Quotes of the day

posted at 11:05 pm on November 14, 2012 by Allahpundit

State legislators in Rhode Island and Maine will announce bills tomorrow to legalize recreational marijuana, a spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project announced today…

MPP says that “similar proposals will be submitted in at least two other states — Vermont and Massachusetts.” A ballot iniative legalizing medical marijuana passed in Massachusetts last week with more than 60 percent of the vote. Maine voters voted to expand the state’s 1999 medical marijuana law in 2009 to include dispensaries.

***

Relaxing restrictions on marijuana met with mixed results on Election Day, approved by voters in Colorado, Washington and Massachusetts, rejected in Arkansas and Oregon.

Americans split by 48-50 percent in this survey on “legalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use.” Nonetheless that marks a new high in support in polls back to 1985, and the first time opposition has slipped to less than a majority. Support for legalizing marijuana has grown sharply from just 22 percent in 1997.

Despite increased acceptance of the idea, intensity of sentiment is tilted against relaxing marijuana restrictions: Thirty-seven percent are strongly opposed to legalization, vs. 26 percent who strongly support it.

***

Via WaPo:

***

Mexican President Felipe Calderón says the legalization of marijuana for recreational use in two U.S. states limits that country’s ‘‘moral authority’’ to ask other nations to combat or restrict illegal drug trafficking.

Calderón says the legalization of marijuana in Washington and Colorado represents a fundamental change that requires the rethinking of public policy in the entire Western Hemisphere…

Mexico insists the violence from cartels has increased largely because drug consumption and arms smuggled from the United States.

“Why do criminals kill so cruelly and with so much evil? Why do they take so many risks? Because they are that dumb, that violent, that savage? It’s their ambition that then causes an increase in drug prices and demand from the consumer markets,” the president said.

***

This week, Paul also plans to re-engage with Leahy and others about his stance on marijuana, saying it makes little sense to have tough laws against possession that could destroy a young person’s life.

After Colorado and Washington state each approved recreational use of marijuana in ballot initiatives last week, Paul said it “wouldn’t hurt” for his party to take a softer stand on the issue, saying it would show that the GOP is a “little bit rational” and “reasonable” if penalties for pot possession were weakened.

“I don’t think we should put people in jail for mandatory sentences of nonviolent drug crimes, particularly 20-year sentences,” Paul said. “I’d just hate to see somebody’s kid get put in jail for 20 years for making a mistake.”

***

Young Americans are much more open to reform, about 59 percent of Americans under 34 favor legalization, as do 56 percent among those 35-44. Middle-aged Americans are evenly split, while seniors are most opposed 64 percent to 29 percent in favor. However, even a majority of seniors (58 percent) favor medical marijuana prescribed by a doctor.

Religiosity highly correlates with position on drug legalization. Sixty-seven percent of those who attend church weekly oppose legalizing recreational pot, but 58 percent support medical marijuana. In contrast 75 percent of those who never attend church favor marijuana legalization, as do 61 percent of those who only attend church a few times a year…

Interestingly, significantly more tea party supporters than Republicans favor legalizing marijuana (38 percent to 27 percent). Upwards of 55 percent of both Democrats and Independents also support legalizing the drug.

***

It would be a mistake to call these ballot initiative victories “pro-pot.” Most of those who voted in favor don’t use marijuana; indeed many don’t like it at all and have never used it. What moved them was the realization that it made more sense to regulate, tax and control marijuana than to keep wasting money and resources trying to enforce an unenforceable prohibition.

Whether or not the two state governments move forward with regulating marijuana like alcohol will depend on two things: how the Obama administration, federal prosecutors and police agencies respond; and the extent to which the states’ senior elected officials commit to implementing the will of the people. The fact that federal laws explicitly criminalize marijuana transactions, and that the federal government can continue to enforce those laws, means that federal authorities could effectively block the initiatives from being fully implemented. But there are also good reasons why the Obama administration should, and may, allow state governments to proceed as voters have demanded…

Will federal prosecutors and police agents continue to repeat the mantra that “it’s all illegal under federal law” and that the federal Controlled Substances Act trumps all state laws? Yes, of course. But they’re up against a powerful host of arguments that also demand deference. These new laws were passed by voter initiatives, which represent the clearest expressions of the will of the people. The final tallies were consistent with public opinion polls earlier in the year, before anyone had spent a penny on political advertising. Voters clearly knew what they were voting for.

Effectively implemented, the new laws could offer fiscal benefits in terms of reducing criminal justice costs and increasing tax revenues, public safety benefits in terms of transforming a criminal, underground market into a legally regulated above-ground part of local economies, and public health benefits in terms of regulating the quality and potency of substances consumed by millions of Americans. They also, it must be said, advance the cause of freedom.

