Posted on 08/20/2014 10:40:32 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
I don’t have my hand in your pocket, pal. I was just saying the government goons need to stay out of our lives. Whether it’s what we eat, drink or smoke.
I fully respect and support that right.
You appear to be a whiny little brat
You appear to be fond of personal attacks. Par for the Drug Warrior course.
It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
Absolutely - but nowhere does Burke say that "intemperate" means "disposed to do things of which DiogenesLamp disapproves."
That's exactly what relegalization for adults would achieve.
It's a bad thing for people because not everyone is mature enough or have proper guidance.
So our laws should impose on ALL adults the constraints appropriate for the least mature adults? THAT'S the liberal position.
Are robberies of liquor stores "violence associated with the sale of alcohol"? Are they a good argument against legal alcohol?
There is no other legitimate reason for you to bring up the problems caused by alcohol other than
Your reading comprehension is poor - the reason here clearly was to point out the weakness in Eva's major premise.
Opium didn't wipe out China in six months.
Learn some history: drugs were legal in the USA for much longer than six months.
But they never said government could make people moral.
Laws are not an effort to make people moral.
Then we agree that C.a.t.b.'s statement doesn't support any particular law.
Laws are there to deal with people who cause problems by not being moral.
The only problems that are the proper subject of government force are violations of individual rights - other problems are the province of church and community.
Not to mention that people's poor diets and sleep habits are also paid for in healthcare - do these 'conservatives' want government monitoring our fridges and setting our bedtimes?
Yes, stopping dopers from being a burden on society is exactly like the government spying on people's eating habits.
As far as the healthcare burden argument goes, it's the same one.
I'm objecting more to the feeding, clothing and sheltering the worthless dirt bags than I am about paying for the medical care.
Then your objection was irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Do you have a source for this statement other than the DEA page that also says the addiction rate was LOWER in 1900?
You told me there were no good records from that time - so what's your evidence for this claim?
Oh, I dunno, how about the SALES RECORDS FOR COCAINE COLA?
How about the MILITARY RECORDS OF MEDICINES DISPENSED?
Neither of those demonstrate "problems" so they're not evidence for your claim.
I said there were no good records for YOUR claims
LOL! My claim is just the inverse of yours - and I have a DEA web page as evidence (albeit not a primary source).
Seems to me that anyone who loves pot that much is already smoking it, making legalization a moot point.
Oh, they are.
So legalization is a moot point as regards unemployability. Glad we agree on this.
And i've seen that statement from libertarians about a billion times, and it is utter crap as well.
Wrong as usual: http://www.casacolumbia.org/download/file/fid/640.
I don't have any interest in looking at your links. The world is full of libertarian nuts creating content
Libertarian nuts? "CASAColumbia informs Americans of the economic and social costs of addiction and risky substance use and its impact on their lives; assesses what works in prevention, treatment and disease management; and encourages every individual and institution to take responsibility to reduce these health problems." - http://www.casacolumbia.org/about
And that they didn't cause in the USA when legal.
Against.
And so why isn't THAT "Collectivist claptrap
Civil marriage is a positive act of government, unlike the passive refraining from violating liberties that I as a conservative advocate - and it's an act that doesn't create but merely recognizes an already existing societal institution, which has very rarely if ever in human history included same-sex couples.
"WAAAAAAAAAH!!!! They get Alcohol! I want my WEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD!!!!!"
ROTFL! Which part of "It's not all or nothing" did you not understand?
So you're claiming that an unborn human is not a person?
Lots of things are bad for you, especially in your youth. According to some studies more than half population already has used the stuff, often in their youth. It’s going to be hard for that to go up.
I said consent to do whatever they want to do with their bodies Leroy. You’re just not consistent when it comes to government power.
Abortion is done to somebody else's body: the unborn baby's. Pot use is done only to one's own body.
What if the user is pregnant?
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.