Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life

My true idea, if you are asking in earnest...

If smoking pot should be a "right to self medicate", and all the arguement that it doesn't have the adverse effects, so to speak, as some posters have claimed, then would you simply climb aboard?
Click to expand...

Quit being obtuse. I wouldn't want to climb on board a plane worked on by a mechanic using medicinal marijuana anymore than I'd climb on board one worked on by a mechanic who just popped a couple (legally prescribed) Vicodins or Percosets. And I wouldn't jump on board the same plane if he was using recreational marijuana anymore than if he was drinking Jack Daniel's on his lunch break.

What is your point?
 
"1. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren't much less clear than the Second...it's just that the interstate commerce clause has been so horribly abused as to render them obsolete. Also, RKBA isn't as clear as you think it is, unless you have the Teacher's Edition of the Constitution where "arms," "bear," and "infringe" are clearly defined. I see nothing in the text saying you can own a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle with flash suppressor and pistol grip. You can argue "RKBA, RKBA!" all day, but the text of the Constitution doesn't support you anymore than it supports my right to grow my own marijuana in my backyard (or at the least my state's right to allow me to). Oddly I favor a liberal interpretation on both issues, which is to say I'm a fan of the Ninth and Tenth in addition to the Second. The other seven are pretty groovy, "

1.This arguement would veer OT and will be a moot point...

"Quit being obtuse. I wouldn't want to climb on board a plane worked on by a mechanic using medicinal marijuana anymore than I'd climb on board one worked on by a mechanic who just popped a couple (legally prescribed) Vicodins or Percosets. And I wouldn't jump on board the same plane if he was using recreational marijuana anymore than if he was drinking Jack Daniel's on his lunch break."

2.If one wants it to have a "right to self medicate", and a mechanic gets high in his own home, like most have tried to advocate, where's the dividing line?
Sure, there may be rules and regs., but "rights" would trump rules possibly in a court of law...

Advocates are inducing ultimately a big can of worms that can really make a big mess. IMHO, of course.

"How recreational marijuana use couldn't simply be regulated much the same way alcohol use is now?"

They've "tried" regulating it in CA. The San Fancisco mayor has all but said it was a big mistake to allow it to be legalized. Same sit. in San Diego....

Problem is, it's NOT being regulated(effectively). Even if it is, advocates will want a mile when you give them and inch...
 
They've "tried" regulating it in CA. The San Fancisco mayor has all but said it was a big mistake to allow it to be legalized. Same sit. in San Diego....

Problem is, it's NOT being regulated(effectively). Even if it is, advocates will want a mile when you give them and inch...
Click to expand...

Perhaps the whole thing would be easier to regulate if they didn't have to worry about taking flak (and people getting arrested) by the Federal side. I imagine it can't make it easy for a state to legalize and regulate a substance that the Federal government still considers to be illegal.

Just a thought.

1.This arguement would veer OT and will be a moot point...
Click to expand...

I don't see why. We're dealing with Constitutional issues either way, and the fact that you fail to recognize one while thinking the other is the most important issue we face today is interesting. Though perhaps I should start another one of my "why is it only the second amendment that's important, and not the rest?" threads. I'll mull it over.

Sure, there may be rules and regs., but "rights" would trump rules possibly in a court of law...

Advocates are inducing ultimately a big can of worms that can really make a big mess. IMHO, of course.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I mean, states already (in theory) regulate driving under the influence of both (legally prescribed) prescription and over-the-counter drugs.

The first site I stumbled across said:
Driving Under the Influence of Drugs.

Driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while impaired (DWI) does not just relate to a driver that has consumed alcohol. It is possible to be convicted of DUI or DWI when the driver has consumed a drug, whether a legal or illegal drug, and whether prescribed or not.

In many states, the definition of a drug is very broad, and typically includes any substance that can affect a person's mental or physical capacities to the extent that driving may be affected. In fact, it is possible to be convicted of driving under the influence of drugs where the drug is of the over-the-counter variety, such as cold medicine, or even coffee or caffeine pills, if their consumption results in impairment.
Click to expand...
 
Tuttle8,

I guess you can't see it.

Your argument is nothing but a "slippery slope" argument which seldom have any true value. You are assuming that people that use marijuana will abuse it, you then assume they will abuse it at work, you then assume that this person who has no self control has been able to hold his life together enough to get a job like airline mechanic, you then assume that same person would have the fortitude to resist all other mind altering substances available to them but not to resist marijuana.

