Federal government’s biggest marijuana concern is…workplace use?

posted at 4:21 pm on December 4, 2012 by Dustin Siggins

On November 6, Colorado and Washington State legalized the use of pot, becoming the first U.S. states to do so. Twenty days later, conservative comedian Steven Crowder launched a video outlining his opposition to marijuana legalization. And now, via FireDogLake, the Department of Transportation (DoT) is making sure the public knows it won’t tolerate workplace use:

We have had several inquiries about whether these state initiatives will have an impact upon the Department of Transportation’s longstanding regulation about the use of marijuana by safety‐sensitive transportation employees – pilots, school bus drivers, truck drivers, train engineers, subway operators, aircraft maintenance personnel, transit fire‐armed security personnel, ship captains, and pipeline emergency response personnel, among others.

We want to make it perfectly clear that the state initiatives will have no bearing on the Department of Transportation’s regulated drug testing program. The Department of Transportation’s Drug and Alcohol Testing Regulation – 49 CFR Part 40 – does not authorize the use of Schedule I drugs, including marijuana, for any reason.

Therefore, Medical Review Officers (MROs) will not verify a drug test as negative based upon learning that the employee used “recreational marijuana” when states have passed “recreational marijuana” initiatives.

According to the much-ballyhooed new CBS poll, the American people are evenly split between Colorado and Crowder – 47% in favor of legalization, and 47% against. As the linked CBS article points out, though, legalization is increasingly more supported in the younger generation:

According to exit polls, legalizing marijuana passed in Colorado and Washington with the support of a majority of younger voters under the age of 45. Nationwide, this pattern continues: a majority of Americans under the age of 45 support legalizing marijuana, while more older Americans – particularly those over 65 – oppose it.

Regardless of their view of legalization, however, a majority of Americans also don’t want the federal government involved in enforcing marijuana laws, including 49 percent of those opposed to marijuana legalization. Though as Ed noted in commenting on the poll, many Americans do want regulations if marijuana is to be made legal.

While national opinion is headed in the right direction, it is long past time for marijuana to be a state issue, and for states to at least consider legalization. As National Review articulately outlined in 2011, the War on Drugs is an abject failure, and as Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker pointed out this summer, it’s a failure that greatly impacts black Americans in particular. Booker also described a number of areas where improvements in public policy could help those addicted to drugs.

Typically, it is social conservatives who oppose legalization. However, I believe there is a case to be made for social conservatives to support marijuana legalization, or at least state control. As I argued at Hot Air this summer, this case consists of three basic arguments:

First, there are over three million Americans in jails and prisons nationwide, many arrested or jailed for non-violent marijuana use. Prohibition didn’t work for prohibition; why would we expect it to work with marijuana laws? It is inefficient to deny individual liberty by punishing those who use marijuana in the same way most people use alcohol: infrequently and responsibly. In other words, arresting responsible pot users shrinks the economic pie and increases the cost and size of government.

Related, while estimates are varied, billions in law enforcement and other costs could be saved through legalization. In a time of budget crisis at the federal level, this is important.

Lastly, according to a Catholic Theology on Tap speaker who works with inmates and recent inmates, 60% of future inmates are the children of current inmates. As the speaker said, we know who the next generation of prisoners is – the kids of today’s prisoners. If social conservatives want better public policy to keep families intact and have more people gainfully employed, they should support marijuana legalization, or at least state control of marijuana policy.

I am no medical professional, and Crowder’s video includes an interview with a doctor who described negative effects of marijuana on the human brain. However, I don’t think protecting people from themselves is something conservatives should support – otherwise, we are like one of Crowder’s foolish interviewees, who didn’t realize the inconsistency between wanting to ban big drinks in New York City and legalize marijuana.

So far, according to FireDogLake, the federal government has not really stepped up in reacting to the legalization of pot in Washington and Oregon, outside of the DoT and other agencies clarifying policies, etc. This is the way it should be; after all, Americans wouldn’t want a public employee drunk on the job, so of course we shouldn’t want someone high on the job. But other than that and selling on the streets and to children, we really ought to leave such policies up to the states, and support the rights of citizens to make their own decisions.

Dustin Siggins is the principal blogger for the Tea Party Patriots, a national grassroots coalition with more than 3,500 local chapters. He is also a co-founder of LibertyUnyielding.com, and the author of a forthcoming book on the national debt. The opinions expressed are his own.


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

JohnGalt23 on December 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM

My problem with the purely possession arguments on the board right now is that there is not enough information given to make an accurate determination. If all they had was some mj in their house, car or on their bodies and were minding their own business how did they get caught. Something else had to be going on to lead to an apprehension and search.

chemman on December 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM

lol. that much is true for sure. I usually do it on purpose. I get sick of the same arguments over again from supposed conservatives for Pro-hi-freakin’-bition

Slade73 on December 4, 2012 at 5:41 PM

Well, in the Colorado legalization issue, I went back and forth over the fence many times. I ended up voting against it only because I don’t think this issue is worthy of a Constiutional change. If not for that factor I probably would have voted for it.

I’ve never smoked pot myself, just known a lot of others who have, so I have mixed feelings about it – as I mentioned earlier. I know both of my sons have tried it – something I am not too happy with – but I also believe they don’t do it much if at all any more. I’ve just always warned them not to get hooked on anything (pot or alcohol) because we have a lot alcoholism in my family, and don’t drive at all if you’re impaired – by anything.
I’m generally a fan of the old “everything in moderation” – whatever you do.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Something else had to be going on to lead to an apprehension and search.

chemman on December 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM

you have an awful lot of trust in Law Enforcement Officers. just sayin’

Slade73 on December 4, 2012 at 5:55 PM

My hubby works with huge steel plates, 40 stories high, with white hot welding rods.. The last person I want working next to him is someone who’s been smoking pot..

kringeesmom on December 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I’m generally a fan of the old “everything in moderation” – whatever you do.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 5:55 PM

that’s very smart. It’s my own credo as well, though I don’t always follow it

Slade73 on December 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

My hubby works with huge steel plates, 40 stories high, with white hot welding rods.. The last person I want working next to him is someone who’s been smoking pot..

kringeesmom on December 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

me too. But this is an example of moving the goal posts. Alcohol is legal, I don’t suppose they allow employees to be drunk while handling welding rods.

