Our "head" of state.
Posted on 09/28/2010 9:43:45 AM PDT by Mojave
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas) accused the administration of being too lax in its enforcement of drug laws.
President Obama's drug policies are encouraging increased marijuana use, a top Republican lawmaker charged Tuesday.
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas), the top Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee who would likely become chairman of the committee under a GOP majority, accused the administration of being too lax in its enforcement of drug laws.
"The administration is clearly sending the message that they don't think it's bad to use marijuana," Smith said on Fox News. "So they're encouraging the use of marijuana. And that simply is not a good thing to do."
Smith blamed the administration's decision to not enforce federal laws against marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug for medicinal purposes. Smith blamed the administration's approach on drug laws for recent statistics showing an increased use of marijuana.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
That it does. Nobody really believes George Soros funds legalization efforts out of the goodness of his heart do they?
‘Smith blamed the administration’s decision to not enforce federal laws against marijuana dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug for medicinal purposes’
“A drug-addled electorate serves the interests of Obama and the left.”
The perfect “opiate for the people” he obviously can’t stand religion.
He makes ME want to go smoke a joint...not that I will.
You beat me to it.
In my younger days......
One of the steps for a person to become dictator of the regime is to “Opiate the masses”. I think I saw that on Glenn Beck.
Yeah, and the Republicans will totally change the drug war. Pshhha.
The real problem with the drug war is our open borders that allow criminals to traffic in the drugs. To be effective we need to seal that southern border. But neither party wants that to happen. No matter how many Republicans stand up and cry foul.
Besides, people smoking weed is way down on the list of priorities in my book.
This may be the thing.
I was a lib when I smoked. I thought I could live the life of an artist and that everyone of those “rich” people should take care of me.
Now I have a brain. I’m not rich and don’t think that anyone who earned their own money should give it to me.
We lost the Nixon “War on Drugs” when a high Elvis was sworn in as a special deputy.
Make simple possession a misdemeanor, like a traffic ticket. Confiscate and write a ticket.
Our "head" of state.
Sounds like California. $100 fine for possession of up to an ounce and confiscation of the dope.
That wasn't good enough for 'em. Now they're pushing for NO fine, NO confiscation AND the right to force employers to let them come to work loaded.
Do not do the stuff or associate with people who do. But if you want to fry your brain, go for it.
It is easier to identify the easy marks if they are stoned and not worried about jail.
“Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas) accused the administration of being too lax in its enforcement of drug laws.”
No Obama supporter here, but Mr. Smith must explain what these laws have to do with the LIMITED FEDERAL government principles inscribed in the U.S. Constitution.
Either you believe the reach of the federal government is inherently restricted, inherently limited by the Constitution, or you don’t.
You cannot say you believe those principles DO NOT APPLY when it suits you, when it suits a “benevolent” legal imposition YOU want to make, but must be upheld when a different “benevolent” legal mandate is sought (Obamacare).
Long before any of this nation’s “drug laws”, the U.S. had its most severe drug addiction epidemic ever - larger as a % of the population than today, with opium and heroin - in the late 1800s to early 1900s. The battle that was waged against it primarily used public education and public health initiatives, not “legal” and “illegal” distinctions. That battle had largely succeeded, when “drug laws” began to be introduced and the “drug culture” went “underground” and into the hands of crime syndicates.
Creating interstate and interstate problems that state and federal laws have evolved to address, along with justifications for those laws.
The battle that was waged against it primarily used public education and public health initiatives, not “legal” and “illegal” distinctions.
1. Source, please.
2. So what?
Yeah, thank God there’s not a drug out there that’s easily available that you can get a massive quantity of for $10 a bottle!
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.