Marijuana Fight Envelops Fisherman's Wharf (San Fran)

The New York Times from Drudge ^ | July 3, 2006 | JESSE McKINLEY

[Know your rights]

I doubt the Founders seeing an additional 300 million in dangerous times would say go still live as if you were an island unto yourself. I doubt the Founding Fathers would laugh any less at pro drug addiction warriors than most do today.

Provide a single quotation from any Founding Father that supports your claims.

That is my point, the Founders would be living in their own times and could never conceive of two way highways, 300 million more people and all the current complications of life.

So you've gone from claiming the Founding Fathers would agree with you about today's circumstances to claiming that they could never have imagined today's circumstances. How evasive.

With druggies needing rehab, hospitals, burials and jail these days,

Ditto for alkies.

I doubt the Founding fathers could be for that since the financial responsibility is going to the taxpayer and not the responsible party.

There answer would surely have been less government (no handouts) not more (substance bans).

[A CA Guy]

Alcohol is not dangerous unless your goal is in getting a buzz out of it by getting drunk.
Most people don't do that and drink moderately, so it can be bought over the counter with certain restrictions.

Pot goes right to the brain through the lungs almost immediately, so you are talking a more dangerous animal with pot.

Also, this story shows all the crime around these legalized sites. You have other drug sales and robberies.
We don't need that cr@p IMO.

[A CA Guy]

I wasn't quoting the Founding Fathers, I was using logic and taking it to the logical conclusion.

Where is the proof the Founding Fathers foresaw our populations and how close we would live next to each other compared to their day? There is no proof they foresaw our lifestyle at all. All of their views were based on a mostly barren America.

Today if you play your radio loud late at night you might get cops at your door for disturbing the peace.

Seeing the public tax dollars find their way towards druggies for hospital care, rehab, burials and prison in todays world, no way they would approve of recreational drug abuse.
Where is your proof they would support bad habits of drug addiction that public tax dollars would end up paying for? Show me your proof of that?

[Know your rights]

Alcohol is not dangerous unless your goal is in getting a buzz out of it by getting drunk. Most people don't do that

Do you have proof of your claim, or are you once again making up convenient "facts"?

Pot goes right to the brain through the lungs almost immediately, so you are talking a more dangerous animal with pot.

How does that make it more dangerous? If anything, it seems to me safer to immediately know when you've had enough.

Also, this story shows all the crime around these legalized sites.

Making it prescribable is not legalization. Does the theft of Oxycontin and other pain relievers prove that they should be completely illegal?

[OmahaFields]

It must be pretty bad if the SF'ers don't want it in their neighborhood.

[OmahaFields]

No, I don't. When A person can go into any safeway and legally buy Marijuana after showing ID proving they are over 21 and paying money, then I will "have my wish".

What about cocaine?

[Know your rights]

Today if you play your radio loud late at night you might get cops at your door for disturbing the peace.

The Founding Fathers knew about disturbing the peace; the only difference is that now it's easier to do. You're far too eager to dismiss the Founding Fathers ... no real conservative would do that.

Seeing the public tax dollars find their way towards druggies for hospital care, rehab, burials and prison in todays world, no way they would approve of recreational drug abuse.

Seeing the public tax dollars find their way towards ALKIES for hospital care, rehab, burials and prison in todays world, would they ban alcohol or end those programs? Based on their regard for liberty and small government, clearly the latter.

[RobRoy]

Yep.

[A CA Guy]

Alcohol is even Biblical in that it was used to counter the toxicity of food.

Basic science has shown the #1 way to get a substance is through the lungs by smoking it, #2 is injection and then down the line is eating.

Pot changes your brain over time, a good case in point is a neighbor down the block whose son just tried to take his parent's heads off not an hour ago down the block.
He's always smoking pot, and being the gateway drug he has gone at some times onto harder drugs.
He is on probation for two years since his pot use led to dealing some drugs to another neighbor.
He is a drag on his family because drug users are like a cancer to their family.
He has no ability to remain employed since he started his Sacrament of drug addiction and I figure he will end up back in jail soon and a tweaker for life.

He affects others with his behavior. His older parents are screwed and being he has to go to county for his medical, counseling and other needs, he does nothing but eat up tax dollars as a tweaker.

You may wish others to take up that Sacrament, but IMO no conservative in his right mind should be defending or suggesting people use the gateway drug, other drugs or abusing alcohol either.

[Know your rights]

Alcohol is even Biblical in that it was used to counter the toxicity of food.

That doesn't support either of your claims: "Most people don't do that [drink with the goal of getting a buzz out of it by getting drunk]" and "you are talking a more dangerous animal with pot [because pot goes right to the brain almost immediately]."

Can you support either of your claims?

How does that make it more dangerous? If anything, it seems to me safer to immediately know when you've had enough.

Basic science has shown the #1 way to get a substance is through the lungs by smoking it, #2 is injection and then down the line is eating.

That doesn't answer my question.

Pot changes your brain over time

So does alcohol.

[tpaine]

The Founders weren't fans of taxpayers paying for the problems of their neighbors when it could be avoided.

True enough. And it [socialism] "could be avoided" by adhering to constitutional principles in writing our laws. -- Principles which you will not admit apply.

Druggies need rehab, hospital care, jail, burial and other costly things that they rarely can afford themselves.

There you go, guy, -- preaching the socialist line. -- People like you advocating such 'needed' social services are why we have a 'drug problem'. Left alone, addicts die young.

They are like dependent little dysfunctional children as adults and I don't see how the Founders could salute that.

They wouldn't have.
In the founders day, and for 150 years after, our gov't did not treat addicts as "dependent little dysfunctional children". -- You prohibitionists & socialists changed all that when you gained power. --- Time for you to admit it, -- and for all of us to get rid of the socialist/prohibitionist lifestyle you advocate.

[A CA Guy]

The world is at war and you two are still talking pot! LOL

[tpaine]

The world is at war and you two are still talking pot! LOL

Yep, the world could be at war and you would be still 'Laughing Out Loud' at violations of our constitution.

[Know your rights]

The world is at war

Wrong as usual.