Skip to comments.Chuck Norris smokes marijuana debate
Posted on 01/26/2014 9:10:57 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Mr. Norris, with Washington and Colorado recently legalizing pot smoking and their football teams (Seattle Seahawks and Denver Broncos) being in the Super Bowl, some have asked whether there is going to be added marijuana use during this years Super Bowl. And President Barack Obama recently said that he doesnt think marijuana is as dangerous as alcohol. What do you think, Chuck? Is it? Trying to Make Sense of Sensimilla in Seattle
I understand the arguments for the legalization of marijuana: It can generate tax revenue. It can reduce illegal supply and demand. It can strip power from cartels and lessen crime across and at our borders. And it isnt so dangerous as other illegal drugs or alcohol.
Youre right; President Obama even claimed one of those arguments when he recently told New Yorker Editor David Remnick, As has been well-documented, I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life.
Obama explained, (Smoking marijuana is) not something I encourage, and Ive told my daughters I think its a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy. But then he added, I dont think it is more dangerous than alcohol.
With the president entering the cannabis conversation ring, debate has intensified around the nation. But whats the truth in the alcohol-vs.-marijuana dispute?
This past week, CNN reported on some extensive studies and evidence surrounding the topic, especially in comparing use, addiction, withdrawal and the effects on using motorized vehicles.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Don’t bogart that Nanny State PING!
In the words of the great Jim Quinn, everything before the "but" is BS.
And I'll reserve judgment until I know what Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme have to say on the subject.
Arguing with Chuck Norris would likely be the last thing I ever did in my life......
sinsemilla (”without seed”), not sensimilla.
Been saying it for decades, the liberty to be licentious.
To the neo-marxist left and many in the GOP, it`s about the only liberty they fundamentally believe in. The rest are privileges to be stripped at their whim.
To libertarians, morals are relative, so if it feels good do it. Who cares if people are sticking needles in their veins on street corners with prostitutes working the high schools tricking for horny teen boys.
The little people always need something to help them tolerate the misery of living in slavery under communism. The Russians had their vodka. It appears that the people in this country have chosen marijuana.
Long as you did it from an anonymous IP address that changed frequently, you might be safe...
Those prostitutes will be from the middle school
THINGS I WISH I HAD SAID
True Liberty is not license. Those who think as you, sir, pervert liberty, and destroy the fundamental principles that allow a culture to thrive economically. This is the error of libertarian philosophy.
What libertarianism proposes is moral relativism under the pretense of non-interference. However, in the final measure, the result is that guaranteed outcome of any morally ambiguous system, which denies human nature and the transcendent truths that govern all cause and effect relationships. In practice the imagined utopia of the libertarian is identical in its altruistic deception to that of atheistic communism; and the outcome is predictable: the destruction of the individual and the corporate body of humanity we call society.
Libertarians think they may advance the cause of social liberalism simultaneously with fiscal conservatism; but this duality of purpose is folly, and works diametrically and insidiously against itself. The social plagues induced by such novel philosophies invariably drain the public treasury, render the distinctions of absolute right and wrong to ambiguity, destroy public confidence in justice, and dissolve private wealth.
Human society does not and cannot exist in a moral vacuum. A society that having no absolute standards of conduct defers all decisions to the individual, exercising little or no restraint on behavior, abdicates the single most legitimate purpose of the state: to increase the common good and uphold the moral order. To quote Edmond Burke:
Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.
- Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
A corrupt society, filled with men of licentious inclinations, cannot maintain its economic stability; or do you suppose the folly of the Roman Republic is worth revisiting in our times? Give us bread and circuses!
Economics does not transcend moral absolutes. Economics does not trump the Natural Law. History proves conclusively that no immoral or amoral culture can long prosper, nor survive its growing litany of perversions against the Natural Law; for such a corrupt body becomes its own undoing. Unfettered liberty generates unfettered vice.
Vice is not virtue; even if for a time libertarianism may advance a nations economic standing, it remains a foundation of sand because it denies the absolute transcendent truth indelibly stamped on the consciousness of every man by He who created all things. God is not mocked.
You tell that to Chuck ;^)
Exactly what the LIV needs, right?
So the hot topics for social liberty in the nation are for gays to marry and to legalize pot smoking. America is swirling around in the toilet bowl flush action.
It is not possible for the government to eliminate or even control marijuana. We can waste lots of money in the effort, however.
How long have we tried to eliminate crab grass and dandelions?
A weed is a weed.
Also, medical marijuana is far cheaper and safer than thalidomide, which can cost over $8,000 per month for cancer patients. The drugs both reduce nausea and promote appetite.
Choom-Gang America. Dopehead nation.
Obama’s faggoty Homo-America.
The country has become such a pathetic, degenerate cesspool. Really can’t even generate any interest or enthusiasm for its survival anymore. Makes the whole topic of politics seem almost laughably moot at this point. Chances of me even bothering to vote again has become increasingly slim.
I agree with most of your post.
However, the fact is that people like you and me, don’t want to be “Told” what to think or believe. People need to discover those truths for themselves.
Any form of government that insists on enforcing a belief system will encounter rebellion.
To equate Libertarianism to moral relativism is a mistake on the surface.
The difference being the governments ability to force moral relativism on the populace, which is what we have now, and the people having the ability and freedom to figure things out on their own.
Yes, it is “Non-interference”, but it is not moral relativism.
It is peer pressure without redress.
It is a leap of faith. This is what liberals and progressives can’t handle. They don’t trust their fellow man, primarily because they don’t trust themselves.
In Chuck’s case might it be SENSEImilla?
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.