Indiana's Push for Medical Marijuana

[Trigger Time]

As long as you and others advertise your distaste of the law and rebellion of it, you give ammo to those wanting to take away your guns. Personally I do t give a rats behind what you may want to do in the privacy of your own home, but when individuals openly state their illegal intentions, it hurts the rest of us.

It’s sort of like the alphabet people, keep it to yourself.... no need to flaunt it and fuel the fire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I disagree. It takes away power from those who abuse it.
Just becauae something is law doesnt mean it is right.
If they make AR's illegal, I WILL NOT TURN THEM IN.
People who roll over like cucks to the government are the ones that make it more difficult on all of us to be free

 

[Jludo]

As long as you and others advertise your distaste of the law and rebellion of it, you give ammo to those wanting to take away your guns. Personally I do t give a rats behind what you may want to do in the privacy of your own home, but when individuals openly state their illegal intentions, it hurts the rest of us.

It’s sort of like the alphabet people, keep it to yourself.... no need to flaunt it and fuel the fire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sounds like you favor legalization weed on the federal level then? Solves these problems.

 

[bwframe]

Lets do that!

Legalize pot at the federal level and these problems are done. Over with...

Now I'll offer a suggestion to our friends who want to conflate legalizing pot with the Second Amendment. STOP it. That is a losing argument for you.

You need to sell your idea for why pot should be legalized as opposed to painting folks that aren't sold on it in a negative 2A or political light.

 

[jamil]

Lets do that!

Legalize pot at the federal level and these problems are done. Over with...

Now I'll offer a suggestion to our friends who want to conflate legalizing pot with the Second Amendment. STOP it. That is a losing argument for you.

You need to sell your idea for why pot should be legalized as opposed to painting folks that aren't sold on it in a negative 2A or political light.

Zero people are “conflating” 2a and legalization of MJ.

 

[Floivanus]

Lets do that!

Legalize pot at the federal level and these problems are done. Over with...

Now I'll offer a suggestion to our friends who want to conflate legalizing pot with the Second Amendment. STOP it. That is a losing argument for you.

You need to sell your idea for why pot should be legalized as opposed to painting folks that aren't sold on it in a negative 2A or political light.

The only conflating is that the arguments for the pro gun side are; less government, more freedom.

the arguments against us are usually half truths, fear mongering and “muh children”. The same exact methods were used to push prohibition, the assault weapons ban, the drug war, the raised drinking age, countless bad ideas, nanny state policies and big government movements.

as far as a constitutionality muster, why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment and yet the drug war is allowed to go on? Especially in the case of MJ the interstate commerce clause is moot, trafficking isn’t needed. And oh, yeah. Isn’t there overlap somewhere between what people may do with their own bodies and a supposed right?

Just as I do not support taking people’s rights away for a felony (shouldn’t perpetual punishment be considered cruel and unusual?) I support people’s rights to do what they want with their life and pursuit of happiness, ignoring part

 

[SheepDog4Life]

No matter where you fall on the scale of full legalization or fully illegal - marijuana as a schedule 1 controlled substance is wrong by definition.

It is also wrong if you compare it to other schedule 1 (and schedule 2) substances. JMO, but with Oxy a schedule 2 drug, at most, marijuana is schedule 3.

From Wikipedia: Controlled Substances Act:

Schedule I substances are described as those that have the following findings:

A. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
B. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
C. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

 

[phylodog]

Disregard, others spelled it out better than I did while I was typing.

 

[bwframe]

The only conflating is that the arguments for the pro gun side are; less government, more freedom.

the arguments against us are usually half truths, fear mongering and “muh children”. The same exact methods were used to push prohibition, the assault weapons ban, the drug war, the raised drinking age, countless bad ideas, nanny state policies and big government movements.

as far as a constitutionality muster, why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment and yet the drug war is allowed to go on? Especially in the case of MJ the interstate commerce clause is moot, trafficking isn’t needed. And oh, yeah. Isn’t there overlap somewhere between what people may do with their own bodies and a supposed right?

Just as I do not support taking people’s rights away for a felony (shouldn’t perpetual punishment be considered cruel and unusual?) I support people’s rights to do what they want with their life and pursuit of happiness, ignoring part

This is partially what I'm talking about. ^^^

You need to be selling the virtues of pot to the American public to undo a law that has been in effect for all of our lives. So many of you pro pot folks try to mix up your argument with govt regulation of things that are legal.

What I'm saying is that you are not winning any hearts and minds by attempting to paint folks bad by not agreeing with you. It's not gonna work.

Tell us why pot is a virtue to society, so we will vote to make it legal. Don't tell us we are bad for not agreeing with you.

 

[phylodog]

The only conflating is that the arguments for the pro gun side are; less government, more freedom.

the arguments against us are usually half truths, fear mongering and “muh children”. The same exact methods were used to push prohibition, the assault weapons ban, the drug war, the raised drinking age, countless bad ideas, nanny state policies and big government movements.

as far as a constitutionality muster, why did alcohol prohibition require a constitutional amendment and yet the drug war is allowed to go on? Especially in the case of MJ the interstate commerce clause is moot, trafficking isn’t needed. And oh, yeah. Isn’t there overlap somewhere between what people may do with their own bodies and a supposed right?

