See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On February 26th, 2009 at 6:09 pm, zeroangel said:

   Dave:

   The exact same thing could be said of alcohol, and many legal prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

2. #102
   On February 26th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, zeroangel said:

   On top of that, if PCP were legal, you wouldn’t have to prove you didn’t want to take it (except perhaps to your spouse or parents).

3. #103
   On February 26th, 2009 at 6:15 pm, zeroangel said:

   Dave:

   One more thing. Sory for the rapid-fire posts.

   I am not advocating complete legalization of hard stuff. In fact, I understand the concern for young folks. I was content to stay on point with the wacky tabacky; something far less dangerous to children and adults than alcohol.

4. #104
   On February 26th, 2009 at 6:19 pm, Dave Turson said:

   Zeroangel,
   PCP, LSD, etc., are much more dangerous than over-the-counter drugs, and you know it. I will not comment further on this topic.

5. #105
   On February 26th, 2009 at 6:25 pm, zeroangel said:

   Dave:

   Well, then I don’t think you and I disagree, maybe you missed my earlier posts? As I was saying, I am not advocating legalizing the hard stuff. I am just following this intellectual exercise here.

   I was content to stick with herb.

   Furthermore, though I am not a pharmacist, I guarantee there are some awfully dangerous legal prescription drugs one could slip into young people’s drinks.

   Why shouldn’t an adult be allowed to toke up on New Year’s (for example)?

   For the sake of argument though, let’s take it a step further: why shouldn’t Chap be allowed to snort blow off hooker’s breasts in Vegas? He is an adult after all.

   If you don’t want to comment further that’s fine. There are plenty of others here that seem to want to carry on with this discussion.

6. #106
   On February 26th, 2009 at 6:51 pm, happyscrapper said:

   I guess the reason you don’t see many of us true conservatives on this thread is because we are not in sync with a lot of the comments on here. At least I am one of them. When infallible casually referred to a human being in thread #73 as a “clump of cells in a woman’s uterus”, I was pretty turned off to anything else he had to say. It is one thing to be pro-abortion. It is another to be disrespectful of all of us on these thread who believe human life is sacred. My daughter has a “clump of cells” in her uterus right now. His name is Connor. He won’t be born for quite a while yet, but he is already more of a human being than infallible is. Sorry, but that is how I feel. I think I speak for the others who have been avoiding this thread because it has been taken over by certain “libertarians” with no respect for conservatives.

7. #107
   On February 26th, 2009 at 7:00 pm, zeroangel said:

   happyscrapper:

   Oh come now. The respect thing is a two-way street. Perhaps you didn’t feel a need to intervene on the numerous occasions I was told I am going to hell?

   Recall, “respect” is the same cry Muslims make when their feelings are hurt.

   If you don’t like the conversation, fine, don’t comment. But please don’t decry the lack of respect for “conservatives” when you may or may not have little for other valid viewpoints. That includes the idea that a stem-cell is no more “alive” then a skin cell.

   My wife has an unborn child too, and as I have related many times on this board; I didn’t consider it “junior” until some time after it was a good deal more than a “clump of cells.”

   Thank you.

8. #108
   On February 26th, 2009 at 7:09 pm, gco said:

   On February 26th, 2009 at 9:58 am, DagneyT said:
   I’ve always contended, parents should require their kids to read Atlas Shrugged!

   I first read Atlas Shrugged when I was 20; prior to that age I hadn’t heard of it. It didn’t change my life – that distinction goes to The Fountainhead. So what’s a good age to introduce these books?

   For what it’s worth, little Hillary Rodham read Rand’s books. You might say what a fat lot of good it did her! It tells me that she knows just exactly the nature of the damage she wants to do.

9. #109
   On February 26th, 2009 at 7:10 pm, zeroangel said:

   PS. Limiting conservation to what is “respectful” is a fine way to suppress freedom of speach. Again, the Muslims have been rather effective on this course at the UN.

   BBL, need to go shoppping.

10. #110
    On February 26th, 2009 at 7:12 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On February 26th, 2009 at 7:00 pm, zeroangel said

    Look, you have every right to your opinions. And if someone told you to go to hell, or that you are going to hell, that was disrespectful as well. All I am saying is, there are a lot of us on Michelle’s threads who are pro-life. You can express your pro-abortion stance a bit more respectfully than calling a fetus a “clump of cells in a woman’s uterus”. Just words, I know, but offensive and not necessary. We all let loose around here, and welcome all opinions. I just think your posts sound like you are really full of yourself. Just my opinion.

11. #111
    On February 26th, 2009 at 7:16 pm, happyscrapper said:

    By the way, comparing my opinions to muslim thought (twice) is a cheap shot.