Slade73 on December 4, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I wonder if they are allowed to drink alcohol.

dom89031 on December 4, 2012 at 6:00 PM

kringeesmom on December 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

What about if that guy had been drinking alcohol?

dom89031 on December 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM

you have an awful lot of trust in Law Enforcement Officers. just sayin’

Slade73 on December 4, 2012 at 5:55 PM

None what so ever. Been told by the LEO’s in my rural area that if something bad goes down I’m on my own to take care of it and to clean up the mess after myself.

chemman on December 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM

that’s very smart. It’s my own credo as well, though I don’t always follow it

Slade73 on December 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

I’ve slipped past the moderation point a few times with margaritas, or other drinks – and paid for it badly (in porcelain god terms) – and so has my wife. My sons have too – and I’ve used the occasion with them to say “see, that’s why you shouldn’t have too much”. But they don’t drive in that condition which is the one major rule we’ve always had. They have a DD, or sleep over wherever they are, or sleep in the car if necessary, or I’ll go get them – but don’t ever drive drunk or stoned.

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Lastly, according to a Catholic Theology on Tap speaker who works with inmates and recent inmates, 60% of future inmates are the children of current inmates. As the speaker said, we know who the next generation of prisoners is – the kids of today’s prisoners. If social conservatives want better public policy to keep families intact and have more people gainfully employed, they should support marijuana legalization, or at least state control of marijuana policy.

Shorter, let’s not send anybody to prison, because their kids of inmates are more likely to become incarcerated themselves. How about people who make poor choices often are poor parents and never teach their kids to behave any better?

Katja on December 4, 2012 at 6:06 PM

chemman on December 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM

heh.

I was pulled over in [nondescript State] with a little personal weed, for the mere fact I was a young driver who fit their profile. The cop told me this before threatening to loose his drug sniffing dog on me and seizing my vehicle.

Slade73 on December 4, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Something else had to be going on to lead to an apprehension and search.

chemman on December 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Hello sir, I stopped you for speeding. Say, do you mind me searching your vehicle? You fit a “profile”. Do you happen to have a large denomination of money on you (civil asset forfeiture)? That fits a profile too. Dirt and leaves on the floor of your car becomes “marijuana shake”.

oryguncon on December 4, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Dustin Siggins’ new favorite song: “Everybody Must Get Stoned” by Bob Dylan.

Bitter Clinger on December 4, 2012 at 4:40 PM

I think Colorado has made “Rocky Mountain High” the official state song….

dentarthurdent on December 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

lol, if you ever get a chance, see the great Jamaican band Toots and the Maytals live. Great performers.

On occasion, they cover “Rocky Mountain High” but have been doing “Country Roads” in almost every single set for some 40 years now.

Del Dolemonte on December 4, 2012 at 6:18 PM

My hubby works with huge steel plates, 40 stories high, with white hot welding rods.. The last person I want working next to him is someone who’s been smoking pot..

kringeesmom on December 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Really? The last person? You’d rather have him working with someone who had a six-pack for lunch than someone who smoked a joint?

JohnGalt23 on December 4, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Just suppose, a company has those who ‘does’ and said company has someone who is ‘doing’ and kills or otherwise does damage to your company and the company is held accountable by the little darling trail lawyers, WHAT do YOU do?

Does the company have zero input on WHO they hire of the mandates for employment? And if not, WHY would they hire?
L

letget on December 4, 2012 at 6:56 PM

And? Does the DOT tolerate alcohol use at the work place? Of course not.

MoreLiberty on December 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

DOT doesn’t require testing for any alcohol use whatsoever regardless of whether at the workplace or outside of it. Yes, you cannot use alcohol at the workplace or even have imbibed any during a set time-frame prior to reporting for duty so you are not under the influence. All sensible rules that I don’t disagree with.

Having said this, while I favor marijuana legalization or at least taking a federalist approach on this issue I am leery of relaxing rules much for pilots, truckers and all of those subject to DOT regulations. There are legitimate safety concerns in the operation of heavy vehicles that must be taken into consideration so while I’ll listen to those who may want to make changes to those rules, they’d better have some VERY convincing evidence.

JohnAGJ on December 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Shorter, let’s not send anybody to prison, because their kids of inmates are more likely to become incarcerated themselves. How about people who make poor choices often are poor parents and never teach their kids to behave any better?

Katja on December 4, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Yet not always. Rather difficult to be a better parent when you’ve been arrested for something that shouldn’t be a crime in the first place, possibly have to serve time and/or take a chunk of the family money to pay a fine for it. Then of course after being arrested there may be employment difficulties which could have a negative impact on the family as well. For what? To maintain this idiotic drug war that’s eroding civil liberties? No thanks. I look at the occasional pot smoker the same way I do those who violated Prohibition by drinking. As a country we were stupid then and we are doing the same thing again.

Legalize it, tax it and regulate the heck out it.

JohnAGJ on December 4, 2012 at 7:48 PM

We shouldn’t be too surprised that marijuana legalization has arrived considering our increasingly soft and hedonistic so-called “progressive” culture. Ever since Bill Clinton popularized the idea “if it feels good, it is good” with DADT and his own (under the desk) oval office antics, we’ve been on quite a downward slide. Few of the people who say yes to marijuana legalization are aware of what it’s going to mean for the country. I’ve been smoking off and on for 30 years. It is psychologically addictive and truly devastating to any kind of motivated career. It is only during the intervals when I’ve been free of it that I’ve managed to make enough money to survive and as soon as that happens, I’m back on it. It’s the roller coaster from hell. Alcohol is different. If you will fall to alcohol then that fall is probably going to be a bit more linear but then I wouldn’t know because I’ve never liked it. Think of marijuana as the motivation killer. Expect US GDP to go down directly as the result of wide scale marijuana legalization. Expect our global competitors to be having a huge celebration as a result. If we’re going to legalize marijuana, we better get busy trying to get India and China to legalize it as well.

Val on December 4, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Okay – I have a 23-year-old step-son who evidently did two months in the county jail for, I dunno, I guess breathing.

I hope someday he’s no longer a virtual no one…

beatcanvas

There’s more to the story if he spent two months in jail for possession.

Purely possession. He wasn’t charged with anything else. We left him in there to help him get sober, which he did.

beatcanvas

So basically, YOU sentenced him to two months in jail. As I suspected….more to the story.