***

Both initiatives abolish penalties for adults 21 or older who possess up to an ounce of marijuana and for state-licensed growers and sellers who follow regulations that are supposed to be adopted during the next year or so. Pot prohibitionists such as Asa Hutchinson, former head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), argue that allowing marijuana sales violates the Controlled Substances Act and therefore the Constitution, which makes valid acts of Congress “the supreme law of the land.”

But the Supremacy Clause applies only to laws that Congress has the authority to pass, and the ban on marijuana has never had a solid constitutional basis. If alcohol prohibition required a constitutional amendment, how could Congress, less than two decades later, enact marijuana prohibition by statute?

***

The White House is surprisingly uncool when it comes to toking up: A Reuters piece that Charles C. W. Cooke noted on the Corner last week reports that the victories are largely symbolic. Ken Sabet, former assistant to Obama’s drug czar, said that state leaders “are facing an uphill battle with implementing this, in the face of . . . presidential opposition and in the face of federal enforcement opposition.” In other words, the Obama administration cares more about maintaining the concentration of federal power than preventing thousands of bored college students from getting arrested for doing exactly what the president did when he was a bored college student.

For the GOP, this is more than just an opening; it’s a magical messaging moment, which, to paraphrase Rahm Emanuel, conservatives shouldn’t let go to waste. “This is a classic example of where they can walk the walk,” says Tim Lynch of the Cato Institute. This isn’t really a drug-legalization issue; it’s a states’ rights issue and a limited-powers issue. All conservatives have to agree on is that the federal government might have better things to do with its freshly printed money than try to enforce a nigh-unenforceable law that local voters and leaders think was a bad idea in the first place…

If the GOP is going to be competitive in 2016, it has to communicate to young people that intrusive federal government makes their lives worse. It has to communicate that it’s the party that respects personal choice and individual responsibility. And it would probably help to communicate that when in doubt, the GOP doesn’t automatically take the side of the insanely expensive branch of the federal government that breaks into people’s homes, shoots their dogs, and imprisons them because they added a funny ingredient to their brownies.

***



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I hope not. Or I’m very bad. :)

Axe on November 15, 2012 at 1:46 AM

;)

kim roy on November 15, 2012 at 1:54 AM

we definitely need to legalize drugs. 1. it is a natural right 2. the ‘war’ has increased the police powers of the state enormously…which gives rise to injury to the citizens and 3. it harms other countries and their citizens.

bad idea all around.

i am more and more convinced of this.

the only hope for us is liberty. that is actually the one thing that this country promised. we never promised riches or fame…we promised nothing but freedom and justice before the law.

and, rather than going forward…progressives have been going backwards to the days of patronage and fiefdoms….and all the things that flow from them…vassals, fealty, homage

r keller on November 15, 2012 at 2:00 AM

It’s Obama’s only HOPE.

To tranquilize enough people to forget about Benghazi.

But it won’t happen soon enough to save his butt.

He should have “evolved” faster on this issue.

profitsbeard on November 15, 2012 at 2:01 AM

r keller on November 15, 2012 at 2:00 AM

I used to agree with you. Now, we have socialized medicine, which exempts folks from their responsibilities–at the cost of the citizenry.

They can tell you that you can’t have a 32oz. Coke–they can tell you that you can’t smoke weed.

It’s bad for you.

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:05 AM

the only hope for us is liberty. that is actually the one thing that this country promised.

r keller on November 15, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Good luck with that.

Look-up the word “entitlement”, and you’ll see clearly where we are going.

“Liberty” is sooo passe. (The USA is done.)

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:08 AM

Wouldn’t it be interesting if:

1) Obama sends his jackboots to stomp on Washington and Colorado.
2) The people of those states rebel by signing the seccession petition—and actually seceding.
3) Obama sends in aircraft carrier battle groups and tanks, escalating the drug war into a second civil war.

A civil war over MJ, which Obama smokes!!! If there are any comedy shows interested in using the idea consider it public domain.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 2:10 AM

Our “natural rights” have been constantly expanding under liberal rule. Those brilliant “unalienable rights” are special no more.

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:11 AM

A little mood music for the topic…

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 2:15 AM

we definitely need to legalize drugs. 1. it is a natural right 2. the ‘war’ has increased the police powers of the state enormously…which gives rise to injury to the citizens and 3. it harms other countries and their citizens.

