The Government's Sick War on Marijuana

http://tx.mpp.org ^ | 7 21 06 | Jim Hightower

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Profane, treating something sacred with abuse, irreverence or contempt. (As you do our language)

Obscene, disgusting to the senses.

Vulgar, merely common, colloquial.

Gotta 'nother type of cussin' to mis-label.

[EricT.]

have you seen the studies that show that folks under the influence of pot drive SAFER than your average person.

LMAO!!!! What a road of clap! I used to smoke the evil weed, and I am still glad I never drived under it's influence. I could barely remember to put the icecream box back in the freezer, let alone what color light to stop at.

I do remember how smart I thought I was when I got stoned, at least until I started recording some of those brilliant thoughts and looked at them sober. Put down the bong for a few months and get back to me when your brain is flushed of THC poisoning and you've learned to deal with reality without a hallucinogenic crutch.

[robertpaulsen]

"The typical Prohibitionist, in other words, is a man full of religious excitement, with the usual sadistic overtones."

But if he were to legalize only marijuana, you'd think differently of him?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

What in the heck are you talking about?

[Wolfie]

When you elect 218 Members of the House (290 without the President), and 51 Senators (67 without the President) who agree with you, you can change the law.

Unitl then, I'll continue to ignore it.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I will never, ever, support the legalization of marijuana, simply because it is what the "progressives" want.

Bravo Sierra.

If that were true, in Massachusetts, marijuana wouldn't simply be legal, it'd be required that each and every person grow a crop in his or her backyard. Such is not the case.

I do hope you're being hyperbolic in your posts, for anyone who bases his or her political philosophy on hate is extremely disturbed.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"If they want to get stoned, they can buy a bottle of booze."

That makes a lot of sense. Substitute a drug that puts people in jail because it has been made illegal with one that puts people in jail because they kill people while under the influence way too often.

You're pretty hateful. If you are this way as a conservative, you must have been a real winner as a liberal, as mean as they can be. Oh, and what does Israel have to do with it?

Michael Frazier

[robertpaulsen]

"it was the years he spent in prison because of it."

Then he was more than a "user".

[Hemingway's Ghost]

By your same argument should it be legal for a person to selfishly masturbate on the street corner? Because that is just one example of how far the Libertarians would accept going with their selfish unfettered logic of what freedom ultimately means. If not, why not? "They are not hurting anyone and if you don't like it then don't look" would be their argument.

Freedom does not mean the right to jack it in public, nor would a Libertarian argue that it does.

[TXnMA]

Go take you [sic -- see your tagline] weed-addled psuedo-libertarian dope-peddling drivel over to DU -- where it belongs!

And -- on your way, protect it from the sunshine...

[robertpaulsen]

"Gangs would not exist were it not for prohibition"

I believe they also said that during the 1920's.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Unitl then, I'll continue to ignore it.

Heh heh heh. Like most cops do, too, until they get the directive (and the new budget numbers need paddin').

[tacticalogic]

Fortunately, America is a free country, so you can advocate that view to your heart's content. You can speak, you can advertise, you can lobby, you can buy ads, you can fund candidates.

And you will be forced to help fund the opposition through your tax dollars. It has gotten so twisted that in a supposedly self-governing nation we have a government agency who's job it is to prevent the people from changing the law if they want to.

[highimpact]

I believe they also said that during the 1920's.

So you support alcohol prohibition, too? How many gangs are funded via the illicit sale of alcohol today? Gangs need money to survive and recruit new members. Make drugs legal, and their only real source of income disappears.

[robertpaulsen]

"Freedom does not mean the right to jack it in public, nor would a Libertarian argue that it does."

Would said Libertarian be able to explain how that behavior harms another? Unless you're arguing that laws may be passed against behavior that merely offends another?

[xpertskir]

I guess you dont drink!.....thats what I thought

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Would said Libertarian be able to explain how that behavior harms another? Unless you're arguing that laws may be passed against behavior that merely offends another?

There are two wholly-separate standards for public and private behavior, are there not?

[mysterio]

Our society is past the nanny statist point of no return, I'm afraid. I doubt they'll make the drug legal. More likely, they'll start urine screening drivers that used weed a month ago and give them drunk driving citations, even though they are a risk to no one.

[robertpaulsen]

"Make drugs legal, and their only real source of income disappears."

As I said, during the 1920's I'm sure they said, "Make alcohol legal, and their only real source of income disappears".

I don't believe you. I don't believe the gangs will go away. I don't believe they'll all go out and get a real job.

Make drugs legal and they'll sell any drug not made legal to any age not allowed. Regulate the content and purity, and they'll sell something stronger. Tax it heavily and they'll sell it tax-free.

Legalize drugs and the gangs will get into the export market, selling legal American drugs to countries where it remains illegal. (They already have the pipelines established -- simply reverse the flow.)

We would have to legalize all drugs to all ages, unregulated, tax free, worldwide, to achieve your goal. Then the gangs would shift to smuggling guns, people, diamonds, donor organs, whatever.

What they WON'T do is get a job.

[robertpaulsen]

"There are two wholly-separate standards for public and private behavior, are there not?"

Currently, yes. But a Libertarian didn't write those laws.

I'm asking you how your Libertarian would be able to justify such a law based on the philosophy that laws should only constrain acts that harm another.