And you’re changing the subject… the point is, you didn’t know what you were asserting. He was arrested and did time for possession. No other charges. You were wrong.

beatcanvas

He knew exactly what he was asserting, and he was right. He didn’t do time for possession, he did time because you left him in there. Had he been bailed out, he would have likely done no time, and certainly not two months. Nice try though.

xblade on December 4, 2012 at 8:23 PM

I’ve been smoking off and on for 30 years. It is psychologically addictive and truly devastating to any kind of motivated career. It is only during the intervals when I’ve been free of it that I’ve managed to make enough money to survive and as soon as that happens, I’m back on it. It’s the roller coaster from hell

What a joke. Alcohol is way more addictive than pot. Withdrawal can even kill you. You sound like you just smoke way too much. Any “addiction” you have is in your mind.

mazer9 on December 4, 2012 at 11:08 PM

. . . . . I’ve been smoking off and on for 30 years. It is psychologically addictive and truly devastating to any kind of motivated career . . . . .

Val on December 4, 2012 at 7:57 PM

.
What a joke. Alcohol is way more addictive than pot. Withdrawal can even kill you. You sound like you just smoke way too much. Any “addiction” you have is in your mind.

mazer9 on December 4, 2012 at 11:08 PM

.
Uhhh … Val said “psycologically addictive”.

I’m pretty sure he (she?) understands it’s in his (or her) “mind”.

I agree that alcohol is waaay more addictive.

But your comment is the first I’ve ever heard of withdrawal being potentially fatal.

listens2glenn on December 4, 2012 at 11:27 PM

How about nano-devices that target the pleasure centers of the brain?

No drugs involved at all, just the direct stimulation of natural ecstasy receptors?

How will the busybodies regulate that?

Chemical euphorics will be obsolete shortly.

Nano is the new route to Nerve-ana.

profitsbeard on December 5, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Lol….you faux conservatives are just like liberals, you love big powerful government telling others how to live their lives.

MoreLiberty on December 5, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Uhhh … Val said “psycologically addictive”.

I’m pretty sure he (she?) understands it’s in his (or her) “mind”.

I agree that alcohol is waaay more addictive.

But your comment is the first I’ve ever heard of withdrawal being potentially fatal.

Google “Alcohol withdrawal syndrome”. I had an alcoholic uncle (who has since passed due to liver failure), who was in the hospital due to getting beaten up pretty badly and he went through violent convulsions as a result of withdrawal. I was shocked to discover that as well. Booze is one of the few drugs that does this. Nonetheless our hypocritical society looks the other way, while convincing you that pot is more of a problem. I can understand the difficulties of shaking a drug when there is a physical dependence (like cigarettes and booze), but a mental one is a joke. Should we ban all substances because some people lack the discipline not to destroy themselves? Of all the drugs I experimented with, pot was by far one of the easiest to stop. I still occasionally crave a cigarette (especially while drinking), and booze is far more addictive than pot both physically and mentally given our culture and all.

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 8:34 AM

CO and Wash St creating more O voters one joint at a time. I don’t work so work place smoking won’t affect me except for when I shop, or when someone is coding my medical information, or trying to figure out my deposit slip. It’s the behind the wheel joint partaking that really worries me. The DUI laws are fairly lax in my state and almost everyday someone who has multiple convictions is still out there driving around causing mayhem.

Kissmygrits on December 5, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Drug test all Federal employees, appointees, elected officials at least twice a year and drum out the positives. Most of what they do and come up with seems to originate in a psychedelic haze.

ironked on December 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Alcohol has more adverse side effects than marijuana, period. That said I don’t want anyone on the road or at work whether they are under the influence of any substance that might impair their judgement, whether it is legal or not.

SC.Charlie on December 5, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Was anyone aware that you can also die consuming alcohol? Unfortunately, I had a good friend and classmate die in college. Funny, I’ve yet to see someone die from a pot overdose. Yet, we are so concerned about legalizing pot, while celebrating booze.

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Was anyone aware that you can also die consuming alcohol? Unfortunately, I had a good friend and classmate die in college. Funny, I’ve yet to see someone die from a pot overdose. Yet, we are so concerned about legalizing pot, while celebrating booze. – mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 9:44 AM

It is next to impossible to die from a pot overdose, look it up. And, as far as I know it is not a cancer causing agent such as alcohol. The combination of tobacco and alcohol does just wonders to destroy your health and empty your wallet.

SC.Charlie on December 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM

It’s the behind the wheel joint partaking that really worries me.
Kissmygrits on December 5, 2012 at 9:05 AM

But a pot DUI is probably far less dangerous to everyone else, since they’re likely only going 5 mph and think they’re flying down the highway… cops on foot could pull them over…/// (see various movies featuring pot smokers driving) ;)

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Lol….you faux conservatives are just like liberals, you love big powerful government telling others how to live their lives.

MoreLiberty on December 5, 2012 at 7:55 AM

We are conservatives, not anarchists, or libertarians/libertines…live how ever you want, just don’t interfere with my life, don’t bring crime, lowlifes into my neighborhood…when you stumble around, drive a car, I breath the smoke from your weed, you interfere with my life. And when you make incoherent statements/posts it just proves my point.

right2bright on December 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Yet, we are so concerned about legalizing pot, while celebrating booze. – mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Celebrating booze, let’s look over the posts and see…no, don’t see any.

And yes, you can die from pot, driving a car, swimming, just being stoned puts you and others into danger…just like alcohol, you have impaired thinking, meaning you can’t make rational decisions when stoned or drunk…choose your poison.

right2bright on December 5, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Run a drug dog through the White House you’ll see work place abuse.

Speakup on December 5, 2012 at 10:37 AM

I still occasionally crave a cigarette (especially while drinking), and booze is far more addictive than pot both physically and mentally given our culture and all.

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 8:34 AM

The argument isn’t whether one is more or less…it’s why add another?

Why layer society with another “legal” substance that impairs? And one even easier to move down towards a younger age group…it doesn’t make sense. of the 12 or 15,000 deaths a year involving alchohol, let’s add another drug to make it even worse…and btw, if an alcoholic dies, tragic but it’s their fault, but taking someone else with them, someone innocent, not good.

right2bright on December 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM

He broke the law. We decided not to bail him out. Nobody paid for his rehab. There was no rehab other than being away from his sources. He simply stayed in jail until his court date, where it was determined that he was time served and then released on probation.

And you’re changing the subject… the point is, you didn’t know what you were asserting. He was arrested and did time for possession. No other charges. You were wrong.

beatcanvas on December 4, 2012 at 5:36 PM

I’m changing no subject. You on the other hand are attempting to obscure why he spent two months in jail. He was in jail for 2 months because he decided to fight the case and he could not afford bail. Had he simply plead guilty for his crime he would have likely been given a fine. He would never have needed bail. People who fail to pay fines get jail time. So since he had already spent the time in jail why pay the fine? He didn’t spend time in jail for possession. He spent 2 months in jail for being broke. As far as rehab any jail is required to provide medical care, which includes counseling, etc.