I can argue a little with that: I’m not against legalizing MJ: that is a far cry from doing the same with opiates or “Designer drugs”. As i stated before, even with something like MJ, I can see the cost & convenience saving, over time not be as fruitful as some would hope or expect. And that goes wether your talking about policing or money saved in less LEO activities.

the only hope for us is liberty. that is actually the one thing that this country promised. we never promised riches or fame…we promised nothing but freedom and justice before the law.

I agree. Again this is how losing the “Culture War” and losing by fighting less and not fighting smarter has cost us.

and, rather than going forward…progressives have been going backwards to the days of patronage and fiefdoms….and all the things that flow from them…vassals, fealty, homage

r keller on November 15, 2012 at 2:00 AM

Or, just say “Chicago Politics” it’s right to the point.

BlaxPac on November 15, 2012 at 2:17 AM

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 2:10 AM

I’m going to presume that you’re high right now.

1) I’d LOL!!! Same idiots who voted for him facing-down his “gun”.
2) This secession idea is ludicrous. Who among us will successfully fight the American military? (I’d be lined-up to get into one of the seceding states, but it won’t happen (at least, before the collapse).)
3) Dumb.

I despise Obama. But only your prop #1 is anywhere close to reality. I think that the DEA will hammer those folks…And I’ll laugh heartily.

(Then again, perhaps Obama will have to relent, seeing that these morons are the people who got this charlatan re-elected?)

(I’m all for legalization–sans Obamacare.)

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM

“Liberty” is sooo passe. (The USA is done.)

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:08 AM

right. One of the horrors of singlepayer is that they never quite seem to have enough money for pain management…i.e. palliative care

legalize it…at least we’ll can all number others on the way down…and esp. when we get to the hospice.

i’m feelng esp. grim tonight..barry is just a hair away of where he was in 08. He knows hte game better know…he can be confident in the incurious press. Holder can wreak his form of equal outcomes for everything with crickets from his PR flaks….via dodd-framk or whatever.

he can have epa enact as broad a climate net as he wishes.

i expect large and wide ranging executive branch decrees…imparting everything. 10 was a learning experience..that is all. He won and now he knows that small dumps in the road can be ignored

r keller on November 15, 2012 at 2:27 AM

I wish you got some feedback as to what was offensive in your post!
BlaxPac on November 15, 2012 at 2:17 AM

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:27 AM

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 2:10 AM

I’m going to presume that you’re h!gh right now.

1) I’d LOL!!! Same idiots who voted for him facing-down his “g!n”.
2) This sec”c”ession idea is ludicrous. Who among us will successfully fight the American military? (I’d be lined-up to get into one of the seceding states, but it won’t happen (at least, before the collapse).)
3) Dumb.

I despise Obama. But only your prop #1 is anywhere close to reality. I think that the DEA will hammer those folks…And I’ll laugh heartily.

(Then again, perhaps Obama will have to relent, seeing that these morons are the people who got this charlatan re-elected?)

(I’m all for legalization–sans Obamacare.)

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:29 AM

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:29 AM

F*CK ME!
I changed the letter at the END OF POINT 1) (from ‘u’ to ‘!’)
Also, in point 2) I went ahead and misspelled the second word!

This is F*CKIN B*LLSHIT!!!

This is ridiculous BS! and HA should stop this nonsensical censorship!

WHY DON’T YOU?

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:32 AM

It is “self-evident” whether you agree to it, or not.

listens2glenn on November 15, 2012 at 1:13 AM

You keep using that term. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

If something is “self-evident”, it is usually recognized with some measure of universality. Something being “self-evident”, by definition, precludes any rational argument about it.

Well, agree or disagree, gay marriage proponents make at the very least some valid points. Whether those points are strong enough to toss 5000 years of received wisdom overboard is worthy of debate. But to write off any argument using the “self-evident” clause alone only serves to demonstrate the weakness of your position.

JohnGalt23 on November 15, 2012 at 2:33 AM

F*CK THIS WEB SITE!
IT F*CKING SUCKS!

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:34 AM

someday our jails will be full of them…
what ever happened to an ole fashion hanging…?..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20320165

going2mars on November 15, 2012 at 2:40 AM

legalize it…at least we’ll can all number others on the way down…and esp. when we get to the hospice.

r keller

Smoking already, lol?

xblade on November 15, 2012 at 2:48 AM

Test. Sanity test in progress…. Awaiting results…. Hardcopy print out…Test Failed.

SparkPlug on November 15, 2012 at 2:50 AM

SparkPlug on November 15, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Dude–Talk some (semblance of) sense into these guys! You can’t say seces*ion?

I wasn’t encouraging it!

No feedback available. Stupid!

Any wonder that a bunch of folks left?

