Poll: 64% of adults want federal government to defer to state marijuana laws; Update: So does Mitch Daniels

posted at 1:38 pm on December 10, 2012 by Allahpundit

The obligatory follow-up to Friday’s post wondering why Obama would want to sic the DOJ on weed users in Washington and Colorado when both states just voted to legalize it. Per Gallup, most Americans are wondering that too. On the underlying legalization question:

My point on Friday was that the federalism angle gives the GOP a way of ingratiating itself with younger voters and minorities on this issue without backing full legalization. You don’t have to be pro-weed to be pro-democracy, a lesson borne out here by Gallup’s numbers. Adults are actually ever so slightly opposed to legalizing marijuana (48/50) but decisively in favor of leaving the matter to the states to decide (64/34). In fact, even among people who want weed banned, fully 43 percent say the feds shouldn’t meddle if a state decides to legalize it. That’s the opening for Republicans in trying to sell this to reluctant seniors. The party can remain officially anti-pot at the state level, but at the federal level, it’s hands off.

Just for funsies, compare the numbers on marijuana above to the numbers on gay marriage compiled by Gallup in a different poll taken last week:

Younger voters and Democrats generally are a bit more sold on SSM than they are on legalizing marijuana but you’ve got similar feelings on both issues among each group. The whole question for Republicans, obviously, is whether taking a federalist line on weed will win them more young votes than it’ll lose them old ones. Will huge numbers of seniors stay home in 2014 if the GOP adopts a “let the people decide” line on pot? I’m skeptical. Plus, given how dramatically the numbers have moved towards legalization in the past few years — it was 36/60 as recently as 2006 — prominent pols will feel increasingly safe in speaking out in favor and that itself will start to move votes among the public. (We’ve already seen this to some extent with rising support among black voters for SSM after Obama changed his mind.) Here’s one notable example from the new documentary “Breaking the Taboo.”

Update: A pitch-perfect pitch:

Anyways, I talked to Governor Mitch Daniels about this issue about a week ago at a Buckley event at Yale, and he had some interesting thoughts. “I hope that people will be consistent,” he told me, referring to conservatives who support states’ rights. “I believe that federalism is, first and foremost, a protection of liberty. And I would just hope that people who say they believe that would be consistent.”

He continued to say that regardless of his personal opinion on decriminalization, states should be able to make their own choices on the issue.

“Without endorsing what they [Colorado and Washington] did, I think they had, under our system, a right to do it,” he said. “A lot of the worst problems we’ve got in this country, and some of the worst divisions we have, came when the right of citizens in community and in polities, like their state, had those rights usurped by the federal government. And having disagreed with it when it happened on other occasions, I sure wouldn’t call for it here.”

Grandma’s not staying home on election day in indignation over that approach, is she?


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

Riiiiiiight.

So people want the federal government to control their lives and give them stuff except when it comes to weed.

Rome II.

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

either we believe in personal responsibility and personal liberty, or we just say we do when it suits us.

keep the change on December 10, 2012 at 1:41 PM

With the financial situation as it is, we are wasting too much time concerning ourselves with petty things like C. sativa and C. indica when we have no money to spend at all on anything, really.

Let it burn. Literally! It is a major cash crop in Kentucky country.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Dope in Chief

What a land!

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

I’m in the 64%, not because I support weed or that I identify with the annoying “legalize it!” crowd, but because this position naturally fits with my constitutional conservatism. I support state sovereignty here.

The GOP should get out in front of this because it’s the only way young people will understand the states rights position…assuming the GOP still cares about Federalism.

Daemonocracy on December 10, 2012 at 1:43 PM

States rights? Sounds kinda racist to me.

JohnBrown on December 10, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I personally believe in state’s rights. For that matter.. if a state wants to vote for gay marriage, legalize drug laws… that’s fine with me. If you don’t like it.. move out. As long as other states are free to not recognize the things.. it’s all good with me.

JellyToast on December 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

I personally believe in state’s rights. For that matter.. if a state wants to vote for gay marriage, legalize drug laws… that’s fine with me. If you don’t like it.. move out. As long as other states are free to not recognize the things.. it’s all good with me.

JellyToast on December 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM

To further illustrate, the state amphibian might be a caecilian. Perhaps that offends you greatly. As a Free Man, you do not have to live in that state or do business with that state. You can easily go somewhere where the state amphibian is the pleasant-natured bullfrog and live happily ever after.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

So people want the federal government to control their lives and give them stuff except when it comes to weed.