Rocks on December 5, 2012 at 11:01 AM

breath the smoke from your weed, you interfere with my life. right2bright on December 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM

That right there is my one and only complaint about smoking (anything) versus drinking. I grew up with a Dad who smoked heavily – in the car, house, everywhere – and with no concern about us kids – so I just can’t stand the smell of smoke. When someone drinks, I don’t have to breathe, smell or taste it. When someone smokes nearby, I am forced to breathe the smoke – or go somewhere else. But fundamentally, if I’m not in the vicinty, so it doesn’t affect me – do whatever you want.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The argument isn’t whether one is more or less…it’s why add another?

right2bright on December 5, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Because the costs of cannabis prohibition far outweigh the benefits. Just like the costs of alcohol prohibition far outweighed the benefits.

The logic you use would have put you in a position in 1931 of arguing against the repeal of Prohibition and the Volstead Act.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 11:10 AM

You on the other hand are attempting to obscure why he spent two months in jail. He was in jail for 2 months because he decided to fight the case and he could not afford bail. Had he simply plead guilty for his crime he would have likely been given a fine. He would never have needed bail. People who fail to pay fines get jail time. So since he had already spent the time in jail why pay the fine? He didn’t spend time in jail for possession. He spent 2 months in jail for being broke.

Rocks on December 5, 2012 at 11:01 AM

And that, right there, is some Grade A bullshiite.

He was charged only with possession of cannabis. He did time waiting for adjudication of bail, and when unable to make bail, did more time awaiting for trial. Now, you are arguing that because he exercised his right to a trial, the days he did in stir for possession of cannabis don’t count.

It happens every day across this country. Not veryone can make bail, and not everyone gets a speedy bail hearing.

And those man-days add up…

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Since when is it the default position that substances or things that exist need permission from the government to “make it legal”? NO, the default position is that things are legal unless society finds a compelling reason to make them illegal.

Resolute on December 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM

breath the smoke from your weed, you interfere with my life. right2bright on December 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM

That right there is my one and only complaint about smoking (anything) versus drinking.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 11:04 AM

And I would propose to you that with legalization, and the ensuing entry of legitimate corporations into the cannabis marketplace, you will see the refinement and innovation of intake methods, methods much less harmful than smoking. You already see this with innovation in vaporization technology in CA and CO.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM

And that, right there, is some Grade A bullshiite.

He was charged only with possession of cannabis. He did time waiting for adjudication of bail, and when unable to make bail, did more time awaiting for trial. Now, you are arguing that because he exercised his right to a trial, the days he did in stir for possession of cannabis don’t count.

It happens every day across this country. Not veryone can make bail, and not everyone gets a speedy bail hearing.

And those man-days add up…

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 11:16 AM

No, it isn’t. It’s pretty clear he was given a bail hearing quickly (probably the next morning), he couldn’t pay it and no one else would. He has a history of addiction and probably been through this before which is why he was given bail instead of release on a promise to appear as any first time offender would be. Bail is based on your history and your likelihood of showing up for the court date. This guy got bail because he has probably skipped court dates in the past. I would be interested to hear how much it was. It probably did not exceed $1000 anyway as possession is a misdemeanor.

These are factors he took into account in fighting the case. It was his choice. Had he had a trial and been acquitted would the time in jail have been for his crime? No. This guy knew what the fine was, couldn’t pay it and so plead not guilty. Had he plead guilty he would spend the time in jail anyway as he couldn’t pay the fine either. The guy didn’t spend 2 months in jail for possession. He spent 2 months in jail for fighting the case. He used the time he spent there in lieu of paying the fine. That’s his choice. Choosing to fight a case is a choice. The cost of making such a choice is spending time in jail awaiting trial if you are broke and have a bad history. That is just reality.

Rocks on December 5, 2012 at 11:38 AM

And I would propose to you that with legalization, and the ensuing entry of legitimate corporations into the cannabis marketplace, you will see the refinement and innovation of intake methods, methods much less harmful than smoking. You already see this with innovation in vaporization technology in CA and CO.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM

Yes – I don’t doubt that. I know people who prefer brownies and cookies and such to smoking. I’ve indicated earlier that although I’m kind of on the fence on this issue, I lean toward legalization on basic freedom and Constitutional grounds. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol, and resulted in the rise of the mafia/gangs – and the same is happening with pot (drugs in general of course).
However I still just can’t help being against legalization for any/all drugs because of what many of them do – and what I’ve seen them do to family members.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Rocks on December 5, 2012 at 11:38 AM

No, it isn’t. It’s pretty clear he was given a bail hearing quickly (probably the next morning)

Pretty clear from… what, exactly? Did you read somewhere that he wasn’t busted on Friday night? Maybe of a long holiday weekend? That maybe when he got busted, he didn’t have any identification on him, so the judge ruled him a flight risk until he could prove who he was? That a vacancy on the bench backed up the Court so that he didn’t get a bail hearing for a few days? That there was confusion over the arrest that resulted in felony charges, later dropped to misdemeanor possession, due to an honest paperwork error on the part of the police?

Did you read any of that? Because I didn’t.

You speak of reality. Those are all real world occurrences involving arrests for possession of marijuana in this country. I’ve heard every horror story involving them, and more. And while the example involving two months is rather extreme, lots of these instances add up to a few days in stir, often with the charges eventually being dropped. But that doesn’t get the time back, does it? And somebody’s paying for that time. And that somebody is the taxpayer.

The notion that we are effecting nearly a million arrests each year for marijuana possession, and that nobody’s doing any time for it is ridiculous. Arrests, even bench warrants, require police manpower. When it involves jail processing… any jail processing… it means resources being spent. And over the course of a million arrests, it adds up.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM

However I still just can’t help being against legalization for any/all drugs because of what many of them do – and what I’ve seen them do to family members.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I think I can make an economic case for the legalization of all drugs (although methamphetamine makes the argument rather difficult, just in terms of externalities born by society).

But even if you hold such opposition, the place to seek redress is in Sacramento (or whatever your state capital might be), not DC.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

We are conservatives, not anarchists, or libertarians/libertines…live how ever you want, just don’t interfere with my life, don’t bring crime, lowlifes into my neighborhood…when you stumble around, drive a car, I breath the smoke from your weed, you interfere with my life. And when you make incoherent statements/posts it just proves my point.

If I smoke a joint in the comfort of my home, exactly how does that interfere with your life?

