Will the Right Come Around on Pot?

The government should not be allowed to tell individuals what they can smoke.


Advocates of treating marijuana more like alcohol gained another ally recently: the United Nations.

The U.N. would claim otherwise. In fact, the U.N.'s International Narcotics Control Board would hotly deny it. The agency's latest report laments the legalization of pot in Colorado and Washington, declaring the approval of recreational marijuana use "in contravention to" the 1961 U.N. Convention on Narcotics.

Raymond Yans, the head of the INCB, has gone further—arguing that ballot measures legalizing recreational, and even medical, marijuana "undermine the humanitarian aims of the drug control system and are a threat to public health and well-being." Echoing America's domestic drug warriors, Yans called medical marijuana "a back door to legalization for recreational use."

Here in the U.S., United Nations disapproval can only help the cause of legalization where it needs help the most: on the right. According to a December poll by Gallup, Democrats favor legalization 61-38. Independents are about evenly split. But Republicans favor continued prohibition, by a 2-1 margin.

They might favor it less if they knew the U.N. were, implicitly, telling states what to do. Just look at the conservative reaction to Agenda 21—a voluntary U.N. program that encourages bike paths and urban planning. Conservatives see it as nothing less than the first step on the road to serfdom.

Take Scott Lingamfelter, who is running for the GOP nomination for lieutenant governor in Virginia. This year he sponsored a resolution denouncing Agenda 21 as a "radical" plan for "social engineering" that was being "covertly introduced" across the nation. In a January memo to constituents, he wrote that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy to "consolidate liberal power over the rest of us" and then "tear down private property ownership, single-family homes, and other basic tenets of American life."

The national GOP shares such sentiments. Its 2012 platform declared, "We strongly reject Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty." It also devoted an entire segment to federalism. Republicans do not like ostensibly higher authorities mucking about in local matters, and that includes federal authorities. So it may be worth notice that the Gallup poll also showed a lopsided majority of Americans—64 percent—think Washington should not step in to enforce federal marijuana laws in states where pot has been legalized.

That may be one reason the Obama administration continues to hem and haw about its plans for Colorado and Washington. During a Senate appearance last week, Attorney General Eric Holder said—again—the administration was "still considering" its options. This hasn't pleased the nation's drug-war hawks, who want the Obama administration to file suit, pronto, to pre-empt the legalization measures.

Federal law trumps state law, and federal law defines marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance—in the same category as heroin. This probably seems jarring to the 42 percent of Americans who have used marijuana at least once. Marijuana is not good for you, but it is not on the same plane as smack.

The consequences of marijuana prohibition, however, have grown high indeed. Marijuana accounts for nearly half of all drug prosecutions. Even if you assume half of those cases are plea-bargained down from trafficking, the country is still spending tremendous resources to punish people for having an occasional toke.

If Holder does move against Colorado and Washington, it will be interesting to see the response from another attorney general—Virginia's Ken Cuccinelli. On Thursday the Tea Party hero and champion of states' rights will give the opening speech at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. This year CPAC organizers shut out Republican governors Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie, who evidently committed the sin of ideological deviationism. But the organizers apparently did not mind Cuccinelli telling a class at the University of Virginia he has no objection to state-level experiments with legalization—or that his own views on the issue are evolving.

In his new book The Last Line of Defense, Cuccinelli contends the states provide protection from federal tyranny. This is an argument many conservatives find as appealing as they find the U.N. objectionable. And if they extend that line of thinking just a bit, they may come around on pot. 

The syllogism is easy enough to follow: The U.N. should not tell Washington what it can do, and Washington should not tell the states what they can do—so why then should the states tell individuals what they can smoke? What sovereignty is more important than the individual kind?

With liberals such as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg dictating how much soda you can buy, Tea Party enthusiasts already are primed to declare not just "Don't tread on me" but also, "Keep your laws off my body." After all, as Lingamfelter put it in his January memo about Agenda 21: The great threat from the U.N. is that it wants to "tak[e] away individual freedoms from people like you and me." And that would be, pardon the term, a real drag.

This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: EU to Consider Further North Korea Sanctions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why is it that when I advocate legalization people assume I’m a pothead? I tried it thirty-something years ago, and didn’t think it was a big deal.

