Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

HURT: Now that I have to pay for it, it is my business
The Washington Times ^ | July 15, 2014 | Charles Hurt

Posted on 07/16/2014 5:46:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

Politicians here have not even figured out how yet to implement their new law requiring us to pay for everybody else’s health care, and already people are clamoring to legalize drugs that are, at the very least, hazardous to their health.

The good people of Colorado and Washington state can now buy and smoke pot without violating state laws. The movement to do so is spreading among other states like a hot tropical virus through a detention facility on the Mexican border.

I, for one, have never really cared one way or the other if people choose to smoke pot. My experience is that it appears to make most people dumber and slower. But it also seems to make some people happy and fall asleep, which I view as a real positive. Especially the part about putting them to sleep.

But I certainly don’t think that my long-developed and strongly held views against using drugs should be inflicted upon other people to whom I have no responsibility. Nor do I believe that someone else’s devotion to a weed pipe in any way impinges upon some high morals or precious views that I might hold.

I don’t like cats. But I don’t want to outlaw cats...

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraception; contraceptives; healthcare; marijuana; obamacare; pot; weed

1 posted on 07/16/2014 5:46:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I, for one, have never really cared one way or the other if people choose to smoke pot. My experience is that it appears to make most people dumber and slower. But it also seems to make some people happy and fall asleep, which I view as a real positive. Especially the part about putting them to sleep.

But I certainly don’t think that my long-developed and strongly held views against using drugs should be inflicted upon other people to whom I have no responsibility. Nor do I believe that someone else’s devotion to a weed pipe in any way impinges upon some high morals or precious views that I might hold.

Yeah? I wonder if this moron would mind it if the doper worked on his car brakes or on the jet engines of the airline he would book a flight for.

This guy's libertarian attitude is what allows the American civilization to degrade. If there are no standards, there is no strength and no quality. Americans may as well give themselves over to the gangs south of the border. Why enforce anything if it doesn't affect one personally?

2 posted on 07/16/2014 5:59:11 PM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

****I, for one, have never really cared one way or the other if people choose to smoke pot***

I figure that the Politicians will move to legalize pot everywhere after they see the tax revenue from the sales, just like they have legalized gambling, lottery tickets and other things which produce HUGE tax revenue.


3 posted on 07/16/2014 5:59:36 PM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need more than seven rounds, Much more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They can legalize pot for all I care, it would cut off the money from the narco thugs in the south.


4 posted on 07/16/2014 6:01:23 PM PDT by isthisnickcool (NO MORE IRS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

This guy is exactly right. The war in drugs is a miserable failure. Unless of course you want to get rid of that pesky Constitution thingy. In that case it been a howl on success.


5 posted on 07/16/2014 6:01:24 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It is only fair considering we pay for cigarette smokers, drinkers, and fat bodies. Go ahead and single out cannabis users if that helps your shrinking self righteousness.


6 posted on 07/16/2014 6:01:47 PM PDT by drunknsage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Before we legalize marijuana, we need to abolish the welfare state. We also need to forbid liberals and the mentally ill from purchasing pot. Only after all of those factors are met would it be potentially acceptable, and even then I have my doubts.


7 posted on 07/16/2014 6:05:09 PM PDT by Objective Scrutator (All liberals are criminals, and all criminals are liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

But you don’t mind drinkers working on critical engineering or infrastructure. Let me guess, you are unable to distinguish between a recreational user and an addict but those who consume alcohol, why they would never do so on the job now would they Lou?

Your hypocrisy and ignorance is showing. Nixon would be proud and Anslinger would likely give you a medal. Be honest, are you afraid your daughters are going to smoke pot and bang black jazz musicians? Are you terrorized by visions of dope fiends with teashade eyes?


8 posted on 07/16/2014 6:08:15 PM PDT by drunknsage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Objective Scrutator

“We also need to forbid liberals and the mentally ill from purchasing pot.”

Ha!

Only liberals and mentally I’ll use it.


9 posted on 07/16/2014 6:14:56 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: drunknsage

“Your hypocrisy and ignorance is showing. Nixon would be proud and Anslinger would likely give you a medal. Be honest, are you afraid your daughters are going to smoke pot and bang black jazz musicians? Are you terrorized by visions of dope fiends with teashade eyes?”

Amazing.

It’s like a time warp.

A sixties hippie somehow posting on an Internet forum in the 21st century.


10 posted on 07/16/2014 6:16:54 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Objective Scrutator
Before we legalize marijuana, we need to abolish the welfare state.

Bingo!

