Posted on 07/30/2012 10:38:42 AM PDT by Shout Bits
Just a guess here, but I don’t think you’re going to find a highly receptive audience on this forum for your pro-drug agenda, no matter how you couch it Constitutional rhetoric.
Like I said, just a guess .....
the real result will be all the potheads who will kill people with car crashes.
Employers will simply drug test everyone and NOBODY will be hired who smokes pot. Driving while impared laws will be extended to allow longer detentions while blood and hair samples are taken.
Anyone who is perscribed pot should be ineligible to drive, own a gun, operate any machinery (heavy or light), etc.
I was wondering about that... if that drug is legal in my state (OR), can I discriminate in hiring against those who use it? Screen for THC even though it is legal?
I agree about DUI. They will have to be able to test for impairment, establish legal limits, etc.
Well, now the laws regarding pot are changing.
No matter how many anecdotal accounts I hear from stoners about how they all know some hyper-achieving pot smoker -- and gosh, don't they all have a friend like that -- I still think that marijuana use turns you into a lame-ass.
Hell, just look at Michael Phelps. He won eight gold medals in the last Olympics, discovered marijuana, and now he's rubbish. I won't blame marijuana for his loss, but I bet there were plenty of times that he could have been training in the pool but he decided to get high instead.
If a government can proscribe a weed, it can certainly proscribe say, ammunition or the components of ammunition.
We must be concerned with the health and safety of our population, mustn't we?
Hell Yes! And also anyone who drinks beer. Or wine.
Those scumbags are a threat to us all, and by extension, to all humanity.
Since it is legal to not hire tobacco smokers it should be doubly important to be able to exclude pot smokers. In fact it would be a marketing bonus. It may also be a liability insurnce REQUIREMENT to exclude pot smokers.
There is no DWI/DUI pot test for the roadside. Generally, the pot smoker simply drives impaired and kills pedestrians and other drivers. The most efficient solution is to pull the license of medicinal pot users.
Yeah, plus he leaves out a lot of the negatives regarding Marijuana. It tends to make people worthless and lazy, thereby requiring support from other people, and it also serves as a "gateway" drug when the THC high just isn't enough anymore.
Apart from that, it appears the Netherlands, everyone's favorite example of a legal drug environment, has decided to make Marijuana use illegal for foreigners. They will still tolerate it for their own citizens, but gone are the days when visitors can go to Amsterdam and buy pot.
I'm really sick of hearing libertarians constantly suggesting that keeping drugs illegal is tantamount to tyranny. They need to stop acting like little children and grow up.
“Just a guess here, but I don’t think you’re going to find a highly receptive audience on this forum for your pro-drug agenda, no matter how you couch it Constitutional rhetoric.
Like I said, just a guess .....”
I am sure you are right, but my objective is not preach to the choir. If people in OK don’t want legalized MJ, that is quite fine with me. If people in OR or CO do, that is equally fine. That is the reason why we have sovereign states subordinate to Washington in only certain matters that the states so authorized (or so it should be).
I and the article are not pro-drug, BTW. Libertarians are pro liberty and personal responsibility. We do not look to the government to protect us from ourselves. That is the issue, and I regret I did make it more clear.
I thing legalizing marijuana will impact crime significantly, although it certainly won’t eliminate it.
It will be a serious loss of business or competition increase to the drug cartels.
THC is not alochol. We also have actual testing and laws for that consumption. You don’t drink at gun ranges. You have instant DWI breath tests. Pot, contrary to myth, always destroys.
No they can't. Ownership of such items is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution under Amendment II. Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.
We must be concerned with the health and safety of our population, mustn't we?
Absolutely. Just as we control the spread of diseases, we must also keep the spread of this disease (drug usage) under control.
stand by to be called a dope smoking hooker loving fag in 3...2...1...
Hate to break it to you buddy, but the potheads are already on the roads right now. They’re the ones driving 5 mph under the speed limit looking paranoid.
This is your best argument, (that it is within the domain of the states to decide) but it does however fall short. Perhaps not with Marijuana, but when you extend the principle behind it to other drugs, an argument emerges for defacto Federal involvement in interdiction.
Regarding such drugs as Opium, Heroin, Cocaine, etc. they generally come from foreign countries. It is beyond the ability of a state to operate in this environment, and therefore it requires a Federal approach to deal with it. Now you may ask, "On what basis can you justify Federal involvement in interdicting drug shipments into the states?"
The Federal government has a mandate to provide for the defense of the country. If drugs are regarded as an existential threat to the security of the nation, (which I argue that they are) then the Federal government has a duty to involve itself in the protection of our nation from this dangerous low-intensity attack. Just as we interdict nerve gas, biological warfare agents, or nuclear fissionable material, so too must we protect the nation against dangerous lesser agents.
Marijuana really doesn't reach the threshold of dangerousness that other drugs constitute, but it is however included in the threat list due to it's classification as a drug. The largest danger it represents is the tendency of others to use it as justification for the legalization of drugs as an acceptable principle.
“There is no DWI/DUI pot test for the roadside.”
There’s a general impairment test isn’t there? Touch your nose, walk the dotted line, etc?
If that test isn’t catching the potheads, then either the test needs to be updated, or those potheads that are passing it are not that impaired.
The “Constitutional rhetoric” is dead on, and “it’s about pot” won’t make it go away.
I'm thinking that about, say, fifty such regions would be a good number.
Is this too radical a concept for FR these days??
“Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.”
Well it CAN constitute, but that doesn’t mean it always or even usually does constitute such a danger. For example, a guy sitting in his boxer shorts eating cereal and smoking a bong while he watches cartoons on a Saturday morning doesn’t constitute any such danger.
If just the possibly of constituting a danger is enough, then we aught to ban alcohol as well. All those six packs sitting in fridges across the US could be ticking time bombs.
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.