Poor Colorado is not going to get its new taxes
Oh, poor government babies. They legalize pot, not because it is harmless and there is no logical reason for it to be illegal, but so they can get new taxes. It looks like they might not get them. My heart bleeds for them. *snif snif*
Colarado wanks banks to process tax recieots from pot stores. Pot is illegal at the federal level. Most Banks hold a federal charter. moving money from illegal activities into and out of banks is considered money laundering. Money laundering is a federal crime,a possible violation of RICO.
Complaint: Colorado Banks wont launder drug related money.
I think that should have been addressed prior to passing the pot laws. What say you Gulch residents?
Competition is good for everyone except the monopolist banking cartel.
While your idea for state chartered banks is a good one, sadly it would not immunize those banks from being charged for money laundering. Even car dealers are considered financial institutions by the federal government since the early 80's and must report at the $5,000 cash transaction limit. so, while the state chartered banks would operate under state regulations they would not be shielded from the federal government. Not just that, but their entire capital base would be vulnerable to seizure.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Jan
I do not support 'legalization' for the sake of tax revenue. I support 'decriminalization' for the sake of personal liberty. If someone wants to smoke or drink themselves to a stupor, that is their decision and they must bear the consequences. That being said, as much as I support people's freedom of choice, I would not be opposed to people getting welfare money, having to take UA's. If you want the choice to smoke pot, cool; just don't expect the taxpayers to subsidize you to sit at home, smoke pot and pump out children.
I have met many people of all stripes that smoke, including doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and prominent, motivated, capable people in the community. They do not let it control them, it is merely something that they do, because they enjoy it and they feel that they have earned it.
Also, comparing pot to ANY other drug: coke, meth, heroin, pharmaceutical drugs, bath salts, pcp, or whatever; it just friggin' stupid. There is NO comparison. Pot is a flower from a plant that has numerous health benefits, for many people who have all sorts of problems.
I did a paper in college asking a number of law enforcement officers this question: If you were at a stoplight, and you *knew* that the car to your left had a guy with a pound of weed, with intent to distribute, even to schoolkids; and the car to your right had a guy that had had three or four beers, who would you consider to be the greater threat to the public and pull over, knowing that the other would go free? Every single officer out of about thirty, said that they would go for the drunk driver. Food for thought.
Marijuana, like most drugs inhibits your ability to think clearly, to solve problems, and to rationally deal with reality. You are not free when taking drugs - you are voluntarily enslaving yourself to its influences and effects.
Doesn't matter whether it is legal or not: choose to use your brain - no destroy or delude it.
:)
Your service to our nation may not seem to many to be of consequence, but I am certainly not going to argue that it had no meaning outside of yourself. Your actions may have consequences that you and I will never see. I will always be grateful to those who are willing to stand up for the principles our nation was founded on, but I do so recognizing that every one of us has a part to play in upholding those ideals precisely because of the consequences - intended or not - that come as a result. Can someone who is high objectively further the cause of liberty? Can someone who is so concentrated on their own condition that they must seek an escape from reality assist others in need? Can someone who is deprived of rational thought make decisions that improve the lives of themselves and those around them? Can someone who is doped up act as a standard of leadership for others? Reason tells me that this is not the case.
Again, I am not trying to control you or anyone else. I am simply pointing out that true freedom to act can not come while under the haze of mind-altering substances. A society which values freedom will recognize this and establish this reality in its laws. A prohibition against drugs is not a restriction on personal liberty, it is an establishment of the conditions under which the greatest personal liberty may be enjoyed by all.
Rules exist to separate the acceptable from the unacceptable. When codified into law, they affix a declared punishment. Government is no more and no less than the process of society determining what value trade-offs it is going to make. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people is close akin to a market transaction: you agree to pay the costs of establishing a government and living by rules it creates when it is formed. You agree to sacrifice some of your "freedom" for common protection and common goals. The only way you get unfettered "freedom" is to accept total responsibility - not only for your own food and resources, but your own safety. If you aren't willing to accept all that entails, you really have no understanding of what you are actually advocating.
All rights carry with them appropriate use. The right to bear arms implies responsible use of said arms, does it not? The right to speech does not extend to yelling "FIRE!" in a public venue where no fire is present or to slander or libel. The right to assembly does not include trampling private property and implies a responsibility to do so without unnecessarily interfering with private property or business. Should I go on?