Just as I do not support taking people’s rights away for a felony (shouldn’t perpetual punishment be considered cruel and unusual?) I support people’s rights to do what they want with their life and pursuit of happiness, ignoring part

Well said. It’s not about painting people bad, it’s about pointing out their hypocrisy. The problem with agreeing with bans on things you don’t like is that eventually someone is going to want to ban something you do like and use the same approach against you.

 

[Floivanus]

This is partially what I'm talking about. ^^^

You need to be selling the virtues of pot to the American public to undo a law that has been in effect for all of our lives. So many of you pro pot folks try to mix up your argument with govt regulation of things that are legal.

What I'm saying is that you are not winning any hearts and minds by attempting to paint folks bad by not agreeing with you. It's not gonna work.

Tell us why pot is a virtue to society, so we will vote to make it legal. Don't tell us we are bad for not agreeing with you.

You sir, have me painted wrong, I am not pro-pot, I never even had a drop of an intoxicating beverage until I was 29. The fact is constitutionally it is wrong, the fed had zero rights to ban it, yet they did. Just like in 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994 they had zero constitutional right to bend us over and have us take it.

they renamed it from the medical name (cannabis) to the evil-sounding spanish marijuana, just like they did to us and our “assault weapons” I applaud the actual pro MJ people out there who tell an over-reaching government to stuff it, as I applaud all the patriots in VA doing the same thing.

Overreach and unconstitutional acts are all one in the same to me, our founding documents aren’t a menu.

 

[Dead Duck]

This is going to be great!

I can't wait for them to bring back opium dens. I have my Hookah all picked out.

 

[bwframe]

You sir, have me painted wrong, I am not pro-pot,...

Yet here we argue?

It doesn't matter. The message is the same. If you want to sell some thing then sell something.

If you are trying to sell something by making those who disagree with what you are seeking "bad people" then that is a losing proposition. On a large scale, you won't win.

 

[Jludo]

Tell us why pot is a virtue to society, so we will vote to make it legal. Don't tell us we are bad for not agreeing with you.

What difference does it make if pot is 'a virtue to society' ? by that standard imagine what items would be legal vs illegal.

It's bad to spend money to find and lock in cages people for smoking/growing/selling/possessing it. That not a good argument?

 

[jamil]

This is partially what I'm talking about. ^^^

You need to be selling the virtues of pot to the American public to undo a law that has been in effect for all of our lives. So many of you pro pot folks try to mix up your argument with govt regulation of things that are legal.

What I'm saying is that you are not winning any hearts and minds by attempting to paint folks bad by not agreeing with you. It's not gonna work.

Tell us why pot is a virtue to society, so we will vote to make it legal. Don't tell us we are bad for not agreeing with you.

The highlighted is about the only thing I can agree with here. Namecalling isn't going to convince anyone. But neither is extolling virtues. That's not how free societies decide what should be legal and what shouldn't. Exactly what virtues of alcohol convinced America to reverse prohibition?

And let's think out this idea of using virtue as the thing that should convince people. I don't mean to assert that you have to believe the following, or make this a straw argument of your position, but to me, logically, these are fundamental things you'd have to believe before making the claims above. So feel free to show some other logic behind the above views.

1) The length a law has been on the books determines its "rightness", at least to the point that one must show the thing prohibited to have societal virtue to justify removing it. Why can't the reason to remove the law simply be to show that it's has not been successful, and that it is not a societal harm worth locking people up for doing it?

2) Virtue is a basis for determining what people should get to do (that is, if it's not protected by the Bill of Rights).

No one should have to sell anyone on the virtues of MJ. Virtue should not be used in determining a freedom at all. Honestly MJ doesn't have any virtues IMHO. My objection to prohibition is purely based on how a free society should order itself. Generally people should get to do what they want. You should have no power of your vote to prevent someone from doing that which doesn't harm you. Doing so is just another tyranny of the majority.

I can see regulating some behaviors which result in dire risk to others. So I'm fine with laws regulating those behaviors. If it can be proven that driving under the influence of MJ puts people in dire risk, write laws against driving while under the influence. But simply because you don't like that people do it should not be a valid reason to prohibit it. Laws should be continually justified, even the ones on the books now. Instead, your stated position here seems to be that the default should be that behaviors should be justified before they can be made legal.

 

[jamil]

Well said. It’s not about painting people bad, it’s about pointing out their hypocrisy. The problem with agreeing with bans on things you don’t like is that eventually someone is going to want to ban something you do like and use the same approach against you.

Well, ya. But the pro-pot people do tend to call the dissenters names. And he's right that that won't convince anyone. But likely it's not going to matter within the next 5 to 10 years, after enough Zoomers and Millennials are voting. We're going to see a lot more states legalizing it. And it's only a matter of time before it's legalized nationally. The people who think that long standing laws require virtues extolled to overturn are dying off and are being replaced by younger people who think that thinking is wrong.

