Posted on 12/14/2011 3:36:46 AM PST by Yosemitest
Why? Because he states an obvious truth that you don't like?
So, do you find Obamacare constitutional?
Years ago I used to be a card carrying libertarian.
I agreed with many of the party platforms but finally quit the party after I found out that the MAIN thrust of their party was to legalize marijuana FIRS and tend to the other things that were less important. “Gimme my drugs first and then we will talk about what you think is important” was the credo.
Now, don’t get me wrong for I believe in the fact that all prescription drugs should be legal and without any restraints. The only reason they were controlled in the first place was to create a new government department to control them along with insuring that the medical and pharmaceutical industry was guaranteed huge profits by the regulation of them. No doctor visit...no scrip...no prescription drugs.
If you were in line at the local Wal-mart pharmacy and had a heart attack, you know you needed Nitro to survive, but could not get it since you did not have a prescription...and the pharmacist sure as hell would not give it to you but would call 911. Something wrong here?
The problem I have with the libertarians pertaining to marijuana and other hard drugs is the fact that they don’t address all of the other factors that arise from use of these drugs upon the tax paying society along with crimes to pay for them in many cases.
There’s no “truth” in Ron Paul’s statement, only the sad, laughable insanity of a senile old man.
That's it!
FIRS = FIRST
Too early in the morning....too much coffee....no drugs.
‘salright. I’m too sleepy to continue.
Big fan of the New Deal and Wickard v. Filburn, eh?
It's one thing to repeat the Big Lie not knowing it's a lie.
It's something else altogether to repeat it knowing it's a lie, and then attack anyone who'd tell the truth.
If you're not a liberal troll sent here to discourage any talk of constitutional restoration, you're doing a very good impression of one.
This isn’t about whether marijuana should be legal. It’s about who’s legitimately authorized by the Constitution to say whether it is or isn’t.
The federal government does not have the legitimate constitutional authority to ban drugs. That's a fact. When you advocate that the federal government keep unconstitutional laws in place simply because you like the unconstitutional laws you do not sound like a conservative.
So why do you support national marijuana prohibition, which is based on the UNCONSTITUTIONAL use of the Commerce Clause?
No, most likely they believe ADULTS can choose for themselves what recreational drugs to use - and not stick to the list of "government approved drugs".
Nice to see you all fall in line with Obama and the Democrats views.
And if one defends the use of marijuana, and other ILLEGAL drugs, then that person is NOT a conservative, period.
Tell that to Bill Buckley.
Some of you folks have NO IDEA what actual conservatism is. Freedom means accepting things you don't like or approve of
Too bad. Deal with it....or go join the fascist Democrats.
I'll stick up for Wolfie: Wolfie's a solid citizen. If I may be so bold, I get the impression on the thread that he's saying "what is is what is, and you know what? It is because many conservatives have this exact blind spot when it comes to the War on Drugs that it is." You're saying the whole thing is illogical, unconstitutional, and should never have come about in the first place. You're both right.
We should fight the good fight all we can, but you know what? It's like screamin' at a wall. It's like kicking at the pricks. And like Wolfie, sometimes I get a sick satisfaction seeing conservatives squirm on this very issue. For me, it's where the rubber meets the road of conservatism: the federal government is either restricted to certain enumerated powers or it's not. If it is, you have to live with the notion that your personal bugaboo, whether it be drug use, porn, or what have you, is perfectly legal. If it's not, then you have to live with the notion that you're not a conservative, but a statist, i.e., a commie in conservative clothing.
Sometimes one has to abandon logic and reason to perform the math that justifies an emotional response to a hot-button issue.
I think you’re on to something here... No critical thinking is being taught. Having said that I can’t get behind legalization of other more destructive drugs(and I know what I’m talking about from direct personal experience)
“If drugs are legal and people misuse them, then they do it at their own risk,”
Sorry but I don’t trust my kid to make that decision.
I'll argue that "No, you don't have to."
You can choose to and many do, but it's an emotional response fraught with the potential for unintended consequences and something anyone who really strives apply conservative principles would want to avoid.
God knows the evidence of those unintended consequences is laid out before us for all to see, so why would anyone want to keep doing it?
One more time. It's not about whether marijuana should be legal, it's about who has the authority to say whether it is or isn't.
If Wickard v Filburn was overturned, and all the federal laws based on it were rendered invalid, marijuana would still be illegal in your state, by state law. Federal agencies like the EPA, on the other hand would just be flat out of business.
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.