I would strongly advise you to read a few books on comparative philosophy rather than respond to this post. Once you are more clearly versed on societal theory and the foundation of law, you will be better prepared to discuss this topic. If you need specific examples, I would suggest comparing the philosophies of the aforementioned Sartyr and Camu (who advocated personal law) to those of Socrates, Immanuel Kant, and St. Thomas Aquinas. You could even throw in some Locke and Shakespeare and maybe some Epicurus for flavor. I say this not to be flippant or condescending, but simply to suggest that you broaden your intellectual scope. You can't meaningfully debate law and its origins without a firm basis of fundamental theory any more than you could attempt trigonometry without a foundation in geometry and algebra.
Not all, I do very much believe that you are responsible for your actions as they relate to other people, however, if I choose to sit on my front porch and smoke a bowl using pot that I have grown myself that has nothing to do with anyone but me. Your statement would have more validity, in my opinion, if you were talking about regulating the use of pot in the same manner as alcohol is instead of an outright ban.
The rest of your post is not only insulting, but is also based on your belief that you know what is in my mind. This is not true, and not worth replying to. You might have done better to ask me if I believed in self governing above all other forms of law before wasting your time with that misdirected "wisdom"
I did ask that, and instead of replying you dismissed my argument as being a waste of time. I note that you did nothing to actually refute it or offer further insight, you simply reverted back to your disproved position. I even suggested the research of others to help you explore the various sides of your own assertion.
And I actually understand your position better than you may want to admit as I have seen its like. You are taking an inherently contradictory stand in both advocating the freedom to destroy one's own life and at the same time declaring that it has no effect on others. Is society not diminished with the destruction or degradation of one of its own members (Kant)? Does not a society which does not seek to improve its own members a society in decline?
You go on to casually dismiss the wasted productivity caused by the self-induced stupor of mind-altering drugs and you deny the dire consequences society already suffers as a result. Your continued denial of this stems from an irrational desire to have consequences - which can not be controlled - differ from the choices that lead to them.
It is your choice to believe and act on such irrationality, of course. You are completely free to make choices about your own life and what you want to believe. You can disregard the wisdom of others and walk your own path (Sartyr). I am merely restating what others throughout the centuries have discovered - it is not my wisdom you scorn so I take no offense. And I never consider it a waste of time to attempt to help others - regardless of whether or not they accept the assistance.
No, you did not once ask me that. You made, and continue to make assumptions and accusations about what I think.
There is a single grain of truth in your argument in that I cling to the idea that the federal government exists only to support the military in order to defend the nation from attack, the courts to protect the rights of the individual and the sanctity of contract, and the police to remove the criminal element from the streets. I allow very little beyond that, although I do think there is a certain amount of government needed to maintain and build infrastructure.
Yes, I categorically dismiss your “benefit of society” arguments as being the same thing as the old “public good” arguments used by progressives and socialists all the time. No, I do not believe a member of society so weak minded that they allow themselves to be subverted and destroyed by pot to be a loss to that society. I do believe firmly that the more our government takes control of our lives the more our society is diminished.
Keep in mind again that I am not in favor of pot being legal on an unlimited basis. It should be illegal to operate a car or any other machinery under the influence for example. I am not in favor of using the legalization of pot to raise more money to line the coffers of the government.
there are many acts and habits that can can affect others. We are human. Someone committing suicide can have an effect on others if they jump off a roof for example. But making suicide illegal is hardly an effective deterrent. It is not contradictory to acknowledge harm done to oneslef is a freedom. Harm done to others through one's actions inadvertent or not there are already laws on the books for and remedy.Statistics show that crime and violence related to drugs is at an all time high. The illegality of drugs has increased that violence and crime significantly by forcing false markets just as US prohibition did in the 20s-giving rise to organized crime in the US that had not been established before. The cartels would not be enjoying their rain of terror in the US now- if this were not the case. It's a war we will never win. With the incentive of fast big money gone, so the incentive to addict kids.
Sounds like a really good reason not to smoke weed - aside from the whole loss of rationality and critical thinking ability part.
This will not affect them at all. They will still get their money.
Good for Colorado
But, on the other hand, I'm always happy when government is denied a new revenue source.