12. #112
    On February 26th, 2009 at 7:27 pm, happyscrapper said:

    For the sake of argument though, let’s take it a step further: why shouldn’t Chap be allowed to snort blow off hooker’s breasts in Vegas? He is an adult after all.

    Yeah, that sounds like real adult behavior to me! How old are you, zero? Still in high school or are you a college student?

13. #113
    On February 26th, 2009 at 8:55 pm, zeroangel said:

    Happyscrapper:

    And if someone told you to go to hell, or that you are going to hell, that was disrespectful as well.

    Yes it is. Thank you.

    You can express your pro-abortion stance a bit more respectfully than calling a fetus a “clump of cells in a woman’s uterus”.

    I’m sorry. The problem is, some of the viewpoints on this issue depend upon the idea that stem-cell’s or blastocysts ARE clumps of cells. There’s almost no way to be anymore polite and still convey our point of view. BTW, I would call my views more “pro-stem-cell research” rather than “pro-abortion.”

    By the way, comparing my opinions to muslim thought (twice) is a cheap shot.

    I wasn’t comparing your opinions at all. I was comparing the same way that they scream “I am offended” and then indicate that they would like the “offensive” person to restrict their speech so as not to offend. In that sense, and that sense alone, you are identical.

    Yeah, that sounds like real adult behavior to me! How old are you, zero? Still in high school or are you a college student?

    Please, go back and read what I wrote and it should become obvious that I don’t condone that behavior and that I was mostly playing with Chap. One could say, drinking to excess (among other things) is not adult behavior either, but it’s also not illegal. Which comes back to my point; why should MJ (or in the Chap example), cocaine be illegal?

14. #114
    On February 26th, 2009 at 9:38 pm, happyscrapper said:

    I am open to the idea of MJ being legal, at least within certain boundaries and age laws, like alcohol. Cocaine…well, if you can overlook the fact that cocaine addiction is deadly, destroys lives and kills people, fine.

15. #115
    On February 26th, 2009 at 9:44 pm, havok said:

    Some of you probably don’t want to read this…but some might. As a fan of Rand’s anti communist bent I was rather shocked to find out she became what she despised. It just shows that we are all human.

    http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml

16. #116
    On February 26th, 2009 at 10:38 pm, Dave Turson said:

    Which comes back to my point; why should MJ (or in the Chap example), cocaine be illegal?

    After cocaine and marijuana are legalized, will you sprinkle your joints with cocaine? When you offer your joints to your girlfriends will you tell them about the cocaine, after all, it’s your word against theirs? How about cocaine in alcohol? Maybe you could soak your marijuana in alcohol and add a dash of cocaine. Sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll—but first you must play loud rock music, then take the drugs, and everything works out as planned. I’ll just bet you’re a real love god.

17. #117
    On February 26th, 2009 at 11:03 pm, infallible said:

    Why does everything have to come to abortion?

    Dave Turson, my friend (well, probably not, since I’m less of a human than a clump of cells to you), there was absolutely no offense intended in that statement. At early parts of a pregnancy, that’s all that there is: a clump of cells. It looks like you were seeking an opportunity to become offended, just so you could cry about it. It’s a tactic that is frequently leveled at others, so I’m a bit disappointed to see it done here.

    You incorrectly state that such a thing is a human life, even though it bears absolutely no characteristics that put it in that category. You also presume that anyone who thinks differently than you, and then has the gall to state such a thing publicly is being offensive. Personally, I find it offensive that you want to take your religious doctrine and unreal definition and universally apply it to everyone, and damn to them and their individual rights. You would sacrifice the rights and the life of an actual human for something that is decidedly not. It is amusing that you guys call yourselves “pro-life” when the lives of people seems to be the last thing on your minds. And I apologize if this isn’t you specifically, but it is certainly true for a vast amount of conservatives: You decry people having abortions while at the same time refusing them access to proper sex education and birth control. Instead, you foist upon them proven-to-fail abstinence “education.”

    This is the kind of hypocrisy that caused Rand to distance herself from conservatives as much as she did liberals. And it’s the kind of contradiction in beliefs that drove me away from conservatism.

    The so-called “pro-life” movement is merely another way to inject religion into a government that was intended to be free from it. Just like “intelligent design”, faith-based initiatives, and inserting “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance 60 years ago. Yet you cringe at a theocracy like Iran? Thank goodness the founders made it a point to iterate that this was not a Christian nation, or who knows how we may have ended up?

