Take that Ashcroft: Court Backs Doctors On Marijuana

[Tripleshot]

Why is it the loudest in these arguements are the least likely to be affected by legalization of MJ? Do you think they sit by their PC's screamimg at their wives to bring them another beer so they can dis someone in ATOT without getting their fat ass out of the chair?

Legalize marajuana. Period. It takes a real ass to keep arguing that its a gateway drug or harmful to anyone. Its alweays these same crybabies bitchen about grass while they are choking down a beer and nuts, declaring how rightously conservative they are, and therefor they know whats good for everyone.

Screw conservatives. I'll take liberal any day before I succomb to the narrow minded myopic conservative faction.

Vote Democrat. Keep the rat bastard republicans in their place.

(Just my socially liberal, fiscal conservative humble opinion. I really do like everyone. )

Jesus loves you, who am I to fault that logic?

 

[Tominator]

Tripleshot, did you discover a new drug or what?

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Tominator
Part of the definition of a Liberal is they always think everyone is equally evil so it's ok to be evil.

I cannot for the life of me see how one can be a Social Liberal and an Economic Conservative.

Social Liberals need to tax the Economic Conservative or they would have zero money. They could not forward their agenda.

Ecomomic Conservatives are for standing on ones own two feet with minimal involvement by government.

Thos two basic philosphys are so opposed they are like fire and water!

Hardly. It's really not hard at all to understand the mixing of liberalism and conservatism. It makes more sense than straight modern liberalism or conservativism.

Look at your last sentence: "...with minimal involvement by government". Bingo. That's social liberalism, just like economic conservatism. WHY should the government get involved in the absolute banning of a smokable plant? WHY should the government get involved in things that adults can decide and deal with the consequences? I'm a social liberal because I don't like government involvement in most forms. I don't want them pillaging my paycheck nor do I want them to restrict women's reproductive health choices, throw gays in the closet (or string them up against a pole to die) or tell us what we can and cannot put inside our bodies. I'm consistent: I don't like the hand of government getting involved in my life.

Your definition of a social liberal isn't accurate. You are thinking of the gun-grabbing, hug-a-tree types. I'd be apt to call those people socialists or maybe greens. Social liberals are liberty-minded and meld well with economic conservatives.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: Tominator
It always amazes me that sampling 800 or so people can tell the rest of us what we want.

I have no probs with medical use. The active ingredient that is useful can be applied in a patch.

The money for legalisation DOES NOT come from the medical community!

Follow the money....

How does that change anything? THC still gets you high, no matter how it enters your body.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: mithrandir2001

Originally posted by: Tominator
Part of the definition of a Liberal is they always think everyone is equally evil so it's ok to be evil.

I cannot for the life of me see how one can be a Social Liberal and an Economic Conservative.

Social Liberals need to tax the Economic Conservative or they would have zero money. They could not forward their agenda.

Ecomomic Conservatives are for standing on ones own two feet with minimal involvement by government.

Thos two basic philosphys are so opposed they are like fire and water!

Hardly. It's really not hard at all to understand the mixing of liberalism and conservatism. It makes more sense than straight modern liberalism or conservativism.

Look at your last sentence: "...with minimal involvement by government". Bingo. That's social liberalism, just like economic conservatism. WHY should the government get involved in the absolute banning of a smokable plant? WHY should the government get involved in things that adults can decide and deal with the consequences? I'm a social liberal because I don't like government involvement in most forms. I don't want them pillaging my paycheck nor do I want them to restrict women's reproductive health choices, throw gays in the closet (or string them up against a pole to die) or tell us what we can and cannot put inside our bodies. I'm consistent: I don't like the hand of government getting involved in my life.

Your definition of a social liberal isn't accurate. You are thinking of the gun-grabbing, hug-a-tree types. I'd be apt to call those people socialists or maybe greens. Social liberals are liberty-minded and meld well with economic conservatives.

This is not strictly a liberal od conservatve subject.

Run on the legalisation of pot. Liberal or Conservative, YOU LOSE!

