Posted on 07/25/2006 1:08:16 AM PDT by freepatriot32
Excuse me for a moment while I vent about the mind-boggling stupidity of the autocratic, bureaucratic, right-wing, Neanderthal numskulls who keep pushing an insane, inane, and inhumane holy war against marijuana – which is, after all, a weed.
The most embarrassing thing for these holy warriors is that the weed is winning! They've been at this war since 1937, spending billions and billions of our tax dollars, militarizing our borders, and stomping on our Bill of Rights. They've used phone taps, garbage searches, jackbooted raids, and draconian prison terms to ... well, to do what? To nab peaceful, mellow tokers who aren't bothering anyone, that's what.
Despite 60 years of spending our money, they've failed: 85% of Americans say marijuana is easy to obtain today, a third of our population says they've tried it, nearly 15 million people partake of it at least monthly – and more high school students now smoke marijuana than cigarettes!
Meanwhile, the holy warriors have become more fanatical and thuggish than ever. A marijuana arrest is made every 41 seconds in America – nine out of 10 of them for mere possession. In 2004, 772,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges – more than for all violent crimes combined.
Even sicker, the sanctimonious weed warriors have made it a crime for thousands of seriously sick people to get the medical benefits of using small amounts of doctor-prescribed marijuana. Weirdly, our doctors can prescribe cocaine for patients – but not marijuana. Worse, drug thugs from the DEA and FBI bust down the doors of these patients, seize their dosages ... and haul them to jail.
For information and action to stop this absurd war, call the Marijuana Policy Project: 202/462-5747.
I'll be happy to share what I think about this thread.
I think Jim Hightower is full of bad ideas, as are most leftwing democrats. Anyone who cites him, or Ann Richards, or Molly Ivins on FR should expect some flames. Trying to deny that he is being quoted will draw even more flames.
Other than that, there was no downside. I'm not more stupid, slower, more forgetful....in fact, being ADD (before there WAS such a thing!), it helps to increase focus and concentration.
I'll be happy to share what I think about this thread.
I think Jim Hightower is full of bad ideas, as are most leftwing democrats. Anyone who cites him, or Ann Richards, or Molly Ivins on FR should expect some flames. Trying to deny that he is being quoted will draw even more flames.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I appreciate your reply - but - you didn't reply to the questions I asked.
I have one more question to add. -
Do you consider the war against cannabis users to be a conservative approach?
I list my other questions again for your convince.
I'm curious -
Do you think we need a war against U.S. citizens who enjoy cannabis?
Do you think it is a success?
Do you think cannabis use is dangerous compared to people speeding and committing other traffic violations?
Do you think the war against cannabis users is a moral issue, public health issue, revenue issue or other?
I defined that earlier when I stated, "The Libertarian conception of justice says that individuals have rights not to be harmed in certain ways (force, theft, fraud) by others, and rights to live as they choose so long as they do not harm others in these certain ways." Your example of tresspassing involves theft (the use of your property without your permission).
Since you've decided to weigh in, can you defend Hemingway's Ghost's statement in post #69? Can you tell me how that behavior harms another (as previously defined)? Or do you argue that Libertarians believe laws may be passed against behavior that merely offends another?
A good question. I think the cultural ethos of western civilization offers guideposts, at least, as to what public behavior is acceptable and what is not. And although it's not codified or anything like that, I think "proper manners" plays into it as well.Of course, the extremes are easier to argue than the gray areas. Jacking it in public? I think it's safe to say few would defend that. Swearing in public? Perhaps you could defend that . . .
Do you think we need a war against U.S. citizens who enjoy cannabis?
Do you think it is a success?
Do you think cannabis use is dangerous compared to people speeding and committing other traffic violations?
Do you think the war against cannabis users is a moral issue, public health issue, revenue issue or other?
paulsen dissembles:
I defined that earlier when I stated, "The Libertarian conception of justice says that individuals have rights not to be harmed in certain ways (force, theft, fraud) by others, and rights to live as they choose so long as they do not harm others in these certain ways." Since you've decided to weigh in, can you defend Hemingway's Ghost's statement in post #69?
