Posted on 01/15/2014 9:15:01 PM PST by MeshugeMikey
Let's Not Kid Ourselves About Marijuana Adolescents are vulnerable—and not just to pot. That's how they are programmed. They make rash and risky choices because their brains aren't fully developed. The part of the brain that censors dumb or dangerous behavior is last to come on line (generally not before the mid-20s). Meanwhile, the brain's pleasure-seeking structures are up and running strong by puberty.
When you link adolescent pleasure-seeking and risk-taking to marijuana's impairment of perception and judgment, it isn't surprising that a 2004 study of seriously injured drivers in Maryland found half the teens tested positive for pot.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I have no problem with the idea of legalizing marijuana provided that people would be expected to be responsible for any negative effect on society that comes from its use.
In other words, they should be executed if they kill someone in an auto accident, and if they test positive for it, they should not be eligible for unemployment benefits or any form of government paid assistance.
Also there should be mandatory drug and alcohol testing for all government employees and a positive test should be grounds for immediate termination. This should include members of Congress as well as the president.
Let these people be stoned, fat and lazy on their own dime.
Perhaps it's because adolescent impulsivity has to be controlled so that moral judgement can develop. Hss there ever been a civilization that thrived that didn't impose restrictions on their youth?
Whatever anyone thinks about pot, Colorado and maybe Washington will be great lab experiments for increased maryjane use. We’ll check back in five years and see if those states have dramatically increased problems due to legalization.
Hss there ever been a civilization that thrived that didn’t impose restrictions on their youth?
not that I’m aware of! I dont think such a society could long survive...
i doubt that legalization will push use in either direction.
I certainly didnt intend the focus to be on the legalization angle but rather the simple fact that dope wrecks kids.
im still betting on the side of USE being a large part of what helped elect Obama
George Soros...no friend of Liberty is a BIG pro marijuana “activist”.
From the info in the article...my suspicions have been confirmed as to dopes power over the young... voter..in this case.
There have already been some attempts in places like D.C. to propose free pot for the welfare crowd. I don’t think it went anywhere, but the progs never give up.
Yes
>> Would you rather Jr score some weed from a CRIMINAL, or an honest retailer?
>
> Minors shouldn’t be allowed to buy it even if its legalized.
Ah, but what of CS Lewis’s observation:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
libertopians are anti-civilization
Anyone who thinks its okay for kids to use drugs and stuff, needs to be removed from the gene pool.
> libertopians are anti-civilization
I don’t think so; especially since any Constitutionalist is going to, by definition, have “libertarian tendencies” — the “legalization” of drugs is a good example.
The whole War on Drugs is predicated on fallacious reasoning: that intrastate commerce can be regulated because it impacts interstate commerce (via Wickard)... in fact this has been expanded so that non-commerce can be regulated (see Raich) in order to justify the continued “illegalization” of drugs. — and this is in spite of precious “precedence” dictating that the ability of the federal government to regulate drugs would require a constitutional amendment (see 18th amd).
> Anyone who thinks its okay for kids to use drugs and stuff, needs to be removed from the gene pool.
I don’t think anyone’s advocating it; but, on the other hand, the sort of meddlesome interference you are suggesting is the reason that SWAT teams are sent in response to someone buying raw milk.
Under libertopian principles, lack of, what does the Constitution say about sex with your 10 year old daughter?
It doesn’t.
Since it doesn’t mention this, libertarians are all for it right?
..............
Libertopians should all jump off a cliff and let the national IQ go up.
Many brain dead drug using parents operate under the delusion that marijuana is harmless. I have heard numerous parents state that they would much rather their teenage kids drive high on marijuana than drunk on beer and whatever they do, they is ok, as long they do it at home.
But besides the difficulty of keeping the drug out of the hands of children, there is the problem of impaired workers that worries me. How would you feel about your doctor operating on you after smoking marijuana, or your nurse putting in an IV? How about your child’s school bus driver or teacher? There was an algebra teacher at my son’s high school that the kids swore was coming to class high, after lunch.
