Posted on 11/11/2015 11:22:02 AM PST by ConservingFreedom
Back in the 80s while playing basketball someone’s shoulder drove up into my jaw with great force resulting in painful and annoying TMJ compression. Acupuncture helped bring relief but marijuana works better. And it’s cheaper. If I don’t smoke pot my jaw starts to ache and I always feel like I need to yawn. I only speak for myself.
Sorry I am not a libertarian. I’ve known many people who take drugs, destroyed their health, and committed crimes to support their habits. I see nothing good from drugs.
I do not equate freedom with hedonism, pornography, prostitution, open borders, drug addiction etc.
I do believe in the US Constitution. States have a right to regulate many of these things. The federal government is obligated to protect our borders.
The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to legislate on all matters that are "of national concern" and "require national resources." The Constitution is a strictly enumerated grant of authority, with all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government being reserved to the states - and among those explicitly granted powers we do not find the power to regulate any drug transaction that does not cross state borders.
And note that your argument can readily be used by libs to justify, for example, Obamacare.
Not when smoking pot is declared a "constitutional right," like sodomy has. And this WILL be argued.
That's why nobody smokes pot, right? ROTFL!
It's also why nobody commits burglary, robbery, assault, rape, theft, etc. So, what's your point? That we should suspend all laws which don't eliminate undesirable behaviors perfectly?
Bingo! And that is exactly the purpose of such laws.
Not when smoking pot is declared a "constitutional right," like sodomy has. And this WILL be argued.
If it is, I'll argue against it. We can't justify an unconstitutional federal ban by fears of an unconstitutional federal mandate.
That's why nobody smokes pot, right? ROTFL!
It's also why nobody commits burglary, robbery, assault, rape, theft, etc.
It's difficult, enforcement wise, to ban a consensual 'crime.' Two-thirds of murders (for example) get solved; the fraction of drug 'crimes' that are even detected is assuredly orders of magnitude smaller. This is due in no small part to the fact that murder, unlike drug 'crimes', in and of itself has a victim - who will try to avoid and resist the crime and whose family and friends will assist in its investigation, whereas everyone involved in a drug 'crime' acts so as to make it succeed.
I’m with you about this being a federal issue. It should be an issue for the states to decide. But that’s nevertheless government making laws against something you approve.
So, you think all consensual actions should be legal, despite externalities affecting others?
It's not "my" original point. It's from an article that you quoted from to support your position.
And you're mixing up terms. Smoking pot is NOT medicinal. So respiratory disease is not a side effect. It's like saying that because smoking cigarettes calms someone down that smoking cigarettes is good medicine. Both are completely fiction.
The reason that smoking pot is considered "medicine" by some is that the pot industry and stoned leftists want to make it legal. The medicine aspect is just an easier way to do it. They had ZERO success using arguments of freedom. They had ZERO success trying to make the point that smoking pot is harmless. They had ZERO success at everything they tried to get it legalized. Finally some genius said "Hey, why don't we call it medicine, start and fund ballot measures, propagandize the heck out of the issue by using sob stories about how terminally ill people deserve pot, and then when we get the votes we'll implement what we really want...practically unfettered access to legal pot. Boom...success!
I get so mad at people like you CARRYING WATER for leftists. You're being used. Quit spreading the lies and propaganda.
I already address your "externalities" argument in post #106.
Where did I say I approved of pot smoking? I don't - nor of tobacco smoking, nor of the reading of Marxist literature. Must I therefore support banning those activities?
It’s silly saying that the carding of minors will solve the problem. How has that worked out with alcohol and cigarettes?
When you increasingly saturate an environment with drugs like marijuana, which legalizing it WILL do, you expose children in that environment to it more and more.
Yours sounds exactly like the argument, “I’m against abortion, but I don’t think I should tell women they should get one or not.”
Many medicines have negative side effects - should they all be banned?
Stoners going to "clinics", getting pot and sitting around smoking pot are not medicating.
How is that relevant to your original point about the risk of respiratory disease?
It's not "my" original point.
You quoted it; was I mistaken in assuming you did so in order to make any point ... or are you now ducking and weaving with word games?
It's like saying that because smoking cigarettes calms someone down that smoking cigarettes is good medicine.
The only one saying anything is "good medicine" is the voice in your head. The harm/benefit balance is clearly against smoking cigarettes to calm nerves. Smoking marijuana (which, unlike tobacco, has not been shown to lead to any more serious respiratory disease than bronchitis - "proof that habitual marijuana smoking does or does not cause cancer awaits the results of well-designed studies") has lesser established harm and far greater potential benefit for certain ailments.
It's silly saying that the carding of minors will solve the problem. How has that worked out with alcohol and cigarettes?
Better than the current noncarding for marijuana.
When you increasingly saturate an environment with drugs like marijuana, which legalizing it WILL do, you expose children in that environment to it more and more.
The evidence I cite indicates that this effect is outweighed by the increased disincentives for sellers.
Should we ban for adults everything we don't want kids to do?
I notice you didn't answer the question.
Yours sounds exactly like the argument, "I'm against abortion, but I don't think I should tell women they should get one or not."
Abortion in and of itself violates a person's rights - pot smoking, tobacco smoking, and reading Marxist literature don't.
AMEN!!!
Threatening an adult with prison for possessing the wrong plant, medicine, or liquid spirits is ludicrous, and about as anti-Liberty as it gets.
Right wing authoritarians and left wing authoritarians would have the rest of us choose between their competing versions of Tyranny, and settle for whichever seems more palatable.
No thanks. I'll take NEITHER of those phony options. An individual's pursuit of happiness is not subject to the statist dogma of nanny-state authoritarians.
There is Authority, and there is Liberty.
Arbitrary Law is Illegitimate, whether fomented by a group of leaders or a mob.
I prefer actual Freedom, with all of its "scary" hazards and challenges.
And all the authoritarians can continue trying to outdo each other with their self-righteous, "well-meaning" non-freedom.
Education, not legislation.
Ditto!
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.