Medical Marijuana Gets the Liberty You Don’t
Two cheers today for the Obama Administration which announces that federal drug agents will cease harassment of medical marijuana users in states where it’s legal. That’s good news for liberty advocates in states such as my Colorado where dispensaries are beginning to pop up after medical MJ was legalized by referendum back in 1996.
No doubt hard-core folks on the right will criticize this, but “small l” libertarians like me cheer the loosening of any laws against victimless crimes. Laxing medical marijuana laws, I’ll say without caution, is a great first step in eliminating these senseless and liberty-draining measures across the board. And I’m all for it.
It’s a shame President Obama’s zest for individual liberty when it comes to medical choices cannot be extended further into his health care agenda. While I salute his decision here, I must wonder if he’s actually embracing liberty or simply playing to the usual libertine desires of his core, the pot-smoking Lefties who probably misheard him last year and thought he was calling for “Dope and Mange”.
Nevertheless, he deserves credit for this, and now Eric Holder can concentrate on more important things… Like pursuing charges against those who are trying to defend us against foreign terrorists.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
37 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Hmm, it looks like they’re going to not go after intrastate commerce. That would be a better use of Federal Resources and appriciated.
Now if only he’d back the state off of other intrusions…
Comment by The_Livewire — October 19, 2009 @ 10:07 am - October 19, 2009
Will Obamacare will pay for marijuana? Now that’s a game changer!
Comment by DoorHold — October 19, 2009 @ 11:54 am - October 19, 2009
Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how it manifests.
“Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress”
Comment by Legalize — October 19, 2009 @ 12:54 pm - October 19, 2009
Here Here.. Now he can go home, as he’s done all the good he’s likely to do.
.
Comment by Sonicfrog — October 19, 2009 @ 1:23 pm - October 19, 2009
Victimless? Yeah I guess the gang bangers I see all over the bay area only carry guns and commit crimes while stone cold sober… And the pot they are ALWAYS found with is for the after party.
Or the fact the pot culture here is tied to extreme violence, destruction of public lands and was responsible for some of the biggest fires to hit this area in fifty years, has nothing to do with pot huh?
I mean gangsta rap is promoting pot as a way to stop the violence in the communities right? I mean it is only a coincidence they promote pot, violence, and the denigration of women, right?
Forgive my abrasive tone, but I have had my dealings with pot users and producers… I have a friend and a cousin who both fall in to the “Happy” category… But for every happy hippie, there are five violent thugs here in the bay area. The notion that legalizing it will make things better is a crock…
Go to hunter’s point in SF, the Tenderloin, Oakland, Concord, East San Jose, Then come back and tell me pot is victimless… These are all areas considered “Pot friendly” and I promise you will not want to be in any of those areas after dark and unarmed.
Hell, they were reporting a few months ago that Amsterdam’s “Legal” pot distribution is controlled by criminal organizations… So legal money paid in too illegal ventures… yeah that sounds good to me……..
I am anything but “Far Right” and have fairly deep libertarian ideals, But I can never and will never support the legalization of something that has brought this area nothing but problems and pain, No matter how sugar coated people make it sound.
By the way, consider the fact that pot was at the core of the hippie movement and the explosive growth of the far left… That alone should be cause to find the drug vile, a blight and something that should be stamped out of all human civilization.
Just my honest opinion.
Comment by Stone K — October 19, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - October 19, 2009
[...] Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, The Corner on National …, Hot Air, The Impolitic, Donklephant, GayPatriot, Althouse Via Memeorandum SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: “Good on the Obama Adminstration and Eric [...]
Pingback by Good on the Obama Adminstration and Eric Holder for changing the Medical Marijuana Law! | Political Byline — October 19, 2009 @ 3:11 pm - October 19, 2009
I disagree with Stone K. Pot should be legalized, regulated and taxed just like every other “sin” product out there. This is a small step but the right move by the Obama Administration.
I doubt I’ll be saying that much over the next few years…
Comment by John — October 19, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - October 19, 2009
Every other “sin” product is NOT legalized and regulated. Cocaine, methamphetamine (not that you’d know it going to a gay club), heroin, every other intoxicant other than alcohol, they are all illegal, and it does society great good. One of the clearest lessons of prohibition was that when we legalized alcohol, usage skyrocketed. The same will happen if any other drugs are legalized, and no, that will not be good for America.