    1. It’s a similar error to the one that socialist idiots make: if you don’t want the government to provide something, you must be against that thing. In this case, idiots think that if you don’t want the government to ban something, you must be in favor of that thing.

      1. My position amounts to: The negative effects of banning drugs is worse than the negative effects of the drugs.



          1. In America in the 20’s there were bloody gun battles over booze turf rights, last I checked the Budwiser trucks dont come with tommy guns, what’s changed? Prohibition. I really think that what is at issue here is the visceral response some seem to have towards the unknown, unfamiliar and “the other”. There are several things at work here. First, since around the 40’s there has been a propaganda campaign against cannabis which instilled fear into society. Second, antintellectualism resulting in a phenomena of “sheeple” (sheep + people). A segment of society that believes everything it’s told by “authority figures”. Tied into that is the misdirection and misapplication of “Faith”. Example: misdirected faith causes sheeple to fly aircraft into buildings. Misapplied faith is an entire belief system that that is not grounded in Truth. This has the effect of muting reasoning skills and critical thinking because if the outcome of thinking doesn’t comply with misguided faith one is left with a disconcerting dilemma. A belief system should be grounded in Truth supported by displined, critical, logical, reasoning, with Faith at the pinnacle, believe me it works much better that way. Now, the problem, when “the other” confronts a sheeple with Truth, the response has to be visceral because nothing else works. Sadly, there is nothing that can be done for a sheeple, it has to come from within. “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

            Dan Richeson 2012

            1. Cool story, bro. We’re you running for something last year?

            2. Oh so that’s what sheeple means… now what about champipple?

        2. what…you mean prohibition doesn’t work?

        3. My position amounts to: The negative effects of banning drugs is worse than the negative effects of the drugs.

          It shouldn’t matter. If I own my own body I should be able to put whatever I want into it no matter the negative effects.

          1. Externalities!

          2. Not according to progressives. In their case, you should only have control over you put out of your body.

            1. Your body aint yours. It’s theirs. You are tax livestock.

              1. Sure. I learned from the Washington Post forums that if I’m overweight or a smoker I cost everyone who pays taxes more money, because of the greater medical resources I automagically use. Never mind that I’ve never been to a doctor while uninsured, and I’ve been in an emergency room twice: once for a split eyebrow from a fight, and once from a dislocated knee from jujitsu. Both times I paid the bill myself.

                Since the government provides healthcare, I have a responsibility to the government to be healthy.

                God, I shivered a little just typing that. And people wonder why I find Obamacare terrifying.

      2. Unfortunately, you are correct.

    2. I’ve never had a friend “get high” and die or kill someone in a car accident.

      Sadly, I can’t say the same about booze (several times over),

    3. my roomate’s step-mother makes $79 hourly on the internet. She has been out of work for six months but last month her pay was $15243 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site…

      1. Does she smoke pot?

        1. Of course not, she sells it. There’s no money in using it!

      2. Well, sure! Once you set up a good grow room, FedEx takes care of the distro. Your overhead’s not that high once you’ve paid for your initial setup.

    4. You say you think that divorce should be legal?!?! You must be a pro-divorce, family-hating Satan-worshipping commie pinko athiest or worse!!!! That is the so-called “thinking” or morons who equate legalization with advocating…

  2. Federalism is fine, as long as we all do it together. I suppose you want the individual states to be able to go back to slavery, too.

    1. Something these idiots fail to understand is that government didn’t abolish slavery. Government created it. Slavery ended when the government stopped enforcing it.

      1. I blame Bush.

      2. The national government forced slave states to stop allowing slavery in their jurisdictions. Your spin is a little, uh, stupid.

        1. Slavery was never “allowed.” It was enforced.

        2. Before that the national government enforced slavery.

          Ever hear of Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution and the Fugitive Slave Act, knucklehead? Without such Constitutional provision and legislation enacted thereupon, and the enforcement of such by federal authority in free states, slavery was doomed.

          Your obtuseness to sarcasmic’s comment is a little, uh, stupid.

          1. Fine, the federal government enforced slavery, then it enforced its end. Quite forcefully.

            1. The actual forcing was, first and foremost, continued sovereignty over the seceding states. As a subsidiary issue, slavery was prohibited.

