Posted on 08/01/2002 5:16:08 AM PDT by Behind Liberal Lines
Edited on 05/07/2004 8:00:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
As we endeavor toward a more lucid and informed discussion of substance abuse, let's deconstruct the mystique of marijuana and recognize it for the dangerous drug that it is.
Marijuana is a substance that's worthy of our concern. It is the most prevalent of all illicit drugs used in the country. The 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse reported that 34 percent of Americans have used marijuana in their lifetime and 5 percent are current users.
(Excerpt) Read more at theithacajournal.com ...
There may be non-tokers who take the same position. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Gary Johnson (R-NM) come to mind. Are there *any* D*m*cr*ts that support re-legalization?
Firstly, the passages in question do not say anything about public places. Secondly, pot does impair thought processes, reaction time and so forth. In other words, it does not leave you sober and clear minded as we are admonished to be.
This sort of inane non sequitur seems to be the best rhetoric the drug warriors can come up with. It's very disappointing to see alleged conservatives resorting to such depths of illogic.
Well, at least you admit it was an empty challenge. So much for the sincerity of your 'belief' that stoners could beat the rest of us on an IQ test. LOL
Hemingway's Ghost: You think people must forfeit their liberty for your preferences?
No, but I do believe personal liberty extends as far as it does not infringe on the personal liberty of someone else.
Why should I, as a taxpayer, have to be surrounded by burned-out wastoids whose lousy lifestyle choices
But you have no problem with taxpayers paying $37,000 each year per drug user to house them in prison. That works out to about eighteen billion dollars a year. And you have to enlist government agents to initiate force on your behalf in order to spare you from your inability to not surround yourself with "burnt-out wastoids". Because no doubt in order to be surrounded by "burnt-out wastoids" you'd have to enter their sphere because they aren't looking to surround you. Similar to fraudsters not surrounding you yet if you walk into congress while it's in session then you will be surrounded by fraudsters. But that is your choice
If you think you've been harmed by a person because they smoked marijuana file criminal charges against the person (perhaps file an assault or harassment charge). Plead your case before an impartial jury and let them decide if you were harmed by the person.
But you wouldn't do that. Instead, because you believe people shouldn't use recreational drugs you enlist government agents to initiate force against drug users on your behalf. By implication you advocate initiation of force/violation of individual rights.
The point is that a rational judge would never take the case and I seriously doubt a district attorney would prosecute such a case. 99 times out of a hundred an impartial jury would decide that the person minding their own business at home while smoking pot did not harm the person that filed the charge. No lawyer, save for a court appointed lawyer would take on the "victims" case that he had been harmed by the marijuana user.
I'm not stoner BUT I'm up to it ... maybe 'll score better on this test than the tests I took to join Mensa
Honest conservatives parroting FDR's take on the Commerce Clause ?!
Well, it certainly seemed you were more interested in personal attacks and than following through on your challenge
"It would be fun, that's all. If you know of a simple way of setting up such an exercise, I'll play. ;^)"
You mean you issued a challenge without having thought through how to carry it out? Hmmm. . .there's that pesky disorientation again. Let me search the net a bit and see what's out there. It would be an amusing diversion, and I'd love to invite the posters on this thread to observe.
Nice generalization. Keeps you from having to address the issues raised by a lot of folks in this debate who have no personal interest in pot legalization, other than the fact that we believe the current level of enforcement against pot is way out of proportion to the limited harm that pot causes society - and that this should not be a federal issue, but a state one, where fifty states experimenting with different approaches can try and figure out a sane, reasonable and more cost-effective approach to pot.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3c2125ef55d2.htm
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.