That is a whole lot of assuming and not much relevant fact to the medical marijuana argument or even the recreational argument.

Sounds like you are trying to decide for other people what they are capaable of handling and what they are not and then removing the choice from the poor unfortunate fools that cannot handle their own lives. Kind of like how a whole lot of people thinkthat most "unfortunate fools" cannot handle a loaded handgun with going out and shooting people indescriminately.
 
"Tuttle8,

I guess you can't see it.

Your argument is nothing but a "slippery slope" argument which seldom have any true value. You are assuming that people that use marijuana will abuse it, you then assume they will abuse it at work, you then assume that this person who has no self control has been able to hold his life together enough to get a job like airline mechanic, you then assume that same person would have the fortitude to resist all other mind altering substances available to them but not to resist marijuana.

That is a whole lot of assuming and not much relevant fact to the medical marijuana argument or even the recreational argument.

Sounds like you are trying to decide for other people what they are capaable of handling and what they are not and then removing the choice from the poor unfortunate fools that cannot handle their own lives. Kind of like how a whole lot of people thinkthat most "unfortunate fools" cannot handle a loaded handgun with going out and shooting people indescriminately."

Guess you can't see it either.

I don't need to assume people that use MJ will abuse it. It happens constantly. People do the proving for me on all of the above first paragraph.

Trying to decide for other people? You bet. Just like you do by advocating MJ use. Whether the world will be a better place or not because of legalization is an assumption on both sides. NOBODY has proof. Neither side does. Only experiences.

You think that my arguement has "no true value"? Then our conversation is over as far as I'm concerned. I may not agree with your viewpoints, but I at least gave you respect and courtesy during a lively debate.
 
Tuttle8,

I will say it plainly and slowly...

Your argument has no value. It is nothing more than extremist posturing.

You can continue to repeat it all you want but that fact is not going to change. Alot of people have tried to tell you that but you do not seem to catch what they are telling you.
Trying to decide for other people? You bet. Just like you do by advocating MJ use. Whether the world will be a better place or not because of legalization is an assumption on both sides. NOBODY has proof. Neither side does. Only experiences
Click to expand...
Once again you are way off base. How is making something available and allowing people to make their own choice that same as what you are doing. Seems to me that it is the exact opposite.

As for proof, there is alot of evidence in favor of the medical use of marijuana (including many, many years of it being used as such). What is your evidence that it does nothing?
 
Greetings from Germany.

Tuttle,
I debated the ban side for a few days and I can't follow your argument either. As much as it pains me I would have to agree with PP on the slippery slope.
 
OK, Don,

My whole point is I don't think regulation is going to allow proper usage. I think that if it's legalized, it will be pushed for a path of deregulation.

Case in point, although not a good one...

You're at Walmart. You're in the gun section to browse. Your kid wants to look at the toys. You say, yes. But, no buying this time since you just had your birthday. Ten minutes later, he comes back with the latest and greatest GI Joe action figure and want you to buy it. You say No. He whines. You say No and invoke a threat of punishment. He cries... You say, OK. It's the no no no no no....yes rule.

Catching on?
 
Guess you can't see it either.

I don't need to assume people that use MJ will abuse it. It happens constantly. People do the proving for me on all of the above first paragraph.
Click to expand...

People abuse alcohol, that's still legal. Or do you favor the prohibition of alcohol?

Trying to decide for other people? You bet. Just like you do by advocating MJ use. Whether the world will be a better place or not because of legalization is an assumption on both sides. NOBODY has proof. Neither side does. Only experiences.
Click to expand...

My, my. For one, he's not deciding for anybody...last I checked neither he, I , nor anybody else in this thread has put a gun to anybody's head and made them smoke marijuana. I feel you should be free to not smoke marijuana (or smoke cigarettes, or drink alcohol) if you so choose.

Two, nobody has proof that things are better with marijuana prohibited, either. We do have historical evidence that prohibition of substances that the public wants badly to use (alcohol) doesn't work out well, and despite the fact that we've tried very hard to ignore it drug-related violence and our growing prison population suggest that marijuana prohibition (and possibly prohibition of other drugs) may not be much different.

You think that my arguement has "no true value"? Then our conversation is over as far as I'm concerned. I may not agree with your viewpoints, but I at least gave you respect and courtesy during a lively debate.
Click to expand...

