Seventy-five years, millions of arrests and billions of dollars later, we are still living with the consequences of that ignorant, ill-considered decision, which nationalized a policy that punishes peaceful people and squanders taxpayer money in a blind vendetta...
In response to:
under the influence, but is it right to say to one group you can smoke it, but to the other (because of job) you cannot? The answer is yes and no. There are many problems with legalizing weed (I am speaking concerning my situation), can we trust some people to only smoke on the weekend and not while they drive, can there be a drug test that can determine when a person last smoked? What also bothers me is that, now, I have to be even more aware of those folks that might be under in influence of pot. People are people, and I see an increase in traffic accidents and pedestrian injuries because people will drive while under the influence and smoke it while they drive. If that were not true, then why are there those that drink alcohol and drive?
Shortly before the House of Representatives approved a federal ban on marijuana in 1937, the Republican minority leader, Bertrand Snell of New York, confessed, "I do not know anything about the bill." The Democratic majority leader, Sam Rayburn of Texas, educated him. "It has something to do with something that is called marihuana," Rayburn said. "I believe it is a narcotic of some kind."
- Quotes of the day Allahpundit 2 hours ago
- Kochs’ next dastardly deed: Creating good public defenders for low-income accused Mary Katharine Ham 3 hours ago
- Reading the early voting tea leaves: Republicans closing the gap Mary Katharine Ham 4 hours ago
- White House to red-state Democrats: Don’t blame Precious if you lose Allahpundit 4 hours ago
- ISIS mortar shells now landing in Baghdad’s Green Zone Noah Rothman 5 hours ago
- SCOTUS to consider police searches of hotel registries Jazz Shaw 6 hours ago