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:54 AM

I’m going to presume that you’re h!gh right now.

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:29 AM

And I’m presuming that you’re low.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:08 AM

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:54 AM

I remember that you couldn’t say Tea Party r3volution so you had to put a 3 where the e was.

Silly.

SparkPlug on November 15, 2012 at 3:10 AM

And I’m presuming that you’re low.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:08 AM

You laughingly ignore my substantive points. I’ll presume it’s because you’re aware that you’re wrong.

Also, you waited a long time to respond. Weakness?

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:11 AM

SparkPlug on November 15, 2012 at 3:10 AM

Yeah. It’s actually better-named idiocy.

OH! I can’t say “poopie” on that site??
Okay–”P*opie!!!”

The censorship is not only dumb, but ineffective.

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:15 AM

2) This sec”c”ession idea is ludicrous. Who among us will successfully fight the American military?

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:29 AM

I’d rather die than live in a fascist police state, and I won’t be the first. You could learn a lesson or two from history. Try American history.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:15 AM

You laughingly ignore my substantive points. I’ll presume it’s because you’re aware that you’re wrong.

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:11 AM

My joke was wrong? LOL! Now you’re the comedian… or, I’m not sure: are we laughing with you or at you? Don’t you have a sense of humor?

Are you saying that you would rather live in a fascist police state than die as a patriotic American defending freedom and liberty like so many before?

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:18 AM

Doesn’t Obamney claim to be a Democrat who believes in “democracy”? There’s another punchline for the comedy skit right there! Obama the Democrat democrat crushing the will of the voters with jackboots.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:20 AM

I’ll continue saying The Holy Bible is the “final say”, you’ll continue saying, “No, it isn’t”.

(snip)

listens2glenn on November 15, 2012 at 1:48 AM

So you are in fact in favor of the Christian version of the Iranian form of government. That’s a little scary.

alchemist19 on November 15, 2012 at 3:21 AM

Also, you waited a long time to respond. Weakness?

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:11 AM

Sorry, I was looking at YouTube music videos to respond to JohnGalt23 above. This is all I’ve come up with so far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGSXgztLR10

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:23 AM

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:23 AM (And previous)

I thought perhaps that you were still a Paul-nut, but it seems you’ve gently gone over the cliff.

Toodles, dummy.

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:26 AM

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:26 AM

Well at least it was gentle. : )

I used to have an awesome cat named Toodles, named after the Toodles or Tootles River near Mt. St. Helens that flooded with mud and logs after the eruption.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:38 AM

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:26 AM

I wish you’d answer my question above before you go.

Are you saying that you would rather live in a fascist police state than die as a patriotic American defending freedom and liberty like so many before?

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:44 AM

Are you saying that you would rather live in a fascist police state than die as a patriotic American defending freedom and liberty like so many before?

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 3:44 AM

Though you’ve never done anything to deserve any extra attention, I’ll give you some now.

There is little difference between the two states. I would choose neither. (I’d choose death if I could not escape.)

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:55 AM

Though you’ve never done anything to deserve any extra attention, I’ll give you some now.

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 3:55 AM

You’ll be eating your words if Saturday Night Live uses my idea. : )

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 4:29 AM

The very idea that the majority of people in this country want to legalize marijuana is absolute proof that life is all about “them.” Regardless of the negative consequences of legalization to themselves and others, the people of this country and many followers of HotAir really don’t care.

I must admit that I smoked a few joints back in the 70′s and most of the time, I was filled with extreme anxiety when I was “stoned.” My heart felt like it was going to jump out my chest and the concept of time was totally distorted. A few times, I was stoned and driving and that was a total challenge. I always got frustrated when it took what seemed like 5 minutes to reach a red light that was only 100 feet away. And, to my regret, I was stoned a couple of times when I was with my young son. He never saw me smoke the weed, but he sure was the unintended victim of my need to be high. I was in a world of my own during my high, and the needs of my son really didn’t matter. In fact, I was hoping he would magically find something to do with himself so I wouldn’t be bothered.

Yes, we are entering a whole new age that will complete the morphism of most people into uncaring and narcissistic zombies. We will be happy to lose what liberty we have left as long as we have the ability to get stoned. After all, it’s a tough world out there and they say it’s only going to get worse. So why not lay back, get stoned and enjoy life while you can.

Yes, I’ll feel much better when I’m on an airplane, knowing that the mechanics that overhauled the plane were stoned and feeling good about themselves. What does it matter if a few nuts and bolts are found later after the plane is in the air. And I can’t wait to hop on a commuter train after the conductors have had their daily weed. Gee, does anyone recall some recent fatal accidents involving commuter trains and stoned conductors? I recall an article about a young father who veered off the road while driving and managed to kill his infant son in the back seat as well as two others in another car heading in the opposite direction. He later admitted to police that he had just finished smoking a joint and was reaching for some “munchies” in the front seat.