I suppose that depends on the evolving federal position on weed….if the fed was gung-ho on approval of legalizing it and abolishing all laws prohibiting its production and consumption, a lot of people would probably be good with that.

hawkeye54 on December 10, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Looking forward to the so-called conservatives to denounce federalism here.

Seven Seas on December 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

People want to be able to dull the pain with weed instead of trying to find a solution, figuring that one is not forthcoming.

MelonCollie on December 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I support state sovereignty here.

I would prefer the issue be addressed at state level too.

hawkeye54 on December 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Seven Seas on December 10, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Set sail for the Bermuda Triangle with a hold full of dope to go with the dope at the wheel.

I’ve come to realize when so-called conservatives want to surrender to the grim specter of mass drug use, the fight is over. I cannot fight young liberals, old hippies, foolish young conservatives and libtertarian potheads without any allies. Send the fight down to state level and pray.

MelonCollie on December 10, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Update: So does Mitch Daniels

Update: So do I

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Some of you posters have lost your cotton-picking minds.

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Washington State passing the Marijuana Law has really sped up the building of the Portland light rail to Vancouver line.

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

And why didn’t Daniels run in 2012 again?

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

The land in her full glory.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Some of you posters have lost your cotton-picking minds.

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

You have to have something bef. you lose it.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Some of you posters have lost your cotton-picking Bong toking minds.

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 1:57 PM

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

But what about Polygamist rights?

reddevil on December 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

And why didn’t Daniels run in 2012 again?

Illinidiva on December 10, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Because his wife said he couldn’t.

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

portlandon on December 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Yeah. That, too. :)

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Go ahead and use the federalism idea. It is a camel’s nose under the tent to win over the “youth” vote and the “independents.” At the same time, tax it.

Ironically, the Dems see unemployment benefits as a means of improving the economy. When the dedicated dopers have their weed AND their unemployment benefits ad infinitum, the country will collapse from sheer inertia, as well as bankruptcy.

onlineanalyst on December 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM

I’m still not in favor of legalization, at a state or federal level.

changer1701 on December 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

If we are going to endorse the use of pot, shouldn’t it be in the form of ingestion in another food product? I thought smokers of all kinds were to be shot on sight.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The ‘Let States Handle It” xsounds all well and peachy and talking about how people are now oh so hip on federalism kinda rings hollow considering how the people voted last month.

Most of this same people probably are all hip on health care being controlled by the Feds. Most favor federal control of education. Etc.

catmman on December 10, 2012 at 2:02 PM

Maybe the R/Cs can promise the voters free weed for 2014/16.

Hurry up…not much left to give away to the stupid.

Rome took a looooong time to go that way.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Faux conservative rhetoric: “We stand for liberty, small government and fiscal responsibility”

Faux conservatives in reality: “Hey we love big powerful government that can tell you what to do and not to do, we love to take money from the middle-class and redistribute to foreign countries (foreign Aid), and we sure as heck don’t want to cut one dime of “defense” spending, and we support NDAA.”

MoreLiberty on December 10, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Two killed at alleged Washington pot house on first day of legal weed

Two suspected robbers believed to be targeting an alleged home-based marijuana growing operation were killed in a shootout on the first day of legal marijuana in Washington state, authorities said.

The 35-year-old homeowner told detectives he shot the masked intruders Thursday after they broke into his home near Puyallup, Pierce County Sheriff spokesman Ed Troyer said, according Komonews.com. Troyer told the news outlet that the masked men most likely sought to grab the pot and maybe cash.

The Associated Press reported the secluded, luxury home had a security system, a private driveway and that the homeowner had motorcycles, boats and nice cars.

The homeowner and his 9-year-old son were not hurt. The homeowner, whose name was not released, was detained, at least pertaining to an illegal growing operation, Troyer told the wire service. He has since been released.

The marijuana at the home was of large quantity, much more than one would need for medicinal use, Troyer said.

The shooting occurred on the first day of legal marijuana in the state. The law, which voters approved in November, allows those 21 and older to possess an ounce or less of pot.

Backers of the initiative hope the law puts an end to the black market marijuana industry, such as the alleged growing operation where the shooting took place.

At the moment, it is still illegal to buy, sell or grow marijuana. The state’s liquor control board is now tasked with drafting a framework for licensing growers, handlers and retailers.

uh huh.