Step 1, Step 2.
The order matters a great deal, and allowing people to put absolutely anything they want into their bodies might be a fine idea -- but first they need to abolish my responsibility to pay for their little adventures.

11 posted on 07/16/2014 6:20:15 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("Harvey Dent, can we trust him?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBsdV--kLoQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Waiting for those ads by the American Lung Assn., American Heart Assn., etc. decrying smoking cigarettes, e-cigarettes and cigars but hedging on pot with “toking ain’t really smoking”.


12 posted on 07/16/2014 6:28:31 PM PDT by RetiredTexasVet (Could Warren Buffet's oil trains be considered mobile Jihadist weapons of mass distruction?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

Good riddance to stoners, I say! (I think libertarians classify as mentally ill, since they want to live in a society without police, the military, or Christianity.)


13 posted on 07/16/2014 6:30:13 PM PDT by Objective Scrutator (All liberals are criminals, and all criminals are liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

the first ad hominem loses!


14 posted on 07/16/2014 6:43:00 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Objective Scrutator

your scrutation isn’t even good, let alone objective


15 posted on 07/16/2014 6:43:27 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

How about Step 0: care about the Lord again


16 posted on 07/16/2014 6:44:39 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Well, that’s always a good idea.


17 posted on 07/16/2014 6:47:59 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("Harvey Dent, can we trust him?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBsdV--kLoQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Let’s say it is essential by the very definition of essence.

Really, every other thing diminishes to near nothingness in importance.


18 posted on 07/16/2014 6:48:45 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

The objective scrutation was in comment 8, which is really all the debate that’s necessary on this issue for now. If you disagree with my comment on libertarians, then go speak to some Objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, or the Reddit libertarians. Go say that you believe illegals should not have a path to citizenship on those forums, and listen to the responses. (Paleolibertarians are the only reasonable libertarians. They are actually extremely reasonable, but hated by other libertarians.)

I do agree with you that bringing the fear of God back into man should be our first priority in this nation, but the liberals and the libertarians who control most of our political process wouldn’t agree.


19 posted on 07/16/2014 6:59:01 PM PDT by Objective Scrutator (All liberals are criminals, and all criminals are liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Objective Scrutator

Attempting to humanly fascize the “fear of God” won’t work. It never did; Israel is sui generis and even it went down the tubes.

Accepting that God offers love is the only real remedy. Fear is a pretty sad comment upon the mindset of those who can think of nothing else. God will live with the resulting opprobrium rather than lose someone to hell. However there are no two ways about it — it is still bad publicity for Him.


20 posted on 07/16/2014 7:03:22 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

he’s a capital ‘L’ Libertarian ... the drug centric party. this s significantly different for the personal responsibility/ small govt/ moral lifestyle mindset of the founders

please make the distinction


21 posted on 07/16/2014 7:03:57 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Objective Scrutator

And no, I will not accept your deflection. I will speak as needful in a truly objective view, which is not necessarily YOURS!


22 posted on 07/16/2014 7:04:54 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

tax revenues in CO have increased less then 1%


23 posted on 07/16/2014 7:05:14 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sten

Indeed, you can find the term “libertarian” with a small “l” used in a positive sense in Ronald Reagan’s own exhortations, and they are in keeping with the general tone of his exhortations which are to hope and purpose rather than to despair and aimlessness.

Somehow, America got on through the 19th century without demonizing any intoxicant. It seemed like such an easy, such a facile remedy to social ills to ascribe demonic attributes to something like rum, which never leaped unbidden unto someone’s soul.

The bible clearly points out that humanity’s genuine interest is not in fighting “flesh and blood” or “things that perish with use” but a literal kingdom of hell made up of literal demons that have their own military structure of authority and which besiege the world. They can no more be banned by human law than the tides of the ocean can. They can only be fought by inviting God into each and every personal heart.


24 posted on 07/16/2014 7:11:37 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sten

But if it is by virtue of one single product, that is a fair bump.


25 posted on 07/16/2014 7:12:29 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
I wonder if this moron would mind it if the doper worked on his car brakes or on the jet engines of the airline he would book a flight for.