            2. Fine, the federal government enforced slavery, then it enforced its end. Quite forcefully.

              So the government had to cause the violent deaths of 750,000 Americans in a bloody civil war to undo what it previously created.

              And Tony somehow thinks this is a good illustration of the benefits of government power.

              1. Secession was about preserving slavery. The war was about preserving the union.

                1. Secession was about sovereignty. The North promoted economic policies that harmed the South, essentially forcing the South to do ruinous business with the North rather than more lucrative trade with foreign powers. The Civil War started because the North was unwilling to allow slavery in the western territories. The Southern plantation system depended on slave labor for any chance at a profit, and cotton and tobacco farming had worn the soil out to the point that expansion to the territories was necessary to maintain output.

                  The idea was that slavery would die out if it was kept to the South as plantations ran out of steam and cotton production moved to the free West. However, it might have done so sooner if the North hadn’t enacted tariffs against foreign trade that prevented Southern plantations from selling abroad. With higher income, the South might have mechanized production and moved away from slavery as the need for educated, skilled workers increased.

                  So, it had to do with slavery, but it was about sovereignty. Hell, Lincoln was even willing to allow border states to retain slavery as long as they stayed in the Union.

    2. Would slavery be acceptable for those poor young girls who are just trying to get through college?

      1. college is just a gateway to recreational marijuana use. No good will come of it.

        1. I think the public schools are actually the gateway to marijuana.

          I am absolutely they are the gateway to other psychostimulants such as Ritalin.

          1. Perhaps it is different now, but in my day the private school kids had the best weed and the most Ritalin.

  3. If one wants to get Republicans to favor legalization the thing to do is emphasize “It isn’t the government’s business” and ditch arguments like “It’s no worse than alcohol” which smell strongly of fertilizer.

    1. what makesy you think that Repubs are any more against big govt than Dems? The only difference is the areas in which either party seeks to use force in order to get its way.

      1. ^This^

        I’m more inclined to believe that Repubs would be more accepting of legalization if they viewed pot as an alternative to drinking rather than an argument against big government.

      2. A century from now, there will be a push to legalize sugar and fatty foods, and most of the bitching will come from far-right conservatives obsessed with people obeying the law.

      3. I’m 50. I’ve watched Democrats and RINOs legislate about diet, vices like smoking, and all kinds of Urban Planning buttinskiism . Some non-RINO Republicans want to return to the status quo-ante on matters like Gay Marriage (on which I disagree with them) but it is the Democrats who want to micromanage your life ? for your own good, of course. At least that has been my personal perception.

    2. I’ve never got how limited government and a massive institutional war on peoples own bodies and lives can reconciled.

    3. It’s no worse than alcohol

      No worse? It’s actually far safer and less debilitating than alcohol.

      1. If I had to put drugs on a continuum of badness (health and addiction wise), I’d put alcohol somewhere near cocaine. And for people who are seriously addicted to alcohol (like vodka for breakfast and severe DTs if they stop sort of thing), I’d say it’s as bad as any drug.

      2. Given the amount of unmitigated bullish*t that BOTH SIDES of the marijuana argument have been shoveling for decades, I seriously doubt that anybody is in a position to make that statement as anything but opinion.

        But I believe that in the absence of actual evidence, there should be no law.

        1. I think that the broad experience of millions of people provides pretty good evidence for Fatty Bolger’s claim. Other claims about utility as a medicine and effects on lungs are far less supported. Though this is mostly because it is legally impossible to do any good studies on the subject.

          1. I think that the broad experience of millions of people provides pretty good evidence for Fatty Bolger’s claim.

            The plural of anecdote…

            There are many more millions of people who use alcohol without causing an apocalypse as well. In any case, arguing over what psychoactive chemical is better to abuse is kind of like arguing over who has the fastest horse in the glue factory.

            On balance, considering how many people use alcohol, it’s remarkable the kind of safety record it has, really. Just as importantly, just about everybody knows somebody who drinks on the weekends and has lived to tell about it or has a ridiculous story from their frat days that they trot out at parties. Familiarity makes people feel more secure, which is a big part of the reason why more and more people are accepting of marijuana now, since apparently everybody besides me and the fundamentalist Abrahamic religious practitioners used pot some time between 1965 and 2013.