FlatFoot on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

If we are going to endorse the use of pot, shouldn’t it be in the form of ingestion in another food product? I thought smokers of all kinds were to be shot on sight.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I don’t like pot smoking, but this is more about federalism and the fact that we should embrace every opportunity that take power from the federal government.

MoreLiberty on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

A question for the Federalists-

When the vatos are growing the stuff in the National Forest in the state where it’s been legalized, do I and others from my Guard aviation unit have to show up with the other federal agencies to clean up the mess, or is Governor Growyourown & Co. gonna handle it?

M240H on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Do same sex marriage types favor federalism or a supreme court ruling on dope?

It’s tough to keep track any more.

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Lots of opportunities to get that unemployment rate down. Think of the increased number of LEOs and DEA agents we’ll need to check for smuggling between states. More drug sniffing dogs means increased need for dog trainers. More traffic stop check points means more employment for barricade manufacturers.

a capella on December 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

can’t stand pot. smell literally brings vomit reflex in me.
and I support it being a states issue.
I would vote against it here, for a # of reasons I am not getting in to here, but that would only affect MY state not yours.
the way it should be. a person can move to a state that has laws they like, not so easy when the laws are federal.

dmacleo on December 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

My point on Friday was that the federalism angle gives the GOP a way of ingratiating itself with younger voters and minorities on this issue without backing full legalization.

I wasn’t aware that any on the right (and that even includes the left-of-center GOP) had much of an opinion about the feral goverment’s role in pot legalization.

I’m just sick and tired of the demonization of cigarettes while the same fools think that smoking joints is cool – which is about the dumbest position anyone could possibly take. People think that there are some special chemicals in tobacco that give cancer when smoked but that smoking “natural” weed is without health risks. LOL. Smoking weed is far worse than smoking tobacco. Far, far worse, as anyone who has smoked both knows full well.

So, it’s this idiocy of states that will allow weed smoking but will arrest me for lighting up a fully legal cigarette – trampling private property rights to do that (which the feral government certainly has a responsibility defending, as a takings issue). THAT is what drives me up a wall about these pot states, not the pot. Who cares what they do? And the drinkers are going to have a good case to be made regarding the fact that people will be allowed to drive stoned but not drunk (or even slightly buzzed). But, if someone is stoned out of their gourd and has had one drink, then the accident and fatalities will assuredly be tallied as “drunk driving” …

You don’t have to be pro-weed to be pro-democracy,

I’m not pro-democracy. I’m pro-Constitutional Republic. There’s a big difference.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

A question for the Federalists-

When the vatos are growing the stuff in the National Forest in the state where it’s been legalized, do I and others from my Guard aviation unit have to show up with the other federal agencies to clean up the mess, or is Governor Growyourown & Co. gonna handle it?

M240H on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

LOL…you big government loons are all the same.

MoreLiberty on December 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Choom Boom.

steebo77 on December 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Poll: 64% of adults want federal government to defer to state marijuana laws

What are you people? On dope?

- Mr. Hand

Doughboy on December 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

A question for the Federalists-

When the vatos are growing the stuff in the National Forest in the state where it’s been legalized, do I and others from my Guard aviation unit have to show up with the other federal agencies to clean up the mess, or is Governor Growyourown & Co. gonna handle it?

M240H on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

well…seeing as how you said Guard and not Reserve then yeah you may be involved as Guard is a STATE force.
of course if the feds did not own so much state land then it would be moot anyways.

dmacleo on December 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

More traffic stop check points means more employment for barricade manufacturers.

a capella on December 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Decline in liberty and increase of control, apace

Schadenfreude on December 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

If marijuana is ever legal in Texas (likely never), I might give it a go for arthritis. Missed the chance to try it for no damn good reason back in the 70s.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on December 10, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Continued from the headline thread…

Do we want the feds out of state crack laws? Don’t be a hypocrite, support legalization there too.