Are you really saying that pot is not a mind altering drug? Even if it only does so in a miniscule sense, then it still has a negative effect on a person. tobacco only harms the smoker and no one has ever claimed that it is mid altering. Alcohol on the other hand can be mind altering in a sense and can be dangerous if used in excess. Excess being the operative word. Would we be better off if alcohol were not available, yes, but as prohibition showed, it is impossible to prohibit successfully.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Oh, and it has been proven long ago that “Refer Madness” was a propaganda film with no real science backing.
Watch my finger... I point at ALL OF YOU SCUMBAG 21ST CENTURY MODERNS...
You shake your head in wonder at the disconnect between environmentalists and the need for energy and technology, but you have an equal disconnect when it comes to a healthy, successful society and the toilet you've turned this one into.
Nice try at hiding behind your mother; I'm not supposed to attack potheads anymore because you claim she was one.
I have no idea how well your mother did or did not raise you, but I *do* know that had the progressives NOT perverted this country she wouldn't have been using pot.
No one brought up reefer madness, but I've met and seen plenty of potheads... pink-eyed, staggering around, NOT producing (worse, preventing others from producing), with the skunk-stench of pot emanating from them.
I no longer care what the pricetag is; what y'all have done to this society, you moderns, I find intolerable, and I will fight with everything I can to drag us back to the 1940s or earlier, culturally.
Scream, make personal insults, and shake your fist at what you believe is morally wrong as if your morality should be everyone’s gospel. Your words are irrational and overly emotional, and if you think they will make me loose interest in continuing this conversation you are correct. Count it as another win for yourself, because I do not debate with the emotional arguments of those who would have the federal government dictate morality.
"drag us back to the 1940s or earlier, culturally."
is what I said. I didn't say "technologically".
I have been watching with growing enthusiasm the change in dress among Fox News babes (I believe the change was actually led by Stacey Dash on RedEye). The tight, tubular dress suits seem to be giving way to "blousier", fuller skirts, in some cases pleated. Now if we could just get them to hang below the knee, I could stop feeling bad for the uncomfortable-looking knee-lock the Fox News babes have to prevent an upskirt exposure...
oh, and before someone else brings it up, no, I'm not pining for segregation. Even segregated, back then, most blacks and whites shared a culture. Desegregation didn't require the path we took.
Does this mean you have the long lost proof that people die from smoking pot?
If your justification for it being illegal is that it is "bad" for you do you also propose to make illegal my cigarettes because they can cause me cancer, my fatty foods because they could give me heart disease, my ice cream because it could give me diabetes, and my ammo reloading operations because they could raise the level of lead in my blood?
It seems inconsistent to me that you are so staunch on the size and function of the federal government, but also believe someone should be prevented from smoking pot BY FORCE OF LAW.
I have never been a pot smoker, but that is by choice, not because the government tells me no.
once the federal govt comes up with new policy on this -this will be a huge win for states rights. I mean the federal govt says illegal but if your state says legal they 'll make an allowance. Wow
I think this situation provides another example of how when a state stands firm the federal government is usually the one to blink first and back off. My hope is that this will serve as an example to other states wanting to promote the ideals of personal liberty within their own state.
This is like the same idiots who claimed that exposing young children to sex "education" would reduce sexual activity among young people, because they'd no longer be curious.
How's that for a real world example?
As far as your "gateway drug" argument, that, too, is little more than rhetorical nonsense. The nanosecond I see you lobbying for the criminalization of tobacco and alcohol, I might begin to take you seriously. Until then, the "gateway drug" argument is hypocritical at best.
As for your sex ed argument, I reject it completely. Believe it or not, people, young and old, are going to be interested in sex. They are going to have sex regardless of what the law or the Bible or you or me or anybody else has to say on the matter. We're hardwired from birth this way whether you like it or not.
Similarly, some people are just self destructive with addictive personalities. They are going to use drugs, "gateway" or otherwise, regardless of what the law says on the subject. On a personal level, I pity/loathe them. On a policy level though, I just don't see the point is having the federal government trying to legislate morality. It has never worked, and it never will. If anything, drug laws ought to be left to the states, in any case. Go reed the 9th and 10th Amendments if you don't believe me. I'm a big fan of liberty, and a big part of that means keeping the federal government as far out of my life, my wallet and my business as possible.
