Pew poll: For the first time, majority supports legalizing marijuana

posted at 4:01 pm on April 4, 2013 by Allahpundit

Next after gay marriage: Choom?

This isn’t quite as huge as people are making it out to be. It’s a big deal for any pollster to show a majority that’s never existed before, but Pew’s not the first to find it. Quinnipiac reported 51 percent in favor of legalization four months ago. A few days before that, CBS got a 47/47 split on the question. As far back as 2011, Gallup was seeing 50/46 in favor. What’s significant about Pew’s data isn’t the topline number but the details. Support for legalization is up in every demographic, frequently by double digits, with 72 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of seniors agreeing that marijuana has legitimate medical uses. After an 80s-era experiment in “clean living,” baby boomers are rekindling their youthful romance with weed (which we already knew): 50 percent now support legalizing it, which is on par with that group’s level of support in the 1970s. If you compare the rise in support since 2000 for legalizing marijuana to the rise in support for legalizing gay marriage, you’ll find that opinion has changed more quickly towards the former than it has towards the latter. Per Pew, opposition to legalizing pot exceeded support by roughly 30 points at the turn of the century. Opposition to SSM exceeded support by only 22 points or so. For all the ink spilled on America’s rapid “evolution” on gays, they’re “evolving” arguably even more rapidly on weed.

The key data set:

p

The second result there isn’t surprising — Gallup’s seen a turn toward federalism in this regard too — but it’s hard to square the Republican numbers in the third result with the numbers from the first. I think a lot of people treat the basic legalization question as more of a referendum on whether pot use is something society should frown upon. (Although do note: Only 32 percent now say smoking marijuana is morally wrong versus 50 percent who say it isn’t, which is almost an exact reversal from just seven years ago.) When you get more specific about the nuts and bolts of legalization by asking if government should devote resources to enforcing prohibition, even the GOP numbers soar to a heavy majority. If you’re a pro-legalization pol, that’s the way to talk about this issue — not as legal/illegal in the abstract but in terms of cost, both human and pecuniary.

But yes, to answer the question up top, marijuana is next to be legalized. Won’t happen during O’s term but there’s a fair chance it’ll happen during the next presidency — which is too bad, because a Choom Gang reunion at the repeal signing ceremony would have been magical.


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

Anslinger wasn’t in the CP as far as I know. Who are you referring to? The push to criminalize marijuana was spearheaded by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics which Anslinger ran, and was sold to Congress by stoking anti-black, anti-Filipino and anti-Mexican hatred via the specter of interracial sex.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Here you go.

The Pure Food and Drug Act required that certain special drugs, including alcohol, cocaine, heroin, morphine, and cannabis, be accurately labeled with contents and dosage. Previously many drugs had been sold as patent medicines with secret ingredients or misleading labels. Cocaine, heroin, cannabis, and other such drugs continued to be legally available without prescription as long as they were labeled. It is estimated that sale of patent medicines containing opiates decreased by 33% after labeling was mandated.

The 1906 statute regulated food and drugs moving in interstate commerce and forbade the manufacture, sale, or transportation of poisonous patent medicines.[1] The Act arose due to public education and exposés from muckrakers such as Upton Sinclair and Samuel Hopkins Adams, social activist Florence Kelley, researcher Harvey W. Wiley, and President Theodore Roosevelt.

Upton Sinclair: In the 1920s the Sinclairs moved to Monrovia, California, near Los Angeles, where Upton founded the state’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Wanting to pursue politics, he twice ran unsuccessfully for Congress on the Socialist ticket:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

Florence Kelley: She was a member of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, an activist for woman suffrage and African-American civil rights. She was a follower of Karl Marx and a friend of Friedrich Engels’ whose book, The Condition of the Working Class in England, she translated into English. The translation she made is still used today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Kelley

JellyToast on April 4, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Er, what? People do not smoke pot like cigarettes. They use water pipes and the new electronic vapor, and they smoke 1/100 the volume.

John the Libertarian on April 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM

.
And your citation of the study that show how people smoke pot is?
.
Oh, it’s a personal observation.
.
Let me check again and see ifpersonal observation is considered impartial and scientifically vaild….mmmmm….maybe over here….
Nope.
.
Sorry Bro.

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Not at the price levels when Big Bambo was released, or if you grow it yourself, besides, bet you could smoke that thing for a couple of months O_O

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

What is even more interesting is that in states where marijuana is legal, the dispensaries are selling it for the same price as you get it on the street. Perhaps legalization won’t have the desired impact on price.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Bribery circumvents contractual processes, and encroaches the liberty of the third party in the bribe. Not a “harmless” crime.

Use prostitution. That is a good example. I’m not talking about sex slaves, either.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Certainly, and I’d be happy to ban prostitution too, but that goes more towards the treatment of people as sexual objections that are bought and sold. I know you say you’re not talking about sex slaves, but I really don’t think the matter can be separated that finely. What we’re talking about with prostitution is the use of another person for carnal pleasure, using them as a means to an end rather than an end in and of themselves.

As another scenario, consider a woman dying of thirst in the desert. A man in a ferrari with plenty of water and fuel stops by. The man says that he will drive the woman in the desert back to civilization where she will survive if and only if she gets on her knees and sucks him off. It is either that or death for the lady in question. A libertarian would regard this as a proper market transaction which makes both parties better off. Just about everyone else, myself included, would regard that as gross exploitation.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Bribery is legal in the United States. Its called Citizens United….

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM

lol, do you actually have any credible and multi-sourced evidence that bribery took place in that case, or are you just parroting Larry Tribe again?

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2013 at 5:48 PM

No I don’t, because it is already illegal. You want change, you need to show why. I’ll have fun pointing out all the ways you and your ilk are wrong.

Finally, we are getting you to debate on somewhat honest terms. My argument for the legalization of marijuana is that it will reduce the size of government. Your response?

Whoever said that laws were rational?