This is really a strange country we live in anymore. We treat cigarette smokers like they are the scum of the earth, but we’re getting ready to legalize smoking marijuana. Does anyone know of any studies done on the long-term effect of smoking marijuana and lung problems later in life? I know, we can eat marijuana-laced brownies and not have to smoke to get high. Is that a viable alternative to smoking the weed? Regardless of how one ingests marijuana, people will still be zombies.

As I stated earlier, I was a casual user years ago, but I fortunately realized it was a road to nowhere. I had a conscience and I was bothered by what I might be doing to others and myself. I am in my mid-sixties now and am thankful to be alive. I learned to get “high” on life itself, without the need for any crutches, such as marijuana. The four seasons of nature gets me high, camping in the outdoors gets me high, spending quality time with my children gets me high. Staying active in political matters gets me high…simply because I want this great country to survive the turmoil and grief that’s around the corner. For the rest of you who want legalization, go for it I guess. But man-up to the consequences if you find yourself in trouble over your need to be stoned.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 4:34 AM

Or Red Eye or The Onion.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 4:34 AM

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 4:34 AM

Do you abstain from Alcohol, tobacco and caffeine as well?

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 4:44 AM

This whole legalization business creates many societal “conflicts”, but I’ll focus on this one for now:

Does this mean that transportation companies won’t be allowed to fire employees who “test positive” for usage?

listens2glenn on November 14, 2012 at 11:23 PM

It won’t create any societal conflict that doesn’t already exist.

Why would you think a private business couldn’t fire a worker for using drugs?

Dante on November 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Oh that’s certainly the answer…fire the worker after the worker uses drugs…after a jetliner goes down with 250 aboard…after a commuter train collides with another and 189 are killed…yeah, the private business can just fire the worker.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 4:51 AM

I absolutely believe users will try to force acceptance of it’s use in the work place, if it’s legalized. Whether they succeed or not is another matter.
Alcohol is legal. Yet employers can fire anyone who shows up for work, drunk. Norfolk Southern Railroad (and probably others) randomly test employees urine for everything, and a positive test result is termination. Period.

As long as employers are allowed to reject employees who “use”, I’ve got no problem with legalization.

listens2glenn on November 14, 2012 at 11:58 PM

Yeah, I use Murine eye drops all day long at work (It’s these terrible allergies I have to deal with all the time. The allergies make my eyes bloodshot and irritated) No one will know any different as long as I use that excuse.

Yes, after being responsible for a major train derailment and lost lives, the employee will be tested positive and be fired. That works for me.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 5:00 AM

Does anyone know of any studies done on the long-term effect of smoking marijuana and lung problems later in life?

Yes, I’ve read some studies on that over the years. A recent study from a few years ago indicated that tobacco smoke contains a substance that greatly reduces the capability of the cells in your lungs to clear out contaminants. MJ doesn’t contain this chemical. Also, people tend to hold MJ in their lungs for a long time to maximize the effect because it costs so much. If it were reasonably priced then people could afford to use safer practices. There’s also vaporizers and the vapor is supposedly smoke free and very safe.

The best thing we can do to minimize the damage that MJ smokers do to their lungs is to legalize it.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 5:01 AM

Do you abstain from Alcohol, tobacco and caffeine as well?

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 4:44 AM

I don’t smoke cigarettes, and may drink 20 to 30 beers a year…hardly ever more than one beer at one time. I do drink coffee from time to time for the taste. not for the caffeine. I can drink a cup of coffee and be asleep an hour later. For a 64-year old man, I am pretty healthy and intend to stay that way. But anything can happen at anytime.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 5:05 AM

Do you abstain from Alcohol, tobacco and caffeine as well?

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 4:44 AM

Comparing the effects of coffee and cigarettes to alcohol and marijuana is irrational. Few (except liberals) care if you use coffee because it largely doesn’t affect anyone else. Few (except liberals) care if you use soda because it largely doesn’t affect anyone else.

