Replies

Yes, but only if they go out and do stuff while inebriated. And those are seperate crimes that are justfully punished. You can be DUI, regardless of intoxication or not.

My point! Why make it legal for even more way to get inebriated, when we already have enough legal ways?

However, you seem to be making the assumption that anyone who, say, smokes pot in their living room is immediately going to go out and commit a crime.

Another point. Do you see how narrowly controlled and how responsible legalized pot smokers would have to be for society to be safe? Do you think they will be? I don't.

You can't legislate morality with any great success. You can't expect most people to do something merely because there is a law for or against it. Morals and ethics begin at home. If parents don't want their kids using intoxicants, they need to teach their kids accordingly. Too many, and I mean WAY TOO MANY parents have no qualms letting the state raise their children for them. They have given up on taking personal responsibility. Most people in this country appear to have. Thats the thing about Socialism..it discourages personal responsibility.

Amen. One hundred amens.

It depends on how much of a Socialist you are going to be. Either you own your own body, or the State does. Which is it for you, then?

If it was up to me, the federal government would be a tiny outfit that fought wars, spied on Moslems and other bad guys, and kept business competition fair. That's it. So I hate big government, I hate the intrusiveness of the nanny state.

Does that mean I want to pay ever-higher insurance premiums because a flood of drug abusers are a drag on the system? Does that mean I want to go out on the fourth of July and risk being hit by a van full of stoned college kids? Do I want my children in school to hear from their friend that "pot's cool, even the government says so"? Answer to all the above: no.

Frankly, I am sick of having my taxes sucked out of me at virtual gunpoint, so that we can waste 10-20 billion dollars a year putting non-violent pot smokers in jail. Think of what we could do if we freed up those resources.

I honestly believe that the social costs, in dollars, of legalized marijuana would equal those of alcohol: $40 billion a year. (That number from memory.)

If it was up to me, the federal government would be a tiny outfit that fought wars, spied on Moslems and other bad guys, and kept business competition fair. That's it. So I hate big government, I hate the intrusiveness of the nanny state.

Yet you're leading the cheer for a War on Drugs that's led to the absolute destruction of the 4th Amendment?

I honestly believe that the social costs, in dollars, of legalized marijuana would equal those of alcohol: $40 billion a year. (That number from memory.)

By what data do you use to draw these conclusions, and that figure? You seem to be assuming that pot use would shoot up DRAMATICALLY if pot was legalized. Do you really believe people are baseless savages who are merely held in check by force of law alone?

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?

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.

At least we agree more than we disagree. However, I think the only way you are going to reduce demand is through honest education. You tell people what substance X will do to them, and all the consequences of taking substance X. And if some idiot gets drunk and causes a DUI, throw the book good and hard at him. It's not like he didn't get fair warning...

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?

Mega dittoes to your comments on the appropriate size and functions of the Federal government!

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?