            This is a really fucking stupid argument to get bogged down in for exactly this reason. Why introduce a needless and false conflict? “This is bad for you, but it should be legal anyway, because it isn’t the government’s job to tell you how to live” resonates more strongly with the un-toked than “WEED IS SAFER THAN ALCOHOL! NO ONE HAS EVER OD’D ON POT! ALL OF MY FRIENDS SMOKE POT AND NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER HAD A CAR ACCIDENT!” You might as well run around with a megaphone screaming “420 BLAZE IT FAGGOT!”

    4. Fertilizer of the organic variety produced by ruminants, I assume.

    5. ditch arguments like “It’s no worse than alcohol” which smell strongly of fertilizer.

      Why? Its true.

      Hell, its even a pretty big concession, as nobody can seriously argue that pot has worse social or individual effects than alcohol.

      1. Because a significant fraction of progressives and so-cons will then argue for alcohol prohibition. Of course, they know that they can’t get full prohibition right away, but they’ll argue for more and more regulation. Kind of like the gun control crowd knows it doesn’t have support to repeal the 2nd Amendment. BATFE exists to make responsible use of such products more difficult and expensive.

    6. The best argument for the Democrat voters is: “We can tax it!”

      The best argument for the Republican voters is: “The WOD is a failed government program!”

      The problem is that elites in both parties don’t give a damn. They have too many direct and indirect vested interests in maintaining the WOD.

  4. “undermine the humanitarian aims of the drug control system and are a threat to public health and well-being.”


  5. Pot is NOT A NARCOTIC.

    I’m sure this is addressed in these treaties and laws and such- but it’s just NOT.

    1. “The 1961 Convention exercises control over more than 116 narcotic drugs. They include mainly plant-based products such as opium and its derivatives morphine, codeine and heroin, but also synthetic narcotics such as methadone and pethidine, as well as cannabis, coca and cocaine. The Convention divides drugs into four groups, or schedules, in order to enforce a greater or lesser degree of control for the various substances and compounds. Opium smoking and eating, coca leaf chewing, cannabis resin smoking and the non-medical use of cannabis are prohibited. The 1972 Protocol to this Convention calls for increased efforts to prevent illicit production of, traffic in and use of narcotics. It also highlights the need to provide treatment and rehabilitation services to drug abusers.[7]”

      1. Saying it doesn’t make it so. It covers these drugs, but these drugs are not- by definition- narcotics.

        1. I agree with you. Narcotic is another one of those words that has been hammered completely out of shape and given a new meaning.

          1. Much like “addiction”.

        2. The term narcotic (pronunciation: /n?r?k?t?k/, from ancient Greek ????? nark?, “? benumb”) originally referred medically to any psychoactive compound with any sleep-inducing properties. In the United States it has since become associated with opioids, commonly morphine and heroin and their derivatives, such as hydrocodone. The term is, today, imprecisely defined and typically has negative connotations. When used in a legal context in the U.S., a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.

          From a pharmacological standpoint it is not a useful term, as is evidenced by the historically varied usage of the word.

          Going into histrionics over the use of a poorly defined word with next to no useful meaning outside of a legal context is one of those things that most people think makes you look kooky and instantly turns them off of your arguments. Just a little protip in case you ever have to socialize outside of the chemical engineering and/or stoner community.

  6. Republicans do not like ostensibly higher authorities mucking about in local matters, and that includes federal authorities.

    You live in your own little world, don’t you, Hinkle?

    1. He forgot to use the caveat “In Theory…” At least then his premise could have had some validity.

      1. He just misplaced the adverb “ostensibly” such that it appears to modify the adjective “higher” rather than the verb “do not like”.

  7. The laws regarding cannabis were born on the wings of lies and pampered by propaganda such that now the tightly held belief systems are going to have to reckon with the desire of all humanity to live with dignity, free from the oppressive tyranny that ignorance and biggotry have spawned!

    Mission Statement:

    To bring an end to cannabis prohibition in 2013 by gathering siginatory members through promotion and declaring our rights through the document, “Declaration of Rights of Cannabis Users”.
    Giving prohibitionists reasonable opportunity to affect appropiate, timely and agreed upon change and, if nessary enforcing our rights in a peaceful way.
    After April 20 2013 adopting a zero tolorance for acts of brutality and injustice by prohibitionists.