That isn’t the case with marijuana or alcohol. They do effect others and thus are very different.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 5:10 AM

Oh that’s certainly the answer…fire the worker after the worker uses drugs…after a jetliner goes down with 250 aboard…after a commuter train collides with another and 189 are killed…yeah, the private business can just fire the worker.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 4:51 AM

You’re trying to conflate Alcohol and MJ but they are not the same. Alcohol is a debilitating drug that causes accidents and violence, not MJ. If you really want to reduce accidents one way, (that I don’t support), would be to ban alcohol and recommend that alcoholics switch to MJ. Most people know that MJ isn’t the same as alcohol and that’s why your side is losing the national debate.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 5:11 AM

That isn’t the case with marijuana or alcohol. They do effect others and thus are very different.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 5:10 AM

What if somebody spills their coffee on their lap when their driving, veers into oncoming traffic and kills an entire family? It would affect other people then, wouldn’t it? What if somebody smoking a cigarette drops it in their lap while they’re driving and they plows into a crowd of people at a family reunion, killing all three generations of the family, wiping them all out? That would affect other people.

The only difference is of your own invention.

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 5:16 AM

good morning-

i was thinking more about that presser yesterday…how can dear leader say on one hand that he told folks to do whatever was needed to do for those under attack but then blame fault intelligence for susan rice who got her diretive from the white house? they knew it was an attack by the time she hit the networks

just an absolute shame the wh press corp won’t call him out on his contradictions and rather praise him for defending rice instead…

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 5:18 AM

What if somebody spills their coffee on their lap when their driving, veers into oncoming traffic and kills an entire family? It would affect other people then, wouldn’t it?

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012 at 5:16 AM

My niece argued this way when she was twelve. She grew out of it.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 5:21 AM

what also got my goat last night…mr ‘keeping them honest’ went on to attack mccain for going after susan rice but had no problem with condi rice and her ‘faulty intelligence’ about WMD….i wish mccain went back at him saying she was using the same intelligence the dems including clinton had to base their findings…

arrrchhhh

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 5:35 AM

Common sense and reasonable thinking cannot be taught to anyone. Educators can preach all day long to others on what’s reasonbably good for society as a whole and what’s not. Most people that indulge in a “crutch” such as excessive drinking, ingesting drugs for the sole purpose of getting “high”, etc. simply cannot be shown a better way. They are all about what’s good for “them.” Basically, these people are weak and no one can prove different. Why is there this incessant need to get a “high” from a substance other than the natural beauty of life itself? Weak, weak, weak people, I tell you.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 5:36 AM

mojo will probably be praising dear leader and bashin mccain and graham…just following the rest of the lsm

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 5:36 AM

that slippery slope keeps getting longer doesn’t it….

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 5:39 AM

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 5:36 AM

weak because they’ve never failed…..they’ve been coddled it appears

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 5:45 AM

It’s a fact…society always reaps what it sows. I suspect that the Feds (under Obama’s direction) will not bother the growing cannabis industry anymore, either in California, Washington or Colorado. And other states on the verge of legalizing marijuana for either medicinal reasons or for recreational use, or both, will be left alone as well.

I suspect there will be a large increase in traffic accidents in CA, CO and WA as well in other states. And child abuse cases are likely to grow along with other tragic consequences. (Does anyone else think little Caylee Anthony might have drowned in the pool becuase her negligent mother was high on drugs?) Overall, there will be more tragic train, plane and automobile accidents in these states in addition to workplace accidents.

I hope to be around in 5 years to either say I told you so or I was wrong. We shall see.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 AM

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 AM

well said

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 6:04 AM

The Associated Press @AP

With marijuana legal in Washington state and Colorado, police worry about keeping stoned drivers off roads: http://apne.ws/U1gk0Z -JM

Flora Duh on November 15, 2012 at 6:08 AM

And if states can choose to ignore illegal immigrants and drug laws, then they can ignore ObamaCare.

JellyToast on November 15, 2012 at 6:22 AM

JellyToast on November 15, 2012 at 6:22 AM

ding ding ding

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 6:31 AM

I hope to be around in 5 years to either say I told you so or I was wrong. We shall see.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 AM

I hope you’re around too but friend, you seem to have such hyperbolic fear I’m afraid some doctor might put you on some nasty “heart medicine” that could be far more harmful than just smoking a joint and relaxing. I’m about 6 or 7 years younger than you and have far more…um, experience with the topic here. I have had what I’d call a successful career, I don’t drive around stoned and have never abused children. Like many people, I enjoy a little relaxation when I get home from work. If you want to fight drug abuse watch out for the crap doctors prescribe and pharmaceutical companies sell. That stuff is refined and far more dangerous.

rhombus on November 15, 2012 at 6:31 AM

Sorry, children. What you do behind closed doors affects others. Just ask General Petraeus.

kingsjester on November 15, 2012 at 6:37 AM

kingsjester on November 15, 2012 at 6:37 AM

sure hope he actually tells the truth and not take one for the team…

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 6:41 AM

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 6:41 AM

Yes, ma’am. Me, too

kingsjester on November 15, 2012 at 6:44 AM

I don’t drive around stoned and have never abused children. Like many people, I enjoy a little relaxation when I get home from work.

rhombus on November 15, 2012 at 6:31 AM

And that’s fine. Do you have a problem with harsh consequences when others drive while stoned? Would you favor life behind bars for someone convicted of manslaughter while driving under the infuence of alcohol or drugs? No chance of parole?