As I understand history, there never was a massive drug problem in this country till after prohibition. Before that most drugs were available at the local drug store. And when a family walking down the street saw a homeless opium addict, dad would say , "See there Johnny? That's what can happen to you if you let a substance control your life." People saw real life repercussions of others actions. There was no media or government distortion or misrepresentation of the dangers of drugs, and there was no Hollywood glorification of the "pleasures" supposedly caused by drugs, to confuse the issue and muddy the waters.
The drug problem in this country currently has nothing to do with the availability of the drugs; that is only a symptom of the problem. A denial of reality and the 'need' to hide from it are the problem. People do drugs because they are unhappy and have been lead to believe that drugs can help. Pharmaceutical drugs are generally more dangerous, and available; and their use has skyrocketed in proportion to pot use in the last twenty years. It is NOT because of availability. It is because of the receding tide of the stability of man's mind. People are looking to self-medicate because they don't realize that the ability to change what's wrong in your life can only come through precise action; and they have been told their whole life that they incapable of doing such things on their own.(Alcoholics Anonymous)
If we banned every toxic product and bad behavior, every drug, liquor, fatty food, sugary junk, cigs, driving fast, risky sexual behavior, and anything else one can think of; and we banned it tomorrow, it would change nothing. Only when society is fixed from the ground up; by one mind at a time taking responsibility and finding the root of their unhappiness, will the problem of drugs go away.
If that passes for logic in your book, I'd suggest you come back later when you are thinking clearly.
FACT: marijuana, like all other recreational drugs inhibits mental clarity and brain function. What's worse, is that marijuana can stay in your system for a month.
You won't find the next Roark or Reardon high on drugs. You want to promote the market and the advancement of society yet you promote their enslavement to recreational drugs? Got a bit of a logical conundrum there...
The argument about self destructive personalities is, however, flawed. The old saw, "Your right to punch me ends at my nose", is applicable here. A person's right to be self-destructive ends at my right to avood them harming me or anyone else with their behavior. The rub is determining "how" they would be causing "harm". In the case of driving impaired, be it under the influence of some chemical or without corrective lens, etc., this is pretty straightforward but, taking the case of tobacco use, does "harm" come from secondhand smoke or the drain on our medical system from the care of tobacco-related health issues? These are the thorny problems that we, as an imperfect society, ask/demand/seek to resolve. This is not a moral or character, which by the way are one and the same thing (see my reply to the comment that attempts to separate them), but a question of where one's rights conflict with the well-being of society in general.
I, too, am a devoted believer in Jefferson's ideal, government is best which governs least. In any large, complex society there will always be the delicate tightrope walk between the individual's rights and the rights of the society as a whole.
Think if I put on a pair of size 14 tennis shoes I can get a job with the Thunder?
I'm glad you reject my sex ed argument; I rejected it too, when it was said to me over... and over... and over.
I'm not trying to get the government to legislate morality. I don't regard drug abuse as a moral issue. I regard it as a character issue, and I regard it as a threat to society, because it takes away people's ability to reason.
I don't drink. I've been drunk. I didn't like it. It turns out I'm a very... very happy drunk. I don't like not being in control of myself (in a world where I can't control much of anything else...). I can't understand the mentality of anyone who would choose to regularly get themselves into that condition.
As much as I disagree with pretty much everything you've said in this thread, I think I've found one point of commonality between us. You're last paragraph about your drinking habits, or lack thereof, applies lockstep with me.
I don't know what else we have in common, but I understand your position on drugs better than you would imagine. What you are spouting off as good law/policy, is how I feel on a personal level. I don't use drugs, and I refuse to associate with people that do. I really don't like it when I see my friends drinking to excess, because I hate to think they could be as stupid/loud/obnoxious/whatever as they are when they're drunk. If/when it becomes an ongoing issue, I'm done with them.
The point that I am ultimately trying to arrive at is that while we probably agree with each other about drug/alcohol use on a personal level, where we disagree is in terms of policy/law. I am able to separate my personal opinion about what is right for me from what I think should be law applied with force to everyone else. You, on the other hand, seem to have no regard whatever to the liberty of others. You, on the other hand, seem to think that some bunch of arbitrary laws based on your opinion is the way to go, and the freedoms/liberties of others be damned. The comment you made below about castrating those idiots who wear their pants too low to your liking being a case in point.
