Posted on 03/14/2009 2:20:58 PM PDT by Painesright
Video of Ron Paul debating Stephen Baldwin about the legalization of marijuana on Larry King Live March 13, 2009.
He’s in his own fog. Let him be.
“He’s in his own fog. Let him be.”
No pun intended?
Either secure the borders and let Mexico sit in their own stew, or let states regulate it like alcohol.***
Let them keep that schwagg.....most of the good stuff is US grown....it’s the top cash crop in this country:**
Totally. Mexican weed is terrible. Meth is Mexico’s worst problem.
WooHoo:)Hehehe
He grew hemp, huh?
Well, suppose you show me the link to show where he SMOKED hemp.
Strawman arguments like yours ALWAYS make you look stupid. Was that your point?***
No, I didn’t say he smoked hemp. I really don’t think that would do any good anyway. He certainly grew it, you do the research yourself. He even wrote about it, but he wasn’t dumb enough to think you could grow hemp legally and make marijuana illegal.
Hmmmm.
This thread is giving me a HUGE case of the munchies. I wonder why?
I don't condone people walking or driving around drunk either, nor showing up to work drunk, getting drunk every day, etc.
You CAN however drink responsibly, have a glass of wine, a beer, a shot without getting stoned. You can't have a sip of pot. You are either stoned or your not.
As far as arguing that some professionals, like Doctors smoke pot too, well that's alarming in itself. I certainly wouldn't want a pothead cutting into me. In fact if this is true, then these doctors should have to declare that they are pot smokers before seeing patients. That is also grounds for a lawsuit should there be a question over a diagnosis, a delay acting to treat someone, make a decision. Eg. Mrs Brown lost her baby due to strangling on the cord because the Doc didn't arrive in time because he was driving to slow because he was stoned".
Plus I doubt any company would give that Doc insurance.
Therefore, that claim, Doctors like to 'kick back" on weekends and smoke dope is bogus, since no Doc in their right mind would want his name on a list verifying this.
If adults want to smoke pot, fine, but do so at your own risk, and accept the consequences of doing so, such as fewer job offers because companies do not want potheads working for them, and the criminal implications.
Legalizing pot will just make it all the more available to children, and THAT alone is good enough reason to keep it illegal because it DOES cause permanent damage to their developing brains, as well as amplify depression and increase suicides among our youth having problems with depression and other underlying psychological problems. The claim that Pot never killed anyone is therefore FALSE.
Pot use can and DOES also lead some to harder drugs and permanent brain damage, and death. Some people are just prone to addiction, just like some people are prone to alcoholism.
The bottom line is that POT is not harmless as some try make it out to be. Smoking pot also produces 10 times more of the toxins found in cigarette tobacco, excluding nicotine. Therefore, the risk of developing lung cancer from smoking pot is just as great if not greater than smoking cigarettes.
I never said they were potheads. And they were not the ones that made it illegal, so your strawman argument does not hold water. You can debate why it was made illegal all you want, but whatever reason that is, the founding fathers did not agree with it. They would not be carried away with this moral majority crap that goes on in our culture today. In fact, they were revolutionists who hated taxes and government control to the point that they lost their lives over their liberty. None of you are that extreme today, maybe except for our armed forces who live and die by that code, but I wouldn't even compare the rest of us to the type of caliber our founding fathers were.
It's not a cover crop, btw. Many many uses for hemp still apply. It's a very durable product that you can make clothing out of and they even built a bridge in France out of it. The seeds, btw can be eaten and are full of protein. It could make this nation rich if we cultivated and sold it like our founding fathers once did. Drafts of the Constitution were written on hemp paper, btw.
Wow, you really don't know what you are talking about do you. You've never had a green stiffy I can tell. If you get the right kind, it's better than Viagra. There are two kinds of pot, btw (Indica and Sativa). One is an upper and the other a downer. One will make you leap for joy, the other will plant your butt to the couch. Pot does lower Testosterone, just like booze if used too much.
I know a few old potheads from high school.***
You keep talking about potheads as if anyone who has ever used pot or still uses it is a pothead just like anyone who ever has drunk beer or drinks it is a drunk. This has nothing to do with legalization of said drug, it’s just a lame strawman put there to divert attention away from the real issue which is state rights. It’s a pretty weak argument.
I will agree with you that it has many negative effects if abused, just like any other drug. But it has some valid medical uses, which, used in the right context can be a great benefit. It’s just like anything else in life that has the potential to be abused.
Strawman arguments like yours ALWAYS make you look stupid. Was that your point?***
Believe whatever you want to believe. If you are so smart you can find the information and evaluate it yourself. I’m not going to hold your hand for you. I think your too afraid of the truth to find out for yourself anyway, so be it.
