DEBRA MEDINA SECURES US BORDER WATCH ENDORSEMENT FOR GOVERNOR OF TEXAS

WHARTON, TX - US Border Watch is deeply concerned about the lack of progress being made from both Washington DC and Austin TX in securing our borders from drug smugglers, terrorists and illegal immigrants....

I couldn’t vote for Medina because of some of her views on legalizing pot, under the guise of limiting government intervention. I know my opinion on this topic may not be popular on FR, but I think legalizing pot is naive.

First, in order to legalize pot, the government would have to regulate the sale in order to prevent dangerous, contaminated pot being sold. Then the government will need to regulate pot in instances of driving, working, and smoking in public (just like with smoking cigarettes) because of the danger a high person and second-hand smoke can cause. There have been numerous legal battles about discriminating against smokers, so now there will be legal issues regarding pot smokers. I would not want to work with a pot smoker who takes cigarette breaks to smoke a joint in his car and then comes back to work high.

There will have to be food regulations regarding when/how pot can be used in food and regulations regarding whom would have access and at what age pot would be legal. Since second-hand pot smoke can cause a non-pot user to test positive for a drug test (I used to work with a drug MRO and saw this first-hand), which could prevent the non-pot user from getting certain jobs (like law enforcement/intelligence jobs), the government will need to regulate pot smoking in public and may need to regulate pot-smoking around kids since the second-hand smoke won’t interfere with future opportunities for working in some career fields once the kids grow up.

Smoking pot, if made legal, and as with any other right, is only a right until it infringes on someone else’s rights, therefore it would be mandatory to regulate pot, if legalized. Regulating pot would be much like regulating alcohol, with numerous laws and law enforcement agencies (TABC) dedicated to compliance. As a trade-off for getting rid of one law that prohibits pot completely, Medina advocates implementing numerous, more intrusive laws to regulate legal pot, therefore the logic of legalizing pot to limit government interference just doesn’t make much sense. If Medina advocates no regulation of pot at all then I would not support her because I’ve seen too many potheads and too many studies that show the potential side-effects of pot use and I have no desire to do pot and I don’t want to be exposed to second-hand pot smoke or deal with high people in public.

I do agree with her that the border needs to be closed and that guns should not be regulated, but I don’t know if I agree with her statement that the CCW law needs to be revoked unless at the same time of the revocation, the government makes it legal for everyone (except felons, etc.) to carry concealed and open without any licensing. My fear is that she would be able to get the CCW revoked, with good intentions, but would not be able to make open carry and concealed carry legal without licensing, therefore nobody would be allowed to carry concealed anymore.

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.