Sorry, but do you have even a Wikipedia link that hints at the veracity of your last statement?

Who told you that "fact", H?

WillH... re: "Poor guy. You are a dictator without a country to rule. I understand your rage now. "

Highram made that clear when he said "I'm not trying to legislate a person's anything. The place to fix it is in the two, married, heterosexual parent home. But, that's not going to happen if I give in to the hedonistic moderns. "

as if his "solution" doesn't involve government controls or forcing beliefs and limits on other people... it would be amusing if it weren't so sad.

blarman,
there are many acts and habits that can can affect others. We are human. Someone committing suicide can have an effect on others if they jump off a roof for example. But making suicide illegal is hardly an effective deterrent. It is not contradictory to acknowledge harm done to oneslef is a freedom. Harm done to others through one's actions inadvertent or not there are already laws on the books for and remedy.Statistics show that crime and violence related to drugs is at an all time high. The illegality of drugs has increased that violence and crime significantly by forcing false markets just as US prohibition did in the 20s-giving rise to organized crime in the US that had not been established before. The cartels would not be enjoying their rain of terror in the US now- if this were not the case. It's a war we will never win. With the incentive of fast big money gone, so the incentive to addict kids.

Thank you, and I apologize for that last comment in the fact that I typed it in anger and should have left the personal insult out of it. It was the accusation that I do not know what freedom and liberty mean. For me those words cannot be defined by history, education, or any other textbook. They are defined by seeing their antithesis. Once you have looked into the eyes of those who are not free and no longer stand as a vision of upright man you know exactly what those words mean and how precious they are.

> I did ask that, and instead of replying you dismissed my argument as being a waste of time

No, you did not once ask me that. You made, and continue to make assumptions and accusations about what I think.

There is a single grain of truth in your argument in that I cling to the idea that the federal government exists only to support the military in order to defend the nation from attack, the courts to protect the rights of the individual and the sanctity of contract, and the police to remove the criminal element from the streets. I allow very little beyond that, although I do think there is a certain amount of government needed to maintain and build infrastructure.

Yes, I categorically dismiss your “benefit of society” arguments as being the same thing as the old “public good” arguments used by progressives and socialists all the time. No, I do not believe a member of society so weak minded that they allow themselves to be subverted and destroyed by pot to be a loss to that society. I do believe firmly that the more our government takes control of our lives the more our society is diminished.

Keep in mind again that I am not in favor of pot being legal on an unlimited basis. It should be illegal to operate a car or any other machinery under the influence for example. I am not in favor of using the legalization of pot to raise more money to line the coffers of the government.

"You might have done better to ask me if I believed in self governing above all other forms of law..."
I did ask that, and instead of replying you dismissed my argument as being a waste of time. I note that you did nothing to actually refute it or offer further insight, you simply reverted back to your disproved position. I even suggested the research of others to help you explore the various sides of your own assertion.

And I actually understand your position better than you may want to admit as I have seen its like. You are taking an inherently contradictory stand in both advocating the freedom to destroy one's own life and at the same time declaring that it has no effect on others. Is society not diminished with the destruction or degradation of one of its own members (Kant)? Does not a society which does not seek to improve its own members a society in decline?

You go on to casually dismiss the wasted productivity caused by the self-induced stupor of mind-altering drugs and you deny the dire consequences society already suffers as a result. Your continued denial of this stems from an irrational desire to have consequences - which can not be controlled - differ from the choices that lead to them.

It is your choice to believe and act on such irrationality, of course. You are completely free to make choices about your own life and what you want to believe. You can disregard the wisdom of others and walk your own path (Sartyr). I am merely restating what others throughout the centuries have discovered - it is not my wisdom you scorn so I take no offense. And I never consider it a waste of time to attempt to help others - regardless of whether or not they accept the assistance.

No, my point was to ask why he thought it should be illegal, yet tobacco and alcohol should be legal. In my opinion it is an inconsistent view point.

Re: WillH,

Are you really saying that pot is not a mind altering drug? Even if it only does so in a miniscule sense, then it still has a negative effect on a person. tobacco only harms the smoker and no one has ever claimed that it is mid altering. Alcohol on the other hand can be mind altering in a sense and can be dangerous if used in excess. Excess being the operative word. Would we be better off if alcohol were not available, yes, but as prohibition showed, it is impossible to prohibit successfully.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

That does sound like the work of a well organized banking cartel controling government (un-constitutional) enforcement agents. It appears obvious that the state bank charter would have to define money laundering to specifically exclude actions under state legalized marijuana, eventually leading to review by the "supremes." This might be more publicity than the cartel-controlled agencies want, but based on the ignorance of the public, it could be something they believe they could control in the media.

I know what you mean, about the degeneration of society anyway. Trying to leverage freedom with a successful society is hard work. You know what turned me away from the communists though, was that they wanted to build a great society, and if you didn't want to participate you were physically punished. They promote what is right through the barrel of a gun, and even if they got everything else about how to have a healthy society right (which they didn't) it wouldn't be worth shooting people who disagree.