Not me. My contention is that the law *should* be rational. Do you disagree?

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Oh soooo close!.
.

Until you have a peer reviewed study that shows, unequivocally, that the average pot smoker doesn’t smoke the equivalent of a pack a day in joints LincolnTheHunt won’t believe it!

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:43 PM

.
There I fixed it for you.

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Bribery is legal in the United States. Its called Citizens United….

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM

I was thinking Obama Phones, but whatever.

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM

And your citation of the study that show how people smoke pot is?

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Make claims about marijuana users all you like, but pulling statistics out of your backside won’t make them true. The amount of weed smoked by a typical user at a time is around the same as a single cigarette. How many cigarettes does your average smoker go through? Aren’t there 20 in a pack?

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 5:50 PM

You could say the same thing about theft. We’ve seen how effective the ban is at keeping people from stealing. I guess that war on theft is lost! Looks like we’ve gotta legalize theft now!

Actually, given who’s POTUS, never mind. Bad example. =P

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 5:31 PM

This is the problem with horrible analogies. Theft is a problem because it necessarily infringes on someone else’s life, liberty and property; there’s no way to have theft and not do infringe on someone else. That is not true of recreational marijuana use.

alchemist19 on April 4, 2013 at 5:50 PM

What is even more interesting is that in states where marijuana is legal, the dispensaries are selling it for the same price as you get it on the street. Perhaps legalization won’t have the desired impact on price.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

I think is shows the utter failure of the war on drugs. The supply/ demand curve didn’t shift.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Use prostitution. That is a good example. I’m not talking about sex slaves, either.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM

That might be a better comparison but is still not apt. Prostitution is no more similar to (legally) growing, selling, smoking MJ than it is to growing grapes, making, selling and drinking wine. The case in favor of a legal alcohol and MJ market is far stronger than it is for prostitution.

FloatingRock on April 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 5:40 PM

What is even more interesting is that in states where marijuana is legal, the dispensaries are selling it for the same price as you get it on the street. Perhaps legalization won’t have the desired impact on price.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Price is always a factor derived from cost of production, overhead, profit +/- market factors. In other word, as high (again, pun intended) as the market will bare. Price only goes down when either demand plummets, or the market becomes over saturated.

SWalker on April 4, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Public intoxication or “drunk in public” laws are accessory charges, usually applied in tandem with other charges in order to beef up an arrest. If someone is committing disorderly conduct or DTP, they’ll be charged with that, and if they happen to be sailing, that’ll be calculated in as well. It’s not a law on consumption so much as it is a vice penalty for being a jackass WHILE wasted. I’m not merely talking about technicalities. I’m addressing your claim that we have laws limiting consumption. The best example you could have cited is the restrictions on convicted criminals during times of parole or probation, but that again is a situational application rather than a blanket law.

Out of curiosity, is that usually but not always applied in tandem? I thought you could be charge for public intoxication without being an accessory to another crime.

Now, could something like heroin or cocaine fall under the same category? No. That’s the key: opponents of marijuana see it as no different than other drugs. They tend to believe that it operates exactly the same as meth, MDMA, LSD, or anything else. Ignorance drives a lot of the opposition to marijuana, and that is not meant as an insult, but as an observation of the lack of knowledge society has about these substances.

Oh, I agree that heroin and cocaine are certainly far worse. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a pot-baby, but crack babies most certainly. My question to you and the other libertarians on the harder drugs is what constitutes the exact criterion which serves as a cutoff then. What is the logic that ties together the idea of marijuana and alcohol being fine while banning cocaine and heroin which doesn’t become a slippery slope?

It had no effects on this woman’s brain? By the way, I just posted a link to a case of a person dying from a soda overdose. Can you find the same thing for marijuana?

I don’t see anything that suggests that the imbibing of coke caused her to act that way. I do see that her act of consuming it excessively did lead to her own demise. However, it seems like she lacked self-control / had mental issues (or even possibly was simply just plain stupid) before its consumption, not as a result of its consumption.

By that logic, should there be government-mandated sleep requirements? People suffering from sleep deprivation experience serious alterations in their perception and control. Ultimately, if you’re going to suggest that government should protect people from behaviors that threaten their ability to make proper decisions, that is a hell of a slippery slope. Hell, research has actually shown that thinking about sex can alter a man’s critical thinking and decision-making capabilities. Perhaps we should outlaw pornography and all titillating advertising because it’s for their own good.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Regarding the latter portion of what you said, about thinking about sex affecting critical thinking and decision-making capablities, I thought in part that’s why we have movie ratings and the FCC engaging in censorship of public airwaves. I’m willing to consider additional bans of materials, but I’d want to consider them on a case-by-case basis.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 5:55 PM

As another scenario, consider a woman dying of thirst in the desert. A man in a ferrari with plenty of water and fuel stops by. The man says that he will drive the woman in the desert back to civilization where she will survive if and only if she gets on her knees and sucks him off. It is either that or death for the lady in question. A libertarian would regard this as a proper market transaction which makes both parties better off. Just about everyone else, myself included, would regard that as gross exploitation.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

The woman in the desert failed to plan. The man in the Ferrari is a d-bag. She got out of the desert, but has grounds for a sexual assault charge.
Prostitution is illegal. I say it should not be. Who are you to decide for these ladies that objectifying them is bad? If they choose to dance naked on a stage for money, or rent out their v-jay by the hour, how does it impact you? Why is it your decision?

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 5:56 PM

And your citation of the study that show how people smoke pot is?

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

The wheels on your logic train continue to fall off.

1. Do you concede it is possible to consume marijuana without smoking it?
2. Do you concede that lighting paper on fire and inhaling the smoke produces pulmonary damage?3. Why does it matter if smoking a joint incurs more lung damage than one puff of a tobacco cigarettes?

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:57 PM

This is a crazy thread, like most everyone is high or something.

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Bribery is legal in the United States. Its called Citizens United….

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM

I was thinking Obama Phones, but whatever.

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Which President did the program in question begin under?

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:58 PM

I half-expected the SoCon wholesomeness brigade to come charging in here and tell us how we all want pot legalized so we can become burnouts legally because we’re losers, and we’re immoral for enabling others. I’m rather delighted that this is hardly the case (maybe the couple that are here expected their reinforcements to see the dog whistle terms on the frontpage and descend into the comments like a SWAT team rappelling down the side of a building.

If I wanted to smoke pot, what business of yours is it that I do? Also, you don’t even know whether I would, in the first place, so stick that in your spoon and freebase it, you condescending, judgmental statists.

mintycrys on April 4, 2013 at 5:58 PM

That might be a better comparison but is still not apt. Prostitution is no more similar to (legally) growing, selling, smoking MJ than it is to growing grapes, making, selling and drinking wine. The case in favor of a legal alcohol and MJ market is far stronger than it is for prostitution.

FloatingRock on April 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM

You’re right. Stoic kept providing examples that violated liberty. Prostitution was the first thing off the top of my head that didn’t violate liberty. The way the ladies dress and groom might be held akin to growing and crafting.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

All labor relations are exploitative, it is merely a matter of degree. Intervening in those labor relations is a fundamentally progressive idea….just saying.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Oh MadCon, not you as well! Fine if you really like the feeling of being wrong.

Make claims about marijuana users all you like, but pulling statistics out of your backside won’t make them true.

I cited studies, not statistics. There is a difference.

The amount of weed smoked by a typical user at a time is around the same as a single cigarette. How many cigarettes does your average smoker go through?

And your impartial source for this is?

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 6:00 PM

The woman in the desert failed to plan. The man in the Ferrari is a d-bag. She got out of the desert, but has grounds for a sexual assault charge.
Prostitution is illegal. I say it should not be. Who are you to decide for these ladies that objectifying them is bad? If they choose to dance naked on a stage for money, or rent out their v-jay by the hour, how does it impact you? Why is it your decision?

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 5:56 PM

Well, I’m the guy who’s capable of recognizing that the purchase of other human beings creates a slippery slope to slavery, and because it treats people as items to be bought and sold, is intrinsically degarding. That’s who I am. As for why it’s my decision, it’s part because it’s a question of what is the morally right thing to do, which is its own impetus, and in part because we live in a democratic society in which I can petition the government for a redress of grievances and have a say in how the society in which I live is run.

In the example I cited, how does the woman have grounds for a sexual assault charge? It’s all voluntary.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:01 PM

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 5:47 PM

It’s still illegal at the federal level so still involves a lot of risk. If decriminalized nationally price will probably start coming down. The free market should be allowed to determine the prices, and over time as people gain confidence that the legal risk is gone and supply rises to meet demand, the prices will probably come down.

FloatingRock on April 4, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Heh. I disagree with you, but I like you.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Likewise, man. It’s a love-hate relationship. =)

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:02 PM

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:57 PM
1. Do you concede it is possible to consume marijuana without smoking it?

I concede nothing, show me where I’m wrong or continue to feel the burn.

2. Do you concede that lighting paper on fire and inhaling the smoke produces pulmonary damage?

See above answer

Why does it matter if smoking a joint incurs more lung damage than one puff of a tobacco cigarettes?

You want the change; I’ll continue to use SCIENCE to refute all of your little assertions. And have fun doing it.
Nice try at trying to change the subject again.

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Well, I’m the guy who’s capable of recognizing that the purchase of other human beings creates a slippery slope to slavery, and because it treats people as items to be bought and sold, is intrinsically degarding. That’s who I am.

Welcome to the Left! We’re happy to have you.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Out of curiosity, is that usually but not always applied in tandem? I thought you could be charge for public intoxication without being an accessory to another crime.

I have had many LEOs tell me that if you get charged with public intoxication, then either the arresting officer was having a bad night, or you pissed on his shoes. For all intents and purposes, it’s an accessory charge.

Oh, I agree that heroin and cocaine are certainly far worse. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a pot-baby, but crack babies most certainly. My question to you and the other libertarians on the harder drugs is what constitutes the exact criterion which serves as a cutoff then. What is the logic that ties together the idea of marijuana and alcohol being fine while banning cocaine and heroin which doesn’t become a slippery slope?

I’ll admit that I have no idea what constitutes the cutoff, because I am conflicted on whether substances like heroin or meth should be legalized. I can say with certainty that substances like pot, shrooms, LSD, DMT, and other psychedelics are nominally dangerous in their effects from an objective standpoint, and little different from alcohol in their ability to be imbibed while maintaining a generally healthy lifestyle. Speaking theoretically, the best measure would be to take samples of users of each drug, and determine what percentage are suffering from effects that make them an inherent danger to themselves or others. It’s likely that the percentage of marijuana users prone to violence while high will be very low compared to the percentage of meth users, for example. Ultimately, though, I don’t have an answer for you on that one. Very tough issue, if we ever get to the point where we’ll be discussing it. I don’t think we will get to that point, however, because I think the support for marijuana legalization is coming from the gradual learning by society that the effects of marijuana have been greatly exaggerated by the media and anti-drug groups for decades.

Regarding the latter portion of what you said, about thinking about sex affecting critical thinking and decision-making capablities, I thought in part that’s why we have movie ratings and the FCC engaging in censorship of public airwaves. I’m willing to consider additional bans of materials, but I’d want to consider them on a case-by-case basis.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 5:55 PM

The reasons we have movie ratings are actually more to do with the MPAA and the motion picture industries’ insistence on giving a competitive advantage to bigger studios and production companies, so that’s another issue.

And in my completely personal opinion is that the last thing we need is Anthony Comstock resurrected in the body of some Santorum-ish crusader against smut. Trying to control porn is even more foolhardy than trying to control drugs, especially with the way the internet has made it available.

All in all: stop trying to ban things and start trying to encourage people not to use them. What we need is both freedom and the self-control not to abuse it.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 6:08 PM

I say let the potheads have their pot and leave them be. They’re not a threat to society, pot doesn’t make them belligerent and obnoxious or aggressive like alcohol can. I doubt it tears families apart. We’ve wasted enough of our resources fighting this battle. It’s time to quit.

scalleywag on April 4, 2013 at 6:08 PM

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:57 PM
1. Do you concede it is possible to consume marijuana without smoking it?

I concede nothing, show me where I’m wrong or continue to feel the burn.

How can anyone “show you where you are wrong” when you refuse to assert an argument on the subject at hand? First you claimed that the burden was on people who wanted to change the law and that you would “poke holes” in our claims. Then I asserted “marijuana legalization will decrease the size of government.” You: silence. You keep returning to the studies you cite which indicate health issues related to the inhalation of marijuana smoke. But you have not instrumentalized that data to prove an argument. You aren’t an honest broker in the conversation.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM

And have fun doing it.
Nice try at trying to change the subject again.

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 6:05 PM

I didn’t change the subject. You posted the study. I inquired why the study was relevant to the conversation. Upon being asked that question you say “STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT!!” Again, you’re not an honest broker in the conversation.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Anyway, I have to end my professional career for the day, go home to my financially independent life and enjoy some mind-altering substance in the privacy of my own home, threatening nobody’s rights or freedoms.

…Stoli and cranberry juice. What did you think I meant?

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:01 PM

She is trying to survive. The choice between death and providing a BJ is not much of a choice. It is coercion, and qualifies as an assault.

Voluntary prostitution, on the other hand, is not. And as I said earlier, let’s not muddy this with indentured sexual servitude. Slavery is a violation of liberty. We have too many laws that restrict behavior because it might be a slippery slope to something worse. Prosecute the worse things and leave me the hell alone.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Anyway, I have to end my professional career for the day, go home to my financially independent life and enjoy some mind-altering substance in the privacy of my own home, threatening nobody’s rights or freedoms.

…Stoli and cranberry juice. What did you think I meant?

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM

As a quick aside before you go, I’m in large agreement with what you wrote before that. I do have grave concerns about the possibility of opening up a Pandora’s box, and seeing a snowball effect of people with the maturity of twelve year-olds essentially hollowing out the country.

Enjoy the juice. =P

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:14 PM

And now, a little play staring LincolnTheHun

Person 1: I think marijuana should be legal.

LincolnTheHun: Here’s a study which indicates one puff of marijuana is more harmful than one puff of tobacco smoke.

Person 1: Oh great, thanks for sharing that data. But why is it relevant to marijuana’s legality?

LincolnTheHun: STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!! YOUR JOB IS TO ASSERT, MINE IS TO BELITTLE!!!

Person 1: *blink* …….OK……. *backs away slowly*

*rinse, repeat*

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM

She is trying to survive. The choice between death and providing a BJ is not much of a choice. It is coercion, and qualifies as an assault.

Voluntary prostitution, on the other hand, is not. And as I said earlier, let’s not muddy this with indentured sexual servitude. Slavery is a violation of liberty. We have too many laws that restrict behavior because it might be a slippery slope to something worse. Prosecute the worse things and leave me the hell alone.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:14 PM

I don’t think that rises to the level of coercion though. She wasn’t thrown by the guy into the desert. He’s not responsible for the circumstances he found her in. He’s simply refusing to be a good samaritan, and is instead taking advantage of the situation.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM

StoicPatriot. Please show me any labor relation that is not coercion.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:17 PM

StoicPatriot. Please show me any labor relation that is not coercion.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Alright.

“Johnny, would you please do the dishes?”
“Sure thing, Ma!”

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Anyway, I have to end my professional career for the day, go home to my financially independent life and enjoy some mind-altering substance in the privacy of my own home, threatening nobody’s rights or freedoms.

…Stoli and cranberry juice. What did you think I meant?

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 6:12 PM

I was leaning towards Barky’s latest speech from Colorado.

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Alright.

“Johnny, would you please do the dishes?”
“Sure thing, Ma!”

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Asking someone for an unpaid favor is not, by definition, a labor relation.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Oh, I agree that heroin and cocaine are certainly far worse. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a pot-baby, but crack babies most certainly. My question to you and the other libertarians on the harder drugs is what constitutes the exact criterion which serves as a cutoff then. What is the logic that ties together the idea of marijuana and alcohol being fine while banning cocaine and heroin which doesn’t become a slippery slope?

The cutoff is when it violates the liberty or property of another. If I want to sit in my house and snort a line of coke, why do you care? If you are my employer, and I come to work high, fire me. If I crash my car into yours while high, prosecute me. How many innocent people die every year fighting the war on drugs? 500 homicides in Chicago last year. How many because of the black market drug trade? Anybody who wants you use drugs now does. Find me one person who does not snort coke simply because it is illegal. The war on drugs kills innocent people, puts people in jail who injured no one, and has turned our police officers into paramilitary thugs. Has not curbed use one bit. Has not prevented one drug related traffic fatality. has not prevented one crack baby.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:21 PM

Asking someone for an unpaid favor is not, by definition, a labor relation.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I’d disagree with that definition, because labor does not necessarily have a monetary component or transactual nature. In so far as you define a labor relation requiring submission to authority, then to assess whether or not coercion exists you must examine what rights, if any, the “submitter” retains to be able to say no, and what consequences, if any, that person faces for refusing to abide by that authority.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:25 PM

He’s simply refusing to be a good samaritan, and is instead taking advantage of the situation.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM

You must work for DWS. A man who would leave a woman stranded in the desert without water unless she gives him a BJ is simply “refusing to be a good samaritan.”

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Again, you’re not an honest broker in the conversation.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:10 PM

And you are?

You’re not having a conversation, you’re lecturing. Whenever you “converse” with people here, you do so assuming that our beliefs are not sincerely held, but merely a false front for racism.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 6:26 PM

The cutoff is when it violates the liberty or property of another. If I want to sit in my house and snort a line of coke, why do you care?

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:21 PM

In large measure because you could cause harm to yourself or someone else inside your home. If you don’t outright own the property, you could damage what belongs to the landlord. Requiring that you sit in the home also requires that you retain sufficient self-control that you don’t leave, but if you interfere with the mechanism for self-control, what guarantee is there of that?

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Asking someone for an unpaid favor is not, by definition, a labor relation.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Paying someone for a service is not, by definition, exploitation.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 6:27 PM

You must work for DWS. A man who would leave a woman stranded in the desert without water unless she gives him a BJ is simply “refusing to be a good samaritan.”

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Nah, I can’t stand Debbie Downer. I just don’t think the characterization of the woman in the desert as being a situation in which coercion is involved is correct. Disgusting, exploitative, degrading, demeaning, undignified, absolutely. And I’m willing to ban something like that on those grounds. But without the application of force, I can’t say it’s coercive.

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:29 PM

And you are?

You’re not having a conversation, you’re lecturing. Whenever you “converse” with people here, you do so assuming that our beliefs are not sincerely held, but merely a false front for racism.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Your resentment towards me is not my problem, nor is it relevant to me and LincolnTheHun’s conversation on this thread. Please do take it to your diary and deal with it there.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:29 PM

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Actually I refuted this claim,

While the effects of marijuana on mental health are only speculative, and recently studies have revealed that fear that it effects kids cognitive capacity have been debunked. Longterm abuse of alcohol is linked to liver failure, kidney disease, brain damage, heart failure, nerve damage mood swings and violent crime.
libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM

with

Cite your sources.
LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 4:41 PM

I followed up with

While the effects of marijuana on mental health are only speculative, and recently studies have revealed that fear that it effects kids cognitive capacity have been debunked.
libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM

.

If only dope wasn’t teratogenic, but it is
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/2784193
And there were no pulmonary effects, but there are
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/3340105
If only there were no long term effects
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=396766
but there are.
If only someone could argue cogently about legalization, but they’re too stoned.
LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM

.
My attack was on your silly assertion that “the effects of marijuana on mental health are only speculative, and recently studies have revealed that fear that it effects kids cognitive capacity have been debunked.”
I have done that, you keep trying to drag the conversation into fried chicken or the rationality of laws.
That you keep getting confused as to what we were talking about is not my fault.
But if you really want to discuss “marijuana legalization will decrease the size of government,” I would ask you to show me the government program, any of them since the 1950’s, that has decreased in size over time.
But I have no interest in that conversation, I just had fun pointing out you know nothing about science.

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 6:31 PM

As a quick aside before you go, I’m in large agreement with what you wrote before that. I do have grave concerns about the possibility of opening up a Pandora’s box, and seeing a snowball effect of people with the maturity of twelve year-olds essentially hollowing out the country.

The last two presidential elections demonstrate that the box has been opened.

Enjoy the juice. =P

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:14 PM

I will. I just hope it doesn’t spoil the taste of the marijuana smoke.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 6:32 PM

StoicPatriot. Please show me any labor relation that is not coercion.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Suddenly you’re against coercion?

I guess I don’t have to pay my taxes, then. :D

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Your resentment towards me is not my problem, nor is it relevant to me and LincolnTheHun’s conversation on this thread. Please do take it to your diary and deal with it there.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:29 PM

Lulz, resentment. Nah, not resentment, just pity. I wish you had friends or hobbies. :(

Nobody here takes you seriously, libfree. You’re a dishonest race-obsessed punk. I honestly don’t know why you waste any time here. I assume you’re just a masochist who likes being abused but can’t find anybody in your community who is into that “scene.”

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 6:35 PM

It’s been fun, Stoic. Smell ‘ya later. Time to drink beer and tear up the landlord’s house.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:35 PM

It’s been fun, Stoic. Smell ‘ya later. Time to drink beer and tear up the landlord’s house.

tdarrington on April 4, 2013 at 6:35 PM

I will. I just hope it doesn’t spoil the taste of the marijuana smoke.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Take care, both of you. Don’t do anything reckless. …Or better put, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do! *force! force!* =P

Stoic Patriot on April 4, 2013 at 6:37 PM

And now, a little play staring LincolnTheHun

Person 1: I think marijuana should be legal.

LincolnTheHun: Here’s a study which indicates one puff of marijuana is more harmful than one puff of tobacco smoke.

Person 1: Oh great, thanks for sharing that data. But why is it relevant to marijuana’s legality?

LincolnTheHun: STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!! YOUR JOB IS TO ASSERT, MINE IS TO BELITTLE!!!

Person 1: *blink* …….OK……. *backs away slowly*

*rinse, repeat*

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Yeah, that’s some “conversation” you’re having with Lincoln.

Here, I can also do a one-act play:

Person 1: Why do you spend so much time on a site with people you profess to hate? It seems like you never actually change anyone’s mind, and whenever you’re backed into a corner you just revert to calling everyone a racist.

Libfreeordie: I know, I just need something to pass the time between cutting myself and watching funny cat videos.

Person 1: Oh….well, you have fun with that!

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Libfreeordie: I know, I just need something to pass the time between cutting myself and watching funny cat videos.

Person 1: Oh….well, you have fun with that!

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 6:39 PM

I think he fantasizes about being the alan colmes of HA. Punching bag.

VegasRick on April 4, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Thank you for all the annoying pop up advertisements that saturate this once great site.

bfinstock79 on April 4, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Workplace safety and productivity will suffer. So will traffic safety.

KW64 on April 4, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Right. Because of all the otherwise law-abiding citizens who somehow manage to navigate the dangerous world of legal alcohol without jeopardizing workplace and traffic safety will suddenly be unable to resist the terribly non-addictive marijuana plant simply because the federal gov’t says it isn’t illegal anymore.

Ridiculous.

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM

Oh, well thank God, YOU don’t know anyone who has died from dope smoking.

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 4:27 PM

By all means, go find us ANY evidence of ANYONE that has died from pot. Doesn’t happen.

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Prohibition is very un conservative. Telling people what to do with matters that small is what commie butholes like Democrats do.

I understand that there is PLENTY of money for inpatient rehab in Obamacare. I went to the Doctor recently and the Doctor asked if I did drugs and the scribe recorded my answer. I probably would have lied had I been an abuser. Next, they asked how much I drank…..

famous amos on April 4, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Anyone ever meet people who used to follow the Grateful Dead in the 80s?

Liam on April 4, 2013 at 4:06 PM

At every show I went to.

In the 80′s, at least…

JohnGalt23 on April 4, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Sounds like America can be summed up in 2013 with this story:


People just want to marry a same sex Illegal with a gun while getting free healthcare while stoned on some wicked weed.

Does that about cover it?

PappyD61 on April 4, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Bribery is legal in the United States. Its called Citizens United…. NEA, SEIU, UAW and The Teamsters.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM

FIFY

RickB on April 4, 2013 at 8:02 PM

Bribery is legal in the United States. Its called Citizens United…”Navigators”, in its latest life.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Fify and for the latest update.

Schadenfreude on April 4, 2013 at 8:07 PM

I’ll say this much – if the quality of arguments AGAINST legalization doesn’t rise above the strawmen and foolishness displayed here, I would not bet against federal legalization before Obama’s term is up.

I mean these arguments are ridiculous. “Yeah, but stoned drivers, man!!!”

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 8:11 PM

If only dope wasn’t teratogenic, but it is
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/2784193
And there were no pulmonary effects, but there are
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/3340105
If only there were no long term effects
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=396766
but there are.
If only someone could argue cogently about legalization, but they’re too stoned.

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM

“They’re bad for you” is not a cogent argument in favor of drug prohibition.

LOTS of things in life are bad for you. They aren’t banned. Alcohol and cigarettes are just two. As are fatty foods, 20 oz sodas, guns, and high speed cars.

You don’t ban things because they’re bad for you, Nanny Bloomberg. The question is how much of your liberty do you want to give away in the name of protecting people from themselves ?

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Sounds like America can be summed up in 2013 with this story:

People just want to marry a same sex Illegal with a gun while getting free healthcare while stoned on some wicked weed.

Does that about cover it?

PappyD61 on April 4, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Gotta tell ya, I’m just fine with 3 out of four of those…

JohnGalt23 on April 4, 2013 at 8:19 PM

We conclude that smoking marijuana, regardless of tetrahydrocannabinol content, results in a substantially greater respiratory burden of carbon monoxide and tar than smoking a similar quantity of tobacco.”
.

LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Which is totally irrelevant because people smoke minute quantities of marijuana and MASSIVE quantities of tobacco.

There are not currently, nor will there ever be people who smoke 1, 2, or 3 packs worth of marijuana. But there ARE millions of people who do that with tobacco right now, today.

The two things are not comparable. And even if they were, the “its bad for you” argument is an utter failure.

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM

A good law for this would be to allow weed but only in certain size joints.

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Like, for instance, with sodas. Because nobody could conceive of buying more than one join any more than they would ever conceive of buying more than one soda.

You guys must really enjoy being on the same wavelength as Bloomberg.

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM

You guys must really enjoy being on the same wavelength as Bloomberg.

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Somebody got Bish’d.

MadisonConservative on April 4, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Seems like another governmental crapstorm brewing. I don’t necessarily have a dog in this fight since I don’t smoke myself but I am worried about my younglings being exposed to the stuff.

Bishop on April 4, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Hate to break it to you, but they already are. I live in a rural / suburban area that is pretty well off. Yesterday a kid was expelled from my daughter’s MIDDLE SCHOOL for having a half ounce of pot and today they found crack in a 7th grader’s locker.

Pushing the market for a substance people want onto the black market does not prevent kids from getting it or using it.

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Legalize marriage to marijuana now!

Reggie1971 on April 4, 2013 at 8:33 PM

There are way to many other laws created and costs associated because of drug use that must be eliminated first, as well as making prosecutions for drunk driving easier.

Reverse all the laws enacted in the name of the drug war _FIRST_. Then I will hear arguments why another intoxicant should be encouraged and legalized.

TX-96 on April 4, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Not me. My contention is that the law *should* be rational. Do you disagree?

libfreeordie on April 4, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Whew. Thanks for the laugh. You talking about being rational. That is a good one.

davidk on April 4, 2013 at 9:12 PM

How about we leave it up to each state to decide for themselves and forget about national opinion. I’m sick and tired of opinion polls shaping national policy when that is not how our republic is supposed to work.

NotCoach on April 4, 2013 at 9:15 PM

Thank you for all the annoying pop up advertisements that saturate this once great site.

bfinstock79 on April 4, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Firefox and AdBlock lowered my blood pressure.

davidk on April 4, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Right. Because of all the otherwise law-abiding citizens who somehow manage to navigate the dangerous world of legal alcohol without jeopardizing workplace and traffic safety will suddenly be unable to resist the terribly non-addictive marijuana plant simply because the federal gov’t says it isn’t illegal anymore.

Ridiculous.

deadrody on April 4, 2013 at 7:24 PM

My observation was not that no one else is without sin, it is that there is a price for society to pay in legalizing and taxing MJ. It is not a panacea for state deficits or illegal drug wars either. I can turn all the arguments that other things are bad too by saying there are laws because societies find not everything can be allowed without quality of life in general going down.

I am not a fan of getting drunk and doing stupid things either but I can tell an employee who is drunk easier than one that is stoned and deal with it by offering a breath test or go home. MJ affects memory and judgement longer than alcohol. The guy who has 5 beers after work shouldn’t drive but he should be OK to work the next day; is the MJ users memory all the way back the next day? There is no easily applied clear cut test to determine impairment.

KW64 on April 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

No longer a center-right nation. That’s done. Republicans better evolve or will become a permanent minority. Already lost 5 out of last 6 majority votes nationally.

rubberneck on April 4, 2013 at 9:42 PM

Keeping anything illegal is the government making official policy that certain substances and behaviors will be handled by the black market economy. There’s lot of tax revenue that could be raised and although it could be used to help pay down the debt I know that would never happen. But it’s a way to get some tax money back from the welfare slugs.

Right now there are illegal grow operations in California and Oregon among other places, and people are having run-ins with the growers when they go out to enjoy the wilderness. Ranchers are also having problems with the growers. These are armed and dangerous people. Put it into the legal economy and take away some business from the illegal economy. The law does not change anyone’s behavior. It will only change the legal status of what is already going to occur.

Dan_Yul on April 4, 2013 at 9:49 PM

Hurry, GOP! We better get with the program and add this plank to our platform! We can put it right between Sodomy and Amnesty.

PaddyORyan on April 4, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 4, 2013 at 6:35 PM

…Good Solid A-Plus!

KOOLAID2 on April 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM

Marihuana is a gateway drug to same sex marriage?

profitsbeard on April 5, 2013 at 12:33 AM

I’ve just finished reading this entire thread and I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why alcohol should be legal at the same time marijuana is not. And I think I only counted one person who wanted to ban alcohol as well. This hypocrisy is why the GOP loses elections and why this issue is bigger than it seems at first. Do we want more individual liberty and smaller government or not? If so this would be a good issue to actually demonstrate it.

stout77 on April 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

I’ve just finished reading this entire thread and I have yet to hear a coherent argument as to why alcohol should be legal at the same time marijuana is not. And I think I only counted one person who wanted to ban alcohol as well. This hypocrisy is why the GOP loses elections and why this issue is bigger than it seems at first. Do we want more individual liberty and smaller government or not? If so this would be a good issue to actually demonstrate it.

stout77 on April 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM

Fear of change coupled with lack of self-awareness.

powerfactor on April 5, 2013 at 1:25 AM

How many forgot the question before answering it?

viking01 on April 5, 2013 at 1:27 AM

My observation was not that no one else is without sin, it is that there is a price for society to pay in legalizing and taxing MJ. It is not a panacea for state deficits or illegal drug wars either. I can turn all the arguments that other things are bad too by saying there are laws because societies find not everything can be allowed without quality of life in general going down.

I am not a fan of getting drunk and doing stupid things either but I can tell an employee who is drunk easier than one that is stoned and deal with it by offering a breath test or go home. MJ affects memory and judgement longer than alcohol. The guy who has 5 beers after work shouldn’t drive but he should be OK to work the next day; is the MJ users memory all the way back the next day? There is no easily applied clear cut test to determine impairment.

KW64 on April 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

That’s all fine and good, and a cogent argument for not just loosing the entirety of legal, un-regulated marijuana onto the nation.

But that’s a false choice. The potential for slight loss of memory is a reason why an employee’s performance would be monitored, and ability to do one’s job would likely be the determining factor for why he / she continues to have a job or not.

And again, you are still working in hypotheticals here, assuming that anyone who WANTs pot isn’t already using it, or that there isn’t VOLUMES of data available already for how people manage to navigate the complicated and demanding world while also occasionally smoking pot. Literally MILLIONS of people already do it and it is a highly dubious proposition that there is any kind of significant population of people just waiting for it to be legal to take up the habit.

What we’re really talking about is legalizing behavior that is already going on. The really funny thing is that there is tons of available data to be found about the effects of legalized pot since many states have legalized it in one for or another for years. And yet, how many studies do you hear about where the legal access to pot in some form has caused terrible societal ills ? I haven’t heard of any, either. And you can be DAMN sure that if the effects WERE there, the very pro-drug war government would be exploiting that data to the greatest extent possible. The LACK of such information is very telling in my opinion.

deadrody on April 5, 2013 at 7:37 AM

President Choom can’t even get this one right. He has publicly decided to not enforce our immigration laws but stoners are still being prosecuted. He is truly an idiot.

DeweyWins on April 5, 2013 at 8:59 AM

My observation was not that no one else is without sin, it is that there is a price for society to pay in legalizing and taxing MJ. It is not a panacea for state deficits or illegal drug wars either. I can turn all the arguments that other things are bad too by saying there are laws because societies find not everything can be allowed without quality of life in general going down.

I am not a fan of getting drunk and doing stupid things either but I can tell an employee who is drunk easier than one that is stoned and deal with it by offering a breath test or go home. MJ affects memory and judgement longer than alcohol. The guy who has 5 beers after work shouldn’t drive but he should be OK to work the next day; is the MJ users memory all the way back the next day? There is no easily applied clear cut test to determine impairment.

KW64 on April 4, 2013 at 9:34 PM

What a terribly lame argument. Those same people who “drink 5 beers and go to work” are probably getting stoned too. Who does that besides people with horrible judgment to begin with anyway? Alcohol is legal now, but I don’t bother drinking a shot before I go to work in the morning. Not because I’m afraid the boss might find out, but because I have the self discipline to wait until I get off of work. Better yet, I can wait until the weekend.

You are basically saying the government needs to protect us from ourselves, which is patently absurd. Look at all the obese people in our society dying from heart attacks and driving up our health care cost. I bet you’re not for shuttering all the fast food restaurants are you?

Pot will eventually be legalized because, as observed in these arguments against it, there isn’t a good reason for it not to be.

mazer9 on April 5, 2013 at 9:15 AM

President Choom can’t even get this one right. He has publicly decided to not enforce our immigration laws but stoners are still being prosecuted. He is truly an idiot.