Alcohol and pot are two different drugs. Why should 2 out of the 3 be legal? Why not one or none or all?

thebrokenrattle on December 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

let’s see how many “conservatives” completely abandon Federalism in order to moralize.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Lots of opportunities to get that unemployment rate down. Think of the increased number of LEOs and DEA agents we’ll need to check for smuggling between states. More drug sniffing dogs means increased need for dog trainers. More traffic stop check points means more employment for barricade manufacturers.

a capella on December 10, 2012 at 2:05 PM

This is why little Bammie and the proggies will not support legalization in the states, because the DEA etc is a wonderfully useful vehicle to push federal fascism, almost as useful as J-Nap’s TSA.

slickwillie2001 on December 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I thought smokers of all kinds were to be shot on sight.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 2:01 PM

It does get complicated, doesn’t it? We all know there will now be a need for increased grant money to research the long term effect of MJ smoke on the respiratory system….a new spin off cottage industry has just born.

a capella on December 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

let’s see how many “conservatives” completely abandon Federalism in order to moralize.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

What other drugs should be legal, in your view? All of them?

changer1701 on December 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Over at NRO, Bob Costa notes Mitch Daniels’s federalism point but also observes this:

Dickinson also points out that Obama’s narc-ish tendencies are fantastic news for violent Mexican drug lords.

A study by the nonpartisan think tank Instituto Mexicano Para la Competitividad found that legalization in Colorado and Washington would deal a major blow to the cartels, depriving them of nearly a quarter of their annual drug revenues – unless the federal government decides to launch a “vigorous intervention.” If that happens, pot profits would continue to flow to the cartels instead of to hard-hit state budgets.

The states’ budgets would benefit because both plan to regulate and tax marijuana. So the choice is between more money for schools or more money for guys who make videos of beheadings. And the White House seems to be making the choice preferred by severed-head depositors everywhere.

onlineanalyst on December 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I am willing to support federalism here if it is applied to all other issues.

I will not support selective federalism however.

jhffmn on December 10, 2012 at 2:13 PM

What other drugs should be legal, in your view? All of them?

changer1701 on December 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM

to stay intellectually honest I have to say yes – all of them. The Government has no place prohibiting any substance, or personal decisions to use them.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM

So weed is legal, but 32 oz big gulp isn’t?

Oil Can on December 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Strange way of advancing federalism.

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM

a capella on December 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM

It’s like the mortgage fiasco. Demand that banks lend money to people that can’t afford to pay it back because of discrimination and then give those same people money from the tax payers for restitution for being discriminated against. All I can say is it comes to advertising, there better not be in animation.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Will there be an age limit at least? I’m not looking forward to getting run over by some stoner or drunk with a Big Wheel.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Strange way of advancing federalism.

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 2:17 PM

why is it strange?

weed isn’t strange. It’s a national pastime.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM

haha, tru dat Cindy. It should be 18 I guess. Drinking age too.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

to stay intellectually honest I have to say yes – all of them. The Government has no place prohibiting any substance, or personal decisions to use them.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:15 PM

So .. you’re against the idea of prescriptions, at all? Everything should be over-the-counter?

Just trying to get a baseline, here.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I love when Progs are all states’ rights and everything…except when they aren’t.

Resist We Much on December 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM

It would be pretty cool for the GOP to run on being pro-weed and working towards reforming copyright laws to please the tech crowd and erode Big Media’s power. :-)

Punchenko on December 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Jesus H. Christ, why are the troglocons so up in arms against the dope? Must be that closet thing that made chaste Puritans hunt and burn all pretty girls as witches.

Anyway, there is a simple way to bind dope to ObamaCare, as long as the latter monstrosity is rammed up our collective behind anyway. State that have OCare exchanges should legislate them in such a way as to refuse any unpaid services to people with dope in blood or urine. You want some choom, be so kind as to pay for the consequences.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Rome II.

darwin on December 10, 2012 at 1:40 PM

The first Rome also consider itself the apex of civilization

Wikipedia, summary of Brave New World:

In the book, soma is a hallucinogen that takes users on enjoyable, hangover-free “holidays”. It was developed by the World State to provide these inner-directed personal experiences within a socially managed context of State-run ‘religious’ organizations; social clubs. The hypnopaedically inculcated affinity for the State-produced drug, as a self-medicating comfort mechanism in the face of stress or discomfort, thereby eliminates the need for religion or other personal allegiances outside or beyond the World State.

So weed is promoted as a harmless recreation, while tobacco is vilified as the great satan. Weed smells at least as bad as tobacco, and is just as hard on the lungs. However, tobacco improves, or does not hinder mental alertness, while weed reduces the brains abilities

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that, in chronic users, marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Cigarettes were made available to soldiers in WWII. It was life and death and the men needed to keep their wits in terrifying situations. Would anyone but a fool hand out weed to people on whom a nation depended?

