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?
When Chuck Norris looks at a bag of pot and some rolling papers, they roll themselves into perfect joints out of pure fear.
|Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000||Receipts & Pledges to-date: $23,737|
|Woo hoo!! And the first 27% is in!! Thank you all very much!!|
I am hoping for secession II. There will be no war as today’s Yankees want to get rid of the pesky Red States anyway.
By your argument, weed shouldn't be legal or legal. It should be ignored. Tough to do with mind-altering substances.
I agree with that as a hypothesis. Do you know if there are any books that have been written that establish a link between the decline of civilizations and moral decadence?
Seems like the best option. With each and every new day, America itself no longer appears even ‘worth’ trying to salvage.
Yes grass hopper!
It suffices to say here that justifying the use of one drug because its not so dangerous as another drug is weak reasoning in any book and bad grounds for justifying usage of either of them. Maybe its time we fight all addictive drugs instead of making excuses for using them.
Im all for freedom, but when liberty turns into licentiousness, its time to reconsider why were doing what were doing. Just because we can doesnt mean we should
My problem with the libertarians is they too often don't see the big picture...Freedom is useless when there no personal responsibility (aka. moral values). Don't look for government to impose responsibility or values either they are hypocrites like the rest of us. If you are going to do something that may be harmful you better be ready to accept the consequences.
On the body, smoking marijuana can increase your chances of cancer. Most joints have no filter, and there are more carcinogens than tobacco (and any unknown carcinogenic substances added by the dealer). So the chances of getting lip, mouth, throat and lung cancer are greater than cigarettes.
On the mind, marijuana is know to decrease IQ over time as well as impair good judgement.
These are from the Whitehouse website.
“Under this philosophic instructor in the ethics of vanity, they have attempted in France a regeneration of the moral constitution of man. Statesmen, like your present rulers, exist by everything which is spurious, fictitious, and false; by everything which takes the man from his house, and sets him on a stage which makes him up an artificial creature, with painted, theatric sentiments, fit to be seen by the glare of candlelight, and formed to be contemplated at a due distance.
Your practical philosophers, systematic in everything, have wisely begun at the source. As the relation between parents and children is the first amongst the elements of vulgar, natural morality... Your masters reject the duties of his vulgar relation, as contrary to liberty; as not founded in the social compact; and not binding according to the rights of men; because the relation is not, of course, the result of free election; never so on the side of the children, not always on the part of the parents.
The next relation which they regenerate by their statues to Rousseau is that which is next in sanctity to that of a father. They differ from those old-fashioned thinkers, who considered pedagogues as sober and venerable characters, and allied to the parental...Thus they dispose of all the family relations of parents and children, husbands and wives. Through this same instructor, by whom they corrupt the morals, they corrupt the taste. Taste and elegance, though they are reckoned only among the smaller and secondary morals, yet are of no mean importance in the regulation of life. A moral taste is not of force to turn vice into virtue; but it recommends virtue with something like the blandishments of pleasure; and it infinitely abates the evils of vice.”
A Letter From Mr. Burke
To A Member Of The National Assembly In Answer To Some Objections To His Book On French Affairs
This is common ground for both marx and libertarians
Marx hated the nuclear family as an artificial construct of, God, patriarchy and bourgeois economics. Libertarians view the nuclear family as an artificial construct of God and in their moral relativity, discriminatory against any other definition of a family, 3 men, 1 man 10 wives, 1 man prepubescent girls, etc.
If it feels good, do it.
Thalidomide is an antineoplastic. Cancer patients take it to treat their cancer.
It is primarily used to help with nausea and to promote appetite.
YOU ARE WRONG.
Yes, it has other benefits, such as controlling anxiety, but the primary benefit is to promote appetite and reduce nausea.
The FDA banned Thalidomide for pregnant mothers, to treat morning sickness. Thank Heaven because in England Thalidomide caused a great many very tragic birth defects, and “flipper babies”.
If a pregnant woman so much as touches a pill of this toxic drug, Thalidomide, she can absorb enough of the poison to cause a birth defect to her unborn child.
Pot is much safer.
Both reject law as moral pedagogy as the Founders knew men to be inherently evil ( original sin ).