    And a quick aside to havok who, in his link, talks about the issues in Rand’s personal life and how it affected those that follow her, and how some of her admirers in their fervor almost deify her. Some of that criticism is absolutely dead on. There are a lot people who follow her rather than follow her philosophy, and in doing so, go against everything she believed in. Those people have lost sight of the forest for the trees, and it’s a shame. I think it’s something that she would have detested and renounced with everything she had. Furthermore, there were the issues in her personal life. She was not a perfect being by any means, but I don’t think that her personal life should be used as a quasi-ad-hominem attack on the ideas. It’s something I see all the time, and I’d hope that people would rise above it. Having said all that, I don’t want to denigrate her or somehow diminish her thoughts or her accomplishments. She was an absolutely remarkable woman with remarkable ideas that, even if you disagree, you can at least appreciate the originality of.

18. #118
    On February 26th, 2009 at 11:07 pm, zeroangel said:

    Dave:

    Look, if you don’t want to be a part of a serious conversation then you don’t have to. Your previous post is just making you look foolish.

    No one is condoning this behavior. We are merely entertaining ideas about to what extent (if at all) the government should try and legislate drugs.

    This is relevant to the topic because Ayn Rand (and Objectivists in a general sense) were opposed to making drugs illegal. We have brought up several issues to include the money spent on the “war on drugs” and the idea that something like MJ is far less dangerous then a legal drug like alcohol.

    As far as being a love god, yes, I think so. My wife being pregnant has slowed things down a bit though, you understand.

19. #119
    On February 27th, 2009 at 2:27 am, emjem24 said:

    Zero/Other MJ Advocates:

    The issue of Marijuana is where you and I disagree. For places like the Netherlands, legalizing pot/hashish/marijuana (whatever you want to call it) has unforseen consequences. One of those unforseen consequences is the introduction of organized crime and criminal gangs. What the Dutch didn’t realize is that when you legalize anything, like marijuana and prostitution, it is that easy to turn into something that these gangs/organized crime can control. And where prostitutes and marijuana appear, there are more unsavory things like hard drugs, crime, etc. that will follow.

    As for Ayn Rand’s take on drugs… she didn’t think highly of their effect on the body/mind. People like to treat marijuana like it’s some harmeless recreational drug but it isn’t. Like crack and cocaine, there are different grades of marijuana. Marijuana interrupts lives… it’s addictive… and it reverses brain chemistry. Some studies have found that it increases the likelihood of some cancers.

    So, Zero, Chap, other marijuana advocates… there may be people, in your estimation, who “infrequently” use drugs and they are “presumed” to do no harm, but is that the kind of message we want to send our kids? It’s okay to smoke pot, or drink, it won’t hurt ya?

    I feel extremely personal about this subject because marijuana ruined my family and the life of my sister. College kids aren’t the only ones who do MJ. High school kids like my sister can get their hands on it too. She wasn’t just “recreationally” using it… she was smoking it all the time. It affected her grades, her behavior, and it made her a total, raving maniac.

    MJ affected our family. My sister became increasingly irresponsible… she couldn’t process what she was doing to the rest of us. My parents yanked her into drug treatment (yes there’s even rehab for marijuana)… it didn’t work until she had to clean up her act after getting caught shoplifting twice.

    You see, MJ and I have a very bad history. Nobody ever talks about what it does to families. It’s just us misguided squares being cruel for taking alcohol’s side (which I don’t since alcoholism runs in my family). So, when I hear about how people shouldn’t judge recreational users of MJ (or any other drug) I want to laugh. There are so many people who get introduced to MJ and form a life-long habit that defines them forever.

    It certainly did for my sister. When MJ and other drugs compel a family member to steal from you, and totally disrupt other people’s lives just so you can get a high with your friends… it’s no longer just some misunderstood, recreational drug.

    Don’t believe the hype. Ayn Rand had it right.

    /sorry for the long post

20. #120
    On February 27th, 2009 at 8:19 am, happyscrapper said:

    On February 26th, 2009 at 11:03 pm, infallible said:

    Excuse me, but I believe you are attributing my comments to Dave Turson and blasting him. Please re-read the post. It was from me.
    

    The so-called “pro-life” movement is merely another way to inject religion into a government that was intended to be free from it.

    I am pro-life because I believe life is sacred and it begins at conception. We can argue that point, but no one will win. You have your opinion about it and I have mine. But my reason for being pro-life has nothing to do with injecting religion into government.

    Next issue…where do you get that our government was INTENDED to be free from religion? Where in our founder’s documents does it say that? Our Pilgrims came here to be FREE to choose their religion and not to have a certain specific religion forced upon them by a king. That is not freedom FROM religion, it is freedom OF religion.

    Oh, and if we think that all this druggie stuff is harmful, criminal, disgusting, or whatever…that again is our opinion and as such, we have a right to express it, just as you have right to sound like a drugged up fool. I will check back here once in a while to see if anyone else has said anything worth reading. But since this thread seems to be mostly about extolling the virtues of the legalization of dangerous, life destroying drugs, I don’t have anything more to contribute.