If there are laws prohibiting smoking in public places (you know; just like cigarettes laws?) how exactly are you going to smell or inhale the smoke?

Face it, some of you want to dictate how other people live their life. You aren’t conservatives your are moralists.

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I think I can make an economic case for the legalization of all drugs (although methamphetamine makes the argument rather difficult, just in terms of externalities born by society).

But even if you hold such opposition, the place to seek redress is in Sacramento (or whatever your state capital might be), not DC.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I’m in Colorado – where we just legalized pot.
I agree the economic analysis and a true libertarian, Constitutional freedom argument all favor legalization. But I’ve been associated with the military most of my life, and along with some family history, that has made me fairly anti-drug. As any 2 bit psychologist would say – “I’m conflicted”.

I fundamentally don’t care what other people do, as long as they act with an appropriate level of personal responsibility. Society as a whole should not have to pay for the consequences of someone’s drug use – whether you talk rehab, health, death, or crime. Many drugs have been the cause, or at least a contributing factor, to many people commiting crimes – which is not acceptable (but so has alcohol). We could probably discuss all kinds of factors as to whether the crime is due to the illegality, and therefore the cost and stigma associated with it, or is the crime due to the drugs causing poor judgement and inability to function in society (and keep a job) which then results in the need for crime to feed the drug habit. I’m constantly analyzing and changing my mind on this back and forth – conflicted.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 12:22 PM

But even if you hold such opposition, the place to seek redress is in Sacramento (or whatever your state capital might be), not DC.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Actually, at some point, this needs to be addressed at the federal level as well. Colorado just legalized “possession of small quantities for personal use”. Federal law still says it’s illegal. And at both levels, distribution is still illegal – -along with mere possession of a large enough quantity to be a distributor. It would be as if I can drink or possess a bottle of wine legally, but you as the liquor store owner go to jail for selling it to me. That makes no sense at all.

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Funny reading comments regarding Cannibus legality.First as far as I know there in no legal term “simple possesion”.Here where I live possesion under 22 grams is a first degree misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and $1000 fine. “Simple possesion”LOL, of over 22 grams (an ounce is 28 grams) is a felony and can get you 5 years and $ 5000 fine.

jsunrise on December 5, 2012 at 1:21 PM

First, there are over three million Americans in jails and prisons nationwide, many arrested or jailed for non-violent marijuana use.

I wonder how many of those serving time for just drug possession had other charges dropped as part of the plea deal.

agmartin on December 5, 2012 at 1:56 PM

It’s the behind the wheel joint partaking that really worries me.

Kissmygrits on December 5, 2012 at 9:05 AM

.
But a pot DUI is probably far less dangerous to everyone else, since they’re likely only going 5 mph and think they’re flying down the highway… cops on foot could pull them over…/// (see various movies featuring pot smokers driving) ;)

dentarthurdent on December 5, 2012 at 10:31 AM

.
What if a 5 mph “pot DUI” driver runs a stop sign, or traffic light, and a 45 mph (or faster) vehicle of innocent people runs into him (or her)?

What if a “pot DUI” railroad engineer operating “light engines” (meaning no train, just three locomotives) at only 15 mph, runs a stop signal, busts through a switch that’s not “lined” for his movement, and into the path of an Amtrak train going 105 mph?
.
Reposting yesterday’s comment.

Ricky Gates, January 4, 1987, Chase, MD. Amtrak’s P&W line, CP GUNPOW

listens2glenn on December 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM

.
I believe the total was sixteen killed.

listens2glenn on December 5, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Pretty clear from… what, exactly? Did you read somewhere that he wasn’t busted on Friday night? Maybe of a long holiday weekend? That maybe when he got busted, he didn’t have any identification on him, so the judge ruled him a flight risk until he could prove who he was? That a vacancy on the bench backed up the Court so that he didn’t get a bail hearing for a few days? That there was confusion over the arrest that resulted in felony charges, later dropped to misdemeanor possession, due to an honest paperwork error on the part of the police?

Did you read any of that? Because I didn’t.

You speak of reality. Those are all real world occurrences involving arrests for possession of marijuana in this country. I’ve heard every horror story involving them, and more. And while the example involving two months is rather extreme, lots of these instances add up to a few days in stir, often with the charges eventually being dropped. But that doesn’t get the time back, does it? And somebody’s paying for that time. And that somebody is the taxpayer.

The notion that we are effecting nearly a million arrests each year for marijuana possession, and that nobody’s doing any time for it is ridiculous. Arrests, even bench warrants, require police manpower. When it involves jail processing… any jail processing… it means resources being spent. And over the course of a million arrests, it adds up.

JohnGalt23 on December 5, 2012 at 12:01 PM

No I didn’t read all that which is why it’s much more likely to assume none of it happen than it did. The original commenter would have mentioned it if relevant to this case I would think. The things you cite are unusual and could happen to any misdemeanor bust. Money and time wasted. Do you think they are going to layoff police and shutdown county lockups after pot is legal? The taxpayer is going to be paying anyway.

Doesn’t get the time back? Don’t break the friggin law if you don’t want a problem with it. Smoking pot is now illegal. Break the law and you run into odd crap like you are describing. Almost everybody who gets busted for possession with a clean record will be out by the next morning if they go in at all. A million arrests. How many millions of arrests are there for disturbing the peace every year? Should a guy have to spend the weekend in jail for yelling Happy New Year in the scenario you describe? Well, it happens. How many of those pot “arrests” are issued citations and released?

That there was confusion over the arrest that resulted in felony charges, later dropped to misdemeanor possession, due to an honest paperwork error on the part of the police?

This could happen for any arrest. An infrequently occurring error is suppose to be reason to make an illegal substance legal? Do you have any idea how silly this sounds?

Rocks on December 5, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Hey Dustin, good to see you. Thoughtful piece.

The real obstacle to change in the federal marijuana laws is the massive law enforcement bureaucracy that exists to enforce those laws. All those federal employeeswill fight to keep their purpose and their funding. The pols who get their votes and decide where those tax dollars are spent will fight for them. Obama and the Democrats will be unwilling to do anything that reduces the number of federal employees.

It is simply preposterous to categorize marijuana in Schedule One with drugs like heroin. We all know from experience that prohibition of widely popular intoxicants is not only impractical, it causes more problems than it solves. But if irrationality was a terminal issue for federal government programs, we wouldn’t have a deficit problem.

novaculus on December 5, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Novaculus, thanks for the kind words.

I do agree that the enforcement bureaucracy is a major problem. How do we get around that, do you think? Me, I prefer to try to convince people, but I’m sure there are other, perhaps more effective, ways.