Sometimes I'm caught in a limbo of watching people destroy themselves with freedom while at the same time destroying themselves by giving it up.

Re: freedomforall,
While your idea for state chartered banks is a good one, sadly it would not immunize those banks from being charged for money laundering. Even car dealers are considered financial institutions by the federal government since the early 80's and must report at the $5,000 cash transaction limit. so, while the state chartered banks would operate under state regulations they would not be shielded from the federal government. Not just that, but their entire capital base would be vulnerable to seizure.

Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

> You like to throw around the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom" but you have no idea what they actually mean

Excuse me? Asshole I have fought, killed, and damn near died for this country. I did this not out of some altruistic need to serve my fellow man, but for the ideals of freedom and liberty.

I do not now, nor have I ever been a proponent of anarchy. I also do not think pot is harmless, just my own damn business. Should driving a car while high be illegal? Yes. Should there be other regulations governing its use in order to protect the public? Yes. That is a far cry from people like you deciding you need to control my life.

***Now, I apologize to anyone else that reads this. I do not usually talk this way.

>Your attitude is of the "I want the 'freedom' to do whatever I want regardless of the consequences" type

Not all, I do very much believe that you are responsible for your actions as they relate to other people, however, if I choose to sit on my front porch and smoke a bowl using pot that I have grown myself that has nothing to do with anyone but me. Your statement would have more validity, in my opinion, if you were talking about regulating the use of pot in the same manner as alcohol is instead of an outright ban.

The rest of your post is not only insulting, but is also based on your belief that you know what is in my mind. This is not true, and not worth replying to. You might have done better to ask me if I believed in self governing above all other forms of law before wasting your time with that misdirected "wisdom"

You are horribly mistaken in your assumptions. The Founding Fathers did not view liberty as the freedom to do anything they wanted - as you imply - but rather the freedom from an oppressive government that was trampling on what they saw to be their rights as citizens. And law is nothing more than codified morality, so yes, you can legislate it. A prohibition from murder is based on the universally accepted moral idea that life is sacrosanct. Same with property. And things go from there. Should wisdom be used in the implementation of law? Absolutely. Only a tyrant would argue otherwise. But it is not tyrannical to demand a certain standard of behavior from a nation's citizens.

You like to throw around the concepts of "liberty" and "freedom" but you have no idea what they actually mean. You argue that legalizing pot doesn't add to the decay of America, when medical and social evidence prove the contrary quite convincingly. How many lives have been ruined through recreational drug use - and I include alcohol? How many cases of spousal and child abuse stem from it? How many unnecessary deaths? All from substances that rob a person of the ability to think and reason. And you want to call this freedom?

I wot not that it were the case.

Wow. I shudder to think what laws can come of your thought processes, especially the one about everything we do has the potential to to impact everyone around us. That process could be used to govern all sorts of things from freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of assembly, etc. No thanks, I would rather not be subjugated by the brand of controls you seek.

"is an example of the government telling us how we can and cannot live our lives."

Correction. Law affixes a punishment to unacceptable behavior. It doesn't stop you from participating in the behavior at all. And not all laws are governmental. It is a natural law that smoking weed or drinking alcohol impairs your function just as gravity is a natural law. You choose whether or not to be impaired by choosing whether or not to light up, but you can not choose not to be impaired AND to light up. We choose behavior but not consequences. You are trying to argue otherwise.

"but if I chose to do so that is no one’s business but my own."

False. Everything we do has the potential to impact everyone around us - for better or worse. Alcohol is legal, yet drunk driving causes 88,000 deaths alone every year (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/a...). For some reason, society has decided that it would rather pay the costs of those deaths, the injuries, and the associated $223.5 billion in losses rather than outlaw alcohol.

I can understand the argument that alcohol (a drug) is legal and so it seems an incongruity to outlaw a similar drug - marijuana - but science has consistently shown that the effects of marijuana are more serious and longer lasting than alcohol, so even that argument falls apart under scrutiny. What you are in actuality arguing has nothing to do with freedom, it comes down to placing a cost on the prohibition of certain acts that are proven to be detrimental to not only the individual, but society as well. So at what cost can one invoke laws on behavior? Are man's laws extensions of natural laws or are they arbitrary?

I did not say pot was liberating. Making pot illegal is an example of the government telling us how we can and cannot live our lives. It is a restriction on a freedom, the same as legal penalties for undesirable speech or “assault weapons” bans would be. I do not use pot, but if I chose to do so that is no one’s business but my own.

So pot is liberating? Not sure how one arrives at that logic. Liberation to me means being able to use my abilities and mind to further myself. Drugs decrease my ability to think, to reason, to make good decisions. That doesn't sound very liberating, it actually sounds enslaving.

I will second that.

Good. The less taxes, the smaller the government.

That's the beauty of free speech. You are free to promote the control of people’s freedom all you want.