Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You sneer at my comparison to the shorts policy in my high school, but how can you, with a straight face, compare a person's "right" to marijuana with a person's civil rights? You would REALLY compare a person breaking a law restricting marijuana with Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a bus??? Seriously? I compared marijuana with wearing shorts because they are both privileges that might provide some comfort, not a basic God-given human right that some evil law has taken away.
Here is where I think you go astray:
Using medical marijuana is not a priviledge bestowed by the federal government. It SHOULD BE a choice discussed betwen a doctor and patient. Having politicians vote on what medical conditions are able to be treated with cannabis is really ridiculous. Driving is a privilege, access to medical treatment is a right.
In point of fact, using cannabis IS a basic God given right, just check your Bible, if you believe in that sort of thing. Yes, some evil law HAS taken away our rights, it's called the Controlled Substances Act.
Just so you are clear on the politics of contraband, know that people have been fighting for over 40 years to get the laws changed on medical marijuana and cannabis use in general. It has been an uphill battle against multi-billion dollar government agencies like the DEA and others who benefit from the status quo. If we coulod have changed the laws by simply petitioning the government, protesting, letter writing, voting, etc. the laws would have been changed by now.
This is why civil disobedience is important to this movement in a way similar to the Civil Rights movement. The question is: Does the State have a duty to protect you from yourself, regarding non-toxic marijuana/cannabis use or not? The State says yes, a growing majority say no.
As long as a law is on the books, people need to obey it or face the
consequences
Dang that's some illogical thinking there. You are missing a huge piece...challenging a law that is bad. That's the most important thing anyone can do, anyway they can.
There is nothing MAGICAL about a bad law but it's got you bound up doesn't it? I wonder why.
The question is: Does the State have a duty to protect you from yourself, regarding non-toxic marijuana/cannabis use or not? The State says yes, a growing majority say no.
I say No too. But I believe in being sensible, respectful, and patient when wanting major change in social policy. I think that's a big difference between extreme libertarians and conservative-libertarians, where I'm at. The libertarian part of me says minimal government intervention in our lives. The "conservative" part of me says that it matters how you present yourself and your case--your behavior reveals your character and character matters.
Sure sit-ins and civil disobedience might seem called-for to some in the case of something like smoking weed. But I (and many people it seems) think that kind of behavior is unseemly and ineffective (unless you are respectfully protesting real violations of basic rights), and makes those protesting just look bad. It's a shame the pro-pot people can't take a cue from the civil rights protestors that you seem to connect with so much. The men sitting at the lunch counters were dressed in nice shirts and ties, and they were polite and respectful. And THEY were addressing actual natural rights, not the "right" to get stoned. I think if the pro-pot people dressed nicely, spoke articulately, and were more professional, polite, and respectful, perhaps this "battle" to allow medical marijuana and even recreational marijuana would not have gone on so long. It might be a good message, but it's wrapped in a tie-dyed, scruffy, un-showered package most of the time.
I disagree that healthcare is a "right." Especially since the definition of a "right" has come to mean "must be not only available, but paid for by others," But that's a topic for a whole other thread...
Still, I stand by my assertion: Medical MJ may be useful and helpful, but the abuse of this newly legal system (the "diversion" of it) is not going to result in expanding freedom but further limiting it.
Still, I stand by my assertion: Medical MJ may be useful and helpful, but the abuse of this newly legal system (the "diversion" of it) is not going to result in expanding freedom but further limiting it.
which mitigates for a BROADER and more general legality. Not less.
Dang that's some illogical thinking there. You are missing a huge piece...challenging a law that is bad. That's the most important thing anyone can do, anyway they can.
There is nothing MAGICAL about a bad law but it's got you bound up doesn't it? I wonder why.
There are plenty of bad, unconstitutional laws on the books, yet people just smile and endure it.
The more I think about it, the more I'm astounded at the people who compare the "struggle" for the right to smoke marijuana with the civil rights movement.
I beg any black Americans in their 60s or older to join us here and tell us what THEY think of the marijuana advocates comparing their fight to be able to smoke pot with what people went through in the civil rights movement.
The people who make this comparison actually help to strengthen my point, that even if the message is good or even "okay" when you put it in a bad package, no one's gonna buy it.
Even medical marijuana is not about a life-saving or disease-curing drug that people re being deprived of. It's about a drug that provided some comfort. The fight for the right to enjoy any comfort cannot, with a straight face, be compared with the fight for basic human rights that black Americans went through.
Again, I'm personally in favor of this being available to people who medically need it, but we can't forget that's it's about comfort and not saving lives.
The fight for the right to enjoy any comfort cannot, with a straight face, be compared with the fight for basic human rights that black Americans went through.
It very well can be compared with a straight face. We did here. We weren't joking.
This is more than a trivial matter of comfort. People die everyday in the name of the War on Drugs.
The War on Drugs also does a very good job of continuing to oppress black Americans, which many believe is intentional.
The War on Drugs also does a very good job of continuing to oppress black Americans, which many believe is intentional.
If you watch the movie " How to make money selling drugs " they go through the numbers. White people are so much less likely to get mandatory mins than non white it isn't even funny. Because on avg. whites make more money so they can afford a good lawyer not the public DA who just plea bargains.
Jeez the DEA even admits it's lost, the War on Drugs can't be won. Portugal has a good model we should consider.
There is a big difference between "getting high" and using a substance to treat a medical symptom.
People who want to "get high" often use their medical "conditions" as a good excuse.
Anyone can say they have chronic pain, back pain, etc. It's big business now.
If you want to get high, admit it. Don't pretend you are treating some *serious* condition.
It's such B.S.
You think you won't get "high" off some prescription drug?..Do you think people's "excuses" are more believable if it's prescribed?...oh, and maybe you could tell me what that "difference between getting "high" for a medical condition is....don't you think you're being just a tiny bit judgementel here...who would you want to "admit it"?...and are you absolutely sure they need to?...how would you know?
If they sold marijuana at the corner store, I wouldn't buy it. Availability has no effect on whether I would be inclined to abuse it.
I tend to think most marijuana users (aside from those who allegedly use it medically) are losers who can't face reality and need to get high.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
