Posted on 08/18/2014 6:28:55 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
Indeed it’s to late for most.
“brain damage, low IQ”
Future low information voters.
Guaranteed to vote democrat.
Those belong to the man whose hours they are - he's an employee not a slave.
costs of taxpayer rehab andmedical treatment,
It's government, not the user, that imposes those taxpayer costs.
cost of injury/deaths associated with use and distribution.
Pot use in and of itself injures nobody other than the user. That, say, pot plus driving can injure others is no more an argument for banning pot than for banning driving.
There is a false meme being pushed that legalization will cut down on crime. BS. Legalize all you want they will still need to steal to pay for it. Just like some poor who steal to buy it now or booze.
The less the cost, the less the stealing. How many boozers steal, rather than panhandle or collect cans, to feed their addiction?
It is a false hope that the cartels will just lay down and give up their business because we legalize it. They will just move into domestic production and muscle in on the “legit” growers/suppliers.
Like the mob remained a major player in the post-Prohibition alcohol trade? ROTFL!
How many prescription poppers settle for weekly?
How many straw men settle for weekly?
Who are YOU to decide what another HUMAN BEING decides to take?
Amazing how you justify Nazi actions against US CITIZENS because of what you believe.
What kind of person denies the sick and perishing their choice of treatment or medicine? A monster. That's what kind!
“Those belong to the man whose hours they are - he’s an employee not a slave.”
So do you support drug testing by employers and tort protection for firing stoners?
“It’s government, not the user, that imposes those taxpayer costs.”
And who supports this government - stoner types and low -info voters.
“Pot use in and of itself injures nobody other than the user. “
Only because to date there has been no accurate and cost effective way to test who is stoned while driving. Testing for alcohol is easy.
“The less the cost, the less the stealing. How many boozers steal, rather than panhandle or collect cans, to feed their addiction?”
Evolution my friend, as the economy becomes more tenuous and more low skilled people as displaced by automation and mid skilled are off-shored in the name of diversity, profit, and globalization they will seek ways to dull the pain.
“Like the mob remained a major player in the post-Prohibition alcohol trade? “
Organized crime has morphed into government organized crime. Introducing legalization trades one monster (enforcement) for another by creating a whole new set of regulatory entities. And you can bet the enforcement entities will not be disbanded merely re-tasked.
It is a pipe dream for the panacea seekers.
Hey dude. Here's some more "Freedom" for you to conserve.
So do you support drug testing by employers
I support their right to test or not as they choose. (In 24 years of employment I've never been drug tested.)
and tort protection for firing stoners?
I'd need details on this "protection."
It’s government, not the user, that imposes those taxpayer costs.
And who supports this government - stoner types and low -info voters.
Stoners are in a minority. Do you propose criminalizing being low-info?
Pot use in and of itself injures nobody other than the user. That, say, pot plus driving can injure others is no more an argument for banning pot than for banning driving.
Only because to date there has been no accurate and cost effective way to test who is stoned while driving. Testing for alcohol is easy.
Evasive - see the text you omitted and I restored with underlining.
The less the cost, the less the stealing. How many boozers steal, rather than panhandle or collect cans, to feed their addiction?
Evolution my friend, as the economy becomes more tenuous and more low skilled people as displaced by automation and mid skilled are off-shored in the name of diversity, profit, and globalization they will seek ways to dull the pain.
In all those words, no answer to my simple question.
Like the mob remained a major player in the post-Prohibition alcohol trade?
Organized crime has morphed into government organized crime. Introducing legalization trades one monster (enforcement) for another by creating a whole new set of regulatory entities.
Or the scope of the BATF will simply be expanded. Regulating for purity and age restrictions is an infinitely better use of taxpayer dollars than imprisoning users of alcohol, tobacco, or pot.
And you can bet the enforcement entities will not be disbanded merely re-tasked.
If they're re-tasked to fighting real crimes with actual victims, that's a win.
Oh, I see you are already here spouting your “Our Freedom depends on making it easier for dope heads to toke up” line of bullshit.
Been here for a few posts already. But thanks for the thought!
This guy, among others.
When they start paying for their own bills, they will be right. Till then, it is our damned business.
Can you rebut anything I've posted, or will you just be dishonestly putting words like the above in my mouth?
Not when his lazy a$$ is sucking on the taxpayers teat. Then it becomes everyone's problem.
What should we do about alkies whose bills we pay - ban booze? (Free clue: a responsive reply will be either "yes" or "no", not a diatribe about demon rum.)
I'm the guy paying the D@mned Bill! That's who! Who are you to tell me I have to support these worthless bastards? Who are you to tell me I have to put up with their thieving?
*WE* are the people who are being oppressed by you dopers who don't want to live in the real world and would rather zone out and let other people deal with your f***ups!
It's legal to insult one's family, or drink till you pass out ... are those acts "acceptable"?
I rebut everything you post which I think is worthy of rebuttal. Most of the time that is not the case. Most of your arguments are just touchy feely emotional garbage.
You are supporting an idea that will do far more damage to society and individuals than the current status quo, as bad as that is.
And this is exactly what I mean. You are offering the "Because Alcohol is bad, we MUST legalize pot" argument, which is both a non sequitur AND a fallacy of tu quoque.
Bad behavior from one group of people does not make more bad behavior from a different group of people acceptable.
You are saying "Because they get away with it, we should too!" Which is nothing but a whiny spoiled brat argument. Indeed, the "He did it too!" is about the most childish thing you could say, and you wonder why I don't take you seriously.
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.