chicowalker

Good for you. I don't blame you for not wanting to think about your position.

I'm sure you want cigarettes to be illegal, too. And obviously people smoking in the privacy of their own homes (pot, cigars, cigarettes, pipes -- ban them all!) would be offensive to your sensitive olfactory nerves.

Thankfuly, you're right, alcohol doesn't result in big puffs of smoke. Instead it results in drinking and driving, rape, domestic violence, other violence... None of those compare to a smell. Particularly a smell that you wouldn't ever have to encounter if it were banned in public (like alcohol and cigarette use often are) and permitted only in homes and, perhaps, smoking clubs (akin to some bars and cigar clubs?).

Who cares if your nannystate position results in kids actually having increased access to it and wastes government resources?

Small government indeed...

shirtsleeve

They aren't all that much more dangerous than alcohol. The method of administration is unsavory, and sometimes just gross.

I am not here to extoll their virtues. They have none as recreational drugs. I despise them. But it doesn't change the fact that their continued prohibition is the very cause of most gang and border violence. Legalized, regulated and controlled, there is no profit motive in the black market of the stuff. Just like with alcohol, street violence is driven from that profit motive and protection of territory.

Additionally, if legal, oral consumption would probably supercede injection, making them safer. And quality and dosage would be controlled, eliminating a lot of ER visits.

I do not like the hard drugs, but they are not going anywhere. No matter how many billions of dollars get poured into the "problem" the market for them is stable and in fact continues to grow. Contradiction and prohibition do not even begin to curb demand or supply. Its time we saved billions annually in Federal, state and local money and approached this from a different perspective.

chicowalker

Since you were replying to my post and have made that exaggerated claim against me before, it quite clearly was directed at me. But keep running away from your own words.




And yet you didn't do so: "...More specifically: should adults be prohibited from smoking pot simply because sone people don't like the smell? Does that fit with the notion of small govt in your opinion?..." went unanswered.


Learn to read. I'm not calling all small people who support laws against drugs as being hypocrites.

I'm calling you one, because you equate marijuana legalization with anarchy. It's a silly leap that shows your true colors.

and I'm calling BelichickFan one. If he could manage to coherently reconcile his claim of believing in small government with his belief that an adult in his home should be prevented from doing something because he doesn't happen to like its smell, I'd retract that claim.

Wolfpack

Excellent point. If we got rid of alcohol, all of those societal ills would completely and totally disappear.

chicowalker

I don't know how to compare their dangers with that of alcohol, but I don't disagree with anything you say here. I just don't know as much about coke, heroin, etc., so I'm not a proponent of their legalization -- I'm not an opponent, either, though.

chicowalker

Another strawman

But get rid of alcohol and, yes, rape and other violence would certainly decrease. And I'm quite confident drinking and driving would disappear if there were no alcohol...

And to your imaginary point here, I guess the same kind of logic you're trying to apply would mean that banning pot means there's no more smoke in the air.

Just a ridiculous post, even for you...

Wolfpack

I gladly stand by my words - but to be clear, I stand by my words, not your gross and deliberate misrepresentations of same.
I don't support the legalization of recreational pot, but that stance has nothing to do with smell. I do not think it is a good idea to legalize something with the singular purpose of creating a mind altering high. I believe the ultimate societal ills would outweigh the gains.

And yes, that fits in perfectly with my beliefs in small government.
So what you're saying is I need to learn to read because you're not calling everyone hypocrites, you're just calling everyone who disagrees with you hypocrites!

I honestly wish you were smart enough to see how stupid you make yourself sound.

Wolfpack

More idiocy. What you fail to realize is that illegalizing alcohol doesn't mean "there would be no alcohol."

Do you ever get tired of announcing to the world how clueless you are?

Titus Pullo

Why is it that every thread you get involved in, you come off sounding like a complete ****? You're clearly very impressed with yourself, aren't you? Sitting on your ass arrogantly debating partisan politics on a Saturday night, and declaring how "stupid" everyone is who disagrees with you? Go do something with you family.

I'm stuck at work. What's your excuse?

chicowalker

You're truly coming across as paranoid.

So I'll address the point you made, now that you answered the question.

I don't know how you reconcile a point of view that advocates preventing adults from doing something that in and of itself harms nobody with being for small government. How is what you're doing here any different from, say, liberals who want restaurants to be required to show nutritional info, or not use salt, or want to ban smoking in bars? Maybe you're in favor of all those things, but they're hardly small government positions, and they're the kind of issues the right derides the left for.

Do you want alcohol and cigarettes to be illegal, too?

And nice job doing exactly what you wrongly claimed I've done, which is to misrepresent words. Make a coherent argument that fits within the concept of being for "small government," and you're not a hypocrite. So far, though, I don't know how you're any different from a nsnnystater, except that you happen to be choosing different issues.