Posted on 11/23/2018 8:58:41 AM PST by Red6
It’s just how we vote since we have no choice
Marijuana is actively harmful to the vast majority of its users. I have known quite a few who used it for recreation and a few who claimed their use was medicinal. Only a very small number actually benefited - those taking it for nausea with chemo come to mind. If legalized, I would hope it would be considered as destructive as it really is.
That said, we have lost this battle. The question is not whether we will have users but whether we will have legal or illegal users, and legality is not going to change those numbers by much. I’d prefer to admit defeat and allow adults to harm themselves at will - with pot, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
Put aside getting high ....
High CBD strains smoked and / or made into topical ointments give better relief from arthritis, migraines, epilespsy and other neurodegenerative or painful afflictions without getting high or having side effects.
The uses against cancer are already making their mark, again with little in the way of side affects.
The GOP should at the least support this aspect of MJ’s use
“any more pithy rejoinders for me?”
It’s called “capitalizing” and it’s used often in standard English.
L
One day Trump will likely decriminalize federally and that will be that
If not him next Dem sure will
And that’s a tiny minority
I would have preferred it to stay medical permit only
You keep your hopes to the GOPe
Good luck
We don’t have to be pro-legalization, we should just make it a state, not federal issue.
Please provide this forum the LD50 of marijuana?
The Commerce Clasue is undoubtedly one of the, if not THE, most abused and twisted elements of federal overreach. Conservatives and libertarians rightly rail against such abuse, while statists and Dems/lbs LOVE it.
Therefore, if anyone supports federal regulation of cannibus without a Constitutional Amendment, the rightful response is "Et tu, Brute?" Congratulations...you are a philosophical cousin of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, the New Deal, the left wing of SCOTUS, Obamacare-lovers, and pretty much every two-bit left wing/Dem since the 1930s who tried to regulate away the right to keep and bear arms.
Once we have an honest admission about the legal mechanism, we can discuss the medical and social costs/benefits of cannibus, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, etc.
Saxxon - No deal. You need to amend the Constitution. The alcohol prohibition was tried once before. Little chance it is a winning issue this time around.
Pot(acute/chronic danger)...Alcohol(acute/chronic danger) ... Tobacco (chronic danger). A tobacco smoker isn’t impaired by smoking before operating a motor vehicle. A single drink may not impair a driver. Do people smoke one joint and not get a buzz? If so, what is the point of smoking a joint for recreational use?
I agree with you that conservatives have a difficult time but it is because of the Republican party, not because many are not outside it.
For decades the GOP has shunned conservative interests, so much so that they endorsed the likes Arlene Spector over conservative Republican candidates.
If we had put the criminal drug users in jail instead of the drug sellers this problem would have been over in a few years. I never have understood who thought the sellers were the problem.
There were too many upper class people whose sons were users, like Senator Shelby from Alabama, Ted Kennedy’s kids and nephews.
So they choose to put poor kids in jail for working where the money was
great and let their sons go free while breaking no laws yet we the true criminals.
but to your point, if you want to spend the rest of your life as a slave to the shift key, then go with God. myself, I consider that rule of grammar to be non-binding.
“Once we have an honest admission about the legal mechanism,...”
If we had an honest admission about the legal mechanism ... we would (re)discover the Constitution is actually one of limited powers to the federal government. The whole leftist-nanny state would implode (Medicare, Social Security, EPA, OSHA, federal gun laws, etc etc). That will not happen in my lifetime. That being said, incrementalism might happen if the GOP/right learn from how pot deconstructed a federal law by the states, and use its legal arguments and precedence on other federally mandated leftist laws. Then one day in the future, people might rediscover the original Constitution.
“Once we have an honest admission about the legal mechanism,...”
If we had an honest admission about the legal mechanism ... we would (re)discover the Constitution is actually one of limited powers to the federal government. The whole leftist-nanny state would implode (Medicare, Social Security, EPA, OSHA, federal gun laws, etc etc). That will not happen in my lifetime. That being said, incrementalism might happen if the GOP/right learn from how pot deconstructed a federal law by the states, and use its legal arguments and precedence on other federally mandated leftist laws. Then one day in the future, people might rediscover the original Constitution.
Great post.
Yeah, IF Republicans were smart.
They’d also focus on the freedoms of sexual behavior as well. Instead of insisting on only allowing sexual behavior for procreation, missionary position, and you’d better not enjoy it. The constitution and freedom of lifestyle should be a thing for Republicans. They’d be known for live and let live, allowing sister wives and gay communes, and attract any freedom lovers including second amendment lovers etc.
But, like you say, it could only happen if Republicans were SMART.
yes what you said is pretty stupid. gaslight much?
Rule of 65
If you are 65 or older, postings with minor spelling or grammer problems are autoforgiven
Until you can control THC levels
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.