Studies, and even a cursory glance at prominent Democrats, show that regular pot users suffer far greater rates of psychoses, and other mental problems.
Comment by American Elephant — October 19, 2009 @ 4:11 pm - October 19, 2009
And hello? Need evidence for the damaging effects of marijuana, check out whats happened to Andrew Sullivan!
Comment by American Elephant — October 19, 2009 @ 4:13 pm - October 19, 2009
Other points.
1. Notice the dishonesty behind the arguments in favor of “medical marijuana”. Even Nick admits that his interest is “eliminating these senseless and liberty-draining measures across the board” not in providing pot only to people who supposedly need it for medical purposes.
Supporters of medical marijuana have never given a rats ass about people with supposed medical needs, what they have always wanted is for it to be easier to grab a bong and get high.
Fine! Want liberty? Legalize heroin! legalize meth! legalize it all! let liberty flourish! But they never argue for that because most people know that drug use DOES affect everyone.
2. Conservatives should never approve the selective enforcement of laws we like over laws we dont. That’s how you get “sanctuary cities”. Thats how the rule of law falls apart. If people want the repeal of laws banning pot, then repeal them, but dont act like liberals and try to weasel your way around laws the majority supports.
Comment by American Elephant — October 19, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - October 19, 2009
Because de facto drug legalization has done so much to improve quality of life and reduce crime in South Central, the Projects in Boston, Washington DC, Detroit, Mexico, Columbia….
Comment by DaveP. — October 19, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - October 19, 2009
just for fun. . .http://www.peele.net/faq/limbaugh.html
Dear Stanton,
I heard one commentator making the point that Rush Limbaugh* was somehow different from other addicts since he developed his addiction following appropriate and legal medical treatment.
Is there a difference in the type of addiction that happens following an abusive-prone person gradually climbing the ladder of substances and one who is introduced by legal means?
Thanks for your reply and your work.
Tom Atkinson
——————————————————————————–
Dear Tom:
The chief exponent of the view that if a physician prescribes it, then you can’t become addicted was, of course, Elvis Presley. Elvis was an active drug warrior at the same time he died with massive amounts of pharmaceuticals in his body.
Elvis did not, however, obtain his pharmaceuticals illegally, but rather had them prescribed (by primarily one physician). Although Limbaugh may have been introduced to pain killers legitimately due to his post-operative pain, the reports are that he obtained large supplies of OxyContin illicitly. Therefore, his drug use was illicit in the same sense as is the use of per se illegal drugs. Nonetheless, quite a few prominent Republicans have found themselves in this position – Cindy McCain (wife of Arizona Senator John McCain) who used an international charity she directed as a way to supply her prescription drug addiction and Jeb Bush’s daughter Noelle who likewise abused prescription drugs she obtained illegally. Neither Noelle Bush nor Cindy McCain served jail time, and it seems likely that Limbaugh will use his voluntary entry into treatment to beat prison as well. Ironically, all three prominent Republicans involved – Jeb Bush, John McCain, and Rush Limbaugh – are ardent drug hawks who favor punishment of drug users.
Obviously, these individuals were addicted to drug effects in the same way as are those addicted to cocaine, heroin, et al. Nonetheless, there seems to be a substantial preference given to those whose addiction is limited to manufactured medications, even when they obtain these drugs illegally.
Stanton
* Rush Limbaugh is a prominent conservative American radio talk show commentator who (following a tabloid paper’s disclosure that he had his housekeeper obtain massive quantities of OxyContin for him) announced on his radio show that he was addicted to pain killers and immediately checked into a 30-day treatment program.
Comment by rusty — October 19, 2009 @ 6:09 pm - October 19, 2009
By “sin product” I meant the current faves of legislators to hike taxes on: alcohol and tobacco. Since I have no interest in pot myself I’m not passionate about repeal, but if given a choice I will vote for it. Adults make stupid decisions which we have a right to do whether it involves alcohol, tobacco, fast food, pot, etc. I’m not convinced that pot is so dangerous that government must totally ban it. Tobacco is a far greater killer than pot could ever hope to be yet I do believe most conservatives balk at the Feds banning this product. At the very least it should be left up to the States to decide for themselves.