So goes Rome. The simpletons think they are becoming free, when they are making themselves slaves

Thus Rome conquers

entagor on December 10, 2012 at 2:26 PM

prohibition causes more problems than it solves. Just one example: People who can’t smoke weed but want to will smoke alternatives. These are invariably some plant sprayed with dangerous chemicals. Speaking from experience, you definitely don’t want that smoker behind the wheel of a car.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:28 PM

entagor on December 10, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Very well said.

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 2:29 PM

So .. you’re against the idea of prescriptions, at all? Everything should be over-the-counter?

Just trying to get a baseline, here.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:21 PM

why do we need prescriptions? Doctors prescribe manufactured cocaine to half our kids anyway.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Obama “evolves” in …5…4…3…2..

JavelinaBomb on December 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Daniels 2016! You damn right it’s hypocritical as hell to for the GOP to be all about federalism and state’s rights and personal liberty, and, but then, oh, yeah, we’re in favor of spending billions at the federal level trying to stamp out a weed that’s been used by humans since the beginning of time, even if the residents of a particular state don’t think it should be illegal. If that’s what the GOP stands for, then it’s hard to blame young people and everyone else to dismiss their talk on everything else as just more self-interested justifications.

Progressive Heretic on December 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Do we want the feds out of state crack laws? Don’t be a hypocrite, support legalization there too.

thebrokenrattle on December 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Yes, absolutely. I’m pretty certain that every state in the US would outlaw crack themselves for very obvious reasons. What’s the upside to legalizing crack? Getting MSNBC to move it’s headquarters to your state?

CorporatePiggy on December 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

If prohibition was a good idea, we wouldn’t have repealed the 18th

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

So if we defer to the states about pot and whether or not they recognize same-sex marriage, why not the same for abortion? Surely the same principle is at work when it comes to killing unborn children as is present when discussing pot smoking or sodomy.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

So weed is promoted as a harmless recreation, while tobacco is vilified as the great satan. Weed smells at least as bad as tobacco, and is just as hard on the lungs. However, tobacco improves, or does not hinder mental alertness, while weed reduces the brains abilities.

entagor on December 10, 2012 at 2:26 PM

What a shameless bunch of crock. First, most harmful chemicals in cigarettes are added during the manufacturing process; weed is all organic. Second, while fine soot from cigarettes and weed is, indeed, equally dangerous and carcinogenic to the lungs, it is easily defeated by bong consumption. Third, you obviously never played chess or ran a math quiz against a stoned person; weed is outlawed as exam stimulant, as well as sport doping, for a reason.

The rest of your drivel is likely the same BS but I didn’t bother to read.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

JavelinaBomb on December 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM

He doesn’t need to evolve any more, no more voting. Anything he does from now on will be the real deal. And it should have scared a lot more people.

Cindy Munford on December 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Is this why it’s so easy to steal an election from the American People now? We talk about all these things in the abstract, but you all, don’t really believe them, do you? We talk of Freedom, but we don’t really believe in it, unless the state allows it? We talk of limiting the power of Govt, yet at every turn, we allow it to grow, unchecked. We allow the Parties to act like they are independent of each other, yet they constantly work together, against the best interest of the people, to cover & lie for each other.
The Egyptian People have been fighting a WAR, Americans don’t have the “Testicular Fortitude” to fight anymore. It’s a war for FREEDOM!
So, The Egyptians are the New Americans, for this Century. How sad that America is now the Newly Surrendered & Conquered State! Now that we are on the political path to becoming, “Eurabia”, always remember… The further down this suicidal path you go, the Bloodier the return becomes! Assuming you have the guts or the masses to become Americans again & take your country back!

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

paratisi on December 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Good for Mitch Daniels. My estimation of him has increased.

FloatingRock on December 10, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Cigarettes were made available to soldiers in WWII. It was life and death and the men needed to keep their wits in terrifying situations. Would anyone but a fool hand out weed to people on whom a nation depended?
entagor on December 10, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Hell yes. When they buy a beer, I’d let ‘em buy a joint too. Be serious. They’re smoking it anyway.

rhombus on December 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Surely the same principle is at work when it comes to killing unborn children as is present when discussing pot smoking or sodomy.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

why? do you equate smoking weed with Baby Murder?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

why do we need prescriptions?

I’ll just take that as a “yes”. If you want to explain why there shouldn’t be, then go ahead.

