Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Given the large ammounts of idiots that walk the streets in any given city in any given country.....thats the last thing they need.

---

Yet, in our country, we let those idiots vote, drink legally, own pets, drive cars, have cell phones, and breed children.

We also allow them to work at jobs that could cause our deaths--food processing, construction (you DID see the bridge fall in Minneapolis a few years ago, right?), child care, garbage disposal, sewer work, firefighters, police officers, social workers, teachers--and ESPECIALLY politicians.

Yet you can't give these SAME idiots the right to choose whether to use pot?

LESS government, please. Not MORE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

How many Addicts started out as casual users? Most I would say.

How many casual users end up causing accidents.....? Most just like not all alcohol related deaths are caused by alcoholics.

---

The REAL question is this: How many casual users actually became addicts?

The way YOU phrased it, you may as well have asked how many people with a sexually transmitted disease got it from having sex--most, right?

And again--how many people cause accidents versus how many people use the product? Alcohol OR drugs. Now please compare that to how many people cause accidents by using their cell phones while driving, and then tell me that cell phones should be completely outlawed because SOME people are stupid with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

LESS government, please. Not MORE.

---

Hello again, synn:

Seems smoothy ain't much of a tea partier, after all. In fact, Rand Paul, the tea party's choice for US Senate in Kentucky, believes exactly like you and I do on the subject.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, synn:

Seems smoothy ain't much of a tea partier, after all. In fact, Rand Paul, the tea party's choice for US Senate in Kentucky, believes exactly like you and I do on the subject.

excon

---

We all have our crosses to bear. We three must be his.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

The REAL question is this: How many casual users actually became addicts?

The way YOU phrased it, you may as well have asked how many people with a sexually transmitted disease got it from having sex--most, right?

And again--how many people cause accidents versus how many people use the product? Alcohol OR drugs. Now please compare that to how many people cause accidents by using their cell phones while driving, and then tell me that cell phones should be completely outlawed because SOME people are stupid with them.

---

Lot of casual drinkers have an accident and get busted for DUI... not just Alcoholics...

Same with casual drug users doing EXACTLY the same thing.

Fewer drugs being used... fewer drug related accidents, deaths etc.

And cell phones should be and ARE outlawed for being used while driving in many states. And still idiots pay more attention to the people on the phone than the cars around them or what they are doing. If I see someone driving erratic, weaving, running stop signs, lights... etc. Odds are they have a phone up to their ear. Personally I would take their license away from them for doing it... but I don't have the power to do so. But trust me... if I get hit by an idiot with a cell phone... I'm going to milk it for all its worth. Accidents are accidents... but THAT is no different than driving drunk or stoned.

There is no phone call that's so important it can't wait until you get off the road.

I'm a firm believer in if you are going to drive... then focus on driving, let someone else drive if you have other stuff to do. There are other people sharing the road and their lives are more important than your phone call.

Yes I have a cell phone... no I don't yap on it when I am driving.

Smoothy--you missed the point.

Outlawing something completely because SOME people are idiots is well... stupid.

Because sooooooo many people cause accidents with cell phones, cell phones must be DANGEROUS! Let's make them ILLEGAL! They KILL people!

When you see the ridiculousness of the above statement, you will understand what we are saying about drugs and alcohol.

And frankly, I'm really getting tired of having MY rights and freedoms taken away simply because SOME people can't control themselves and not be idiots.

PS--I was a collections agent for King County, WA for a bit. Taking away someone's license doesn't stop them from driving. Most of the people I was trying to collect from were for tickets for driving without a license---MULTIPLE offenses! Idiots are GOING to be idiots, whether they're being an idiot legally or not. The point here is that I'm tired of being punished with the idiots when I'm NOT an idiot.

Ex , you make it sound like the tea party has made drug legalization a major cause . You would be wrong if you think that.

Rand Paul won the support of the tea party because of one and only one issue... government spending .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ex , you make it sound like the tea party has made drug legalization a major cause . You would be wrong if you think that.

---

Hello again, tom:

Nahh... I don't think that. Smoothy diligently represents them, and he HATES drugs. As a matter of fact, my post was to point out the hypocrisy and/or schizophrenia of the movement that has NO real goals, except YELLING at the status quo.

excon

NO real goals, except YELLING at the status quo.
Hmmm sounds like the antiwar movement... the drug legalization movement... the antiabortion movement... the civil rights movement (take your pick ).

Except you would be wrong about the goals as they have been published in a pledge document called 'Contract From America'.No doubt Rand Paul is a signatory .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Except you would be wrong about the goals as they have been published in a pledge document called 'Contract From America'.No doubt Rand Paul is a signatory .

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't know about that... You see, we got a tail wags dog kind of thing going on here. Rand Paul just handed the tea party its biggest victory to date. I don't think they're going to throw him under the bus...

Interesting that you should mention the contract. Rand Pauls view of what the Contract From America means, is CLEAR. He thinks it means what it says. He takes the LITERAL meaning of it. Actually, you could call it a strict constructionist viewpoint - maybe even original intent... After all, it's pretty clear to ME...

-------------------
Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.;)
----------------------------------------

But, Smoothy's interpretation, as well as the bulk of the tea partiers is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than Rand Pauls. When THEY read the thing above, they see the little WINKING guy I threw in. The wink means, they want government OUT of their lives, EXCEPT when they want 'em IN. And, they certainly want the government IN the drug war, to STOP you from freely exercising your economic choices.

Rand Paul?? Not so much. So, who's tail is going to wag what dog?

excon

Yes but if you actually researched Paul's positions on drugs you would find that he doesn't necessarily take a decriminalization or legalization stance. He basically calls it a matter of local jurisdiction.
I do not support eliminating all federal laws or penalties on marijuana. I do believe, in general, that issues of crime and punishment are best handled at the state level.
Rand responds to attacks | Rand Paul 2010 | U.S. Senate

So my guess would be that there are some economic activities he actually would regulate as opposed to you're off again on again laissez fare approach .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

So my guess would be that there are some economic activities he actually would regulate .

---

Hello again, tom:

Yes, he would. But more importantly, he'd let MY state decide, and MY state wouldn't. Like a good libertarian, he puts his personal beliefs aside, and supports what the Constitution says.

Aren't you a 10ther?

excon

Quote:

---

Aren't you a 10ther?

---

Not completely ,and certainly not to the extent most of them claim to be .I do not as an example think secession is constitutional.

The 'interstate commerce 'and the 'necessary and proper' clauses were in the Constitution before the 10th amendment ,and there is nothing in the 10th amendment that makes them void. Since both are enumerated then the 10th would not apply. Further ,Federal law ,unless ruled unconstitutional ,trumps State law according to the 'supremacy clause'.

Now ,I do believe the commerce clause has often been abused ;but not in the case where dangerous substances are involved .

I hope these people get a good lawyer and sue, if they don't have a good case, nobody does.