Dustin Siggins on December 5, 2012 at 5:04 PM

The argument isn’t whether one is more or less…it’s why add another?

Why layer society with another “legal” substance that impairs? And one even easier to move down towards a younger age group…it doesn’t make sense. of the 12 or 15,000 deaths a year involving alchohol, let’s add another drug to make it even worse…and btw, if an alcoholic dies, tragic but it’s their fault, but taking someone else with them, someone innocent, not good.

Perhaps because the government has shown that it’s not very effective or effecient in doing so? Because people are going to smoke it regardless? Because it’s a victim-less crime? Because it’s a plant that grows naturally? Because perhaps the punishment and the cost of policing it is more damaging than the effects of the drug itself? (Remember prohibition? Was nothing learned from that failure?) With your line of reasoning, big brother should be doing a lot more to protect us from ourselves. If policing is the solution than we might want to take another look at booze, otherwise haphazard and arbitrary drug laws are just hypocritical and lazy. At least show some consistency in your disdain for recreational drug users. I bet you like a few beers every now and then yourself.

mazer9 on December 5, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Why layer society with another “legal” substance that impairs?.

Government should not attempt to “shape” society or direct the conduct of it’s citizens. Citizens, and Society – should shape government.

HondaV65 on December 5, 2012 at 8:34 PM

Citizens, and Society – should shape government.

HondaV65 on December 5, 2012 at 8:34 PM

.
That would be the ideal thing. That’s what the Founders left for us . . . . . “if we could hold on to it”.
But we began to let go of it in the 1960s, and then really threw it away in the 1970s.

An atheistic, godless society can’t shape themselves, let alone a government into one that allows the maximum freedom for it’s citizens.

An atheistic, godless society can’t handle the responsibility, that is necessary to maintain the freedom, our Founding Fathers left us.

Shortened: Atheism and freedom are mutually exclusive.

listens2glenn on December 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM

I’ve work around building and operating nuclear plants my working life and they do not tolerate drugs and alcohol is considered a drug and for good reason. Random checking is a continuos program at all nuclear plants and they get the people that think they can fool the system. Some times a person is checked twice a day just in case they had a check in the morning and thought they were good for the day only to be checked when they come back to work after lunch. The tragic part are the ones that have years of work thrown away for breaking the rules. Attending a wedding reception lasting into the wee hours of sunday you might not be clean enough to go to work monday morning. Some plants have a pre-check if this happens but it’s voluntary.

These new laws make me think who will do the lab work on my blood or if an attending nurse had a joint on the way to work to help them through the day or the cab driver that you count on to get you there is trustworthy?

mixplix on December 6, 2012 at 5:04 AM

That would be the ideal thing. That’s what the Founders left for us . . . . . “if we could hold on to it”.
But we began to let go of it in the 1960s, and then really threw it away in the 1970s.

An atheistic, godless society can’t shape themselves, let alone a government into one that allows the maximum freedom for it’s citizens.

An atheistic, godless society can’t handle the responsibility, that is necessary to maintain the freedom, our Founding Fathers left us.

Shortened: Atheism and freedom are mutually exclusive.

What does atheism have to do with governance? Atheism is simply the position that god does not exist. The only government structure it conflicts with is a theocracy, which America is not.

mazer9 on December 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

What does atheism have to do with governance? Atheism is simply the position that god does not exist. The only government structure it conflicts with is a theocracy, which America is not.
mazer9 on December 6, 2012 at 10:40 AM

.
An atheist makes him or herself their own God, setting his or her own individual “standards of morality” or “standards of normal”.
By allowing individual people to openly (meaning in public) practice their own standard of morality, you’re setting up an environment where conflicts can neither be avoided or resolved (in other words, anarchy) without BIG Government.

I agree with you that we are not (nor should we be) a Theocracy. But would you agree with me that we (the U.S.) have never been a theocracy? Yet, back when the United States was founded, the “standards of morality” (defining “normal” behavior in public) were those found in the Christian Bible. Those “moral standards” were accepted, and practiced by all including people of other religions, and atheists ( except for those persons willing to use other people in “involuntary servitude” ). There was none of the anarchy out on our streets back then, that we accept as “just the usual”, today. I am stating that the relative peace (and smaller Government) in our country back then was due to the acceptance by the public at large, of the standards of morality found within the Christian Bible, without a Theocracy.

listens2glenn on December 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

An atheist makes him or herself their own God, setting his or her own individual “standards of morality” or “standards of normal”.
By allowing individual people to openly (meaning in public) practice their own standard of morality, you’re setting up an environment where conflicts can neither be avoided or resolved (in other words, anarchy) without BIG Government.

I agree with you that we are not (nor should we be) a Theocracy. But would you agree with me that we (the U.S.) have never been a theocracy? Yet, back when the United States was founded, the “standards of morality” (defining “normal” behavior in public) were those found in the Christian Bible. Those “moral standards” were accepted, and practiced by all including people of other religions, and atheists ( except for those persons willing to use other people in “involuntary servitude” ). There was none of the anarchy out on our streets back then, that we accept as “just the usual”, today. I am stating that the relative peace (and smaller Government) in our country back then was due to the acceptance by the public at large, of the standards of morality found within the Christian Bible, without a Theocracy.

You seem to want to attribute a lot more to atheism than what it is. I might not believe in god, however, that doesn’t mean I believe in anarchy. Seems you want to paint atheist with a broad brush out of convenience for your position. Sad.

mazer9 on December 6, 2012 at 5:30 PM

listens2glenn on December 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

.
You seem to want to attribute a lot more to atheism than what it is. I might not believe in god, however, that doesn’t mean I believe in anarchy. Seems you want to paint atheist with a broad brush out of convenience for your position. Sad.

mazer9 on December 6, 2012 at 5:30 PM

.
I didn’t accuse atheists of “believing in anarchy”.
Some do, but so do some Christian Believers (and others).

What I tried (unsuccessfully I guess) to say was that the rejection of the standards of morality, as defined in the Christian Bible is totally responsible for the state of anarchy we live in today.
I tried to explain that atheists by definition, have made themselves their own individual “God.” This gives them carte blanche to individually define “acceptable public behavior”(morality) on a person by person basis. I tried to explain that this condition/situation would lead to a state of anarchy. This statement by myself is not an accusation of “intent to bring about anarchy” on the part of yourself, or any other atheist. We experience the “law of unintended consequences”, all the time.