Comment by John — October 19, 2009 @ 6:25 pm - October 19, 2009
Wow…surprised to see such passion here…
What I don’t put up with in order to defend this president
Okay, a few things:
First of all, I’m not a pot (or any other drug, save alcohol) user. I have in the past, but as a member of the military, I am obliged to forego, and even when I’m finished with my service don’t imagine I’ll be doing much if any in the future. So I have no “grab a bong and get high” axe to grind.
Second, Stone (great name, BTW, for the topic), I’m not going to try to extol the virtues of pot or any other drug. As Mr. Mackey would say, “Drugs are bad, mmmkay.” I’m also not going to trot out the old canard that tries to compare pot or other drugs favorably to alcohol. My argument is about liberty, pure and simple.
I don’t know about the neighborhoods you mention in your comment. But short of some sort of evidence that the drug use is the CAUSE of the problems there, yours are simply stories. I imagine there are quite a few other characteristics that are common in those areas that might also be causing the blight you describe. I would suggest, however, that insofar as the drugs do play a role, it’s probably their illegality that’s to blame for the violence as much as anything. The elicit nature of the commodity naturally drives the price up to the point that illegal gang activity is the only natural result (black market). It is this value that leads to the precarious state of such a “market”. What’s more, removing the contraband status would remove most of the incentive to traffic in the substances in question as the price would inevitably plummet. After all, thugs aren’t poppin’ caps into each other over Twix and Milky Way bars, because you can get either at the Circle-K. On the other hand, check out the black market on cigarettes and other tobacco products in New York where the taxes have driven the market underground to avoid the overhead charged to legitimate retailers. There, a new black market has emerged for out-of-state tobacco products.
Nevertheless, keep in mind that my arguemnt is neither here nor there with respect to capitalism (which on its own merits dictates that there will always be a market for things desired, legal or not), but rather rests on liberty. With the (legitimate) sob stories of lives and families destroyed by drugs, can you make a coherent argument against my call for liberty? (More on this at the end of my comment.)
Also, AE: I’m not sure if I’m misreading your comment, and I don’t mean to get all defensive unneccessarily, but there’s nothing “dishonest” about my arugment whatsoever. As you yourself point out, “Nick admits [sic] that his interest is “eliminating these senseless and liberty-draining measures across the board” not in providing pot only to people who supposedly need it for medical purposes.” Let me state it one time clearly: I AM OPPOSED TO THE CRIMINALIZATION OF DRUGS ACROSS THE BOARD, and I BELIEVE DRUGS (YES, ALL DRUGS) SHOULD BE LEGAL. Insofar as medical marijuana is the first step on a slippery slope, I say lube it up! I make no fellowship with the mealy-mouthed PC lefties who want to just get the camel’s nose under the tent with medicinal marijuana. I want drugs decriminalized, plain and simple. That help clear it up?
Finally, I find the arguments made here about how bad drugs are (as a reason for their criminalization) and how we have a moral obligation to keep them illegal eerily akin to that of the leftist crowd that supports the Stalinization of health care. Hear me out:
Their argument is that we, as the richest nation in the world, have an obligation (morally) to ensure that everybody’s health care is provided for them. Forget the abdication of responsibility and the sacrificing of your individual rights. Pay no mind or heed to the fact that you are a person responsible for your own actions and free to live the life you choose (and therefore, face the repercussions of your own bad choices). We’re going to pass a law that will take care of everybody, make it a better society, and you can simply check your liberties (and responsibilities, for that matter) at the door.
It probably bugs some to see that they are, in some small ways, the very things they despise in others, no?