    1. Yet another cool story, bro.

      1. Don’t be a jerk. Still can’t see how April 20th 2013 will be any different than any other 4/20.

    2. After April 20 2013 adopting a zero tolorance for acts of brutality and injustice by prohibitionists.

      Good luck with that. The DEA has other ideas.

  8. I’ve always found it ironic that many, if not most, of the same people that call for the legalization of marijuana seem to be the same people supporting defacto tobacco prohibition.


    2. I understand why you think that, but that thinking is wrong, and here is why.

      Tobacco is an actually addictive substance that has ZERO medical benefits and causes massive long term health problems such as emphysema and cancer.

      On the other hand, there is ZERO evidence that marijuana causes any long term health effects, not even to the lungs. It doesn’t leave tar in the lungs the way tobacco smoke does. It is possibly the safest drug on the planet that makes you feel good for a while. And if you are still worried about the effects to your lungs, you can just eat it and still get all the benefits.

      1. I just want to clarify, I am not in favor of making cigarettes illegal, I’m just explaining why it isn’t entirely hypocritical to be against cigarettes and not marijuana.

        1. I just want to clarify, I am not in favor of making cigarettes illegal, I’m just explaining why it isn’t entirely hypocritical to be against cigarettes and not marijuana.

          Agreed. If your argument against cigarettes is due to health reasons, addiction rates, etc. then it’s not hypocritical.

          But if your argument for the legalization of marijuana is about personal freedom and liberty, then it doesn’t matter how bad cigarettes are for you, it’s pretty hypocritical.

      2. Only if they purely stick to utilitarian arguments and never talk about rights and liberty. If they see it as getting permission from the government to smoke mj rather than getting the government to stop infringing our rights.

        1. Only if they purely stick to utilitarian arguments and never talk about rights and liberty.

          That was the plan.

      3. Tobacco is an actually addictive substance that has ZERO medical benefits

        I think the reefer has damaged your brain.

        1. Probably. It was a bad sentence. Smoking tobacco has so many harms that they far outweigh any potential benefits. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t any benefits from some of the chemicals in tobacco.

      4. Actually, if I recall correctly, tobacco is linked to a significant reduction in development of Parkinson’s disease. I think that is about it, though.

    3. I bet you live in California.

      What gets me even more is the people who are for legalizing cannabis because they like it, but still are dead against legalizing any “hard” drugs because they have magical powers or something.

      1. Brain damaged hippies.

  9. I think the public schools are actually the gateway to marijuana.

    More like an intellectual dead end.

    1. Well, that as well as an effective means of State indoctrination and operant conditioning.

  10. While I think the Republican paranoid reaction to Agenda 21 is ridiculous, I do hope UN opposition can bring them around to recognizing the hypocracy of their stance on marijuana. There is no reason or logic to their stance.

  11. as well as an effective means of State indoctrination and operant conditioning.

    Potayto, potahto…

    1. I suppose that was superfluously redundant and repetitive.

  12. Just look at the conservative reaction to Agenda 21 — a voluntary U.N. program that encourages bike paths and urban planning

    That sounds like a direct copy/paste from a well circulated progressive talking point.

    I think there is a little more behind Agenda 21 than bike paths.

    1. Killing all Jedi?

    2. Like what?

      Except, possibly, for the security council, the UN is a pointless joke. I don’t much care what policies they try to promote.

      1. Google it, and decide for yourself.

        1. Hmmm. Yeah, hardly anything about bike paths at all. Sounds like a good plan to keep the developing world from actually developing, though.

  13. Find out what convinced Pat Robertson then repeat process.

    1. God told him. God doesn’t talk to everyone, so that plan is DOA.

    2. This. I was amazed when I heard he was for legalization. Apparently, he has been for a while. IIRC, He first stated it in the late 1990’s, although he walked that back when a shitstorm rained on his head.

  14. The GOP are not coming around on legal pot. The establishment GOP are still firmly convinced that doubling down on SoCon/NeoCon is their ticket. Of course they are still kicking around the idea that if they throw in a little more dem lite welfare state into the mix, that might help.

