Porn, Pot and Abortion

Exclusive to FreeRepublic ^ | 2/27/2009 | DouglasKC

[DouglasKC]

Porn, Pot and Abortion

You may have read that the Obama administration has altered United States government policy and has sanctioned "medical" marijuana by ending raids on "clinics" where "medical" marijuana is passed out.

The use of quotes in the paragraph above is deliberate. It's my view and the views of millions of conservatives that there is no such thing as "medical" marijuana...or at least in the way it's being presented to the public.

"Medical" marijuana is simply a term for pot being sold for profit under the guise that it helps a plethora of medical problems. The "clinics" are essentially drug dens that are attempting to gain a little more respectability. It has been the policy of the United States government to raid and shut down these clinics.

Now here's the problem. There are many so called conservatives that support these drug dens. They say that it's a states right issue. That this isn't a power delegated to the United States government.

Clearly this is a debatable point. For example I would offer that it's in the best interest of the country to ban something that is in the worst interest of the country. For example if we had a communist power develop a drug that would make our citizens lazy and unproductive then nobody would argue that we should allow this power to freely distribute this drug in the United States. There would be no hew and cry about "states rights".

But nonetheless there are those who have seized upon the issue of "medical" marijuana as the ultimate expression of states rights. That's fine. That's their rights as Americans. But here's what I wish.

I wish they would be honest and apply the same standard to abortion and pornography. I wish they would stand up and proclaim that abortion and pornography are in the same league. Because if you want to embrace their viewpoint you MUST embrace pornography and abortion.

Abortion, by their logic, should also be a state right. Pornography, by their logic, should also be a state right. Yet the federal government has mandated, by court decisions and law, that the support of these issues are the law of the land.

Now I happen to believe the opposite. I think these two issues are so dangerous to the country as a whole that they SHOULD be banned nationwide for the common welfare of the union of states.

What happened? It's easy. Religious morality stopped in government. We went from a nation governed by religion based morals a government based on amoral, or immoral principles. And let me make it clear..when I say religious morals I'm talking precisely about Judeo-Christian morality...or at least what this morality used to be.

And here's what these so called new conservatives fail to conserve. They fail to conserve the religious morality that stopped our leaders from ruling from a non-principled viewpoint. They fail to conserve the idea that right and wrong don't come from man or man's laws, but from God, the creator of man. They fail to conserve the notion that certain things are repugnant to God and to those who have His morals.

They have taken up the mantle of the 60's generation. Sex and drugs. Don't tell us what to do. We don't like your morals. Once they succeeded in tearing down God, they began working on the government.

John Adams, the 2nd President of the United States said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Oh so true. Without morals and religion our constitution fails. It breaks. It doesn't work. It's inadequate. It can be twisted and shaped to whatever viewpoint the rulers want.

Pot. Abortion. Pornography. All of these are issues that a moral people and a moral government instinctively reject. But remove morality from the equation and anything goes. God save us.

[DouglasKC]

And Milton Friedman. Amazing isn’t it that the two people who intellectually led the modern conservative movement were so easily taken in by liberals? Or maybe they just saw the problems with marijuana prohibition for themselves.

Or maybe they just liked to smoke pot or hung around with those who did. Undoubtedly though there view is a minority one among conservatives.

My point was use is less in a place with legalized marijuana than it is where it is illegal.

That's not what the article you posted says at all. It compares a number of statistics none of which compares over all population use of marijuana or hash. From the article:

In identical questionnaires administered in Amsterdam and San Francisco (cities chosen for their similarities as politically liberal northern port cities with universities and populations of roughly 700,000 people), nearly 500 respondents who had used marijuana at least 25 times were asked detailed questions about their marijuana use. The questionnaire explored such issues as age at first use, regular and maximum use, frequency and quantity of use over time, intensity and duration of intoxication, career use patterns, and use of other illicit drugs.

So this study ONLY asked 500 regular users of pot some of their habits. There is nothing in there to support your statement that pot use decreases or stays the same after legalization by the general population. They essentially surveyed stoners to see if it made a difference. And they did it in San Francisco which is the most pot tolerant city in the country.