I wasn’t defining the intentions of individual atheists; only the unintended consequences that have come about because of “institutionallized atheism” in our public culture, today.

listens2glenn on December 6, 2012 at 6:28 PM

A big concern in both Colorado and Washington is the perceived increase of marijuana use in the workplace as well as users driving while stoned. I don’t see this a big problem myself. Yes, there will be a few that will be stoned at work and there will be a few users stoned while driving. This happens with alcohol. So get over it if you object to legalization.

Now I don’t know if these states have road and highway signs that encourage people to call 911 and report impaired drivers, but if they do, that would be an excellent method of helping to keep stoned drivers off the road. I know I use that method frequently when I am behind a texter weaving all over the highway. I can only assume they’re drunk, stoned on drugs, or seriously distracted and I am concerned about their safety as well as the safety of others on and off the road. I’ve never had law enforcement come back to me to discourage the use of 911…I really think they appreciate it.

If I’m working at a place of business and suspect someone is high on drugs, I certainly will report it. Again, all in the interest of safety to everyone. Bloodshot eyes and allergy excuses…a common tale-tale sign that a co-worker is probably high or stoned at work. That’s not good and I encourage all to report this kind of suspicion to your supervisor or the personnel department.

Those who are stoned while driving or at work need not ruin it for those who would like to relax in an indoor setting getting high on a joint. Remember, this is a big step for the country, a huge experiment, and we must not let a few ignorant stoners ruin it for the rest of us.

metroryder on December 6, 2012 at 10:36 PM

I didn’t accuse atheists of “believing in anarchy”.
Some do, but so do some Christian Believers (and others).

What I tried (unsuccessfully I guess) to say was that the rejection of the standards of morality, as defined in the Christian Bible is totally responsible for the state of anarchy we live in today.
I tried to explain that atheists by definition, have made themselves their own individual “God.” This gives them carte blanche to individually define “acceptable public behavior”(morality) on a person by person basis. I tried to explain that this condition/situation would lead to a state of anarchy. This statement by myself is not an accusation of “intent to bring about anarchy” on the part of yourself, or any other atheist. We experience the “law of unintended consequences”, all the time.

I wasn’t defining the intentions of individual atheists; only the unintended consequences that have come about because of “institutionallized atheism” in our public culture, today.

You harp on so-called “Christian morals”, yet you fail to acknowledge this country’s ugly past of slavery and misogony. The only thing I give the founders credit for was acknowledging the importance of freedom and liberty. Too bad it took a couple hundred years and a lot of bloodshed to realize that freedom should be applicable to people other than white men. As a black man, I much prefer to live amongst stoners and gay people than return to our more “moral” and “lawful” days.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 12:42 AM

You harp on so-called “Christian morals”, yet you fail to acknowledge this country’s ugly past of slavery and misogony. The only thing I give the founders credit for was acknowledging the importance of freedom and liberty.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 12:42 AM
.
No, I didn’t fail to mention slavery. I just didn’t use the word “slavery”. From my 3:37PM post on Wednesday:

I agree with you that we are not (nor should we be) a Theocracy. But would you agree with me that we (the U.S.) have never been a theocracy? Yet, back when the United States was founded, the “standards of morality” (defining “normal” behavior in public) were those found in the Christian Bible. Those “moral standards” were accepted, and practiced by all including people of other religions, and atheists ( except for those persons willing to use other people in “involuntary servitude” ).

listens2glenn on December 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

.
Continuing . . . . .

Too bad it took a couple hundred years and a lot of bloodshed to realize that freedom should be applicable to people other than white men. As a black man, I much prefer to live amongst stoners and gay people than return to our more “moral” and “lawful” days.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 12:42 AM

.
Half (or more) of the members of the 2nd Continental Congress were opposed to slavery. It became an issue in ratifying the Declaration Of Independence, because Jefferson had included an anti-slavery line in his original draft. The other Southern delegations weren’t willing to agree to it, as was. So, the Northern delegations (and Va) compromised. : (
It almost prevented the establishment of the United States.

85 years later, the anti-slavery people in the North were able to force the issue to the point of Civil War.
Would you please show me anywhere in the World that a country has gone to civil war with itself to abolish “involuntary servitude” (slavery))?
The only thing wrong with post-WWII America, was the istitutionalized segregation.

You’ll have to point out to me what your calling misogeny, because I don’t see it.

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Adding more, here . . . . .

As a black man, I much prefer to live amongst stoners and gay people than return to our more “moral” and “lawful” days.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 12:42 AM

.
As a “melonin deficient”, Christian “swinging dick”, I would “prefer to live amongst stoners and gay people” than snobby, snooty Christians. I’m not saying I would enjoy it, just that I would prefer it, if those were my only options.

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 2:20 AM

listens2glenn

I am sorry, but moral people don’t compromise on the freedom of others in order to pass legislation. You are basically saying the country was founded on slavery. And the war wasn’t fought for the sole purpose of freeing slaves. Neither were slave states considered non-christian. You can argue that they were even more devout. As far as women are concerned women didn’t get the right to vote until the 1900s.

Face it, this moral vision you have of early America never existed.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 7:46 AM

As a “melonin deficient”, Christian “swinging dick”, I would “prefer to live amongst stoners and gay people” than snobby, snooty Christians. I’m not saying I would enjoy it, just that I would prefer it, if those were my only options.

Agreed. They are probably just as annoying if not more so.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 7:50 AM

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 2:07 AM

.
I am sorry, but moral people don’t compromise on the freedom of others in order to pass legislation. You are basically saying the country was founded on slavery. And the war wasn’t fought for the sole purpose of freeing slaves. Neither were slave states considered non-christian. You can argue that they were even more devout. As far as women are concerned women didn’t get the right to vote until the 1900s.

Face it, this moral vision you have of early America never existed.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 7:46 AM

.
The country was founded in spite of slavery, not on it.
This country would have had a better start without it. If the U.S. had not accepted the practice of institutionallized slavery, that war would not have happened.

Denying women the right to vote doesn’t constitute misogeny.
A women’s rights leader like Susan B Anthony, I can support all the way.
Today’s “women’s rights” activists are trying to eradicate the U.S.

I’m not sure what “moral vision” you think I have of the founding of this country. I certainly don’t consider it to have been “ideal”. Only better than today, except for the acceptance of institutionallized slavery.

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 8:44 AM

As a “melonin deficient”, Christian “swinging dick”, I would “prefer to live amongst stoners and gay people” than snobby, snooty Christians. I’m not saying I would enjoy it, just that I would prefer it, if those were my only options.