    They are completely wrong of course, but no one is going to convince that bunch of old fools.

  15. Can someone explain why and how an organization that was created supposedly to prevent wars — at which task it is notably a failure –is involving itself in bike paths and what products the state of Colorado is allowing for sale and purchase? Talk about mission creep.

    1. You could ask the same question about the role of the US federal government. What the hell are they doing regulating what plant a person can use?

    2. Uh, because they have a vested interest in being the preventer of wars. If everybody was on weed, there wouldn’t be any threat of war and therefore, no need for the UN. Its a classic self defense mechanism…

  16. An exceptionally great and, sadly, once-revered US Patriot warned his people for the ages:

    “As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent Patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great & powerful Nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.”
    ~~ Go: Washington, United States, 19 September 1796…..t.html#p24

    THIS SAYS IT ALL, right here in the 4 Mar 13 letter posted by S.O.S. to Sens. Leahy and Grassley:

    “The United States was a prime mover of these multilateral treaties and largely responsible for signature ratification by virtually every other country in the world.”

    In other words, the USA used its BULLY POWER to force other nations’ compliance — else get invaded and have a CIA-trained-and-subservient-to-Uncle-Sam dictator installed, or be cut off from handouts.

    *** Reduce them to “satellites” as the man said ***

    The USA can just as easily use its bully power to drop out of it — EVEN COMMAND THEM TO SUBMIT TO AN ANNULMENT [or else armed unmanned aircraft will be deployed in their airspace]

  17. A number of conservatives have recognized and publicly opposed the WOD’s assault of liberty for some time now. Unsurprisingly, most were libertarian conservatives like Milton Friedman. However, a number of religious conservatives were opposed to the WOD as well. Bill Buckley is perhaps the most well known of these. US Rep. Henry Hyde was actively opposed to civil asset forfeiture as a tool in the WOD. Even some ultra-religious conservatives like RJ Rushdoony opposed the WOD as a danger to liberty. These guys weren’t exactly cutting edge on the issue, and they weren’t NORML, but they did publicly voice serious concerns back in the 1990s.

    Other than advocates like NORML, I don’t recall any left-liberal opposition to the WOD based upon individual rights back in the 1990s. (The racial disparity and treatment/punishment criticisms are outcome and policy arguments unrelated to individual liberty.) Certainly we’re not hearing anything like that from the Obama Administration.

    1. How many votes would a bill to legalize pot at the federal level, get today, on the GOP side of the aisle?

      What about the Dem side?

      1. In summary, I would say it will get struck down by a 3/4, or more, majority in both houses, and would be the first veto by this POTUS, even if it passed. Which it does not have a chance in hell of doing.

        1. you just destroyed my will to live

  18. So the “promotion” (yay Obamacare) is going well. And by going well I mean I’m enjoying the first warm day. And by enjoying the first warm day I mean enjoying the coeds in skirts and shorts.

    God bless America.

    1. Running tally in the drone thread.

  19. As a member of the right, I’ll just put out there that the right by-and-large would likely be fine with marijuana legalization if government mandated healthcare and other welfare were not in place.

    Think about it this way: if you buy a car, but with your parent’s money, and on your parent’s insurance, then who is really responsible for the car? Your parents, of course. You are beholden to them if you wreck the car or get tickets, etc.

    In the case of marijuana, as long as other taxpayers are responsible for your body when you mess it up, then it is their business what you do with it.

    Now, as a decentralist, it’s not my business what other governments do with their laws, and I’m against the federal war on drugs, but at the local and state levels, I would fight against legalization of drugs, because I have seen too many people’s lives and minds ruined by exactly that substance. I hate seeing drugged out shells of people, and will work against there being more shells.

    But as long as it’s none of my business how sick or poor you get, then I will agree that it’s none of my business whether you smoke pot or not. Just, relieve me of my responsibility before I let go of the leash.

    1. I’m fine with conservatism, it’s conservatives I have doubts about. They keep passing up obvious opportunities to defend conservative principles, choosing instead to follow team politics.