Availability of drugs would not make drug users go live there. That's just ridiculous.
And just because cocaine was "legal" at one time doesn't mean everyone used it. In fact very few people even knew what cocaine was.
Opium was once legal as well for a time in the UK. However, its use as a pharmaceutical panacea and exotic recreational drug became epidemic throughout all of British society.
Perhaps you should read up on how opium nearly destroyed entire nations before you daydream about drugs being "legalized". Legalized pot would be a repeat of what legal opium was in India and the UK, since both make people extremely lazy.
Correction. Lib = Liberal ≠ Libertarian = Consistent Conservative.
I think legal perscription drugs are a far greater problem right now than anything else. But guess what, a lot of people still need those drugs to cope with the pain and inflamation. You can't throw out freedom in exchange for security. Never.
As far as legalization making it more available to children. Who's fault is that? I see most parents send their kids to public schools instead of a good private school or homeschool. I also see most parents let their kids hang out and do whatever. I say it's either the parents' fault for not teaching their kids right and wrong or the kid's fault for choosing that lifestyle. Either way indidivuals will be free to make both wrong and right choices in life and, for the most part, my taxdollars should not and will not be able to stop that. When they cross the line and destory my property or like you said screw up my operation, then the lawsuits come. Live and learn.
I won't argue this for one second, but until people change their beliefs, no amount of regulation and spending of my money will stop them from being idiots. There are many many epidemic problems in America that will not be quelled by a federal law, such as porn. Sexual addiction in America is out of control, but I don't want my tax dollars spent on trying to wipe it out, because the same sex addict will find something to ruin himself with no matter what kind of money I throw at the problem.
Like I said before, if certain states want to crack down on drugs hardcore then that would discourage most of the drug users from living in those states far more than current regulation does.
Once again, you should actually READ the bible before you try telling anyone what it says. Read Rev. 22;18-19. Adding to, or taking away from scripture will get your name removed from the book of life. It’s unforgivable.
I took your suggestion. Here's what the usdoj website says:
_________________________________________
"By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." [that's 0.5% - ken]
--http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm
__________________________________________
"There were an estimated 980,000 hardcore heroin addicts in the United States in 1999, 50 percent more than the estimated 630,000 hardcore addicts in 1992."
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/heroin.htm
______________________________________
"Among those using cocaine in the United States during 2000, 3.6 million were hardcore users who spent more than $36 billion on the drug in that year."
--http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs07/794/cocaine.htm
______________________________________
The US population in 2000 was about 280,000,000. So the combined addiction rate was about 1.6% in 2000 vs 0.5% in 1900.
Actually, I believe this was exactly the case during WWII, when the government paid farmers to grow hemp (from the marijuana plant), because it was needed to make lines for warships, canvas, and other cloth. But smoking it was already illegal.
Nonsense. You can be the best parent in the world, but that will not stop the temptation of peer pressure your kid has to face every day at school.
No matter how hard you want to believe your kid will made sound, rational decisions, guess what? They won't. Why? because they are kids. Their minds aren't fully developed, and at that age, they are beginning to have hormones racing through them, making rational thinking even more difficult. So, kids will be kids, and some will get sucked into trying it. And after that, maybe trying something else. You can't just blame the parents of every kid who does.
Whether you like it or not, we live in a society, and it is that society which determines the laws we have to keep our society and children in it reasonable safe and yes free.
No society can be free and safe without laws and the means to enforce them and punishment for breaking them.
You seem to forget that I have tax dollars as well, and in a democratic society, it's the majority of taxpayers that determine what is or isn't illegal, and what my tax money will pay for.
I will not pay for the destruction to society uncontrolled recreational drug use will cause, it's already costing far too much. You interpretation of freedom comes with a price that obliterates the rights and freedom and LIFE of others, and that is just not acceptable.
No you didn't.
There is absolutely nothing there about the problem the Brits had as a result of their widespread opium addictions, and what happened to India as a result of the Brits expanding opium production there.
All you "proved" with your hasty number gathering was prove what i said about Cocaine in the early days. Not too many people knew about it.
But, after it became illegal, and despite the explosion of it's popularity, the "war on drugs" managed to keep it's use under control, unlike what it would have been like if it were legal, which would be as widespead as opium use was in the UK in 1800 through to 1900.
By the middle of the nineteenth century hundreds of opium based potions, pill, and patent medicines were available to the general public. Among the most famous preparations were Dover’s Powders, initially marketed as a cure for gout; Godfey’s Cordial which was sold as a “soother” for crying babies; and laudanum, a tincture of opium in alcohol, which was both easily made and readily available.
It was epidemic. Even worse was what it did to India.
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.