First its pot, then its meth and then its sex for kids with adults. Libertarian perverts are quite predictable, and they will use the same arguments for all of them.
exactly where they are headed:
“No More Nanny State... it’s none of their business if I boink my drunken 6-year old”
> Under libertopian principles, lack of, what does the Constitution say about sex with your 10 year old daughter?
> It doesn’t.
Agreed; it is silent on that issue.
> Since it doesn’t mention this, libertarians are all for it right?
No; just because someone [or something] is silent on a particular subject doesn’t mean that they’re for it — in the Constitution’s case the 9th and 10th amendments are clear: if it’s not expressly delegated to the federal government then the issue is one of the States, or the people.
Your argument is rather insulting, and validates people who say that since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality he wasn’t against it — the truth is that He came to break the power of sin and death. (Homosexuality is a sin, but it’s neither unforgivable nor “unfixible” in the face of the actions of God himself, which prove *who* He is, even to the point of his own death.)
Kids shouldn’t be doing anything but chores, playing outside and studying...and staying off my lawn.
And? What has that to do with the legitimacy of the War on Drugs? Or are you saying that the stupidity of some should justify the theft of the liberty of all? (and if you are, then because there are those who use firearms for evil, you should have no problem depriveing everyone of the possibility of using them for evil by taking the liberty to own or keep them at all, no?)
But besides the difficulty of keeping the drug out of the hands of children, there is the problem of impaired workers that worries me. How would you feel about your doctor operating on you after smoking marijuana, or your nurse putting in an IV?
I don't often get sick; so realistically this question is very hypothetical to me.
I wouldn't have an issue States prohibiting it, but I do have an issue with the federal government prohibiting it because it does not have that authority legitimately.
How about your child’s school bus driver or teacher? There was an algebra teacher at my son’s high school that the kids swore was coming to class high, after lunch.
I was home-schooled, I am unmarried, and have no children — even so, I believe that public school is a form of child-abuse: at the least conditioning children to think the authorities are righteous because they are authorities, if they weren't they wouldn't be authorities; authorities must be obeyed, always (there is no exercise of authority which is wrong)
.
In applying "conservatism" to politics, I opt for definition 2, to use something sparingly. Many social conservatives apparently opt for definition 1, "to protect something from harm or decay," and they propose to use government to do it, though laws punishing people for immoral behavior were pointedly omitted by the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. (One wonders -- would the Founders have revised it if they'd foreseen Nevada, where gambling and prostitution, clearly as destructive and dangerous socially as drugs and homosexuality -- were expressly legal?)
Your great CS Lewis quote, Lewis being a Christian, is helpful in distinguishing conservatism from authoritarianism: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult.
And it's worth noting that leftism/liberalism's "for the good of all" morality is to use government -- the "liberal" use of government, as in "generous use of" -- to "protect something from harm and decay" in the form of laws that punish an employer for not offering "spousal" benefits to a homosexual's "partner," for not providing wedding services (cake bakers, photographers, hall rentals) to homosexual "marriage," for not allowing gay "marrieds" to adopt children. The left, which thinks it is immoral for people to tell open homosexuality to go somewhere else to parade and hell no you're not going to adopt that kid, is very liberal -- generous -- in its use of government to change that "for our own good."
As a conservative, I want to "use something sparingly" when it comes to government. The ONLY way the left has been able to succeed, is by using government liberally; before, there were few if any laws against the things the left says there must be laws for now. There was very little government, and America was more moral for it.
It appears that some social conservatives, on the other hand, want to use government just as much "to protect something from harm or decay." It is one definition of "conservative," but it entails liberal (generous) use of government.
I don't think anybody's saying that there's no law which could legitimately outlaw action X; I haven't seen anybody on this thread say that the states can't prohibit drugs (or sex).
Please point out to me the legitimacy of the federal government's authority to assert the illegality of drugs.
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.