So the study you cited is just so much liberal propaganda.

[Mr. Blonde]

Here is an interview with Milton Friedman. I think you will find it interesting, especially this part:

"I'm an economist, but the economics problem is strictly tertiary. It's a moral problem. It's a problem of the harm which the government is doing.

I have estimated statistically that the prohibition of drugs produces, on the average, ten thousand homicides a year. It's a moral problem that the government is going around killing ten thousand people. It's a moral problem that the government is making into criminals people, who may be doing something you and I don't approve of, but who are doing something that hurts nobody else. Most of the arrests for drugs are for possession by casual users.

Now here's somebody who wants to smoke a marijuana cigarette. If he's caught, he goes to jail. Now is that moral? Is that proper? I think it's absolutely disgraceful that our government, supposed to be our government, should be in the position of converting people who are not harming others into criminals, of destroying their lives, putting them in jail. That's the issue to me. The economic issue comes in only for explaining why it has those effects. But the economic reasons are not the reasons.

Of course, we're wasting money on it. Ten, twenty, thirty billion dollars a year, but that's trivial. We're wasting that much money in many other ways, such as buying crops that ought never to be produced."

Imagine that, immoral to continue prohibition.

You may also find this information interesting.

[DouglasKC]

Milton Friedman was consistently liberal on social issues so holding him up as the quintessential conservative isn't very convincing. He was pro-abortion, pro-prostitution and pro-pot.

He and others like him are why conservative movement is in trouble. They swallowed the liberal kool-aid on social issues. They're smart when it comes to the left and fiscal policy, but they're too stupid to realize that the left concentrated on social issues just as much if not more in order to change the minds and hearts of people.

[Mr. Blonde]

So you think it is only leftist propaganda that changed people’s minds about marijuana? No one can look at the information about the subject and come to the conclusion it should be legalized absent the machinations of a vast left-wing conspiracy?

Do you not think that maybe there was a lot of propaganda around in the first place to make it illegal? Sure were/are a lot of monied interests in this country who wouldn’t like marijuana legal.

[DouglasKC]

So you think it is only leftist propaganda that changed people’s minds about marijuana? No one can look at the information about the subject and come to the conclusion it should be legalized absent the machinations of a vast left-wing conspiracy?

It's was the tearing down of moral and religious constraints by the left that made it happen. Same with abortion and porn.

Do you not think that maybe there was a lot of propaganda around in the first place to make it illegal? Sure were/are a lot of monied interests in this country who wouldn’t like marijuana legal.

No, I think those who warned about legalization in the past were right on. They nailed it. They were right about it's effects on culture and society. I think there are plenty of monied interests today who want to see marijuana legal. The government wants tax money off from it which is why Obama is going to go full tilt to legalize it as fast as he can...at the expense of the American people. George Soros have funded almost every legalization effort so I'm sure he's well positioned to profit.. at the expense of the American people.

[Mr. Blonde]

You don’t think the cotton and tobacco industries saw disaster looming in marijuana/hemp remaining legal?

What are the negative effects on society? I see negative effects from making it something bought on the black market. I don’t see problems with its use. The people I know who use remain productive members of society. If I were relying on someone to get something done I would much rather they smoked weed the night before over drank alcohol.

Do you think Reefer Madness was an accurate portrayal of marijuana?

[DouglasKC]

You don’t think the cotton and tobacco industries saw disaster looming in marijuana/hemp remaining legal?

Nope. I think the issue of hemp vs. cotton is liberal propaganda. Hemp fiber is more course than cotton so there's not much demand for it in clothing. Cotton and other fibers, even man made textiles, are superior for making comfortable clothing. The market place rules. Pro-drug legalizers have seized upon using hemp products in order to further their agenda for getting high.

Tobacco: I think that most tobacco companies would be hesitant to touch smoked marijuana as a product. With tobacco they're been traditionally insulated from lawsuits, although that's changed. With pot anything goes. I bet there's lawyers licking their chops waiting for some state to legalize it. That's probably only why it's still illegal, but decriminalized. As soon as it becomes a legitimate, legalized product then lawsuits will fly.