If it's all the same to you, I don't care to have you or anyone else telling me how to live my life when none of my actions has a thing to do with you.
The only extent I tell you how to live your life is to live it away from me if you're going to smoke pot or do drugs or otherwise impair your ability to reason more than it already is.
No, I have no regard for the liberty of others, so long as we are heading down this path. You figure out a way we can repair society so people won't fight so hard for the "right" to blow their minds out on pot, let me know.
Highram made that clear when he said "I'm not trying to legislate a person's anything. The place to fix it is in the two, married, heterosexual parent home. But, that's not going to happen if I give in to the hedonistic moderns. "
as if his "solution" doesn't involve government controls or forcing beliefs and limits on other people... it would be amusing if it weren't so sad.
You've read my accounts of Rome, elsewhere? I'm not enraged, I'm frustrated. A modern-day Cassandra. Anyone with eyes should be able to see what's already happened, but as y'all are okay with it, and are interested in arguing hedonistic points of destructive principle, there's nothing to be done to save the civilization... *again*.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra
Pot is not the cause of moral decay just as a gun is not the cause of a murder. Pot is something that never should have been illegal to begin with. It was picked up by the hippie crowd BECAUSE it was illegal. Making pot legal in all respects does not add to the moral decay of the country. It just sets aside the influence of those who wanted pot illegal because they felt threatened by the possible intrusion of hemp into their industry. It is the moochers and looters causing moral decay, not weed.
You like to throw around the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom" but you have no idea what they actually mean. You argue that legalizing pot doesn't add to the decay of America, when medical and social evidence prove the contrary quite convincingly. How many lives have been ruined through recreational drug use - and I include alcohol? How many cases of spousal and child abuse stem from it? How many unnecessary deaths? All from substances that rob a person of the ability to think and reason. And you want to call this freedom?
I wot not that it were the case.
Excuse me? Asshole I have fought, killed, and damn near died for this country. I did this not out of some altruistic need to serve my fellow man, but for the ideals of freedom and liberty.
I do not now, nor have I ever been a proponent of anarchy. I also do not think pot is harmless, just my own damn business. Should driving a car while high be illegal? Yes. Should there be other regulations governing its use in order to protect the public? Yes. That is a far cry from people like you deciding you need to control my life.
***Now, I apologize to anyone else that reads this. I do not usually talk this way.
Why does society have laws against murder, theft, rape, etc.? To legislate morality/character? No, they are for the protection of people's rights. So far as possible that a drug's use by one individual fails to impinge on another's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", we should have not issue with that. It is not a question of whether an act is "moral", rather it is a question of what a "reasonable" society should do for the protection of the rights of all its members.
Addictions exist because of the first, universal addiction: sex.
Who told you that "fact", H?
But, we really don't want to discuss the poppy fields that haven't been destroyed, do we?
Point of fact, sugar, in this case in the form of ice cream, does not "cause" diabetes...
We tried prohibition with alcohol, and it made it even worse. But, until recently, until the moderns launched their attacks on our society, pot was NEVER part of our culture.
I find it not ironic, but telling, how the decades long war on tobacco has played out, but NOT ONE person opposed to the criminalization of pot has even suggested, if we agreed to make it legal, to launch a similar war on pot. NOT ONE.
Tobacco use is down, because the ball-less wonders who hated their daddies for being men launched a campaign decades ago, starting with "well, we SHOULD have an area in restaurants for people with lung problems to eat"... to the point that now tobacco users are social pariahs, and even the use of e-cigs is being attacked.
The only smoker in the AS movies, btw, was Hugh Akston, and I don't recall him actually inhaling.
But will you moderns conduct such a war on pot? No. Why? Because the point wasn't to improve people's health, but to corrupt and change the culture.
There's a news clip out there from Iraq, I believe. A few years ago, because I actually got a letter to the editor published about it, I remember it. Some asshat was complaining about the use of tobacco in the movie, "Chicago", decrying how it might make the protagonists look "cool".
