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 ...
Ok, then how about: within ten years of national pot legalization, the social costs of marijuana consumption would equal those of alcohol. As for your last sentence in the above paragraph, you could make a good case for that being at least somewhat true.
By what data do you use to make this hypothesis? (I'm just trying to understand your logic process here.) Given that alcohol seems to cause MORE problems than pot, why not ban the former, and legalize the latter? If re-legalizing alcohol didn't destroy the Republic, why do you make such dire preductions for marijuana?
Banning booze would be stupid. People have always consumed it, going back to the beginning of recorded history. I don't imbibe, but I realize that it's a big human thing to get drunk. So be it. That is not an argument to legalize pot.
The republic will take care of itself: even Bill Clinton's best efforts to destroy us seem to be coming up short. I do not want to pay the costs for other people's inebriation. And I will if pot is legalized. If I have to pay, then I'd like the satisfaction of knowing the bastards robbing my money are in jail.
If nothing else, would you at least agree that a Federal War on Drugs is a violation of the 10th Amendment, and that the issue should be decided upon by the individual States? If you believe that the Federal Government has the power to do what it does with the WoD right now, please point out to me in the Constitution granting this power to the Fed.
I am ashamed to admit I don't know what the tenth is. However, I do whole-heartedly, without hesitation, embrace the belief that the issue, drug abuse, should be decided and handled by individual states. As nearly every single issue should.
Trust me, we lose far, far more money (billions upon billions) with smoking, drinking, and fatty foods. Why aren't you championing the illegalization of alcohol, smoking, and fatty foods?
Those things cost me money as well, I suppose. However, I imbibe in fatty foods, and I do so of my own free will. And they don't cloud my judgment or impair my reaction time. And I don't smoke, but smokers have the right to smoke. I just wish I didn't have to pay for the mofo's medical bills.
People have been doing drugs for ages. Why is that an argument valid for keeping booze legal, but not pot?
You may be the only person under the impression that Europe is a haven of libertarianism.
Simply put, its because they don't like it. Adds to the pleasure, as far as I'm concerned.
I can see you are a fellow Tenth Amendment champion.
Where, in your opinion, is the Federal government delegated by the Constitution the power to conduct a domestic WOD?
The issue here is federal prohibition and the federal WOD. The only way it can become a state issue is for it to cease to become a federal issue - ie it has to be legalized at the federal level.
The same place they get the power to declare abortion a right, to decide they can own and control property in every state, to regulate a mom and pop store that may just happen to get one product in their store from another state:
From out of thin air.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor forbidden by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
--Amendment X
Ciminality is defined by the state. Aren't you saying that all laws are just? Perhaps that's just a logical quibble.
What most of us have been trying to tell you is that bad behavior is not synonymous with pot use. That's pretty simple. Are you saying you simply refuse to believe it? Or, if you do believe it, are you saying that bad behavior by some pot users justifies making criminals of the rest of us - or at least prohibiting us from enjoying it?
Yes sir!
"Your father was a hamster, and your mother smelled of elderberry!"
Now that's taunting!
I'm holding the line; I'm preserving a sane way of life; I am on the ramparts thrusting my sword into the guts of the howling barbarian.
I don't want anymore ugly crap in my culture!
We're debased enough. We have our sins, so be it. We don't need to add more. No good can come from it.
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.