well thanks for explaining your list.
I think drunk driving is very serious/criminal act and the punishments have gotten harsher over the years, for good reasons. I do not want to see this problem extended and encouraged societally to degrees of stoners.
My point: keep all pot illegal (except by doctors orders (by state law.))
So, why do we need more legal ways to get high, WHICH GUARANTEE more deaths due to intoxication on the highways?
Potheads and their advocates are as dumb as liberals.
Society has asked and answered that question related to alcohol. It has certainly taken its massive toll. Now those who advocate for legalization of marijuana (etc.) are advocating to overturn prohibition of these substances -which are in place based on the collective wisdom of society.
So yes, I'm for continued prohibition of marijuana, cocaine, heroine, qualudes, and other illicit substances.
Which is probably why it sounds like the temperance arguments for prohibition. ;)
“So, why do we need more legal ways to get high, WHICH GUARANTEE more deaths due to intoxication on the highways?”
Exactly, all in the name of some higher principle of purified libertarianism? No thanks.
What about basing our principles on good ol’ fashioned horse sense?
My fear is that Sarah might be spending a little too much time hanging out with Ron Paul. As a Doctor Ron Paul is negligent of informing the public all the consequences of using pot. If he still has a Dr.’s license he should be sued for malpractice.
Maybe Ron Paul as a former Ob/Gyn can start explaining the negative effects of marijuana and pregnancy if he really cares about America.
Thank you for posting my links.
THANK YOU! They are excellent links and truthful.
My fear is that Sarah might be spending a little too much time hanging out with Ron Paul. As a Doctor Ron Paul is negligent of informing the public all the consequences of using pot. If he still has a Dr.’s license he should be sued for malpractice.
Ron Paul and his son are IDIOTS! I suspect both are marijuanna users and fail to THINK clearly. Ron Paul SHOULD be barred from practicing beceuse he is being DISHONEST about illegal drug use.
Maybe Ron Paul as a former Ob/Gyn can start explaining the negative effects of marijuana and pregnancy if he really cares about America.
Ron Paul DOESN’T CARE - that’s the problem. He’s like a Demoncrat. He wants to TAX it and not THINK about the consequences. Look what opium did for China! We don’t want that HERE. It will happen here when these kinds of drugs are legalized. It will destroy our declining culture even more. Then again, Ron Paul doesn’t know his history or have any morla scrupples. As you can see, many on FR are just as dishonest and DUMBED DOWN.
Good for Sarah! I’m not a pot smoker, but I do think adults ought to be able to grow it and use it. Though it does get a little more complicated when we start talking about legalizing the sale, use by minors, etc.
Does she not realize marijuana is a gateway drug that is proven to lead to other drug usage?
<><><><
So you contend that the majority of drug users in the US got their first taste of substance abuse not from alcohol but from marijuana?
Or do you simply discount alcohol and tobacco from the list of possible gateway substances?
sounds like you are a candidate for a vaporizer.
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.