21. #121
    On February 27th, 2009 at 8:23 am, happyscrapper said:

    On February 27th, 2009 at 2:27 am, emjem24 said:
    Zero/Other MJ Advocates:

    emjem…Well said and right on! No one on this thread had addressed the issue of the HARM drugs do on so many levels! Your post was badly needed in the discussion.

22. #122
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:07 am, chapoutier said:

    emjem…Well said and right on! No one on this thread had addressed the issue of the HARM drugs do on so many levels! Your post was badly needed in the discussion.

    I would like to thank emjem for her thoughtful, sincere post. I definitely would not describe myself as a pot advocate (having never tried the stuff). But, repsectfully, no one is denying that marijuana abuse, and especially in minors, can ruin lives.

    But the exact same thing can be said with respect to alcohol, and alcohol tends to be more destructive, more addictive and more readily available. Why is it treated differently?

    It also sounds like you advocate basing our marijuana policy based upon the lowest common denominator, the abuser. Setting aside the Second Amendment for a second, you would not advocate we base our gun laws on those that abuse the right to carry arms. I doubt you support any of the laws out there banning trans fats in restaurants because a small percentage of the population choose to gorge themselves on Big Macs and end up obese.

23. #123
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:18 am, happyscrapper said:

    Chap…You have a point. I do think legalizing MJ might be o.k. if it can be controlled as “much” as alcohol. Yes, both can destroy lives. But I don’t think MJ is any WORSE than alcohol, except that MJ can lead to other drug problems, whereas alcohol usually remains the drug of choice. If alcohol is legal, then perhaps MJ should be also. Both are pretty equally destructive to lives and brain cells, to say nothing of causing a lot of unwanted pregnancies!

24. #124
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:19 am, zeroangel said:

    emjem24:

    when you legalize anything, like marijuana and prostitution, it is that easy to turn into something that these gangs/organized crime can control.

    What evidence do you base this assertion on? The fact is it is the complete opposite. Whenever you legalize anything it removes control from the criminals. Recall what happened to mobsters in the US after prohibition ended.

    I am sorry to hear about your sister. That is a real shame. I hope what I say doesn’t upset you but please refer to my post #45. The fact is, that MJ is far less dangerous than alcohol. If you assert that MJ should be illegal you must logically assert alcohol should be illegal as well.

    I’ll tackle some of your points individually:

    Like crack and cocaine, there are different grades of marijuana.

    Yes, and legalizing it will allow the FDA some measure of control of what is out there.

    Some studies have found that it increases the likelihood of some cancers.

    Alcohol? Tobacco?

    It’s okay to smoke pot, or drink, it won’t hurt ya?

    What message does alcohol and tobacco being legal send to our kids?

    I feel extremely personal about this subject because marijuana ruined my family and the life of my sister.

    Alcohol ruins far more families; alcohol KILLS people.

    It affected her grades, her behavior, and it made her a total, raving maniac.

    This may or may not have been the case with your sister, but sometimes MJ has other things mixed with it. Legalizing it will also give the FDA a measure of control.

    My parents yanked her into drug treatment (yes there’s even rehab for marijuana)…

    They also have rehab for alcohol.

    It’s just us misguided squares being cruel for taking alcohol’s side (which I don’t since alcoholism runs in my family).

    So then you advocate making alcohol illegal?

    There are so many people who get introduced to MJ and form a life-long habit that defines them forever.

    Alcohol?

    See, emjem, the problem with your point of view here is this: you assert how bad MJ is and how it destroys lives and then seem to downplay the effects of alcohol. Furthermore, as I mentioned in another post, think about what your position means. You want to deny someone who wants to smoke pot that luxury at gunpoint. You would have them imprisoned for doing it in their own home, however, when it comes to alcohol, that’s just fine.

    The issue is entirely a cultural one against MJ. It is irrational when put alongside the fact of alcohol being legal.

    happyscrapper:

    But since this thread seems to be mostly about extolling the virtues of the legalization of dangerous, life destroying drugs, I don’t have anything more to contribute.

    If you are allowed to have a drink of a dangerous, life-destroying (alcohol) drug every so often. Why can’t someone else smoke some herb and zone out in front of the TV on occasion?

25. #125
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am, zeroangel said:

    happyscrapper:

    except that MJ can lead to other drug problems, whereas alcohol usually remains the drug of choice.

    Actually, I think that one could make the arguement that this is only true because MJ is illegal. From a certain point of view, alcohol (or tobacco) are the worst gateway drugs since every user starts with them.

    The only difference is that once one makes the “jump” into illegal behavior, doing something else illegal becomes easier. It has nothing to do with the drug MJ itself.

26. #126
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:43 am, happyscrapper said:

    I was mainly talking about the references made earlier about “snorting cocaine in Las Vegas”, which I know was just pushing Chap’s buttons at the time, but also the point was made…what would be wrong with that as long as you are an adult? So, anything you want to do as an adult should be o.k. then? Or just drugs? Does that spill over into other areas of adult life? Once you turn 21 do you automatically make good choices? While I am against Big Brother Government regulating us to death, there are exceptions if the population shows itself, as a whole, to be irresonsible and dangerous…as in drug abuse. You mentioned guns…government has placed a LOT of regulations on guns, including making some kinds of guns illegal to own. And drugs should also be regulated and in some cases, illegal. This is good for the population as a whole. I don’t have time for a long discussion on this topic, and it seems to have been pretty well covered, so I will close. Thank you for listening.

27. #127
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:53 am, zeroangel said:

    happyscrapper:

    I think we generally agree here. Infallible is the pure Objectivist here, not me *smile*.

    I am definitely for legalizing weed, but stop short with things like heroin, PCP, crack, etc.

    I have to admit though; I am undecided about things like cocaine or MDMA and probably lean toward legalization. Furthermore, I really don’t think prostitution should be illegal as long as it is zoned properly (maybe limited to just Vegas isn’t so bad).

28. #128
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:58 am, chapoutier said:

    I think the difference between coke, crack, etc…and pot is that there is no way those drugs can be used or attained responsibly. They can literally kill you the first time you use them and every time thereafter. Also, were pot legalized, it would be very easy to produce here at home. Such is not the case with cocaine or poppy-based drugs. That funnels money to people who we really don’t want getting it.

    Keeping up with the gun analogy, there is no good that can come from a guy owning a bazooka. It is right to prevent him from doing so.

29. #129
    On February 27th, 2009 at 9:59 am, chapoutier said:

    Furthermore, I really don’t think prostitution should be illegal as long as it is zoned properly (maybe limited to just Vegas isn’t so bad).

    Actually, Vegas is one of the few places in Nevada prostitution is illegal.

30. #130
    On February 27th, 2009 at 10:07 am, happyscrapper said:

    it would be very easy to produce here at home

    That statement reminded me of a picture of my younger brother that I happened to come across a while back. It was taken while he was in basic training in the army, back in the Viet Nam days. He and a buddy were sitting on a porch with some potted plants next to them. The plants were unmistakably MJ. Yes, they grew their own, right out there on the porch. Also, I tried pot back in the 60′s, as a young person who was ready to try almost anything for fun. Back then, it was a felony and you could get 5-10 in prison! If I had been caught, my life would have taken a lot different path and who knows where I would be today? We have come a long way from that, and I am glad.

31. #131
    On February 27th, 2009 at 11:08 am, zeroangel said:

    chapoutier:

    I think the difference between coke, crack, etc…and pot is that there is no way those drugs can be used or attained responsibly.

    This is a good point and I think I might have to concede ref. cocaine on this point. However, what about coca leaves? They can probably be grown at home with similiar artificial envirorments used for MJ. Chewing coca leaves can’t be all that bad, as it was pointed out before.

    Keeping up with the gun analogy, there is no good that can come from a guy owning a bazooka. It is right to prevent him from doing so.

    Yes, similiarly with aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, and tanks. I am not sure the founding fathers could have foreseen of these types of weapons. I wonder, do we have any idea of what their opinion might have been on a militia man owning a private cannon? What about private ownership of a warship? I recall “privateers” but I think that was before we became a nation.

    Actually, Vegas is one of the few places in Nevada prostitution is illegal.

    I did not know that. I have never been to Vegas. I trust you came to this knowledge out of purely academic or professional concern *wink*.

    happyscrapper:

    Back then, it was a felony and you could get 5-10 in prison!

    Yes, precisely a good reason to legalize in my mind. There is no good reason to send someone to jail, or even give them a slap on the wrist just because of some youthful experimentation.

32. #132
    On February 27th, 2009 at 11:29 am, happyscrapper said:

    Chewing coca leaves can’t be all that bad, as it was pointed out before.

    Cocoa leaves? Are you serious? And here I thought it was all that chocolate that was making me feel so good!

33. #133
    On February 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am, zeroangel said:

    LOL!

    Of course happyscrapper is joking, but for the benefit of others that might not know any different:

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

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

34. #134
    On February 27th, 2009 at 11:47 am, happyscrapper said:

    On February 27th, 2009 at 11:36 am, zeroangel said:
    LOL!

    Of course happyscrapper is joking, but for the benefit of others that might not know any different:

    I did not know that. Wow, the stuff you learn on these threads. Of course, there is one thing that chocolate and MJ have in common. They both make you fat!

35. #135
    On February 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm, zeroangel said:

    happyscrapper:

    Glad to be of service. It is a common misconception I once held as well (coca vs. cocoa).

    As far as getting fat; again, I know you are playing around, but in the interest of being accurate; MJ itself doesn’t make you fat, just lazy and hungry. It’s the other stuff you eat while high that makes you fat.

    Similarly, beer does a good job of making people fat too. Cigarettes actually do the opposite.

    Anyhow, to summarize; it is my firm assertion that legalizing weed will do several things:

    1) End wasteful government spending on a crusade against MJ that can’t be won.

    2) Produce revenue from taxing it in the same way cigarettes and alcohol are taxed.

    3) Create a viable source of income and economic growth in a regulated industry.

    4) Take power away from criminal elements that currently engage in the trade, to include rather unsavory folks outside our borders.

    5) Allow the purity and safety of MJ to be controlled and regulated.

    6) Allow for actually more safety and control in deference to our children because of #3, #4, and #5.

    7) Lastly, allow responsible adults a legal alternate luxury to a far worse drug: alcohol.

    Perhaps one day in the future a retired, grumpy old ZA complete with aches and pains might be granted the occasional indulgence of a glass of wine and a toke of herb whilst watching the discovery channel? Certainly that is nothing to send a person to jail, or even fine them over.

    Not to mention the fact that its far better (less addictive and less harmful) than some prescription alternatives.

36. #136
    On February 27th, 2009 at 12:20 pm, zeroangel said:

    Something else posters might find interesting (this is not urban legend):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola

    When launched Coca-Cola’s two key ingredients were cocaine (benzoylmethyl ecgonine) and caffeine. The cocaine was derived from the coca leaf and the caffeine from kola nut, leading to the name Coca-Cola (the “K” in Kola was replaced with a “C” for marketing purposes).[23][24]

    Coca-Cola did once contain an estimated nine milligrams of cocaine per glass, but in 1903 it was removed.[25] Coca-Cola still contains coca flavoring.

    After 1904, instead of using fresh leaves, Coca-Cola started using “spent” leaves—the leftovers of the cocaine-extraction process with cocaine trace levels left over at a molecular level.[26] To this day, Coca-Cola uses as an ingredient a cocaine-free coca leaf extract prepared at a Stepan Company plant in Maywood, New Jersey.

37. #137
    On February 27th, 2009 at 1:35 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    When MJ and other drugs compel a family member to steal from you, and totally disrupt other people’s lives just so you can get a high with your friends… it’s no longer just some misunderstood, recreational drug.

    Well, it’s a good thing we spent billions and billions and billions of dollars making sure that people can’t get to all those evil drugs that make people do evil things, isn’t it?

    If any portion of the drug war was effective in the least, I would remain a proponent of keeping it illegal. But the system is a failure by absolutely every definition. I do not want to waste my money on the futility of it any more. I also resent the freedoms we’ve given up in the name of fighting drugs.

    This country got along fine for the first 175 or so years, before the drug wars became a government power center.

    On the other hand, it isn’t my issue, largely because it simply is never going to change. The government is never going to give us back any freedoms that they’ve taken, period.

    We live in the USSA now. Failure to carry your papers (especially when driving) is a crime. We used to laugh at that concept, back in the days when we could get on an airplane without an ID, and without taking our shoes off.

38. #138
    On February 27th, 2009 at 2:12 pm, zeroangel said:

    But the system is a failure by absolutely every definition. I do not want to waste my money on the futility of it any more.

    No doubt. A good place to start (as it is with many things) is the wikipedia article on the “War on Drugs:”

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

    This in particular stands out to me (having been familiar with many of the other points):

    In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution,[17] Libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the Constitution. Alcohol prohibition required amending the Constitution, because this was not a power granted to the federal government. Hager asserts if this is true, then marijuana prohibition should likewise require a Constitutional amendment.

    emphasis mine.

    Chap, please educate me, (I ask because you are a lawyer and likely know the answer) what is the prohibitionist retort to this?

    Something else I found (interestingly, this “Jeremiah Project” seems largely very “conservative”):

    http://www.jeremiahproject.com/trashingamerica/war-on-drugs.html

    Here, the first paragraph:

    The War on Drugs wouldn’t be possible if the federal government obeyed the Tenth Amendment. We have seen the emergence of mandatory minimum sentences, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, the creation of drug courts, in lieu of anything acceptable under the Sixth Amendment, drug testing in schools, in disregard of the Fifth Amendment, and no-knock warrants and to increasingly lowered standards of probable cause for search and seizure, in open contempt of the Fourth Amendment. The War on Drugs has also been used to justify stronger laws against guns, in violation of the Second Amendment, and restrictions on commercial speech, in violation of the First Amendment.

39. #139
    On February 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pm, chapoutier said:

    Chap, please educate me, (I ask because you are a lawyer and likely know the answer) what is the prohibitionist retort to this?

    I would think that is an incredibly silly argument. The commerce clause (which has been beefed up considerably since 1919) would give the Federal government all the authority it needs.

40. #140
    On February 27th, 2009 at 2:37 pm, zeroangel said:

    Chap:

    Oh well, it sounded good at first.

    I guess then my next question is: why did they bother with the 18th Amendment at all?

41. #141
    On February 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm, infallible said:

    Excuse me, but I believe you are attributing my comments to Dave Turson and blasting him. Please re-read the post. It was from me.

    True, true. My mistake. Apologies to you, Dave Turson!

    However, while taking a break from enjoyable scrapping, happyscrapper replied:

    I am pro-life because I believe life is sacred and it begins at conception. We can argue that point, but no one will win. You have your opinion about it and I have mine. But my reason for being pro-life has nothing to do with injecting religion into government.

    Of course it does. From where does that definition come? Religion, of course! That’s how it’s about injecting religion into government and foisting that religion onto everyone, including those that don’t believe.

    Next issue…where do you get that our government was INTENDED to be free from religion? Where in our founder’s documents does it say that? Our Pilgrims came here to be FREE to choose their religion and not to have a certain specific religion forced upon them by a king. That is not freedom FROM religion, it is freedom OF religion.

    You may want to check your history, mate. The pilgrims (thankfully) had nothing to do with the foundations of the US nor had they anything to do with the creation of the government. But if you look at the men that did: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc, they were very clear that America was not formed on Christian (or any other religious) principles, and that religion was to be wholly separate from government. That’s a major point of the first amendment. It’s not to prevent the establishment of any specific religion, it’s to prevent the establishment of ANY AND ALL religion.

    Since we’re in a thread about Ayn Rand, I think it’s appropriate to provide this link of direct quotes from many of the Founding Fathers that wholly support my position:
    Ayn Rand Center article, “The Founding Fathers on Religion.”

    Also, emjem24 consulted with Synergy and made a passionate argument against legalization. Part of it was as follows:

    The issue of Marijuana is where you and I disagree. For places like the Netherlands, legalizing pot/hashish/marijuana (whatever you want to call it) has unforseen consequences. One of those unforseen consequences is the introduction of organized crime and criminal gangs.

    I have to dispute this. It’s prohibition that encourages the creation of organized crime. When alcohol was illegal, it was the mobs that ferried spirits and profited by them. Today, with drugs being illegal, it’s cartels and street gangs that flourish. If what you said was true, then still today there would still be mobsters running gin. But that isn’t the case. The underground market for booze died with prohibition, and the mob lost a lot of its money and influence. The same would happen with the violent street gangs that are around today. They wouldn’t have the money or motive to commit violence, so they’d whither down. (Not vanish completely, of course, but things would improve.)

    And as far as the dangerous effects of drugs, I agree with you in almost every way. I don’t think anyone should be using drugs, even pot, and I’ve seen heavy users have some real negative effects as a result of the drug. But, if anything, legalization would make it harder for minors, like your sister, to get drugs. It’s been clearly demonstrated by studies that it’s easier for kids to get a hold of pot than it is for them to get alcohol or cigarettes. Drug dealers don’t care who they sell to, but businesses do. It’s in a store’s interest to obey the law (of which, sale to minors should be absolutely illegal), and this is why kids have a harder time getting legal drugs than illegal ones.

42. #142
    On February 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pm, zeroangel said:

    Infallible:

    Damn, I am happy you are here.

    From your links:

    ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds

    I have a sudden urge here to reread “Candide.”

    This is one of my favorites and I have used it as a .sig file in other places:

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. 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.

    This could be as good an answer as any to Pascal’s Wager:

    Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear….Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

    It is sometimes amazing to me that this “debate” is still raging, so many years after the Enlightenment. I am also somewhat appalled that I never learned any of these things about the founding fathers in High School.

43. #143
    On February 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm, infallible said:

    zeroangel, I’ve always hated when people use Pascal’s Wager when talking about belief. I understand the logic behind it, but I can’t understand a deity that would want worship just because someone is hedging his bets.

44. #144
    On February 27th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On February 27th, 2009 at 2:48 pm, infallible said: It’s not to prevent the establishment of any specific religion, it’s to prevent the establishment of ANY AND ALL religion.

    Yes,I agree, the government shall not establish a religion…ANY religion. That doesn’t mean that religion must be banned from anything that has to do with the government. Establishing a religion and allowing freedom of religion are two very different things. As I said before, this isn’t an argument that will be settled any time soon. But I believe what I believe and will always stand on my principles. And I’m sure you will too.
    Wow…I never realized before how very engrossed people were in Ayn Rand, almost like a religion in itself.