Can you tell me how that behavior harms another (as previously defined)? Or do you argue that Libertarians believe laws may be passed against behavior that merely offends another?
Typically paulsen 'forgets' that his question was answered to his satisfaction back at post #90:
Public displays of offensive behaviors are harmful as they lead to breaches of peace.
And he agreed at post #96:
True. Then punish the breach of the peace
Time after time we see paulsen repeat his same old pattern. -- He loses/concedes an argument one day, than re-posts the same argument the next day, -- trollishly ignoring defeat.
He has no shame, no honor.
Do you consider the legalization of cannabis to be part of a conservative platform?
"Do you think we need a war against U.S. citizens who enjoy cannabis?"
Unfortunately, we need laws against drug use because a small percentage of people are so immature, selfish and hedonistic that good old fashioned morality, character, and self esteem no longer constrain them.
"Do you think it is a success?"
If you define success as minimizing the number of people who use drugs, then yes.
"Do you think cannabis use is dangerous compared to people speeding and committing other traffic violations?"
Who cares? And who says cannibis is illegal because it's dangerous?
"Do you think the war against cannabis users is a moral issue, public health issue, revenue issue or other?"
Probably moral, as are our laws against prostitution, gambling, suicide, pornography, etc. Then again, most of our laws concern moral issues of one sort or another, don't they?
I'd say 1950's America. When we probably had only 10% of the number of laws we have today -- and I don't see you laughing at that fact.
Actually, the jokes on you. When you walk around with an attitude of, "Hey it's legal and I can do it", expect the rest of us to simply pass more laws since that's the only thing that's stopping you.
Too bad. It used to be that people took personal responsibility, that they had morals, character, and self esteem. But that's passé, I guess, given that people like you simply laugh at those traits.
--- we need laws against drug use, prostitution, gambling, suicide, pornography, etc. because a small percentage of people are so immature, selfish and hedonistic that good old fashioned morality, character, and self esteem no longer constrain them.
"-- The utterly insufferable arrogance of power, and the need for it, is an absolute fact of the human condition. -- Nothing can be done about it. -
Just as the poor shall always be with us, so shall we have these infinitely shrewd imbeciles who live to lay down their version of 'the law' to others. --"
I'd say 1950's America. When we probably had only 10% of the number of laws we have today -- and I don't see you laughing at that fact.
Wrong again paulsen. -- There were probably more blue 'laws' in the 50's than there are now, and they were pretty well ignored by everyone. -- Nearly all metropolitan areas had red light districts where corrupt law enforcement looked the other way while good old fashioned morality was laughed at openly.
Actually, the jokes on you.
When you walk around with an attitude of, "Hey it's legal and I can do it", expect the rest of us to simply pass more laws since that's the only thing that's stopping you. Too bad. It used to be that people took personal responsibility, that they had morals, character, and self esteem. But that's passé, I guess, given that people like you simply laugh at those traits.
You're simply dreaming robbie. The 50's were no golden age.
People like you have changed government by advocating majority rule social programs, [socialism] -- allowing the people you want to 'help' to shirk "personal responsibility".
Simply passing more socialistic 'laws' has been a large part of 'the problem', and you are too naive to know it.
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
Jefferson, in context:
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association,"
--- Which we did, in the Constitution & Bill of Rights, --
"-- and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise;"
-- You deny the Bill of Rights applies to State & local gov't paulsen. Go somewhere else for a 'democratic' society that ignores individual rights. -- I'd recommend Canada.
"--- that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816
Yep, we did exclude the tories, right after the revolution. Beware, -- if we have another major war against the Republic, zealous communitarian fellow travelers may be next.
The Controlled Substances Act and Nixon's War on Drugs were in response to rampant drug use in the 60's.
"There are no morals without freedom."
Where did you get this little ditty -- some poorly translated fortune cookie? There's no connection between the two.
"I don't laugh at those traits, I espouse them."
Bull$hit. The last time I looked, LOL didn't stand for "I espouse them".
Let me guess. That's an acronym for, "I really espouse Jefferson's viewpoint!".
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.