___________________
yep
And with all DUE respect to Ma'am Feinstein .........
Posted on 01/25/2013 8:05:16 AM PST by The_Freemason
You said “Without Consequences”.
I pointed out some consequences.
Sorry you don’t like them.
But they exist and are true.
Next ranting paranoid point pleasse?
Besides which, a cheeseburger is not equal to cocaine.
Your body knows what to do with real cheese and normal levels of cholesterol intake.
Your body does not know what to do with cocaine.
Cheeseburgers don’t make the skin in your nose rot away.
Nor does it damage the neuroreceptors in your brain.
Cocaine does.
Pick something that actally is equal.
I see nothing in any of your recent posts to me either on this thread or the Florida bath Salt Zombie thread that in any way comes close to being an equal proper correct example.
I said "without consequences that could justify the current ban" - the last six words are a qualifier to "consequences," making my statement narrower than simply "without consequences."
Do you really not know this - or are you hoping your fellow FReepers don't?
You said "health consequences."
I pointed out some consequences.
Sorry you don’t like them.
But they exist and are true.
Next ranting paranoid point please?
Your body does not know what to do with cocaine.
Does it know what to do with tobacco smoke?
Without consequences.
I’m pretty certain that death and having your nose rot off or your brain literally frying in your skull because the neurons are damaged by the drug does indeed justify banning cocaine.
And let’s not forget how much of a danger to others you become on the stuff.
Yes, dealt with a coke fiend once.
Next stupid worthless point?
How about campfire smoke?
Ooh, ooh, I know, BBQ grill smoke!
I don’t smoke tobacco.
Or at all.
The harmful effects of tobacco are well established, just like everything else.
Again, try another one.
gee... i guess you do not like the FEDERAL guidelines of homosexuality being taught in the schools....
or the FEDERAL guidelines on sexuality itself being taught in schools...
how about the FEDERAL guidelines on drug awareness...
you see, this sword cuts both ways. The question is, why do the feds have this sword at all?????
every STATE has laws pertaining to drugs, and those laws are agreed to by the PEOPLE of said state...
There are STATES that have gay, donkey or whathave you marriage legal. There are STATES that have expressly forbidden it. Those laws are agreed to by the PEOPLE of said state..
you see, original intent gives the power to the states and the people. The people decide what kind of state they want to live in. The beautiful thing is, if you are highly offended by what the state has decided, the people can band together and change it. If they cannot change it, then they are free to leave and go to another state that has laws they agree with. It is in itself a beautiful concept.
If the feds pass a law, well, good luck with that. Once it hits the books, it affects EVERYONE.....
and your examples have proven my case.
So you’d rather be okay with the state pushing it instead?
It’s all good, man. Thank you for your kind post!
Do cancer and cirrhosis justify banning tobacco and alcohol?
And let’s not forget how much of a danger to others you become on the stuff.
Yes, dealt with a coke fiend once.
I dealt with a violent drunk once - should we ban alcohol?
ZOT happens!
IATZ. You do sound like a Freemason. And a liberaltarian with a blind spot.
IF you aren't a social conservative, in addition to a fiscal and national defense conservative, you aren't a conservative.
You give in on the social issues, the Socialist Democrats will eat your lunch on everything.
Does it know what to do with tobacco smoke?
How about campfire smoke?
Ooh, ooh, I know, BBQ grill smoke!
Are you claiming that even the slightest amount of cocaine will rot your nose off and damage the neuroreceptors in your brain? Have any evidence for this dubious claim?
I don’t smoke tobacco.
Or at all.
The harmful effects of tobacco are well established, just like everything else.
Dodging the question: should it be banned? Yes or no?
Personally, since I don’t drink either, I don’t see why people need to drink.
But then you get into addictive behavior and psychology.
You’re missing the point.
It isn’t about the drug itself.
It’s about the reason the person wants it or uses it.
Whether drugs are legal or not is immaterial.
The underlying addictive behavior will still exist.
You don’t help an alcholic by making it easier for him to get his fix.
You don’t help drug addicts by making it easier for them to get their fix.
You aren’t helping them, and you aren’t improving their lives or fixing the underlying issue.
Again, try something that is equivalent.
We are in reality talking about addictive behavior.
And the addictive behavior is what needs to be addressed.
Dodging?
No, giving a real answer instead of your tangents.
See post 114 on addictive behavior.
Beyond legalized pot and prostitutes, libertarians are as facist as the left.
And how’s that legalized pot working out for you guys? In states that voted to legalize recently there are already moves by legislatures to regulate the crap out of it. In Colorado they want to develop a DUI style test for drivers (hold up a bag of Doritos and if they eat half they’re stoned! lol).
When libertarians talk about drug legalization they act like it’s a utopian world. I give them a one word rebuttal: TOBACCO!
LOL, yes.
Now we have the screaming prodrug squad in here ranting about how we need to legalize their favoite pass-times.
Nevermind that their position is that the government doesn’t have the right one way or the other to legalize or ban drugs, they want government to give them their drugs.
o_O
This is either an argument for both alcohol and other drugs being banned or for neither being banned.
You aren’t helping them, and you aren’t improving their lives or fixing the underlying issue.
My reason for supporting drug legalization is that the illegality of drugs hyperinflates drug profits and channels those profits into criminal hands - without demonstrably helping users, improving their lives, or fixing the underlying issue.
Who exactly wants that and in exactly what words did they say so?
___________________
yep
And with all DUE respect to Ma'am Feinstein .........
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.