45. #145
    On February 27th, 2009 at 3:36 pm, zeroangel said:

    Infallible:

    That’s only part of the problem with it. The logic is flawed however way you look at it. It assumes not only a deity that wants the worship of a person hedging bets, but it also assumes that the deity wants worship at all. Furthermore, it assumes that the kind of worship desired is something similar to whatever brand of worship the person putting forward “Pascal’s Wager” subscribes to.

    A glib answer to a “Pascal Wagerer” might be:

    “Goodness! I should immediately start sacrificing virgins lest the Sun God become angry!”

    I remember working out how flawed it was when I was young, long before I even knew it was called “Pascal’s Wager.”

    As Hitchens has said (I think this is the correct link, I can’t verify because I can’t view youtube here):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X94YffpUryo

    …religious hucksterism. The “used car salesman’s” argument for religion.

46. #146
    On February 27th, 2009 at 3:39 pm, zeroangel said:

    happyscrapper:

    Wow…I never realized before how very engrossed people were in Ayn Rand, almost like a religion in itself.

    More like a philosophy, after all, I don’t expect to see her after I die; I don’t think she created the universe; and I don’t consider her the final arbitrator on morality. *wink*

47. #147
    On February 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, infallible said:

    Happily and scrappily, happyscrapper said:

    Yes,I agree, the government shall not establish a religion…ANY religion. That doesn’t mean that religion must be banned from anything that has to do with the government. Establishing a religion and allowing freedom of religion are two very different things.

    This is a common misrepresentation of the Establishment Clause. The fact is that the first amendment was meant to prevent the endorsement of any religion as well as religion in total by the government. The Constitution and the republican government that was established was centered on the idea of individual rights, including the rights of non-believers. To that end, it means that government is not the domain of religion (and also the corollary, religion is no place for government). In order for it to be fair, and for it to treat all its citizens equally, a government must be secular. If it weren’t, then members of one religious group would be held in higher esteem than those that are not. As I said before, this is exactly the modus operandi of theocratic regimes like Iran, so I can’t see why anyone who is opposed to them would want that here.

    Wow…I never realized before how very engrossed people were in Ayn Rand, almost like a religion in itself.

    You’ve stumbled on to a particular annoyance. People claiming that appreciation of the philosophy is a religion. It most certainly is not. Now, I will admit that there are a minority who have fallen into a sort of cult of personality with Rand herself, but people that subscribe to a philosophy are not religious, and it is not like a religion. This is the same sort of thing as when people say that atheism is just another shade of religion. It is nothing of the sort, and a complete distortion of the belief system.

    But ole zeroangel did a fine job of making this point. Religion requires metaphysical mysticism, and there is none of that in Objectivism.

48. #148
    On February 27th, 2009 at 10:27 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On February 27th, 2009 at 4:43 pm, infallible said:
    This is a common misrepresentation of the Establishment Clause.

    You say that I misrepresent the Establishment Clause. And I say that you do. Oh, well. That is another one of those…depends on how you look at it…things.

    Happily and scrappily, happyscrapper said:

    I’m glad my username amuses you. Yours amuses me too!! I chuckle at how pompous and arrogant it sounds. And yes, I am a scrapbooker and I love it. I am a retired grandmother of 2 1/2 boys and I have a lot of hobbies…genealogy (back to the Mayflower on my side), scrapbooking, writing (just finished a mystery novel), etc. I am a Christian who has had some very strange and marvelous experiences which have absolutely convinced me of the existence of God. Now, I am off to other threads which have been too long neglected by me. See you on one of them?

49. #149
    On February 27th, 2009 at 11:33 pm, zeroangel said:

    happyscrapper:

    I’m glad my username amuses you. Yours amuses me too!! I chuckle at how pompous and arrogant it sounds.

    I really feel I must interject here because you have in this thread now accused both me and infallible of arrogance (or in my case, being full of myself).

    I really don’t think infallible is so much amused by your nick and just being clever with his introduction, he did the same with mine and others.

    As for the arrogance claim, I can speak for myself and say I go to great lengths to be polite and accurate with my viewpoints, and from reading infallible it seems he is the same way. There is a difference between “arrogance” and being clear, honest, and straightforward about one’s viewpoints.

    For example, if we used your loose definition of “arrogance” I could easily accuse you of it here:

    I am a Christian who has had some very strange and marvelous experiences which have absolutely convinced me of the existence of God.

    I could say that I have had some experiences that have “convinced” me of the opposite; among them my experiences in the war.

    Anyhow, I am really not trying to be confrontational and I want to be as respectful as possible to you in deference to your age. Please extent us the same courtesy. Am I arrogant? Perhaps I am, but it’s certainly a rather polite form *smile*.