      For instance, if someone’s addiction gets them on public assistance or convicted of crime, I would be down with banning them from using drugs (including, if relevant, alcohol). But if someone takes some weed from time to time while managing to stay out of prison and off the dole, I don’t see the basis for govt intervention, except on Progressive “public health” grounds.

      1. I would also be down with an addict’s family members taking guardianship over him if he’s *really* f-ed himself up (as opposed to “don’t agree with life choices”).

    2. So you don’t care about individual rights. Thanks for being honest.

      The fact that some people force everyone to pay for some people’s health care and other things is not a good reason to punish people for their choice of intoxicants. They are totally separate issues. Not to mention the fact that all of the bad things you want to avoid happen with drugs illegal.

    3. The cost of the WOD far outweighs any (if there even is any) savings to you from reduced drug use as a result of the WOD

  20. If you think Edith`s story is something,, five weeks ago my dad earnt $5937 sitting there a fifteen hour week an their house and their best friend’s step-sister`s neighbour was doing this for four months and made over $5937 in there spare time from their laptop. the instructions available here…

  21. Which is the best blog for us.we are enjoy it and will show them to everyone.

  22. That Democrats so favor legalization in the cited poll is somewhat surprising, given that Democratic politicians seem to me to be no more likely than their Republican colleagues to support legalizing pot, let alone “hard” drugs. The Republican party is largely an irrelevancy, becoming more so every hour with demographic trends taken into account. And today’s radicals are tomorrow’s conservatives anyway. So moving the ball forward on legalization probably hinges more on getting the left on board than the right. The only good thing to be said about democracy is that if you can somehow manage to put yourself on the side of the majority, regardless of how slim, you can impose whatever you want on the rest, and given a generation the minority will turn into your strongest supporters, savagely eviscerating the next generation of radicals when they come ’round to challenge your orthodoxy.

  23. “Are you tired of going office daily? Make money working from home with Google! I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Here is what I do,,
    (Click on Home for details

  24. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $74 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for seven months but last month her pay check was $16116 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site

  25. upto I looked at the paycheck which had said $7580, I did not believe …that…my neighbours mother woz like they say actualy receiving money part-time at their computer.. there uncle had bean doing this 4 only twenty months and just paid the dept on their apartment and bought a new Saab 99 Turbo. read more at,

  26. upto I looked at the draft which said $7089, I accept that my father in law was like realie taking home money in there spare time at there labtop.. there mums best friend started doing this 4 only about sixteen months and recently cleard the mortgage on their apartment and bought a top of the range Toyota. go to,

  27. For those of you that say republicans need to look at the demographics, you might also as yourself if that goes for things like increased entitlements and socialized medicine. Just because it is popular doesn’t mean it is a good idea.

  28. Other than advocates like NORML, I don’t recall any left-liberal opposition to the WOD based upon individual rights back in the 1990s.

    This is all the more odd, considering how the left-liberals of the 1960s were big promoters of marijuana and other psychadelics as mind-expanding drugs. Yet somewhere along the line they seemed to have tossed this out the window. Perhaps it was because they saw the potential for psychadelics to create revolution. Once the left-liberals got entrenched in academia, the media and bureaucracy, they did not want to see the next generation take to the streets in protest.

  29. what Debra explained I am amazed that you able to get paid $7768 in four weeks on the internet. have you read this web link

  30. just as Nicholas implied I didnt know that anybody can make $7809 in 4 weeks on the internet. have you seen this web page

  31. “Marijuana is not good for you”

    Says who?

  32. If you think Victoria`s story is flabbergasting,, 3 weaks-ago my friend made $4441 putting in a ninteen hour week an their house and they’re roomate’s ex-wife`s neighbour has done this for nine months and earned more than $4441 in their spare time from a computer. the guidelines available at this link,

  33. I just realized this was written in 2002. I wonder what the gun crime rate is now. Any government that tells you that you have no right to self defense is not looking after your best interest. Self defense is the most basic right anyone has. No government or police can protect you. I can’t believe you all allow this to continue. I keep a gun at home for self defense and have a license to carry it concealed any where I go. And I do. If I am attacked then at least I have a chance to stay alive. By the time the police arrive they can either arrange for my body to be picked up or take a statement from me. I choose the later. Britons let a right be taken from them and now it will be much harder to get it back. But you should try.

    ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????

    ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.