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: Tominator
It always amazes me that sampling 800 or so people can tell the rest of us what we want.

I have no probs with medical use. The active ingredient that is useful can be applied in a patch.

The money for legalisation DOES NOT come from the medical community!

Follow the money....

How does that change anything? THC still gets you high, no matter how it enters your body.

THC is not the active ingredient!

The medical community is strangely silent on the pro-legalisation issue.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: Tominator
It always amazes me that sampling 800 or so people can tell the rest of us what we want.

I have no probs with medical use. The active ingredient that is useful can be applied in a patch.

The money for legalisation DOES NOT come from the medical community!

Follow the money....

How does that change anything? THC still gets you high, no matter how it enters your body.

THC is not the active ingredient!

The medical community is strangely silent on the pro-legalisation issue.

It isn't? Oh. Care to tell me what is?

 

[mithrandir2001]

If the government says MJ is an illegal substance because it has "no medical value" then why are tobacco cigarettes legal?

Oh that's right, Tobacco funds the campaigns of many politicians. Can't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Dudd]

We haven't seen this discussion before.

Just face it, no one will ever change their mind. Both parties think that they know what is best for you, and they will not back down. Democrats want to take away your guns and spend your money on welfare and other transfer payments. Republicans want to legislate morality to you, drugs are bad, mmkay. The concept of personal responsibility is lost by both parties, and arguing about it just wastes everybodies time.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Tominator
Typical Liberal. Call names with little substance. Ignore the facts to further you agenda. Out of context quotes. Will it ever end?

Typical Tominator. Call names with NO substance. I have posted plenty of hard examples of how ASScroft abuses the U.S. Constitution, except in those rare instances where he can pervert one or two phrases in a feeble attempt to back up his own ideological agenda. I'm too busy to search all my posts, but you can probably find some good examples by just going to Google and entering some rather neutral search criteria like Ashcroft and Constitution.

 

[tcsenter]

The Justice Department is hardly an unbiased enforcer of federal laws. They interpret laws to suit their purposes and agendas just like politicians do (after all, the AG is appointed by the political machines). Why did GWB pick Ashcroft over somebody else? Because Ashcroft has a non-mainstream agenda, one closely aligned with non-mainstream, radical Christian "values", and somebody who is favored by the extreme right-wing element of the Republican party.

One problem with your diatribe, the Justice Department rule at issue in the 9th Circuit decision was instituted by the Reno Justice Department at the behest of Clinton, Ashcroft is merely continuing the policy, status quo. Yeah, now tell me how it was Willy and Reno who did this to satisfy all the 'Christian fundies'. Please take a step back and see how seething and blatant partisanship just oozes from every statement you make on this issue. Its rather obvious to everyone else...except you, apparently. Again, Ashcroft is doing nothing different than previous administrations.

Ashcroft and Justice have the power to look the other way or at least soften his uber-federal-authoritarian stance. Don't go along with that crap that he must defend the laws of this country to the death. Look at traffic cops. They pull you over for offenses but they don't always ticket you, even if you did indeed break the law. Interpretative.

Sure, and Ashcroft would be grilled by the SAME people for failing to uphold the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Don't you get it? I see through you, not that it requires some psychic ability or something:

First Ashcroft is demonized for enforcing the law and Justice Department policy of the Clinton Administration, so he backs off, then he is demonized for failing to uphold the law, whether or not he agrees with it, as he promised to do during his confirmation hearings. Either way, Ashcroft bashers have ammunition, no matter what he does, they get to say "See, I told you that Ashcroft was the devil."

Your position is untenenble, indefensible, and unprincipled. It is pure political rhetoric void of any honesty, intellectual or otherwise. If you want to condemn the policy itself, fine, let's have it. Let's hear your scathing and inflammatory criticism of those who implemented the policy and the law, which Ashcroft was grilled during his confirmation hearings over defending and upholding - WHETHER OR NOT HE AGREES WITH IT. Huh? What? Silence?