After reading it, I saw the clip... a handful of heroes engaged in a firefight, dragged a wounded one behind cover, and the officer offered him a cigar, which he lit up like a man. To me, rolling him a joint and passing it around just doesn't seem appropriate, or even manly, in that situation.
So I'm going to fight to restore my culture.
You said, "Tobacco use is down, because the ball-less wonders who hated their daddies for being men launched a campaign decades ago . . ." Am I supposed to take you seriously on any level when you say something like that? Are you suggesting that we should have more people puffing away on 4 packs a day so that tobacco use can go back up?
I agree with you that smokers should never have been treated like pariahs. I get that, I really do. Beyond that though, your entire post just came off as incredibly stupid.
By the way, how old are you? You sound like a grumpy old octogenarian know it all with your tired old arguments and your constant use of the word "moderns".
Roughly... 23164.
Before we have one single person sucking on a joint, yes, we should have everyone puffing away on 4 packs a day.
You have my sympathy for your father, you really do.
Mine died of colon cancer after a year of agony, at 75.
Every form of cancer is blamed on tobacco. I had multiple aunts on my mother's side who developed cancer, some died of it. None smoked. Their husbands didn't smoke. My mother neither developed cancer nor died of it; she died of a blood clot in her heart at 80.
If tobacco were as universally cancerous as they would have us believe, the boomer generation would never have been born; everyone would have died off from smoking.
I'm arguing two things here; culture and drug abuse. I will always argue that my pro-tobacco anti-pot culture is better than the pro-pot anti-tobacco culture of today; I have history on my side.
Maybe you're too young to remember the world before the war on tobacco was launched, but I'm not. Ask many of the oldster's here if I'm wrong about the progression of the war on tobacco.
I don't smoke; when I did smoke, I was one of those lucky ones who could take it or leave it; generally I smoked cigars and had a beautiful raw meerschaum pipe. I don't smoke because I don't like the yellow oily film it leaves on my computers. I don't like the smell that clings to clothes, and sofas and drapes. So I'm not a big advocate of smoking tobacco. But I am eternally and entirely opposed to a mutli-decade, multi-generational campaign to brainwash people against tobacco use. And then to add the hypocrisy of continuing to condemn smoking tobacco while advocating and promoting the use of marijuana... I know American minds are infinitely malleable, but that's no excuse for hammering them.
The purpose of the war on tobacco and the advocacy of marijuana is to destroy traditional American culture. It's just one of the many pronged attack.
You argue that smoking pot is "harmful" but smoking tobacco is "manly". Both are harmful to society in different ways, being high and participating in certain activities is mist certainly dangerous but only affects society when it becomes a danger to the rights of others. As for tobacco, it has no beneficial effects and is a drain on society in costs for tobacco-related healthcare.
You can't have it both ways...
Smoking tobacco is also harmful, I didn't say it wasn't. It's not the instant-cancer stick the fanatical left would have people believe, either, IMO.
It is naive to think that "a danger to the rights of others" is the only way to affect a society, particularly negatively. I submit that when an 18 year old kid staggers pink-eyed into a store, stinking of skunk, with a dopey grin on his face, mouthing off to his boss, interfering with his co-workers attempts to be productive.. that's a negative effect on society. Multiply it by tens of millions of potheads, and you have a degenerate society on its way to barbarism and conquest.
On the one hand, you want to defend the individual right to choose to use pot, on the other hand, you want to play the collectivist card and claim, quite wrongly, btw, that tobacco-related healthcare is a drain on society.
That's like saying house-related construction is a drain on society. Treating a smoker's cancer costs the smoker. If he can't afford it, you can let him die. Tobacco users are already charged extra by insurance companies, so it doesn't cost society extra in that sense, either. Not to mention how disproportionately tobacco is taxed.
Since the decline in tobacco use, healthcare costs have skyrocketed, not plummeted. We're sicklier now, it would seem from watching tv commercials and listening to political pundits, than we were in 1918.
Lessee... I get sick... I need treatment... someone has to do that treatment. They get paid. The treatment requires drugs and equipment... people manufacture and sell those things. They get paid. I'm waiting to see the drain on society? I guess it's a drain on society whenever someone buys a product or service.
