[Behind Liberal Lines]

Trust me. There are far more pro pot people than anti pot people in Ithaca.

I still find it interesting that the pro pot crowd here is so unwilling to accept or employ standard conservative/libertarian argument that notes the safety of the substance should generally be irrelevant to our right to consume same. Instead, they have a nervous breakdown and claim it's "lies all lies."

You don't see too many conservatives or libertarians trying to argue that tobacco isn't bad for you when the advocate for its continued use. You don't see a lot of posters trying to claim that fatty food is GOOD for you. Or that booze isn't addictive. Instead, they fall back on the perfectly legitimate notion that even if its bad for them it's "their body, their choice" so to speak.

To be candid, I find this unwillingness disturbing. It is almost a tacit admission that, if something IS bad for you, it should be banned.

[KDD]

If there is anything there you do not understand, just ask.

[sweet_diane]

"if something IS bad for you, it should be banned."

does that mean they'll be coming for my chocolate soon?!?! I tend to spend too much time on FR and it's not too good on my eyes... . OH MY!

[Between the Lines]

It is almost a tacit admission that, if something IS bad for you, it should be banned.

Do you wish to also prohibit alcohol, tobacco and fatty foods? Your name should be... Well Entrenched Behind Liberal Lines.

[steve-b]

What on earth are you talking about? The fact that inhaling smoke isn't a particularly healthy pastime (which I stipulated earlier) has nothing to do with the fact that the specific claims in this article are a load of clinton.

[dirtboy]

I still find it interesting that the pro pot crowd here is so unwilling to accept or employ standard conservative/libertarian argument that notes the safety of the substance should generally be irrelevant to our right to consume same.

I, for one, have never claimed that pot is beneficial, except perhaps in a very limited use with AIDS and chemotherapy patients. I instead compare the harm that pot causes individuals and society, compare that to the harm and taxpayer expense that prohibiting pot causes, and come to the conclusion that the enforcement efforts against pot simply are not justifiable. Pot to me is fairly similar to alcohol in that both are widely used on a recreational basis, both can cause some impairment, and a small percentage of users develop dependency problems, but pot is banned and booze isn't. That's stupid. Best to have the states try different approaches towards pot to see what works best, and get the feds out of the picture.