Doctors prescribe manufactured cocaine to half our kids anyway.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

ADD drugs are not “manufactured cocaine” – though there is a clear medicinal use for such drugs in the proper contexts. It isn’t really “doctors” who are over-prescribing this to kids but psychiatrists, specifically, who have a long history of demented and dangerous practices such as this. Of course, that’s due in large part to the very fuzzy nature of psychiatry, itseelf. If you want to rein in psychiatrists, I’m all for it. Psychiatrists are dangerous idiots – usually among the worst of the med school students, and the most f–ked up, go into psychiatry – but that’s not an argument against the idea of prescription medications limiting availability to the public at large.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

So if we defer to the states about pot and whether or not they recognize same-sex marriage, why not the same for abortion? Surely the same principle is at work when it comes to killing unborn children as is present when discussing pot smoking or sodomy.

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Technically, states can legalize abortion. They can also legalize murder and rape pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, but the legislators who do so will be unlikely to ever darken the halls of the state’s Congress building, and there will be a serious outbound stampede of residents if that ever happens.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Doctors prescribe manufactured cocaine to half our kids anyway.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:30 PM

More to the point, the problem with ADD is not the drugs that are prescribed but the misdiagnoses that are made in the support of contemporary fashion in psychiatry. You have to understand that very important difference.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:37 PM

legal murder! That’s solely Obama territory

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM

You have to understand that very important difference.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:38 PM

ADD drugs aren’t cocaine…they’re about twice as strong. So says my nose and a rolled up dollar bill.

I understand your position. But prescriptions aren’t prohibition. The drugs are still legal. Do you prefer Medical MJ?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

First, most harmful chemicals in cigarettes are added during the manufacturing process; weed is all organic.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:34 PM

That’s ridiculous and silly. People like to repeat this canard all too often, especially as it would take you only two seconds of consideration to see how silly it is. I guess it makes them feel good, or something. “Natural” cigarettes are pretty much the same as Marlboros – and I have a right to smoke either on my property or the property of people who want to allow it.

Pot smoke, on the other hand, is far thicker and more dangerous than any cigarette smoke – natural or “spooky and filled with killer chemicals”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

why? do you equate smoking weed with Baby Murder?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Same principle. If the feds are to defer to the states when it comes to the legalization of pot, what justification is there for feds to deny states the right to regulate whether or not they want to be a pro-murder state or not.

People seem to forget that many states still have anti-abortion laws on the books. They just haven’t been enforced since the feds asserted the right to let women be “punished” by the inconvenient consequences of procreation. If states can determine whether or not they are okay with stoners on the road, production of pot in their neighborhoods, etc. What possible justification does the feds have to say otherwise if voters of a particular state determine that they want to be right-to-life?

Happy Nomad on December 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

A question for the Federalists-

When the vatos are growing the stuff in the National Forest in the state where it’s been legalized, do I and others from my Guardaviationunithavetoshowupwith the other federal agencies to clean up the mess, or is Governor Growyourown & Co. gonna handle it?

M240H on December 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM

well…seeing as how you said Guard and not Reserve then yeah you may be involved as Guard is a STATE force.

of course if the feds did not own so much stateland then it would be moot anyways.

dmacleo on December 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Whooaaa, dude, if only I’d thought of that “State force” thing when I got those orders for OEF and OIF…

Back away from the bong, Sparky.

M240H on December 10, 2012 at 2:44 PM

One would think that individuals that support the 10th Amendment, claim to want a small limited government, believe in states rights would support that fact that two states voted to nullify a federal government law. But no, many of you faux conservatives think that “Reefer madness” is going to come take you away. And…OMG…if the federal government doesn’t take care of you then you are going to get high because you need to the federal government to tell you what to do and not to do. Oh only the government can save us. Please help us big powerful federal government.

MoreLiberty on December 10, 2012 at 2:45 PM

dmacleo on December 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM

To be fair, we do have two chains of command. My question was more about who pays.

M240H on December 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Pot smoke, on the other hand, is far thicker and more dangerous than any cigarette smoke – natural or “spooky and filled with killer chemicals”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

who told you that? I’m willing to bet it’s a Government entity

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM

why? do you equate smoking weed with Baby Murder?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM

He’s point out the absurdity that promoting weed legalization is more esteemed than promoting pro-life legislation. Misplacement of priorities, me thinks.

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM

That’s ridiculous and silly. People like to repeat this canard all too often, especially as it would take you only two seconds of consideration to see how silly it is. I guess it makes them feel good, or something. “Natural” cigarettes are pretty much the same as Marlboros – and I have a right to smoke either on my property or the property of people who want to allow it.