 

[jamil]

You sir, have me painted wrong, I am not pro-pot, I never even had a drop of an intoxicating beverage until I was 29. The fact is constitutionally it is wrong, the fed had zero rights to ban it, yet they did. Just like in 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994 they had zero constitutional right to bend us over and have us take it.

they renamed it from the medical name (cannabis) to the evil-sounding spanish marijuana, just like they did to us and our “assault weapons” I applaud the actual pro MJ people out there who tell an over-reaching government to stuff it, as I applaud all the patriots in VA doing the same thing.

Overreach and unconstitutional acts are all one in the same to me, our founding documents aren’t a menu.

The fed should at most have the power to forbid it's sale across state lines. But some unfortunate SCOTUS rulings kinda make the fed able to ban anything it wants because the court granted itself that power.

 

[jamil]

Yet here we argue?

It doesn't matter. The message is the same. If you want to sell some thing then sell something.

If you are trying to sell something by making those who disagree with what you are seeking "bad people" then that is a losing proposition. On a large scale, you won't win.

It seems like the source of contention is that he's making a constitutional argument, and you're making a "virtue" argument. He didn't call you names. He's just saying the constitutional argument should be all that's required.

It's unfortunate that people who generally favor the constitutional arguments for other freedoms demand justifying the virtue of something for freedoms they don't like. The constitutional argument should satisfy a person who advocates for a constitutional republican form of government.

 

[PaulF]

The highlighted is about the only thing I can agree with here. Namecalling isn't going to convince anyone. But neither is extolling virtues. That's not how free societies decide what should be legal and what shouldn't. Exactly what virtues of alcohol convinced America to reverse prohibition?

And let's think out this idea of using virtue as the thing that should convince people. I don't mean to assert that you have to believe the following, or make this a straw argument of your position, but to me, logically, these are fundamental things you'd have to believe before making the claims above. So feel free to show some other logic behind the above views.

1) The length a law has been on the books determines its "rightness", at least to the point that one must show the thing prohibited to have societal virtue to justify removing it. Why can't the reason to remove the law simply be to show that 1) it's has not been successful, 2) it is not a societal harm worth locking people up for doing it?

2) Virtue is a basis for determining what people should get to do (that is, if it's not protected by the Bill of Rights).

No one should have to sell anyone on the virtues of MJ. Virtue should not be used in determining a freedom at all. Honestly MJ doesn't have any virtues IMHO. My objection to prohibition is purely based on how a free society should order itself. Generally people should get to do what they want. You should have no power of your vote to prevent someone from doing that which doesn't harm you. Doing so is just another tyranny of the majority.

I can see regulating some behaviors which result in dire risk to others. So I'm fine with laws regulating those behaviors. If it can be proven that driving under the influence of MJ puts people in dire risk, write laws against driving while under the influence. But simply because you don't like that people do it should not be a valid reason to prohibit it. Laws should be continually justified, even the ones on the books now. Instead, your stated position here seems to be that the default should be that behaviors should be justified before they can be made legal.

I agree with the bulk of your point, and I agree with your reasoning for holding this view. Well said.

I'm going to take very minor issue with the bolded statement...

...Marijuana is an effective intoxicant. This is its virtue...and, as intoxicants go, it is relatively harmless for its responsible adult users when compared to other more socially acceptable intoxicants. I'd call that a secondary virtue.

Some human beings value intoxication...so much so that they'll engage in incredibly risky behavior to satisfy that desire. Some intoxicants, like opium and its derivitaves, carry heavy risks from their very use...but its hard to honeslty catagorize pot with them.

I think pot should be treated the same as alcohol. Let adults consume - if they choose to. Prohibit provably detremental elements of public intoxication...like driving, or caring for the safety of others...and of public consumption. No one should be subjected to clouds of other people's used drugs.

 

[jamil]

I agree with the bulk of your point, and I agree with your reasoning for holding this view. Well said.

I'm going to take very minor issue with the bolded statement...

...Marijuana is an effective intoxicant. This is its virtue...and, as intoxicants go, it is relatively harmless for its responsible adult users when compared to other more socially acceptable intoxicants. I'd call that a secondary virtue.

Some human beings value intoxication...so much so that they'll engage in incredibly risky behavior to satisfy that desire. Some intoxicants, like opium and its derivitaves, carry heavy risks from their very use...but its hard to honeslty catagorize pot with them.

I think pot should be treated the same as alcohol. Let adults consume - if they choose to. Prohibit provably detremental elements of public intoxication...like driving, or caring for the safety of others...and of public consumption. No one should be subjected to clouds of other people's used drugs.

Sure, but I was giving my personal opinion of it. In my opinion I don’t find any virtue in being intoxicated. That’s why I don’t drink or use drugs. I don’t like being intoxicated. I don’t have any problem with people doing either or finding their own personal virtue in it. I know people like to party and just let go. That’s fine for them. Just don’t do it in a way that puts me in risk of dire harm.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

This is going to be great!

I can't wait for them to bring back opium dens. I have my Hookah all picked out.

Hookahs are for tobacco use.