In response to:

I Am Not Stoned: Sobering Realities For Taxpayers On The Road To Legalizing Marijuana

Michael2677 Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 1:01 PM
This is my last post here on this subject - all these questions (and more) will eventually be addressed through the legal system. IMHO society doesn't need another main-stream drug. The so- called "War on Drugs" is just another expansion of government not being fought to be won. The logic of allowing drugs into society is tantamount to giving up on society. Out scam government is a failure, whether it's poverty, drugs or any other social ill they claim to be able to fix. An effective government would have dealt with this long ago.
Science Avenger Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 12:34 PM
Allowing drugs into our society? Where do you live, a convent? Drugs have always been in our society, and for that matter, every society known. Apparently a drive to periodically alter one's consciousness is wired into our brains.
alopekos teumesios Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 1:09 PM
Are you a closet liberal? Because the liberal mantra is that government can fix all social ills, if only they try hard enough and spend enough tax money on the problem.
Michael2677 Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 2:01 PM
Hi I'm back!

No I am a Capitalist and you are a Libertarian. There is a difference between us that comes out during the drug debate. Libertarianism is liberty detached from reason. You don't see the harm in a free-for-all or the need for boundaries (FYI I haven't yet read any libertarian literature that has). Libertarianism is anti-government, Capitalism believes government is to protect the individual, even at the expense of a particular "group". Drug users are irrational and go out of their way to make themselves so, they would necessarily force others to deal with the messes they generate on purpose. Go make a country based on textbook Libertarianism and see how long it lasts.
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 2:29 PM
There was a group that tried to make one out of classic liberalism. It didn't take all that long before progressive authoritarian central planner types made a mess out of it.
SMyles Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 2:35 PM
That nonsense. Any rule or law to protect one from themselves by fine or imprisonment is immoral. Creating laws to punish people for their future potential to do harm is just as demented. You don't get to chose what's best for society Michael and no one should get to choose for you. You have not read enough of libertarianism or you're making it up.
alopekos teumesios Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 2:57 PM

This is why so-called "conservatives" can't broaden the appeal of their message to the mass of the electorate. On the one hand, they say it's OK for a citizen to amass enough ammunition in his house to satisfy the basic load requirements of an infantry platoon. Which, by the way, is OK by me also. On the other hand, they want to criminalize the possession and ingestion of some weed by someone in their own home. You either want a smaller, less intrusive government or you will suffer under the whims of the collectivist, statist progressives, to whom you keep handing new tools to create a tyrannical police state.
SMyles Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 7:11 PM
Origanalist Again Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 1:06 PM
". The so- called "War on Drugs" is just another expansion of government not being fought to be won. "

Well, ya.......

Pot fans got what they wanted in Colorado: they finally convinced voters there to support the legalization of “recreational marijuana.” It’s seen as a huge victory for those who support the powers of the individual states, and a great example of “federalism” in action. But who is considering the burden of all of this on the American taxpayer?

Before I go further, let me be clear: I have never in my entire life consumed marijuana. When I was a kid I was out of step with my peers on this, but I’ve just never been interested in “trying it,” and that’s...