If the government says MJ is an illegal substance because it has "no medical value" then why are tobacco cigarettes legal? Oh that's right, Tobacco funds the campaigns of many politicians. Can't bite the hand that feeds you.

Please, tobacco isn't used or indicated for medical value, so that point is mute. Nor is tobacco a mind-judgement altering drug. Now you're just throwing out silly associations that make no sense, a hallmark of desperatism in one's argument.

 

[Lucky]

I'd just like like to remind folks that a study commissioned by the government in 1999 found that "-- The active ingredients in marijuana appear to be useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated with AIDS, "

Furthermore, "The report, the most comprehensive analysis to date of the medical literature about marijuana, said there was no evidence that giving the drug to sick people would increase illicit use in the general population. Nor is marijuana a "gateway drug" that prompts patients to use harder drugs like cocaine and heroin, the study said.


Link

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Lucky
I'd just like like to remind folks that a study commissioned by the government in 1999 found that "-- The active ingredients in marijuana appear to be useful for treating pain, nausea and the severe weight loss associated with AIDS, "

Furthermore, "The report, the most comprehensive analysis to date of the medical literature about marijuana, said there was no evidence that giving the drug to sick people would increase illicit use in the general population. Nor is marijuana a "gateway drug" that prompts patients to use harder drugs like cocaine and heroin, the study said.


Link

[counter argument from the most intelligent conservative] They lied!!!1! Jesus never said you could use it, so it's from the devil! It will corrupt you and your children, and will even make you start playing games like CS, so you become a sniper!!! [/counter argument]

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

The Justice Department is hardly an unbiased enforcer of federal laws. They interpret laws to suit their purposes and agendas just like politicians do (after all, the AG is appointed by the political machines). Why did GWB pick Ashcroft over somebody else? Because Ashcroft has a non-mainstream agenda, one closely aligned with non-mainstream, radical Christian "values", and somebody who is favored by the extreme right-wing element of the Republican party.

One problem with your diatribe, the Justice Department rule at issue in the 9th Circuit decision was instituted by the Reno Justice Department at the behest of Clinton, Ashcroft is merely continuing the policy, status quo. Yeah, now tell me how it was Willy and Reno who did this to satisfy all the 'Christian fundies'. Please take a step back and see how seething and blatant partisanship just oozes from every statement you make on this issue. Its rather obvious to everyone else...except you, apparently. Again, Ashcroft is doing nothing different than previous administrations.

I am no Clinton/Reno sympathizer. Christ, no. So don't assume I'm just another partisan Democrat drone. I voted for Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000.

Ashcroft and Justice continued to pursue this issue even though the law did not require them to do so. When they pursued Microsoft, for instance, they could have gone all the way or they could have settled early. There are no hard, fast rules. Ashcroft could have withdrawn the doctor-patient confidentiality case and directed Justice to worry about more pressing concerns but he didn't. Just because the earlier administration started the case doesn't mean Ashcroft is an little innocent boy. His pro-Drug War position is just as responsible for urban blight and hopelessness as the rest, but Ashcroft brings added baggage to the table: namely, that little old ladies who want to explore their medical options for pain abatement with their doctors are "evil objects" in his moral jihad against anything that is not God, Bible, Jesus.

Don't you understand that the government's anti-drug-law-sensibility stance is about ego and saving face? Few politicians want to take the fall and admit that the billions spent over the decades on The War were for naught. That's political suicide and a big reason why failed social packages like Johnson's Great Society continue to this day.

Ashcroft and Justice have the power to look the other way or at least soften his uber-federal-authoritarian stance. Don't go along with that crap that he must defend the laws of this country to the death. Look at traffic cops. They pull you over for offenses but they don't always ticket you, even if you did indeed break the law. Interpretative.