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 2:20 AM

.
Agreed. They are probably just as annoying if not more so.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 7:50 AM

.
Definitely “more so”. The biggest problem with the Church in America today are those kind of Christians.

But Jesus is still Lord of ALL, inspite of them. BTW, I’m not perfect either. but I can get along better with people who are flagarantly defiant towards God, than hypocites.

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I’m not sure what “moral vision” you think I have of the founding of this country. I certainly don’t consider it to have been “ideal”. Only better than today, except for the acceptance of institutionallized slavery.

“Except for”!? That was by far the biggest atrocity in this country’s history. Ironically enough, it happened at the time you say this country was at it’s peak of morality. I mean, it was only in the 60s that black people truly had the semblance of equal rights. Sorry if I’m not as nostalgic for the past as you are. If anything, what has changed is the attitude of self accountability and responsibility. I blame liberals, not a “lack of god”. Many of them claim to be Christian as well (and please don’t use the No True Scotsman routine.) Christians don’t have the moral high ground. They have committed just as many atrocities as any body else. Religion is not what makes America great (quite the opposite), it’s the respect for individual liberty and freedom.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 9:11 AM

. . . . . If anything, what has changed is the attitude of self accountability and responsibility. I blame liberals, not a “lack of god”.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 9:11 AM

.
“Self accountability and responsibility” have no meaning to a man or woman who is “their own God.”
Liberals couldn’t have achieved the power they have today, if not for the SCOTUS decisions to have all “recognition of God” removed from the general public. Liberals have been around since before Karl Marx, but they cannot achieve a position of dominance where public recognition of God is allowed.

“The biggest atrocity in this country’s history” began before it became a country. Something that is full blown “institutionallized” as slavery was, doesn’t just “come to a halt” because the politicians enact legislation stating so.

Were Christians involved? Yep.

Christians didn’t agree on interpretation of the Bible back then, and still don’t today (big news-flash, huh?).
But it was Christian believers that brought about the change in the perspective of the general public towards slavery, and got the political momentum going against it. I also believe it Christianss in the form of slaves, that did the hardest praying for this business to end.
The Civil War could truly be said to have been “Christian vs Christian”

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 1:29 PM

“Self accountability and responsibility” have no meaning to a man or woman who is “their own God.”
Liberals couldn’t have achieved the power they have today, if not for the SCOTUS decisions to have all “recognition of God” removed from the general public. Liberals have been around since before Karl Marx, but they cannot achieve a position of dominance where public recognition of God is allowed.

This is just dumb. You are basically saying because I don’t have a god to kiss up to, I have no reason to be accountable or take responsibility for my life. Well, Christians aren’t the only people with families and expectations for quality of life. Considering I only have one shot at it, I’m probably even more interested in getting it right the first time. How many atheist do you hear blaming “the devil” or some sort of “supernatural test” for their plight? No coincidence that most criminals claim some sort of religious affiliation, with the endless redemption granted by your “merciful” god. Furthermore, these “marxist” that you talk about aren’t much different than Christians: you believe in an invisible god, and they believe that god is the state. I believe in neither.

“The biggest atrocity in this country’s history” began before it became a country. Something that is full blown “institutionallized” as slavery was, doesn’t just “come to a halt” because the politicians enact legislation stating so.

Were Christians involved? Yep.

Christians didn’t agree on interpretation of the Bible back then, and still don’t today (big news-flash, huh?).
But it was Christian believers that brought about the change in the perspective of the general public towards slavery, and got the political momentum going against it. I also believe it Christianss in the form of slaves, that did the hardest praying for this business to end.
The Civil War could truly be said to have been “Christian vs Christian”

You are basically admitting that there’s absolutely nothing special about your god or your Christian morals. He can create the earth in a day, but it takes him and his followers a couple hundred years and a lot of bloodshed to determine that black people have worth. Of course the slaves bought in because when you live and die a product of another man, who wouldn’t believe in the irrational hocus pocus that is Christianity? Slavery’s precisely to blame for why black people are so religious to this day. Nonetheless, they don’t vote for religious conservatives and it has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions.

You nostalgic Christians yearning for the “good-old” days need to get over it: they weren’t nearly as good as you want to remember.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM

You are basically admitting that there’s absolutely nothing special about your god or your Christian morals. He can create the earth in a day, but it takes him and his followers a couple hundred years and a lot of bloodshed to determine that black people have worth. Of course the slaves bought in because when you live and die a product of another man, who wouldn’t believe in the irrational hocus pocus that is Christianity? Slavery’s precisely to blame for why black people are so religious to this day. Nonetheless, they don’t vote for religious conservatives and it has nothing to do with Supreme Court decisions.

You nostalgic Christians yearning for the “good-old” days need to get over it: they weren’t nearly as good as you want to remember.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 3:41 PM

.
I already said previously that Christians don’t agree on everything.

One of those “things” is the belief that “God is in control.”

God’s not in control.

Mankind has a lease on this planet (given by God to Adam), and that lease is going to be UP soon. Then he will retake control.
You’re going to meet him. What kind of terms will you be on with him, when you do?

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I already said previously that Christians don’t agree on everything.

One of those “things” is the belief that “God is in control.”

God’s not in control.

Mankind has a lease on this planet (given by God to Adam), and that lease is going to be UP soon. Then he will retake control.
You’re going to meet him. What kind of terms will you be on with him, when you do?

Well if you guys can’t even agree on what you think you know, why are you trying to convince me? Moreover, if your god and your morals couldn’t prevent one of the greatest crimes against mankind, what good is it even worth?

On the last question, I’ll spend as much time pondering the return of your god as you will all the supposed others.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM

listens2glenn on December 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM

.
Well if you guys can’t even agree on what you think you know, why are you trying to convince me? Moreover, if your god and your morals couldn’t prevent one of the greatest crimes against mankind, what good is it even worth?

On the last question, I’ll spend as much time pondering the return of your god as you will all the supposed others.

mazer9 on December 7, 2012 at 5:00 PM

.
Disagreement over anything is part and parcel to this present imperfect condition we find ourselves in. There’s one thing that Christian believers should be able to agree on, and that’s the following three word statement:

Jesus Is Lord

I believe that statement to be the “crux” of Christianity.

listens2glenn on December 8, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Oops . . . . . I hit the “submit comment” button too soon.

Continuing . . . . .

Jesus is the only God I’m aware of who said he’s returning in the flesh.

Islam is waiting for the return of the “Twelveth Imam”, but that’s not the same thing as Allah coming in the flesh.

listens2glenn on December 8, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2