No, it has no true value. Go here for more info. The one you're looking for is "slippery slope," and you've slid all the way down it.
 
And regulation of MJ use as medicinal purposes in CA has shown that it doesn't seem to work.

CA wanted to be a frontrunner in the legalization and it's backfiring. I'm not assuming. It's been reported. Source is from O'Reilly Factor. I can search the transcripts if you need the source of info. that I'm making my point on if you want. It'll just take time with me. I'm slow at researching.

If we had a justice system to REALLY enforce laws like they should, then I might see a viewpoint on legalizing for medical purposes. But, as it stands, it's a rat race.

Hope this helps, Don.
 
And regulation of MJ use as medicinal purposes in CA has shown that it doesn't seem to work.
Click to expand...

And again, all the states that are currently trying to legalize/regulate are having to do so under a handicap; it's still illegal at the Federal level. So their current results aren't necessarily indicative of how it would shake out if the Feds would actually allow states to make the decision.

If we had a justice system to REALLY enforce laws like they should, then I might see a viewpoint on legalizing for medical purposes. But, as it stands, it's a rat race.
Click to expand...

Then I ask again, do you favor prohibition of alcohol? Because we apparently don't have the justice system to enforce DUI laws like we should.

CA wanted to be a frontrunner in the legalization and it's backfiring. I'm not assuming. It's been reported. Source is from O'Reilly Factor. I can search the transcripts if you need the source of info. that I'm making my point on if you want. It'll just take time with me. I'm slow at researching.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the O'Reilly Factor is not exactly an impartial source, right? I mean, you can argue that Fox News in general is no more biased than any news source...but their editorial content (which O'Reilly falls under) definitely has a right-leaning slant.
 
"People abuse alcohol, that's still legal. Or do you favor the prohibition of alcohol?"

No. But, that's where I think the line should be drawn. If MJ is next, then what? Cocaine?

"My, my. For one, he's not deciding for anybody...last I checked neither he, I , nor anybody else in this thread has put a gun to anybody's head and made them smoke marijuana. I feel you should be free to not smoke marijuana (or smoke cigarettes, or drink alcohol) if you so choose."

If you want to make it legal, you just allow a mind altering substance to be used. And, most likely even easier for a person to have access to use it irresponsibly that could endanger others. That's my point. Using it in your home is one thing, but it carries over to harming others in the process. That's what I don't understand why advocates don't think that. IMO, THAT's what I call not holding true value.
 
No. But, that's where I think the line should be drawn. If MJ is next, then what? Cocaine?
Click to expand...

Hey, if people can grow their own (or grow it within their state) and thus it's unaffected by interstate commerce then I say what the heck. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure it's a little more difficult...they'd don't call marijuana "weed" for nothing.

Of course, legalizing marijuana wouldn't necessarily lead to legalizing cocaine anyway; the two are quite different, considering that cocaine has both a very real physical addictive element and a high possibility for overdose.

If you want to make it legal, you just allow a mind altering substance to be used. And, most likely even easier for a person to have access to use it irresponsibly that could endanger others. That's my point. Using it in your home is one thing, but it carries over to harming others in the process. That's what I don't understand why advocates don't think that. IMO, THAT's what I call not holding true value.
Click to expand...

Alcohol isn't a "mind-altering substance?" You realize that just because it's legal doesn't mean it isn't, right? I mean, pretty much everything you said (and most of what you've said before) applies to alcohol, you realize that right? But alcohol is where you draw the line. Might I ask your reasoning?

Do you drink? Even occasionally?
 
If you want to make it legal, you just allow a mind altering substance to be used. And, most likely even easier for a person to have access to use it irresponsibly that could endanger others
Click to expand...
Wow, that sounds like the exact kind of argument that people use against firearms. :rolleyes:
 
Tut let me point something out to you. I don't need to assume people that use handguns will abuse them. It happens constantly. Do you see how you are argueing sir?

Also I hate to burst every ones lil safety bubble, but I would bet you good money Pilots, AIRPLANE MACHANICS, Doctors and all sorts of other respected people smoke weed on a rego basis all ready. Its out there and a lot of people are allready on it. You probibly work with potheads and dont even know it.