Sure, and Ashcroft would be grilled by the SAME people for failing to uphold the laws passed by Congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Don't you get it? I see through you, not that it requires some psychic ability or something:

First Ashcroft is demonized for enforcing the law and Justice Department policy of the Clinton Administration, so he backs off, then he is demonized for failing to uphold the law, whether or not he agrees with it, as he promised to do during his confirmation hearings. Either way, Ashcroft bashers have ammunition, no matter what he does, they get to say "See, I told you that Ashcroft was the devil."

Your position is untenenble, indefensible, and unprincipled. It is pure political rhetoric void of any honesty, intellectual or otherwise. If you want to condemn the policy itself, fine, let's have it. Let's hear your scathing and inflammatory criticism of those who implemented the policy and the law, which Ashcroft was grilled during his confirmation hearings over defending and upholding - WHETHER OR NOT HE AGREES WITH IT. Huh? What? Silence?

Cut the crap. My rhetoric? My partisanship? Look in the mirror, buddy.

I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT!!!! Sheesh. Reno is wrong, Ashcroft is wrong, whomever silences doctors who act in good faith are wrong. I don't care which party nominated the AG. My principles go against government nannyism and life control. If my doctor wants to talk to me about the benefits of dope, that's his and my gd legal right.

If the government says MJ is an illegal substance because it has "no medical value" then why are tobacco cigarettes legal? Oh that's right, Tobacco funds the campaigns of many politicians. Can't bite the hand that feeds you.

Please, tobacco isn't used or indicated for medical value, so that point is mute. Nor is tobacco a mind-judgement altering drug. Now you're just throwing out silly associations that make no sense, a hallmark of desperatism in one's argument.

Tobacco is a drug. Pure and simple. It certainly changes your mood. And it's legal. Why do we have a double standard?

 

[tcsenter]

That's political suicide and a big reason why failed social packages like Johnson's Great Society continue to this day.

Political suicide? That's kinda odd in a country where 'allegedly' most people are for legalization, eh?

Your position is untenenble, indefensible, and unprincipled. It is pure political rhetoric void of any honesty, intellectual or otherwise. If you want to condemn the policy itself, fine, let's have it. Let's hear your scathing and inflammatory criticism of those who implemented the policy and the law, which Ashcroft was grilled during his confirmation hearings over defending and upholding - WHETHER OR NOT HE AGREES WITH IT. Huh? What? Silence?

Cut the crap. My rhetoric? My partisanship? Look in the mirror, buddy.

I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT!!!! Sheesh. Reno is wrong, Ashcroft is wrong, whomever silences doctors who act in good faith are wrong. I don't care which party nominated the AG. My principles go against government nannyism and life control. If my doctor wants to talk to me about the benefits of dope, that's his and my gd legal right.

Woah, don't spare any of the inflammatory rhetoric going off on Reno like that. lol! Thank you for proving my point, your disdain for this policy only goes as far as it is associated with Ashcroft. Reno was merely 'wrong' for doing it, while Ashcroft is 'evil' for doing it. Reno was probably just "mistaken", she didn't mean to do it. "But I'm not partisan, damnit, really I'm not!" lol!

Tobacco is a drug. Pure and simple. It certainly changes your mood. And it's legal. Why do we have a double standard?

Tobacco as a mood altering substance is a rather weak argument. While nicotine is a mild CNS stimulant, its mood altering properties are rather subtle. It does not affect judgement, reasoning, perception, reaction times, etc. like marijuana.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

That's political suicide and a big reason why failed social packages like Johnson's Great Society continue to this day.

Political suicide? That's kinda odd in a country where 'allegedly' most people are for legalization, eh?

Most people do not want full, unbridled legalisation. But most people do want more sensible drug laws, e.g. medical treatment for repeat drug users not ineffective and expensive jail time.

Most people want speed limits raised on the highways but it's just not "possible" because the safety nazis and the insurance lobbies control the politicians. Social Security needs to be reformed but it's not "possible" because the AARP controls the politicians.

Unfortunately, as long as the federal government swamps state rights, the will of the people often is not upheld.

Your position is untenenble, indefensible, and unprincipled. It is pure political rhetoric void of any honesty, intellectual or otherwise. If you want to condemn the policy itself, fine, let's have it. Let's hear your scathing and inflammatory criticism of those who implemented the policy and the law, which Ashcroft was grilled during his confirmation hearings over defending and upholding - WHETHER OR NOT HE AGREES WITH IT. Huh? What? Silence?

Cut the crap. My rhetoric? My partisanship? Look in the mirror, buddy.

I'M NOT A DEMOCRAT!!!! Sheesh. Reno is wrong, Ashcroft is wrong, whomever silences doctors who act in good faith are wrong. I don't care which party nominated the AG. My principles go against government nannyism and life control. If my doctor wants to talk to me about the benefits of dope, that's his and my gd legal right.

Woah, don't spare any of the inflammatory rhetoric going off on Reno like that. lol! Thank you for proving my point, your disdain for this policy only goes as far as it is associated with Ashcroft. Reno was merely 'wrong' for doing it, while Ashcroft is 'evil' for doing it. Reno was probably just "mistaken", she didn't mean to do it. "But I'm not partisan, damnit, really I'm not!" lol!

This is childish. Reno's gone so why dwell on her. B!tching about Reno isn't going to change what went on during her administration.

Ashcroft has to decide where to prosecute Salvo and Muhammad, the DC area snipers. Federal law prohibits the application of the death penalty on minors as does Maryland law, where most of the killings occurred. However, Ashcroft wants to move the case to Virginia because they will execute juvenile offenders. He's not applying federal law, which you point out that he is charged to enforce. He's applying his own skewed moralist values. He wants to kill. He wants revenge.

I despise the death penalty so I am well within my priniciples to despise Ashcroft, who wants to ignore federal law where it suits his "needs". In his mind, Federal law prohibiting the execution of minors should be overlooked, but dammit federal law prohibiting doctor discussion of a smokable plant must be forcibly applied!

Tobacco is a drug. Pure and simple. It certainly changes your mood. And it's legal. Why do we have a double standard?

Tobacco as a mood altering substance is a rather weak argument. While nicotine is a mild CNS stimulant, its mood altering properties are rather subtle. It does not affect judgement, reasoning, perception, reaction times, etc. like marijuana.

Alcohol affects judgement, reasoning, perception and reaction times. It is legal. Why not marijuana?

 

[0roo0roo]

because double standards are fun fun fun! u know.. conservatives base their opinions on reason and all that..

 

[tcsenter]

Most people do not want full, unbridled legalisation. But most people do want more sensible drug laws, e.g. medical treatment for repeat drug users not ineffective and expensive jail time.

The fact that people who smoke marijuana purely for recreational use are using the plight of sick and dying people to get a medical marijuana exception, knowing there are about a hundred doctors in the Bay Area who will give you a medical exception to marijuana without having a real illness, is doing nothing but harm to the 'medical marijuana' movement. That is why Ashcroft wanted this rule enforced and continued, because the medical marijuana exception was always 'designed' from the start to be a loophole through which pot-heads, not sick people, can get their 'legalization'. The pro-pot culture is using sick and dying people as a tool, but would run straight over someone in a wheelchair if you waved a baggie of bud and Cheesy Poofs in front of them. Oops, haha, sorry dude! The man had some bud and Cheesy Poofs and you were in the way, nothing personal!

Granted, Ashcroft's feds have been duped by the pro-pot movement, which has been trying to bait the feds into busting a pot 'club' or 'farm' with sick and dying people present - turn your cameras on they're coming...and turn your respirator on Thelma - a ploy the pro-pot movement proudly admits they have been trying to accomplish for some time now.

He's not applying federal law, which you point out that he is charged to enforce. He's applying his own skewed moralist values. He wants to kill. He wants revenge.

It is not clear how the Feds are going to proceed at this time, so your speculation is just that.

There comes a certain amount of permissable discretion with the AG's position, everyone knows that. This is not 'interpreting' the laws, it is giving the enforcement of some laws higher priority than others, which is a necessity as some law enforcement needs require greater attention and resources than others at different times.