If we're talking grown adults, after reviewing the NIH and NHTSA reports, I think I'd rather have a weekend stoner working on my brakes than a lunchbreak drinker. They may be a tick slower but they're apparently more careful. To wit:
NHTSA data for young adult drivers:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/Marijuana+&+Alcohol+Combined+Increase+Impairment

reaction time under live driving conditions:
no alcohol/no thc = average reaction time of 4.65 seconds
Thc only = 4.65 plus 0.9 second delay
Alcohol at BAC 0.1 is "far more impairing" than THC alone. (that would be a beer on lunch break, btw, for those brake fellows or guys over at the maintenance bay)

NHTSA report on traffic fatalities [all age groups],
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/26000/26600/26685/DOT_HS_808_065.pdf

"Among the 625 drivers who had BACs at or above O.lO%, the responsibility rate [for a fatality crash] was an extraordinary 94%,"
and, "In the absence of alcohol, no drug or drug group evidenced a driver responsibility rate significantly different from the drugfree control group." (page 111 marked as page 99)
and, "The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers, as was found previously by Williams and colleagues (1985). While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.(page 112 marked as page 100)

and, lastly, NIH weighs in - complex problem solving:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11682259

"Although marijuana significantly increased the number of premature responses and the time participants required to complete several tasks, it had no effect on accuracy on measures of cognitive flexibility, mental calculation, and reasoning...acute marijuana smoking produced minimal effects on complex cognitive task performance in experienced marijuana users."

Trix are for kids. Pot, like alcohol, is for adults. Isn't it time to put Refer Madness to bed?

26 posted on 07/16/2014 7:39:05 PM PDT by blueplum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
You need to incorporate both love and fear into spreading God's Word, because He, His Son, and the Holy Spirit extensively speak on both. With only love and no fear, you can manipulate God's Word into whatever blasphemous New Age nonsense you want. If we only speak of love without incorporating paternalism, then the receiver may misinterpret this as God being complicit with him accepting welfare checks.
Psalm 111:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.
On publicity (the Muslims and their taqiyya are very concerned with this):
Mark 13:13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
27 posted on 07/16/2014 7:43:56 PM PDT by Objective Scrutator (All liberals are criminals, and all criminals are liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Objective Scrutator

There’s nothing wrong with spiritual “paternalism.” God has the right to dictate what form the love takes... but my point is that it is 24K genuine, and that people also tend to vastly UNDERestimate grace.

The problem is when earthly governments proudly step up and pretend to being those comprehensive paternal factors. They can’t be. Never could, never will. The attempt to do so, in fact, defines liberalism quite well!


28 posted on 07/16/2014 7:49:07 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

LOLOLOL!!


29 posted on 07/16/2014 8:02:34 PM PDT by silverleaf (Age takes a toll: Please have exact change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
The order matters a great deal, and allowing people to put absolutely anything they want into their bodies might be a fine idea -- but first they need to abolish my responsibility to pay for their little adventures.

Can we assume that includes the types of food people eat, since obesity costs taxpayers $$$ in health care?

30 posted on 07/16/2014 8:26:12 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Exactly. Fat people (in particular in rural America) clearly have higher levels of heart disease and diabetes which costs Americans far more in health insurance than stoners will.


31 posted on 07/16/2014 8:36:16 PM PDT by MadIsh32 (In order to be pro-market, sometimes you must be anti-big business)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

I just want government charity stopped. That’s my point.

I believe that changing laws so that drugs are more available will lead to some disrupted lives and therefore a greater need for government charity.

My #1 priority is ending government charity.
I’m not interested in new laws that alter in any way how people eat.
I’m generally not interested in new laws of any kind.
I’m open to relaxing laws that allow more freedom in what drugs people might take.
But people need to be in a position where there is no safety net: they must be responsible for themselves, because there is no government charity. Then — if they want to use drugs, I suppose it’s none of my business.


32 posted on 07/16/2014 8:48:21 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("Harvey Dent, can we trust him?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBsdV--kLoQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: sten

It’s till enough to put stars in the eyes of some politicians.

NOTE to self: When selling 30 round magazines from the trunk of your car, don’t eat local cooked Colorado food. Bring your own from out of state!


33 posted on 07/17/2014 6:26:11 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Sometimes you need more than seven rounds, Much more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
We are anti-abortion because we know that life begins at conception, but this argument makes a specific appeal to Christianity. The secular humanist religion believes that life increases in worth based on how many cells it has and how well its nervous system is developed _ should we respect that belief? Yes, abortion is an extreme case, but the point is that we shouldn't have knee-jerk reactions against paternalism.
Do you think that Lawrence v. Texas was a reasonably decided court case? A community which wishes to impose anti-sodomy laws should be allowed to do so, as the argument is majoritarian and, more importantly, moral. The Bible unequivocally advocates that we keep the laws of the Old Testament, and is also unequivocal in stating that those are laws to be enforced, especially since those laws are specific to the point that misinterpretation is idiocy or deceit. Any changes to the laws from the OT are specifically mentioned in the NT.
34 posted on 07/17/2014 7:10:23 AM PDT by Objective Scrutator (All liberals are criminals, and all criminals are liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson