They want regulation of marijuana to be up to the states. My reaction?
- [rank, hideous hypocrisy that is courting a lightning strike from its sheer, brazen effrontery] No-one under the age of 21 should be allowed to smoke marijuana. Period. Never, ever, ever, ever. [/rank, hideous hypocrisy that is courting a lightning strike from its sheer, brazen effrontery]*
- It is exceedingly unlikely that this is ever going to pass, given that darn few politicians on both sides of the aisle wish to appear weak on what the libertarians call The War on Some Drugs.
- I can think of several hundred things that I’d rather see the federal government do than go after pot smokers. That list includes ‘naming post offices.’
- It’d be so worth it, from a vicious partisan point of view, to get this bill passed by Congress – just to hear the screams of outrage on campuses across the nation when President Obama vetoed it.
And… that’s pretty much it.
Moe Lane
*Really, it’s amazing how I still haven’t been struck by lightning. I wrote that last night.
Yes, I was raised on the Nancy Reagan mantra, but I’m afraid I’ve arrived at the “just don’t get it” stage of coping with the MJ issue.
Ryan Dunn was killed through misuse of a perfectly legal intoxicant. Prescription drug abuse causes all manner of societal issues. Caffeine, while highly beneficial, does in fact have severely addictive qualities.
And yet we leave these alone. *shrug*
Well, the stuff is not quite like booze; as Bob Heinlein once noted, it is easier to hide a stash than it is a six-pack, and that can be a factor in making policy decisions about pot. But, again, we have more important things to worry about than marijuana use among adults.
I like to point out in these kinds of arguments how no one in the history of civilization has ever died from an overdose of marijuana. If you imbibe too much, you fall asleep and sleep it off. The same cannot be said for pretty much any drug out there; even water can be overdosed on, see the poor woman who was trying to win a Wii at a radio contest where they were challenged to drink copious amounts of water without expelling any.
That said, a federal ban on marijuana for only those under 21 would get my enthusiastic support. As it is, for many <21 types it's easier to get pot than booze, since pot dealers rarely care what your age is.
I have never used pot and I have no desire to use pot, but I don’t see why it’s illegal for adults.
Don’t make me pay to support people who screw up their lives and I don’t care what they do.
Jefferson said it about religion, but it can easily be applied here:
But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
The key here is “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”. As long as it’s in the privacy of their own home, and they aren’t about to go hop in the car to get Doritos, I’m not sure why I should care. In fact, now that I think about it, get fried… in this economy, it just makes me a little more attractive to a prospective employer if I’m the one at the interview that can hold a coherent conversation.
Still, it would be fun to watch if this bill ever got out of the Senate.
If a state wants to legalize, or decrimimize, pot, it is no concern of the federal government. Simply put, the federal government has no constitutional power over what an individual chooses to eat, snort, injecct or inhale. Feel free to cite the portion of the Constitution which refutes my arguement.
If the Feds and the State can stop pulling money from my paycheck to support potheads who get sick or commit crimes, decriminalize all you want. As long as I’m ultimately footing the bill, though…
And since no-one else here has pointed it out: Yeah, because Barney Frank and Ron Paul are just FULL of good ideas, right?