I despise the death penalty so I am well within my priniciples to despise Ashcroft, who wants to ignore federal law where it suits his "needs".

Ah, so ideology is clouding your judgement. Great...

In his mind, Federal law prohibiting the execution of minors should be overlooked, but dammit federal law prohibiting doctor discussion of a smokable plant must be forcibly applied!

Federal law prohibits the FEDS from executing minors, it does not and cannot prevent the states from executing minors. Ashcroft is not "bound" to prevent the states from executing a minor, nor is he "bound" against using this criteria in his decision over which state will get first crack at prosecution. Indeed, due to the extreme gravity of these crimes, you're probably the only one in the United States who would be against Ashcroft using this discretion to ensure that Malvo gets the injection he deserves instead of being spared because he missed the 'technical' classification of an adult by a few months. Perhaps there are a few more fruity tooties here and there, but the vast majority of Americans don't agree with you.

You can't have it both ways, either Ashcroft was appointed to appease (serve the will of) the radical 'Christian fundies', who you consider to be a small radical minority, or he wasn't. What would you call it if Ashcroft sided with the 'radical minority' who opposes the death penalty in this case, and thumbed his nose at the vast majority who support it? Ooooo, now its 'ok', because its "your" radical minority, not "theirs".

Well at least we're clear now. You're pissed because Ashcroft doesn't represent "the" radical minority which includes you, not merely because he represents "a" radical minority. lol!

Alcohol affects judgement, reasoning, perception and reaction times. It is legal. Why not marijuana?

Alcohol is legal because, due to the pervasive acceptance and use of alcohol in society, it was not feasible to prohibit it, there was no public mandate (unlike marijuana).

The impairing properties of alcohol are also dose dependent. I don't drink often, but I stopped at the store on the way home a couple months ago and bought a 20oz of Coors. You think I was impaired or 'buzzed' after sipping on a 20oz glass of Coors over an hour's time? You think I would be 'buzzed' if I had a glass of Chardonnay with my dinner?

Alcohol isn't always consumed exclusively for the buzz. The same cannot be said of pot, the "buzz" is its universal attraction, its only purpose, the only exception being the statistically insignificant number of those who derive some medical benefit from marijuana where drugs of choice are not effective for treating their maladies.

I have no problem with that .000000009% of sick people who actually may benefit from marijuana because they get no relief from drugs of choice to treat their conditions/symptoms getting marijuana. Guess what, there is already a federal marijuana permit for those people. The burden is high, but it should be, the vast majority of people respond adequately to drugs of choice in treating their conditions.

The other 99.999999991% of those who are merely using the 'medical' exception as a ruse and have no other interest in marijuana except for recreational use should be ashamed of using the plight of sick and dying people in this way.

 

[johnjohn320]

Alcohol is legal because, due to the pervasive acceptance and use of alcohol in society, it was not feasible to prohibit it, there was no public mandate (unlike marijuana).

The impairing properties of alcohol are also dose dependent. I don't drink often, but I stopped at the store on the way home a couple months ago and bought a 20oz of Coors. You think I was impaired or 'buzzed' after sipping on a 20oz glass of Coors over an hour's time? You think I would be 'buzzed' if I had a glass of Chardonnay with my dinner?

Alcohol isn't always consumed exclusively for the buzz. The same cannot be said of pot, the "buzz" is its universal attraction, its only purpose, the only exception being the statistically insignificant number of those who derive some medical benefit from marijuana where drugs of choice are not effective for treating their maladies.

I have no problem with that .000000009% of sick people who actually may benefit from marijuana because they get no relief from drugs of choice to treat their conditions/symptoms getting marijuana. Guess what, there is already a federal marijuana permit for those people. The burden is high, but it should be, the vast majority of people respond adequately to drugs of choice in treating their conditions.

The other 99.999999991% of those who are merely using the 'medical' exception as a ruse and have no other interest in marijuana except for recreational use should be ashamed of using the plight of sick and dying people in this way.