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 19, 2009 @ 8:29 pm - October 19, 2009
I agree CP. If you’re a strict constructionist, then you have to admit that the Constitution does not grant the Federal Government the power to regulate the things of Commerce. In fact, a few clauses down from the commerce clause, the constitution specifically grants them power over a thing used in commerce; that being the coining of money. If the commerce clause was all encompassing, then why grant a separate power? Surely the framers were aware that coins were used in commerce. No, the power is over the act of commerce. Commerce is they buying, selling and trading of goods or services and nothing more. It is an action not a thing. When you stop the buying, selling and trading of a good or service there is no longer commerce. When there is no longer commerce in a good or service then there is no longer a Federal concern. Further more, that concern only extends to buying, trading and selling between the states, Indian tribes and foreign nations and not the commerce inside a state. This is why I think Clarence Thomas dissented on the pot challenge a few years back. Heck, you have the 18th amendment that was passed in 1919 to stop the production, distribution and sale of Alcohol. This included activity internal to a state. If they do not need such amendments now to stop drugs, then why did they pass it then? It is so glaring and in your face. On the other hand, I support the federal government stepping in and invalidating all state laws that prevent its citizens from buying (commerce) health insurance from other states (amongst the states). That is an application for which the commerce clause was constructed.
All that said, I think this is entire act is just political maneuvering by this administration because they have not shown me to be the least bit interested in Constitutionalism. Maybe, they think they will pick up some pot smoker votes; I don’t know. Nothing this administration does makes all that much sense to me.
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — October 19, 2009 @ 10:53 pm - October 19, 2009
Does anybody really think there’s going to be anything else available to folks under ObamaCareless?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 19, 2009 @ 11:11 pm - October 19, 2009
Pay no mind or heed to the fact that you are a person responsible for your own actions and free to live the life you choose (and therefore, face the repercussions of your own bad choices).
That being said, Nick, there are simply far too many areas in which lives intersect in our modern world to take the farthest libertarian tack. You may wish to shoot up with heroin in your own home and that’s fine, but when you decide to go for a northbound drive on the southbound lanes of the 101, it becomes my problem and the problem of everyone else who drives that road. You may ultimately take responsibility for the problem, yes, but the question becomes whether or not the degree to which you exercise your liberty endangers others.
I agree with you that it’s not “endangerment” that you could potentially raise my health care costs. However, when you can cause me or someone else real property damage by taking illegal drugs, that IS within the scope of government to restrain, in my opinion. In addition, if decriminalization were to occur, it would have to be accompanied by laws that assert clearly that business owners and leaders have the right to refuse service AND employment to anyone who uses or is under the influence of drugs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 20, 2009 @ 2:55 am - October 20, 2009
Nick,
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that your argument was dishonest, just pointing out that most who argue for medical marijuana are not doing so honestly. They pretend to support medical marijuana out of feigned concern for people who supposedly need it, when all they really care about is getting pot legalized so they can get high.
I am arguing that if we wish to remain a nation of laws, we cannot have executives at any level deciding which laws they want to enforce and which they do not any more than we can have a judiciary making law from the bench. The legislative branch is elected to write law, not the executive, and not the judicial.
Also, if you’re gonna try to correct my grammar, you should choose a sentence that is actually grammatically incorrect, not one that is correct, as you did.
It works better that way.
And lastly, your argument comparing the criminalization of drug use to the nationalization of health care is bordering on silly. As though there is no difference between criminalizing specific antisocial recreational behaviors that are demonstrably damaging to society as a whole, and seizing complete authority over the person and their very right to life.
“If you’re going to make social laws, you might as well resurrect Stalin right here and now, cus its all the same thing!”
Pulease. You might as well argue for anarchy.
Comment by American Elephant — October 20, 2009 @ 4:27 am - October 20, 2009
NDXXX: I agree laws should be (and are already) in place holding users responsible for their actions while under the influence. That in no way should be an impediment to drugs’ legalization. In fact, it’s part of it. I also agree with property/biz owners’ rights extending to the refusal to do biz with anyone they deem unworthy. Seems we may be closer than you think.