I do. How could anyone justify freedom at any point for someone who took the life of another or others over the need to get drunk or stoned? I guarantee you that if anyone ever killed a loved one of mine over the need to get drunk or stoned, they would want to stay in prison as long as possible to escape my version of justice.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 6:50 AM

check out the size of the buds. wowzie. if only romney had cojones like those.

renalin on November 15, 2012 at 6:52 AM

that slippery slope keeps getting longer doesn’t it….

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 5:39 AM

I think it is getting steeper.

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 7:09 AM

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 7:09 AM

yup…

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 7:13 AM

FloatingRock on November 15, 2012

…Fluke You…!!!
(:->)

KOOLAID2 on November 15, 2012 at 7:18 AM

Wow. For a minute or two I thought I was at some progressive website that advocates for a ruthless powerful federal government. This isn’t about pot. This is about federalism and the fact that conservatives once actually stood for states rights and small government. But now all I read are “faux” conservatives scared that “refeer madness” is going to take us away. No wonder we lost, you people are nothing but grumpy old men that think the government knows best.

News flash, people are already smoking pot, states are already passing nullification laws, and nullification laws where the states take back power from the federal government is a good thing and a concept we should embrace. Try embracing liberty and actual conservative values such as small government and states rights. We can talk all day about pot, I don’t like it, but I also don’t support wasting billions upon billions fighting it.

Wake up and embrace federalism and conservative values, don’t just play lip service. You can do this or we will end up a regional party.

MoreLiberty on November 15, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Oh no…refer madness……we need the government to help save us…..

MoreLiberty on November 15, 2012 at 7:23 AM

Bread and Circuses kept the mob passive in the Roman Empire.

Food stamps, dope and television fill the same roll in the welfare state.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 7:24 AM

Posting a tag to try to fix the italics. Did it work?

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 7:25 AM

I guess it didn’t work. Esr1951, What tags did you put in your comment at 7:09 AM?

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 7:27 AM

I think it is getting steeper.

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 7:09 AM

You wrecked the entire thread!

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Maybe this will work. If this doesn’t work, then oh well.

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 7:31 AM

I think they might’ve used some other HTML tag and not the “emphasis” tag in the comment composition menu. It seems they didn’t use a proper “close” tag for whatever they did.

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM

that slippery slope keeps getting longer doesn’t it….

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 5:39 AM

Slope???

I prefer ‘Free Fall’……

BigWyo on November 15, 2012 at 7:38 AM

Wow…we’re all Italicized now……

Allah should have done this back around 2 am when the stoners were going at it…

BigWyo on November 15, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Sorry guys. I did not know I has such power. Just used the usual HTML tags.

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 7:42 AM

That’ll work as well bigwyo

cmsinaz on November 15, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Sorry guys. I did not know I has such power. Just used the usual HTML tags.

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Exactly what did you do to get the word “steeper” italicized in your comment?

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 7:45 AM

And did you include any tags after that?

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM

If the GOP is going to be competitive in 2016, it has to communicate to young people that intrusive federal government makes their lives worse.

So let’s add up the bill so far if the GOP is to “reach out” and be competitive in 2016:

We’ve got to give the gays their marriage.
We’ve got to give the illegals free citizenship.
We’ve got to give the blacks whatever the hell they want this week.
We’ve got to give young people a free ride for college.

and now we’ve got to give in to the pot heads.

How about working off of principle instead of being more of a santa claus than Obama?

Happy Nomad on November 15, 2012 at 7:51 AM

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 7:09 AM

esr,

You broke the internet!

Happy Nomad on November 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM

And the reason legalization will sweep the entire country is because all the terrible, horrible things the opposition claims will happen… Never Actually Happen.

Once medical marijuana is legal, anyone that wants it can get it. So not only is there nobody else that wants it anyhow, but there is no increase in crime, no adverse consequences whatsoever. And when the voting public sees that, they have no problem making it more legal. And that process has been advancing steadily for a decade or more, directly resulting in what happened in Colorado and Washington.

deadrody on November 15, 2012 at 8:02 AM

and now we’ve got to give in to the pot heads.

How about working off of principle instead of being more of a santa claus than Obama?

