I am a libertarian. My cause is freedom, in general. The right to keep and bear arms is one aspect of that cause, as is the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or refrain from wearing a seatbelt, or own a bar where patrons can smoke cigarettes, or marry someone of a different race, or worship whatever god(s) one follows, or put whatever substances into ones body that one sees fit. It's called being consistent.
This notion that smoking marijuana is harmless and is victimless is erroneous at best. How many law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty carrying out our laws and enforcing policy? How many human mules carrying bales of marijuana have died carrying your indiscretions across their backs in the middle of the Sonoran Desert?.
Unless he gets into his vehicle to either go get some chow to fight the munchies or tries to drive home from the concert.
If he gets $h!tfaced and stays on his couch with the band blasting in his earphones GREAT!
When this "dude" decides to leave in his car often there ARE victims.
Most people who say this and no offense to you but they totally forget alcohol, cigarettes, sniffing glue...and that many people who go down the path of hard drugs are determined to do so, and marijuana being illegal didn't stop him did it. I never buy this argument it is like saying guns are the path to becoming a murderer. I had a guy working for me who got hooked on heroin and he detested marijuana would never touch it.
Yes we are law abiding citizens, I don't smoke or endorse pot, I choose not to judge others who do (especially when the law is unconstitutional).
Again this is part where our elected representatives totally ignored the way this country was founded or how it is supposed to operate. They did not go about making marijuana illegal through proper channels they back doored it in using scare tactics and hysteria. (sound familiar, i.e, universal health care, stimulas plan) The men in black robes failed to uphold the constitution in this manner too. We are not a democracy where the majority get to just outlaw something they don't like, unfortunately it has been happening in way too many areas. I think the founding fathers would be disgusted with what they did and with the attitude of so many of the population who feel it is necessary to control what others do.
We fill our prisons with non violent victimless criminals, we cause a lot of violence and victims by this prohibition. Let's not forget the rise and strength of Organized Crime, came through prohibition of alcohol. ( a legal prohibition done through the proper channels, which again was largely ineffective, and ignored). Huge amount of tax dollars and uneccessary law agencies are spent on an uneffective "drug war", we have a huge border problem because of it, and people are needlessly being shot and killed because the government has upped the anti in the game, putting large amount of money and lives at risk.
Washington, California and other states are rightfully on a path of ignoring federal laws in these matters. I encourage them to continue, just like Montana, Utah and other states are on the righteous path of ignoring unconstitutional gun laws.
Wait, so your saying that we should outlaw alcohol? After all, alcohol is one of the major causes of motor vehicle accidents.
You're surely right. It will work better this time around. It won't create any gangs, or any bootlegging. lol
You are using circular logic, which is a major fail. Prohibition itself causes the above scenarios, not the substance that is prohibited.
Nonsense. That is always the arguments of those that have a seemingly inability to control themselves and adhere to statues. Blaming the law is no recourse against the law. That is tantamount to speeders saying that the law is what is causing them to speed. Poppycock. Control yourself and stop giving law abiding gun owners a bad name and the antis ammunition to gather strength to pass even more laws.
Is this a subtle troll? All of the problems you cite are a direct result of cannabis being illegal. The trafficking, the arrests, the murders... they're all the direct outcome of prohibition.
Let's try and move past the is-ought status quo, and recognize what is currently, is not what ought to be.
There are good points to made that as of current, when you buy marijuana, you are supporting the very gangsters and business that is causing HELL for the people of states that border Mexico.
can this whole thread be considered OFF topic for the legal open carrying of firearms, if so lock it so it will stop drawing the pro and con posts and fall off the front page
No troll here my friend. Am nothing more than a law abiding citizen. If that is the current timber and make up of a troll then I guess I am a troll. Smoke on.
This total would be 0 if the policy didn't exist.This notion that smoking marijuana is harmless and is victimless is erroneous at best. How many law enforcement officers have died in the line of duty carrying out our laws and enforcing policy?
This total would be 0 if the policy didn't exist. Instead, you'd have "Marlboro Greens" and regions like the Napa valley, but for cannabis instead of wine. Large companies and small entrepreneurs could all take part in the market if it weren't illegal, instead of forcing it to be transported by people the drug gangsters care nothing about.How many human mules carrying bales of marijuana have died carrying your indiscretions across their backs in the middle of the Sonoran Desert?
This total would be 0 if the policy didn't exist. The group doing the carting off is the state. That's right, you're saying "hey, totally cool to take parents away from kids because those parents want to use a mild intoxicant."How many children have stood in the middle of the living room crying while one or both parents were carted off
I'd have to see your sources, but I'll bring my own:Then there are the health care/welfare costs where by we all are victims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4350642.stm said:cannabis may inhibit cancer because of the presence of the chemical THC.
http://www.drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/cancer/THC_cancer_sep_1975.htm said:Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, and cannabinol (CBN), but not cannabidiol (CBD). Animals treated for 10 consecutive days with delta-9-THC, beginning the day after tumor implantation, demonstrated a dose-dependent action of retarded tumor growth. Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with delta-8-THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size.
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/full/1210641a.html said:Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivoTHC inhibits NSCLC metastasis and growth
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2360617/?tool=pmcentrez said:The hemp plant Cannabis sativa L. produces approximately 60 unique compounds known as cannabinoids, of which Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the most important ...
Remarkably, this antiproliferative effect seems to be selective for brain-tumour cells as the survival of normal brain cells (astrocytes (Gómez del Pulgar et al, 2002), oligodendrocytes (Molina-Holgado et al, 2002) and neurons (Mechoulam et al, 2002)) is unaffected or even favoured by cannabinoid challenge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html said:The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
I urge you to do the same and not follow the years of scare-tactics that aren't based in fact...Think , people, think.