Posted on 02/27/2009 8:34:48 AM PST by DouglasKC
How about anything that comes out of the mouths of Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and any other leftist for starters? As far as what constitutes pornography for much of the history of our country people didn't have a problem with knowing it when they saw it. But when religion and morality were removed from the equation enough morally relativistic people infiltrated our legal system and began asking the same questions. When morality is taken out of the picture then there's no such thing as pornography. Anything goes. That's why we have people seriously fighting the constitutionally of not being able to show kiddie porn today. That's why we have NAMBLA.
That is interesting considering the number of people who I know who smoke/did smoke weed who are conservative. And really, is "turning people into leftists" the best you can come up with?
If you know a lot of people that smoke dope then you're not hanging out with conservatives. We used to call those kinds of people "hippies". Or liberals. Take your pick. And that's not the best I can come up with, but it's the most accurate.
As far as debating "medical" marijuana there are three classes of those who believe in medical marijuana:
1. Leftists who want to push marijuana legalization to destroy the moral fabric of our country.
2. Stoners who want to smoke pot without having to worry about the legal consequences and who want to be absolved of any kind of moral condemnation.
3. Conservatives who have been duped by the first two groups.
Dirty, thanks for the ping.
Scroll back a hundred posts or so... You will see I was already here arguing against the Libertarians (libs) against the moral wrongs they are in favor of.
Also see.... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2196196/posts
This is yet another thread where clear thinking FReepers like you and I are outnumbered.
I stated that Libs rule Free Republic. And as you can see.... the responses are mostly in favor of surrendering on the WOD.
Sad. Just sad that Free Republic has come to this.
So now you admit to not even wanting to allow political speech. Apparently if speech is “immoral” by your standards it can be banned. That is a truly alarming statement.
You can ask my parent’s what their political ideology is, but I can assure you it is conservative. To the best of my knowledge the only democrat my mother has ever voted for was a neighbor running for state representative. But I guess she is a liberal because she ingested the smoke of a plant. Are there any other activities that turn people liberal? And the way you act about them, do I need to check under my bed for leftists every night?
If the most accurate danger to smoking marijuana is a change in political ideology, the prohibition on it is more of a sham than I thought it was previously.
How will marijuana destroy the moral fabric of our society? By taking away the right of government to kick down the door of old ladies?
Do you condemn people who drink alcohol as well? A far more dangerous substance?
This is exactly why I posted this thread. You're sitting here defending the "right" of people to get stoned. You're not wasting your time on trying to get abortion overturned. You're not concerned with pornography and the detrimental effects it has on society. Just the opposite. You're defending leftist viewpoints on these issues. You're not talking about how the left is trying to destroy the country. No. You're defending pot smokers. You're defending a leftist cause. You're carrying the water for liberal thought. I don't mean that as an insult, but supporting free sex and legalizing drugs ARE liberal causes, not conservative, and the more you defend them the faster you help destroy the moral and cultural fabric of our country. Not that there's much left to conserve.
Ditto.
It reflects the state of the RINO party. They won't be satisfied until traditional America is doped up whored out and sodomized and aborted out of existence. Brave new world, And they wonder why this nation just elected an anti Christian, pop culture american idol socialist leftist named Barak Hussein Mohammed Obama for POTUS. Sad indeed. It will get a lot worse before it ever gets better, IF it ever does.
I’m not defending the right of people to get stoned. I’m defending the right of people to make decisions about their life that do not affect someone else. If they want to use their rights to get stoned, so be it. The only negative effect you can come up with is “it turns them into leftists”. That is not enough to ban something. It isn’t even in reality enough to make it immoral.
At the same time, if you want to spend your time telling people what the right choice in their life is and evangelizing the right on and moral path on pornography and marijuana fine. Go for it. In the private sector. If you can convince them that your viewpoint is the correct one without government coercion more power to you. However, pornography and marijuana’s negative effects on society are so hard to pin down that banning either one is unjustified.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. No man is an island. Every decision everyone makes affects someone else in some way or another. You're wanting to make smoking dope legal makes it more difficult to teach my children and grandchildren that drugs are harmful and destructive. You're wanting to make pot legal means that pot is going to be more available to the detriment of our culture. It's not a matter of personal freedom. It's a matter of personal responsibility and consideration to others around you. It's about selfishness versus sacrifice.
Have trouble telling your kids that about cigarettes or alcohol? My parents didn’t have any trouble doing so with me.
Frankly, there won’t be much difference in the availability of marijuana if it is legal compared to now. And in Amsterdam where pot is legal, use is lower than it is in the US where it is illegal.
Are you trying to tell me that government policy has zero affect on personal behavior?
Frankly, there won’t be much difference in the availability of marijuana if it is legal compared to now.
Prove it. Common sense says that anything made legal will increase.
How would you like me to prove it? The simple fact is anyone reasonably dedicated to getting weed can get it within a few hours, certainly no more than a day. It is incredibly prevalent in today’s society. Again, Amsterdam’s example says that use will go down if it is legal. The whole forbidden fruit theory.
Dane, I wish you were here. You know why.
5.56mm
Since pro pot people like to compare pot against alcohol then answer these questions: Did alcohol consumption go up or down during prohibition? Did alcohol consumption go up or down after prohibition ended?
What happened to Dane?
It is impossible to say how much alcohol consumption was effected by prohibition. Obviously normal measuring methods were not around, Al Capone wasn’t paying taxes on what he sold. If you use cirrhosis deaths as a proxy, prohibition decreased alcohol consumption by between 10-20%. Obviously not a perfect measuring stick. For what its worth, despite being legal, alcohol consumption has been going down since the 80’s.
How do you explain the lower use of marijuana in Amsterdam compared to the US?
Google it. You'll see the truth. Alcohol consumption went down dramatically during prohibition and increased after prohibition. According to Encarta, per capita consumption rose from 1.2 gallons in 1935 to 2.7 gallons in 1975.
Now why would you not expect the same thing to happen with pot?
Show me your statistics on Amsterdam.
This is probably because hash is more prevalent in Amsterdam than marijuana.
Sorry, not going to fly. first of all the article never mentions whether there was an increase in use. It suggests it, but in the analysis it never discusses whether use in San Francisco generally increased or not.
AND the study compares Amsterdam to San Francisco. San Francisco? How much higher could drug use go in San Francisco?
And since you are so sure that only liberals can support legalization, tell me what you think of this well known liberal's take on it.
I didn't say only liberals supported legalization. I said some conservatives were deceived by liberal rhetoric. Mr. Buckley was one of them.
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.
The study compared two similar sized cities, it wouldn’t make sense for them to compare Amsterdam and Iowa Park, Texas. My point was use is less in a place with legalized marijuana than it is where it is illegal. Who knows what the reasons are, but clearly other things besides criminalization work.
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.