Posted on 10/03/2002 9:12:44 AM PDT by jimkress
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:09:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Mr. A., thank you for gracing this thread with the most complete exposition of the Establishment 'position' on the WOD I have seen.(apologizing in advance for the capitals.)
Essentially, you have internalized the 'socialist' values of the 20th Century uber-state. Namely, that people are the 'human resource' of a polity, and that only the state can be an adequate expression of societal 'will'. Your "infinite shades of grey' are the palette of totalitarianism--that your version happens to be American is a mere incidental fact. You share the Hegelian metaphysic, implicitly.
So rot in H*ll, you commie b*stard! LOL!
[I like capitals...;^)]
If price falls, then demand goes up! Basic law of economics. You also argue that (point2) society will be more efficient. How can this be if we have more dopeheads and more people administering the drug abuse programs you say will increase. You should not use arguments that refute your original hypothesis.
But in your point 1 you say that many more will need drug treatment programs. This is an increase in the gov't jobs. How many hundreds of thousands?
Thinking like a socialist. Shameful. You should be battling the socialization of our medical system, not using it as a rationalization for even more socialism
Further, you're making the assumption that there will be more demand for treatment. I find this hard to believe, as a large percentage of people in MJ 'treatment' are only there because they were busted. But after re-legalization, they won't be busted, except maybe fopr driving under the influence.
There you go using the liberal ploy of name calling. I did not advocate. Now go home and increase your risk of cancer. Hopefully, your kids will not also suffer this fate.
I didn't say you were advocating socialised medicine, merely that you appear to consider it inevitable, and therefore a rationalization for your WosD stance.
Now go home and increase your risk of cancer.
How charming. You might find this interesting Marijuana, unlike tobacco and alcohol, does not appear to cause head, neck, or lung cancer, says a researcher from Johns Hopkins Medical School
And you, my friend, have had your brain fried.
I understand. You're slow. That's OK.
Was it done under the influence of some designer drug of your choice?
Do you even know what a designer drug is? There is no choice involved. One doesn't 'order' one, smart guy.
I quoted Clancy simply as a suggestion of a method to rid the world of the cartels, or are you saying they should be protected?
No, I'm saying greenhorns, and stupid people who haven't lived on the front lines shouldn't presume to be something they're not.
This includes you, Tinkerbell.
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.