Declaration read Right to Life. Both the left and libertarians disagree as amplified in the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case and agreed upon by both ideologies:
“At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.
it has been my long term , direct observation , here in Hawaii , which is one of the most pot soaked places in America ; that most pot smokers , the vast majority , are inclined to be low information seeking Liberal voters . Too laid back to care if they get the facts right , trending to voting for anything that implies ‘ more fun and less authority ‘ and certainly voting for the candidates that appear ‘cool’ , and not even barely thinking about the safety of the nation or the wider world . later in life these same pot smokers tend to bog down in depression and often experience deep financial insecurity , because like the old story of the grasshopper and the ants , many of them fiddled away their best ,most potentially productive years , while the ants worked their little butts off . Another pot smoker observation I have made; here at least NONE of them serve their country in the Armed Forces , none are inclined to enlist . It’s ‘not cool’ . This of course does not apply to the many aging Vietnam War veterans that enjoy a good puff , out in their secluded homesteads . They EARNED the right to relax any damn way they want to . Talking about the younger folks who blow the boo non-stop , and then go vote for Obama ( et all)
Child abuse is a relative term. Libertarians generally agree sex with children is acceptable.
The left propose straw men arguments to further their cause. “Greedy” is the straw man. Bill Gates by creating Billions in new wealth and thousands of jobs is “greedy” by reaping the rewards of his implemented ideas aka, being rich.
Liberty to pollute? They`ve created the Big Lie that CO2, a natural substance required for life on Earth, is pollution.
What if there is a war and out soldiers are all high? What if there is a war and the enemy just tosses pot at our soldiers? they will be so addicted they will shoot their officers and sit around to smoke dope. But, there will be no more wars—we can all become mulims have four wives! And because of this women will have to Obey Men or be killed—its in the Koran isn’t it? This is a bad experiment—and it will take a full decade before we see how this works out.
I don't smoke cigarettes, marijuana or anything else. I'm not a big drinker (I like an occasional Lager with my dinner) and generally speaking, don't even like taking narcotics/painkillers often opting for non-narcotic substitutes ...
after over 5 years of Obama I really want something to numb me from the pain that a$$hole has inflicted on our country -- even if only for a few hours!
Name one. While I'm not a Libertarian, I know plenty of them and that statement of yours is so laden with bullshit it'd cover 40 acres of farmland.
Here`s one, how many more would you like:
Many people will object that sex with children is rights-viol- ating because individuals below the age of consent, do not know what they are doing, and therefore the compliance is not voluntary at all. I believe this argument is fallacious...
anyone who thinks sex with a minor is okay should be shot
Rejection of Natural Law and Original Sin ALWAYS leads to the rationalization of almost anything, Too old, Why not just “ take the pill and go home” and die. Physical defect? Why not kill it in the womb now? Sex with children?
“why is it abuse? Below the age of twelve or so, a child may not be particularly interested in seeking sexual relations but that doesnt mean he or she will not voluntarily accept and enjoy them.”
sickening that people could think like that and still be considered sane
You understand. And when non-trusting (fearful), control minded people encounter something they don't care for, they ban it and to hell with the consequences.
Thus, we have tried to ban guns, alcohol, every drug, including and now especially cigarettes, sex, riding without a helmet or driving without a seatbelt and to what end?
Certainly not liberty. Not when the answer is because those "things" are misused by a minority of those who do use them, NO ONE can have them or the freedom to decide for themselves and accept the consequences.
But...Human nature must be controlled by those who know best, so we must take those toys away, while exaggerating their danger as justification for the good of all. Right?
Do you think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken.
Theres no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there arent enough criminals one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, 1957
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
That's really what you believe? ROFL! Oh man. You've a sick mind if you really believe that, and if you believe that website is anything less than a smear-campaign effort. Good luck with that.
Thalidomide is banned in the US for administration to pregnant women, true. It is currently used in the US to treat leprosy and multiple myeloma, and number of off-label uses, all of which are serious or life-threatening medical conditions. It could be administered as an antinausea drug, I suppose, but why bother when Zofran is far cheaper and less problematic?
You can write the editors of Clinical Pharmacology and tell them they’re wrong, but I don’t think they’ll be very keen.
I’m happily re-reading Dostoyevsky’s “Notes from the Underground”.
My take away now as it was then is, F**k you, I am man that thinks for myself.
The left propose straw men arguments to further their cause
I see you found UK website with which you would like to slime libertarians. You could just as easliy quote Fred Phelps and say all Baptist are foul screaming lunatics. Now remind me again who is using staw men?