Meanwhile, marijuana is equally a healthcare "drain" on society. That 15,000 year old iceman they found, had blackened lungs... not from tobacco, but from breathing campfire smoke. Boy, I bet his healthcare costs were a drain on society, huh? And you're going to pretend that marijuana is some kind of magic plant that doesn't put out soot like every other burned plant? FYI, it's neither healthy nor natural for the lungs to be blackened by camp fire smoke, tobacco smoke, or marijuana smoke.
Again, you're willing to go along with the demonization of a man's vice, and make ridiculous assumptions to defend an immature child's vice. Those men who smoked carved a civilization out of wilderness, brought down empires. I've yet to see the laurels of potheads.
Bear in mind, I'm also in favor of laws that would make it a crime punishable by castration to wear one's pants below one's buttocks, thus exposing one's underwear... I don't want such people breeding.
I'm particularly militant about modern society since Thursday night.
See, I was in the grocery side vestibule of the Walmart where I work, trying to clean it. I'd shut down the side entrance door while I polished it.
Two black guys, I would guess mid twenties, decently dressed (pants even fit) came walking down the hall to the exit, and I, simply and politely, told them the door was locked. They went back and exited the main doors.
A minute later, there was a tap on the glass of the door I was polishing. I looked up, and one of them was looking right at me. The phlegm he spat covered an area the size of a grapefruit on the glass opposite my face, after which he flipped me the bird and strode off. If I'd done anything to teach him the dangers of behaving like an animal around men, I'd have ended up in jail, even though he sorely needed the lesson.
Now, that was a result of ALL THE CHANGES you "moderns" made to society in the past 50+ years. And I've had enough of it.
People dress like pigs, they act like pigs, they think like pigs, because for 3 generations they were not taught, harshly, how civilized people behave.
'til two years ago, I had a fairly positive view of people. But, two years of being exposed to the kind of... creatures... that haunt this Walmart, and I'm convinced evolution works in reverse.
Sometimes I'm caught in a limbo of watching people destroy themselves with freedom while at the same time destroying themselves by giving it up.
As has been pointed out; I wasn't born yesterday. I grew upon construction sites, so I'm not exactly a white collar elitist; more people have become much lower character than they were 30 years ago, let alone 50+.
You don't shrug and just write it of as "That's Walmart" when people poop in the urinal. To pretend that that has no relation to the decline of society in other areas is being willfully blind. At the very least it's a very obvious symptom.
I am also not saying there is no issue with modern society, just that those issues are not caused by the question of pot being legal. They are caused by the Progressives attacking the family unit, the looters who tax the hell out of everything and everyone until a single person can hardly support their family, and the moochers supporting them.
My saying you should find a job other than WM was to say you should act for the preservation of your vision of man as a moral and upright being. Working in a place like WM will erode your faith in humanity almost as much as working in a prison.
You really really think it's a coincidence that traditional vices are demonized at the same time new-age vices are introduced and allowed to run rampant? yes, "allowed". The war on drugs isn't a failure because of the popularity of using drugs, but because we failed to seal out southern border, when we could have.
I didn't say "secure", I said "seal".
Like every other war the progressives back us into, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terror, they're not interested in winning this one, either.
Correction. Law affixes a punishment to unacceptable behavior. It doesn't stop you from participating in the behavior at all. And not all laws are governmental. It is a natural law that smoking weed or drinking alcohol impairs your function just as gravity is a natural law. You choose whether or not to be impaired by choosing whether or not to light up, but you can not choose not to be impaired AND to light up. We choose behavior but not consequences. You are trying to argue otherwise.
"but if I chose to do so that is no one’s business but my own."
False. Everything we do has the potential to impact everyone around us - for better or worse. Alcohol is legal, yet drunk driving causes 88,000 deaths alone every year (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/a...). For some reason, society has decided that it would rather pay the costs of those deaths, the injuries, and the associated $223.5 billion in losses rather than outlaw alcohol.
I can understand the argument that alcohol (a drug) is legal and so it seems an incongruity to outlaw a similar drug - marijuana - but science has consistently shown that the effects of marijuana are more serious and longer lasting than alcohol, so even that argument falls apart under scrutiny. What you are in actuality arguing has nothing to do with freedom, it comes down to placing a cost on the prohibition of certain acts that are proven to be detrimental to not only the individual, but society as well. So at what cost can one invoke laws on behavior? Are man's laws extensions of natural laws or are they arbitrary?