This is going to be hard to explain to you if you're not a religious person or if you've never smoked pot, but here is why it's dangerous to society: Getting high simulates spirituality. It's a counterfeit of higher consciousness. A lie. As a consequence those who smoke it believe they are more aware, more spiritual, more in tune with creation. They are poisoning their brains. That's why the left always associates itself with marijuana. It's because they are lacking in morals and Godliness. They have no Gods but themselves but they still want to feel spiritual. And when people smoke pot they think they don't need God, his rules, his laws, his way. And they are lost.

[Chunga]

This is going to be hard to explain to you if you're not a religious person or if you've never smoked pot, but here is why it's dangerous to society: Getting high simulates spirituality. It's a counterfeit of higher consciousness. A lie. As a consequence those who smoke it believe they are more aware, more spiritual, more in tune with creation. They are poisoning their brains. That's why the left always associates itself with marijuana. It's because they are lacking in morals and Godliness. They have no Gods but themselves but they still want to feel spiritual. And when people smoke pot they think they don't need God, his rules, his laws, his way. And they are lost.

This is very well said.

[Mr. Blonde]

Is there anything you don’t think is liberal propaganda? My point about the tobacco industry is why smoke tobacco when you can smoke marijuana?

Since we still have no deaths attributed to smoking marijuana, what will the lawsuits be about?

I am both religious and have smoked twice. The first time it just put me to sleep, the second time we laughed at things that were in retrospect not that funny. I didn’t experience any increased feelings of spirituality. Of the people I know who smoke, it does not seem to be in order to bring in a false spirituality. It is used very similar to alcohol, either as part of social gatherings or relaxing at the end of the day.

The more appropriate drug for what you are describing would be ‘shrooms. Johns Hopkins did a study of having people take ‘shrooms for the first time and most who did rated it the single most spiritual experience of their lives. I know fewer people who have taken ‘shrooms on a regular basis, but the ones I do are ones I would characterize as spiritually lost especially in comparison to those who smoke weed.

[DouglasKC]

Is there anything you don’t think is liberal propaganda?

There's not much. They've been remarkably successful in getting their tentacles into every aspect of American society. Education, labor, government, religion. There is virtually no area that they haven't systematically targeted and destroyed.

My point about the tobacco industry is why smoke tobacco when you can smoke marijuana?

Tobacco and pot are different chemical reactions. The experience isn't the same.

I am both religious and have smoked twice. The first time it just put me to sleep, the second time we laughed at things that were in retrospect not that funny. I didn’t experience any increased feelings of spirituality. Of the people I know who smoke, it does not seem to be in order to bring in a false spirituality. It is used very similar to alcohol, either as part of social gatherings or relaxing at the end of the day.

I don't think two times is enough to understand. There is a whole religion built around smoking pot...Rastafarians. Look at some of the pro-legalizers on FreeRepublic, they constantly make inferences that "God created pot so he must want us to get high". Many pick out bible verses such as Genesis 1:30 to imply that God wants men to smoke pot. Throughout history various pagan religions and cults have used it as a way to commune with the gods.

The bible prohibits it's use consistently. It's covered under the admonitions against what English translators call "witchcraft" or "sorcery". In the new testament:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, Gal 5:20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies,

"Sorcery" above is from the greek "pharmakeia" and it
From G5332; medication (“pharmacy”), that is, (by extension) magic (literal or figurative): - sorcery, witchcraft.

This category covers all type of drugs used for this experience so mushrooms would also apply.

Leftists in the US today are interested in one thing: destroying the things that have made America great. That includes religion. That includes morality. That includes capitalism. It's in their best interest today to promote drug usage in order to achieve this goal. Once they have control, as in the former soviet union, then drug usage is problematic for the citizenry because it's too much like religion. They want people to worship the state. So when leftists have completed their destruction of the constitution, pot and other drugs will be banned...and in a more harsh and draconian fashion than anything we've experienced in America so far.

[M Kehoe]

Good morning.

What happened to Dane?

I was told he was banned about 6 months ago. I don't know the particulars.

5.56mm

[MountainFlower]

Heaven help us!

[Nate505]

OH NOES!!!

NOT THE LIBERALTARIANS!!!!

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!