Pot smoke, on the other hand, is far thicker and more dangerous than any cigarette smoke – natural or “spooky and filled with killer chemicals”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Both have risks, and are unnecessary for human life, but should be left up to the states to decide, just like SSM and abortion.

Nothing is “organic”. Everything is made of chemicals of some sort.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I understand your position. But prescriptions aren’t prohibition.

Prescriptions are govenrment limits on your use, which you said you were against. Like I said, I was just trying to get a baseline on how much against such interference you were and to which classes of drugs.

The drugs are still legal. Do you prefer Medical MJ?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Medical pot is a joke. There is no real medical use for it. It’s a recreational drug, which is fine. If a state wants to legalize it, then I think that is up to them, but they can’t turn around and infringe on people’s rights to then defend the roadways or workplaces against those they just unleashed on them. If there is no non-invasive test of intoxication then one has to think long and hard about the consequences of legalization.

My main objection, of course, is the hypocrisy of the cigarette bans and the near idolization of pot smoke – inclduing the silliness of the “cigarette smoke is bad because of all the evil chemicals used to manufacture them” argument that makes no sense, whatsoever and is intellectually offensive.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Pot smoke, on the other hand, is far thicker and more dangerous than any cigarette smoke – natural or “spooky and filled with killer chemicals”.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:43 PM

I have seen the same argument against assault weapons. Wanna go in that direction?

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I think my comment disappeared into the Ether, but I do not think we should need perscriptions for any drugs used to treat disease. Especially simple ones like antibiotics. A needless doctor’s visit costing hundreds of dollars just so you can to to Meijer and get a 49 cent bottle of pills.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

22044 on December 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM

sure, the priorities are scrambled there, but you fight for what you can get, right?

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:50 PM

let’s see how many “conservatives” completely abandon Federalism in order to moralize

There are limits to Federalism and issues of morality trump individual freedom when they threaten society and the culture…those who are willing to take the next step and suggest all drugs, same sex marriage and abortion are fair game, all under the ruse of Federalism are misguided.

ironmarshal on December 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Prescriptions are govenrment limits on your use, which you said you were against. Like I said, I was just trying to get a baseline on how much against such interference you were and to which classes of drugs.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

I don’t want Government interference in personal liberties, but I’m a realist. I’ll take scripts if its the best we can do.

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:53 PM

issues of morality trump individual freedom

ironmarshal on December 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM

this, ladies and gents, is why the GOP is dead

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

I think my comment disappeared into the Ether, but I do not think we should need perscriptions for any drugs used to treat disease. Especially simple ones like antibiotics. A needless doctor’s visit costing hundreds of dollars just so you can to to Meijer and get a 49 cent bottle of pills.

antisense on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Self diagnose and, when you need a simple antibiotic, buy one for aquarium fish. amazingly, it’s exactly same as the human brand. No need to beg doctors or pay hundreds for pointless visits, and you can buy as much as you want so it’s a prepper’s bonanza.

However, make triple – nay, quadruple – sure that 1) you’re not allergic to regular antibiotics, and 2) antibiotic is what you actually need, and not antiviral or anti-inflammatory.

PS: Please do not see this recommendation as a medical advice. Caveat emptor.

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM

I have seen the same argument against assault weapons. Wanna go in that direction?

Archivarix on December 10, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Er … I’m not arguing against pot but for cigarettes. Sure, go there if you want. I’m all for “assault weapons” and my argument about pot and cigarette smoke has nothing to do with some silly argument that gun-grabbers use. I would deal with their silly arguments in that discussion.

You made a silly argument that cigarette smoke is really bad for you because of the spooky chemicals. That’s just untrue. Cigarette smoke is dangerous as smoking anything is dangerous – though pot smoke is much thicker than cigarette smoke and people hold it in their lungs, intentionally. There are carcinogens generated from burning anything. I have the right to take that risk if I want just as I have the right to rock climb if I want.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

bho is now in Detroit before the union thugs giving his constant campaign speech on the tax the rich. I bet he will plow up more snakes saying he doesn’t think the gov. should sign the right to work bill? bho is famous doing krap like this and he wants to keep his union thug donors happy? Wonder if while he is there he will see to it the ‘bacon’ gets to that gal who demanded it for her vote?
L

letget on December 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Slade73 on December 10, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Yeah. Ethics, values, and morality are sooo outdated, aren’t they?/

Gimme a break.

kingsjester on December 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3