Posted on 03/26/2009 10:13:28 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
Why wasn’t marijuana even considered banworthy prior to the 20th century. For that matter, prior to the end of alcohol prohibition.
I would rather put up with some stoners on the streets, rather than have our drug demand funding the transformation of Mexico into a narco-state.
As other people have pointed out, even with drugs being legal, you can penalize certain behaviors, such as drugging and driving, with the severity of the penalties increasing with the harder or more exotic drugs (heroin, LSD, etc.).
As for druggies being on public assistance, that’s a good argument for ENDING public assistance. They can keep their minds clear and work like the rest of us, or they can get stoned and sit in the gutter on THEIR dime, not OURS.
Hogarth's prints (actually political cartoons) are relevant to this discussion. Hogarth contrasted the virtues of a traditional "drug" (beer) with a new, dangerous, and foreign one (gin).
The British government proposed to ameliorate the pernicious effects of cheap gin on the lower classes (and incidentally raise some cash) by taxing the stuff.
Hogarth approved of the proposal.
It also gave Bonnie and Clyde another street-battle thing to get involved in (though bank robbing was their main affair). Amazing how little bathtub beer was served in speakeasies and blind tigers. It was whiskey, and the battles over it were bloody.
It’s illegal, but not considered a pre-meditated crime.
Besides, if we are to welcome more self-made brain-dead people on our roads, I want to have a solid torture penalty added, too.
I have no problems with people doing any drug. I have problems when people who do drugs hurt others “while under the influence.” I believe “under the influence” crimes should be considered pre-planned.
BTW: If you don’t live in California you may not realize that marijuana is already “decriminalized” in California. Posession of less than one ounce (28.4 grams) will result in a misdameanor ticket, the outcome of which will generally be a fine. You will not be arrested. Also remember that in California an attorney can handle misdameanor matters, and you need not appear as a defendant.
So basically, the situation, as it exists now, is that many police are not at all intersted in small amounts of marijuana. You will often hear tales of police simply confiscating the drugs, and/or directing the person caught to destroy them in front of the officers, since actually writing the misdameanor ticket will require additional paperwork.
What’s the rectangular confetti like stuff in the picture (for example, falling off the top of one of the background buildings).
I don’t disagree. I just think that traffic laws should be enforced uniformly in a way that makes sense. If we are going to punish people for being under the influence while driving because they could “potentially” cause an accident, why not punish bad drivers, who actually do cause and accident or injury, in the same or a more severe manner. Let’s face it bad drivers no that they are dangerous and shouldn’t be on the road. They understand that they lack the eye hand coordination, decision making, and other skills required to be a safe driver. A glance at their driving record will show that they have been involved in multiple accidents in the past. Isn’t their wrecklessness pre-meditated?
Excellent article.
There’s a reason why they call it “dope.”
It looks like a building in the background is in the process of collapsing, and those are falling bricks.
Google "Hogarth Beer Street" for the contrast. All is in order and happy; the only building in disrepair is the pawnbroker's. There's also some funny anti-French references (I suppose it's funny if you are an English history nerd and know Hogarth's symbolism).
National Lampoon once did a parody called "Coke Lane" and "Pot Street." You can probably guess what it looked like.
Do yu extend that anger to those who drive while not paying attention, while over-tired from lack of sleep, while on OTC or prescription medication?
Do any of those crimes qualify for “under the influence?” I think all of those are extended to everyone, including those who may use drugs specifically MEANT to screw up your abilities.
I do agree that everyone that causes an accident caused an accident. However, inattentiveness is already extended to those who are also under the influence, it’s just that their inattentiveness is superseded by the drugs they took to specifically damage their abilities to function. So those who drive while being inattentive is already allowed for those who might drive purposefully impaired.
If you want to say that anyone who has an accident should be treated as though they were driving while purposefully impaired, then I’d say that is profoundly wrong. I think you would agree.
Certainly most OTC, and perscriptions drugs apply since many of the specifically warn not to “operate heavy machinery” while using.
I'm sure you are aware that the legislative history of marijuana prohibition has precious little to do with public safety or helping people be all they can be. ;0)
In the same vein, the other drug problems we had in those years were due mostly to ignorance (and the many wounded Civil War and WWI vets). From what I have read, people weren't taking patent medicines to get high, they were taking them in good faith as medications to fix some malady. We now have a much better understanding of addiction and the effects of various substances on the body.
That's why I am pretty confident that legalizing even harder drugs like cocaine, heroin would not result in a dramatic increase in users.
I think it's a house collapsing.
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.