Which "reasonable people" are you talking about?
Those inside or outside of Colorado? 
Posted on 03/05/2015 6:14:02 AM PST by Ken H
The lawsuit brought against the state claims sheriffs are faced with a "crisis of conscience"
A group of sheriffs will file a lawsuit Thursday against Colorado for its legal marijuana law.
The lawsuit says legalizing pot on a state level while it’s still illegal on a federal one creates a “crisis of conscience,” USA Today reports.
Colorado is “asking every peace officer to violate their oath,” Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, the lead plaintiff in the suit, said. “What we’re being forced to do … makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?”
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
What a couched statement! What aspect of "human life" hasn't "evolved" in your opinion?
Opium WAS legal in the US in the nineteenth century. If you want a direct comparison, try explaining why the US experience was nothing like the Chinese experience. As you make that explanation, take notes because that’s why the East India Trading Company example is completely irrelevant.
One could have to know csomething about history to understand this.
It was a rhetorical question. Don’t bother with it.
Don't judge all by one.
So if the citizens of Colorado vote to make right turns on red illegal, and the Sheriffs don’t like it they can violate the will of the people? Get out.
No one is violating anyone's will. The sheriffs have a valid right to sue. So why shouldn't they? Are they now not entitled to an opinion. One thing is clear here - Colorado drug laws were wrong before - or they are wrong now. Reasonable people think they are wrong now.
That local government law enforcement get funds and assets from targeted ‘law breakers’ is not a recent thing. I recall/remember as a young boy prior to WWII when in the 1940s a judge was a low bidder on a new Lincoln Zephyr taken from a bootlegger after the judge sentenced the bootlegger.
Which "reasonable people" are you talking about?
Those inside or outside of Colorado?
The death penalty for drug dealers is a perfect example of justice.
10-years hard labor for the users. In a perfect world.
Poll: Coloradans Still Favor Legal Pot, But Few Admit to Imbibing
A new Quinnipiac University poll finds that by a margin of 58 percent to 38 percent, Colorado voters back legalization, although support is higher among men than women.
According to the survey, legalization is supported by 63 percent of men, compared to 53 percent of women. Conversely, 44 percent of women oppose legalization, while only 33 percent of men share that view.
What gives them the "right to sue"? They've taken the side of the federal government against the authority of their own state in support of a violation of the 10th Amendment.
The biological part. You know, the binding receptors that the chemicals act upon. They haven't changed much in the last several million years, and certainly even less in the last hundred or so.
Have done so about a gazillion times. Opium was present in the US, but not widely, and it was very much regarded as a medicine and not a form of entertainment.
Once again, it was the civil war that caused widespread opium addiction, (to treat wounded soldiers on both sides) and continuing and growing problems thereafter.
As you make that explanation, take notes because that’s why the East India Trading Company example is completely irrelevant.
Doesn't sound like i'm the one that needs to be doing the note taking.
Yes, sugar and coffee are exactly like Opium.
Just as it had been for the previous three thousand years.
that was outwitted, outgunned and outmaneuvered by a dynamic, capitalist, free, tiny little island on the other side of the globe.
Out gunned, yes, but certainly not outwitted. They knew very well that the British were importing poison and they did everything they could to stop it. They just didn't have the firepower to succeed.
This was a case of the drug dealers possessing more firepower than the government they were destroying.
China eventually started growing domestic Opium in an attempt to crash the market and deprive the British of profitability. That strategy actually helped push the British out of the drug trade. The British eventually decided the embarrassment of being drug dealers wasn't sufficiently made up by their profits from the drug trade, though the Chinese allege that the British kept the trade going until World War II.
I know several people who died from Alcohol too, but the US made a conscious decision to tolerate the death and destruction from that drug. Why some people seem to think we need another one is beyond me.
Crack and Meth. But i've known people who have died from Lung cancer caused by smoking too.
Ten million years, but rational people don't normally equate alcohol to illegal drugs. That just seems to be the pastime of the Libertarian dope promoters.
I also love how you think “60 years” equals “shortly thereafter”.
And there it is in a nutshell why you short term thinking people have no business tampering with social policy. You don't have a grasp of nations and peoples. You think everything revolves around your own existence and your own experiences.
Hate to break it to you, but it's not all about you and your whims.
Yes, 60 years is a very short time for a nation that has existed for nearly four thousand years.
And neither were a problem in 1787 because they weren't widely available. It's only when such things become widely available that they become a problem.
Nuclear weapons can kill hundreds of thousands in seconds. Opium cannot.
You are right, opium is a lot slower, I'll grant you that, but I don't see any utility in accepting the slow murder of hundreds of millions by opium and the consequences thereof.
Is this really how “conservatives” debate? Didn’t any of you hysterical nanner-staters take a rhetoric course in college or high school?
Given the nonsensical non sequiturs you tend to spout, I actually think i'm putting too much thought into my responses towards you. Why should I try to make sense when you aren't doing it?
No it doesn’t. It would be a waste of time. One can teach algebra to a horse but it doesn’t mean the horse will learn anything. You’ve got an opinion and facts simply don’t get any attention from 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.