DeweyWins on April 5, 2013 at 8:59 AM

He probably already wins the majority of their votes anyway. He is trying to create an entirely new base.

mazer9 on April 5, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Our nation’s situation/problems – economic, disatisfaction with the imbecilic & highly inept/intrusive Govt – has grown so that more and more Americans are looking for an escape, something to make them feel good. This is a strong indicator of how far we have fallen & how bad Obama is. The Majority of Americans now agree that to tolerate Obama any further they need to toke up!

easyt65 on April 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Our nation’s situation/problems – economic, disatisfaction with the imbecilic & highly inept/intrusive Govt – has grown so that more and more Americans are looking for an escape, something to make them feel good. This is a strong indicator of how far we have fallen & how bad Obama is. The Majority of Americans now agree that to tolerate Obama any further they need to toke up!

easyt65 on April 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Or that we waste enough money with him as President, why continue blowing money on Marijuana enforcement?

mazer9 on April 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM

One aspect missing from this discussion is the addictive properties of different drugs:

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28#sthash.lKhaME6w.dpbs

So nicotine and alcohol are much, much more addictive and caffeine should be considered the “gateway drug”. I am more likely to break into your house to steal a can of Maxwell House than I am to steal money for a bag of marijuana. Incidentally, I have a splitting headache right now because I didn’t get my first cup of coffee down the hatch soon enough this morning.

stout77 on April 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM

One aspect missing from this discussion is the addictive properties of different drugs:

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/28#sthash.lKhaME6w.dpbs

So nicotine and alcohol are much, much more addictive and caffeine should be considered the “gateway drug”. I am more likely to break into your house to steal a can of Maxwell House than I am to steal money for a bag of marijuana. Incidentally, I have a splitting headache right now because I didn’t get my first cup of coffee down the hatch soon enough this morning.

stout77 on April 5, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Cigs are the worst. I feel like I really accomplished something when I finally gave those up. Pot? I just quit smoking it. Didn’t seem nearly as addictive.

mazer9 on April 5, 2013 at 12:30 PM

If only someone could argue cogently about legalization, but they’re too stoned.
LincolntheHun on April 4, 2013 at 4:46 PM

I don’t do drugs. I don’t care to do drugs. I don’t think about someday maybe I’ll get to do drugs. I don’t hope someday they will be legal so I can do drugs. No drugs. Zip zero. The smoking kind nor the the whatever else there is kind. Nor would I want anyone else to do them. They are stupid and dangerous. But so is bungee jumping.

I half-expected the SoCon wholesomeness brigade to come charging in here and tell us how we all want pot legalized so we can become burnouts legally because we’re losers, and we’re immoral for enabling others. I’m rather delighted that this is hardly the case (maybe the couple that are here expected their reinforcements to see the dog whistle terms on the frontpage and descend into the comments like a SWAT team rappelling down the side of a building.

If I wanted to smoke pot, what business of yours is it that I do? Also, you don’t even know whether I would, in the first place, so stick that in your spoon and freebase it, you condescending, judgmental statists.

mintycrys on April 4, 2013 at 5:58 PM

I’m about as Christian as they come. If you had to label me.. evangelical, pro-life, conservative, born again Bible thunmping believing Christian.
But on this issue I changed about a year ago. After reading one more article on some innocent poor people being beheaded.. a child included, down in Mexico, from some drug cartels it was too much for me. Now we have drug cartels living and working in the US. The United States government sold high powered assault weapons to drug cartels in Mexico. Our police are becoming more and more militarized. We had a story here a while back on HotAir how several NYPD police were routinely placing small bags of cocaine in innocent people’s cars.

I don’t know all the liberty we have lost at the expense of a drug war we’re not fighting. But I do know it is a lot. If an honest law abiding citizen pays for a car with $10,000 cash or more.. he is automatically reported to the government as suspicious.

Our government isn’t fighting a drug war… it’s fighting a war on liberty.

For me it’s this.. if you really wanted to have a “war on drugs” make drug dealing a capital offense. Shut down the flow of illegals at our border. Sweep our large state parks of drug cartels.. use the military if you have to. Go down into Mexico and attack the locations of the drug lords. Wipe them out. Carpet bomb every last one of them. Get control of our prisons. No inmate should be allowed to have their own hair style. Shave all of their heads.. remove all of their tattoos… make them wear all the same uniforms… put only one person to a cell with no TV, no libraries, weight rooms or books other than the Bible. Hard labor 8 hours a day. Chain gangs. Only basic medical care. Make prison rape a capital offense. If a guard is caught smuggling in any contraband… it’s life.

But we don’t have the stomach for that. So legalize it. Make it the same as beer, wine or any other liquor.

JellyToast on April 5, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Like most polls these days, I just do not believe it or them.

Pardonme on April 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

If I wanted to smoke pot, what business of yours is it that I do? Also, you don’t even know whether I would, in the first place, so stick that in your spoon and freebase it, you condescending, judgmental statists.

mintycrys on April 4, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Honestly, I’m just tired of the hypocrisy of folks like you. (I’m used to the name-calling)

Just get off your freaking high horse and just legalize all substances. About half of you here only want pot legalized. Every time I profess that I’m sick of the wasted time with your incrementalism, someone tells me to be realistic and that not all drugs are safe.

hawkdriver on April 6, 2013 at 10:25 AM

There are drugs and drugs: some, like alcohol and marijuana affect judgment and responsibility. That’s why we have laws restricting their use (or banning it entirely), due to the potential harm caused by those temporarily lacking judgment. Talking about caffeine and nicotine in the same vein is just stupid.

It should be left to the states to determine how much of what they will tolerate. And if you really really can’t take the laws in your state, you can move. The federal government is supposed to be busy on more important matters (like border security).

virgo on April 8, 2013 at 1:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3