Happy Nomad on November 15, 2012 at 7:51 AM

And why should marijuana be illegal in the first place ? Do you drink at all ? Beer ? Wine ? Does that make you a “drunk” ?

Rolling back the abject stupidity of the failed “war on drugs” is not about being Santa Claus. Its about common sense.

deadrody on November 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Happy Nomad on November 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM

With such power, maybe can overturn the election results!

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM

And did you include any tags after that?

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 7:46 AM

I used the HTML italics tags and I did close it.

I am so sorry.

I post on other sites where HTML is needed, and then came over here and forgot that I just need to highlight the text and then use the highlight button.

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 8:07 AM

With such power, maybe can overturn the election results!
esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM

What exactly did you type?

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 8:08 AM

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 4:34 AM

Whether MJ is a good/bad idea, or good/bad for you is a seperate conversation from should MJ be legal.

Where does the federal government get the power to place a prohibition on MJ? The feds justify this through the expanded interpretation of the commerce clause found in Wickard v Filburn. Anyone conservative who thinks that the Wickard decision was a good ruling better re-think their party affiliation. Which brings me back to my original question: Without the decision in Wickard v Filburn, where do the feds get the power to decree a prohibition on MJ?

HarryBackside on November 15, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Rolling back the abject stupidity of the failed “war on drugs” is not about being Santa Claus. Its about common sense.

deadrody on November 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM

No one who claims to be an economic or constitutional conservative can support the War on Drugs.

HarryBackside on November 15, 2012 at 8:13 AM

So you used the tag and not ?

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I, not em, I mean.

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM

2) This se.c.e.s.sion idea is ludicrous. Who among us will successfully fight the American military? (I’d be lined-up to get into one of the seceding states, but it won’t happen (at least, before the collapse).)

RedCrow on November 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Why would you think force would be used against a state exercising its right? Is it because the tyrant Lincoln preserved the Union by murdering thousands who sought to choose their own government, one that was by, for, and of the people? Anyone who has even the simplest understanding of the formation of the Union and what it comprises wouldn’t call it ludicrous.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 8:15 AM

bluegill on November 15, 2012 at 8:14 AM

I don’t think I can type exactly what I typed. I used the I inside the tags before the word and then /I inside the tags after the word. I think.

esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 8:20 AM

That isn’t the case with marijuana or alcohol. They do effect others and thus are very different.

sharrukin on November 15, 2012 at 5:10 AM

My drinking alchohol or smoking a joint doesn’t affect one single other person at all.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 8:21 AM

It’s a fact…society always reaps what it sows. I suspect that the Feds (under Obama’s direction) will not bother the growing cannabis industry anymore, either in California, Washington or Colorado. And other states on the verge of legalizing marijuana for either medicinal reasons or for recreational use, or both, will be left alone as well.

I suspect there will be a large increase in traffic accidents in CA, CO and WA as well in other states. And child abuse cases are likely to grow along with other tragic consequences. (Does anyone else think little Caylee Anthony might have drowned in the pool becuase her negligent mother was high on drugs?) Overall, there will be more tragic train, plane and automobile accidents in these states in addition to workplace accidents.

I hope to be around in 5 years to either say I told you so or I was wrong. We shall see.

metroryder on November 15, 2012 at 6:01 AM

You sure do like to use logical fallacies.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 8:23 AM

And if states can choose to ignore illegal immigrants and drug laws, then they can ignore ObamaCare.

JellyToast on November 15, 2012 at 6:22 AM

Actually, yes, but not for the reason(s) you think. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to ban any good, product, or service; that is a right of the states. Any law that is not made in pursuance of the Constitution (such as drug laws and Obamacare) is null and void, and the states can invoke their right of nullification.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 8:25 AM

deadrody on November 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM

I’m not biting. I have no intention to get into some debate with a pothead where the opening argument is that “it’s just like booze.”

And to my point. For voters where this issue resonates, things like the principles of federalism do not matter.

Happy Nomad on November 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM

My drinking alchohol or smoking a joint doesn’t affect one single other person at all.

Dante on November 15, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Tell that to all the people killed by drunk drivers or in workplace accidents where some stoner cared more about getting high than safety.

There is a case to be made about “responsible use” but your absolute statement is as stupid as anything else you parrot from the racist nutjob you adore.

Happy Nomad on November 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

With such power, maybe can overturn the election results!
esr1951 on November 15, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Burn the Witch!!!

I’ve been here for a while now and I don’t ever remember this happening…

I’m just a little bit scared…and excited….

Blackly excited….

BigWyo on November 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

Oh but this is such a fun thread.

Jeddite on November 15, 2012 at 8:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4