You guys talk like you never smoked or new any one who smoked in highschool. Some people get wrecked some people dont even get phased.Lets be realistic.

pardon any grammer or spelling errors Ive had a long day
 
Then I ask again, do you favor prohibition of alcohol? Because we apparently don't have the justice system to enforce DUI laws like we should.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, around here they seem to actively hunt anyone who they think might have had a drink in the last five years. After dark I know exactly where to find every cop in town--sitting down the street from any of the three bars in town or within a block of campus housing. Where are they not? Patrolling. I got pulled over a while back when I stopped by the state liquore store for a bottle of wine to have with dinner--seems I didn't signal my turn "a couple blocks back"--yah, whatever. Then I got the third-degree about what I was doing buying alcohol, who it was for, and where the party was. Yah, I'm gonna throw one hell of a party with a mediochre bottle of chardonnay and shrimp scampi for the better half and me. Funny thing--a half hour later on my way back from the grocery story, there he was--half a block from the liquore store again, watching the parking lot to see who was coming or going. In the mean time, there isn't a contractor in the area with a secure job site (we're talking about a town of 25,000 here, not a metro suberb). Between all the contractors I know, we've lost a cumulative total of about $100K worth of tools, hardware, appliances, fixtures, and misc damage caused in the process over the last year. I'm not talking about a bunch of quick petty things--this includes things like cutting up trusses and drywall to get the furnace out of attic crawl spaces, new water heaters disconnected and packed off, fixtures and appliances taken that were already installed and wired--big stuff that any cop passing by would have a chance to notice.

No, I think I've seen enough of the Utah war on alcoholic beverage. I'd like to see a little attention paid to other things for a change.
 
Tut let me point something out to you. I don't need to assume people that use handguns will abuse them. It happens constantly. Do you see how you are argueing sir?
Click to expand...

Rule of thumb: if the arguments you are using almost exactly mirror the arguments that others use to ban things you favor (in this case, firearms) it's a sign that you might want to give your position some serious reconsideration.

Doesn't necessarily mean you are wrong, or that you are a hypocrite. But it's like a 95% and 99% chance, respectively.


EDIT: Don't worry, michibilly...I was pickin' up what you were puttin' down. I was reinforcing, not arguing. ;)
 
Thats exactly what I was tryin to say JC ( you know I was bein sarcastic there right ? ). The war on drugs thing really drives me crazy. Not becuase I want to be stoned out of my mind all day but becuase it bothers me people are so worried about what I might be doing in my own home. Im telling you gun owners.... Keep giving the man the power to controll everything you do it wont bite you in the rear I promise.
 
Not becuase I want to be stoned out of my mind all day but becuase it bothers me people are so worried about what I might be doing in my own home.
Click to expand...
Ditto...I myself do not smoke pot, I do not drink alcohol (at all), I do not smoke cigarettes, I do not even drink coffee...but I think other people should have the right to do what they please in their own home as long as they do not hurt anyone else and can handle themselves properly.
 
My true idea, if you are asking in earnest...

If smoking pot should be a "right to self medicate", and all the arguement that it doesn't have the adverse effects, so to speak, as some posters have claimed, then would you simply climb aboard?

The simple answer in anybody's logical mind that noone has the humility to say outright is, NO. Maybe because I made a valid point against legalizing a product that immediately alters the mind, and stays that way for a prolonged period of time and nobody wants to lose ground by agreeing with me. Mechanic gets high at home, just like the law allows. A few minutes later, gets in his car and goes to work....

People want to legalize it for "medicinal purposes only", and I think it will get chipped away to the point like our right to bear arms is nothing like it used to be.
Click to expand...

Actually, I asked two questions in earnest. The first one was, "Is prohibition protecting us from stoned mechanics?"

I don't think it is. I think some mechanics may want to smoke pot, and prohibition is not stopping them. I'm a pilot and former flight instructor, and while the aviation industry in general is more free of drug abuse than other industries, I would be very surprised if I have not stepped on a plane which was at one time worked on by someone with diminished mental capacity, whether from exhaustion (the most common in the industry), alcohol (running a close second), prescription drugs (in 3rd place), or marijuana (distant 4th on the list, in my experience). So, my answer to your question is, yes, I have probably already done so, and prohibition did nothing to stop it. Now, what is your answer to my first question?

I haven't mentioned any "right to self medicate" in this thread. This is a thread about the commerce clause, and how advocates of a powerful federal government have been chipping away at individual rights and State responsibilities by abusing the commerce clause, both when it comes to medical marijuana and when it comes to firearms. The same exact argument applies to both, according to the Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top