You think you get high if you take two hits of pot over an hour's time?

People don't drink for the buzz? Bullshit. That's the only reason alcohol's in there.

The Federal Permit is not doing its job, doctors are still being arrested. (If you say I'm lying, then you are a sad, sad man).

Alcohol is legal because, due to the pervasive acceptance and use of alcohol in society, it was not feasible to prohibit it, there was no public mandate (unlike marijuana).

Prohibition of alcohol was attempted in the early 20th century in America. It didn't work. People were bootlegging so much that it became pointless. Sound familiar? Yeah, that's kinda the story with pot.

By the way, saying "it's socially acceptable, that's why it's legal" is a little backwards, don't you think?

 

[tcsenter]

You think you get high if you take two hits of pot over an hour's time?

Haha, I'm a former pot head, yeah, you got it. So don't try to insult my intelligence. You absolutely DO get high if you take a few hits over an hour's time. Depending on the potency and the number of muffled "here's" in your circle, you don't always smoke an entire bag in one sitting. Toke a few, put it out, enjoy the buzz. A half-hour later, toke a few, put it out, enjoy the buzz....etc. We surely weren't doing it because we "enjoyed" the burning in our trachea!

People don't drink for the buzz? Bullshit. That's the only reason alcohol's in there.

haha, perhaps you don't drink for any other reason than the buzz, but millions do not. There is a way to appreciate an alcoholic beverage without impairing your judgement, perception, and reaction times. The same is not true of marijuana, impairment is the GOAL.

The Federal Permit is not doing its job, doctors are still being arrested. (If you say I'm lying, then you are a sad, sad man).

Perhaps the burden should be reduced on the federal level, because its pretty tight currently, I'm open to that.

Prohibition of alcohol was attempted in the early 20th century in America. It didn't work. People were bootlegging so much that it became pointless. Sound familiar?

Yep, it sounds like another way of saying: "Alcohol is legal because, due to the pervasive acceptance and use of alcohol in society, it was not feasible to prohibit it, there was no public mandate (unlike marijuana)."

By the way, saying "it's socially acceptable, that's why it's legal" is a little backwards, don't you think?

That's not what I said. I said it isn't illegal because there was no public mandate for it to be illegal. There was no public mandate because of alcohol's pervasive acceptance and use throughout society.

 

[johnjohn320]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, saying "it's socially acceptable, that's why it's legal" is a little backwards, don't you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not what I said. I said it isn't illegal because there was no public mandate for it to be illegal. There was no public mandate because of alcohol's pervasive acceptance and use throughout society.

a) Right. Exactly. That's basically what I just said. There's no mandate because it was socially acceptable. Thank you for reiterating my point.

b) By the way, if you actually there was no public mandate for it, you're wrong. Why the hell else would they have tried prohibition, guy? Despite all the jokes we like to make, laws don't come out of nowhere. Many felt that public intoxication was getting to be a big problem. They pushed for alcohol to be outlawed.

 

[tcsenter]

a) Right. Exactly. That's basically what I just said. There's no mandate because it was socially acceptable. Thank you for reiterating my point.

No, you should pay attention to your own statements. I am, and they're not my words, I'm not sure why you can't.

Your words were, "saying 'it's socially acceptable, that's why it's legal' is a little backwards, don't you think?" and you included "it's socially acceptable, that's why it's legal" in quotation marks, attributing that statement to me, when I made no such statement. I shouldn't have to educate you about the fundamental dishonesty involved in putting your own words inside of quotations and attributing them to other persons, should I?

b) By the way, if you actually there was no public mandate for it, you're wrong.

The historical record doesn't agree with you.

Why the hell else would they have tried prohibition, guy? Despite all the jokes we like to make, laws don't come out of nowhere. Many felt that public intoxication was getting to be a big problem. They pushed for alcohol to be outlawed.

Many, yes, but not a clear majority, hence no public mandate. Do you understand what a public mandate even is? It seems we may have a language or education barrier here....or something. It seems you're having an awful lot of difficulty.