AE: I wasn’t correcting your grammar. I was deliniating your choice of the word “admits”, which may have suggested there was some sort of guilt involved with my choice of argument, which in fact there is none. I am unabashed in my choice of design, rhetoric, and position. And furthermore, I find your choice to simply dismiss my argument vis a vis healthcare as “silly” sadly reminiscant of techniques I usually expect from the Lefties who usually troll this site who have no actual arguments and instead resort to dismissiveness rather than an engaged debate, and therefore, disappointing.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 20, 2009 @ 6:49 am - October 20, 2009
NR sums up my feelings pretty well here
The problem with a libertarian arguement in modern society, is it requires a government that isn’t willing to nanny people.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 20, 2009 @ 8:15 am - October 20, 2009
Threads like this highlight the intellectual dishonesty of many on the right, especially those who spew their hate-filled “Obama = Stalin” puke.
In one breath you say “get the government out of our lives” and the next you saying “for the communal good, we must keep drugs illegal”
Which is it? Do you want a Nanny state, or not?
Or is there a grey area that might exist? And if you can find that grey area when it comes to drugs, why can’t you on other issues?
Comment by gillie — October 20, 2009 @ 9:00 am - October 20, 2009
apparently gillie can’t read.
Wait, I’m stating the obvious.
Comment by The_Livewire — October 20, 2009 @ 9:44 am - October 20, 2009
So they legalize weed. But you’re not allowed to smoke anywhere, so the whole thing is moot anyway, right?
Or will they fight for your right to blast away wherever you want?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 20, 2009 @ 12:31 pm - October 20, 2009
Nick,
I dont know what else to call the idea that proposing SOME laws means one might as well support “Stalinist” health care as you call it.
It is a blatantly ridiculous argument on its face as though there is nothing between anarchy and tyranny.
And just to show how retarded the argument is, Gilltard makes the same one!
If you dont want your arguments dismissed, don’t make ridiculous ones.
Comment by American Elephant — October 20, 2009 @ 2:08 pm - October 20, 2009
Well, AE, here’s what I was saying. Please read this (re)iteration and tell me what’s ridiculous:
Exhibit A: The Left in America wants to Stalinize health care because a) it’s moral to do so, and b) it’ll be good for society, c) as Americans, we should invite ourselves into the well-being of others’ lives, and d) if we don’t, we’ll tertiaraly pay for it when the poor choices of others affect us. This, in spite of the fact that in order to do such a thing, all Americans’ rights will be curtailed.
Exhibit B: Part of the argument you (and others) make for the continued criminalization of drugs is that a) it’s moral to do so, and b) it’ll be good for society, c) as Americans, we should invite ourselves into the well-being of others’ lives, and d) if we don’t, we’ll tertiaraly pay for it when the poor choices of others affect us. This, in spite of the fact that in order to do such a thing, all Americans’ rights will be curtailed.
Please point out how all aspects of that parallel are “ridiculous”.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 20, 2009 @ 9:34 pm - October 20, 2009
Colorado Patriot.
I got physically assaulted less than three weeks ago by a man who first asked me for money, then drugs and whom I see getting stoned all the time. I was knocked unconscious, robbed, have broken teeth and problems with my equilibrium. I have a copy of the police report, and ER release papers and a pile of bills from both doctors and dentists I can show you if you dont believe me.
PLEASE dont tell me that drug use causes “tertiary” problems. It causes very real crime that affects millions of people very directly every day — crime that would not happen if people werent high, and werent addicted to drugs they cant pay for.
And yes, your argument that passing a law against anti-social behavior is akin to Stalinism remains ridiculous and retarded. Every word you typed could be used to argue against the speed limit just as well as it could against drug criminalization. And yes, comparing the speed limit or drug laws to Stalinism is deeply, DEEPLY ridiculous.
Comment by American Elephant — October 20, 2009 @ 10:03 pm - October 20, 2009
Good Heavens, AE. I am very sorry for your recent travails. (Why on earth would you think I wouldn’t believe you?)
Based on your logic, however, had you been shot, you’d also be advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. What this loser did to you was illegal, drugs or not. Frankly, by blaming the drugs (or his access to them, or demonizing his liberties to attain them), you are actually giving him a pass on his own choices by not holding him responsible for his own actions. It’s shocking to see this come from someone who normally is so adamant about personal responsibility and liberty as you. Frankly, I’m disappointed.
And YES!, the speed limit example…NOW you’re getting it. Speed limit laws, just as drug laws, are anathema to personal liberty. How funny…your attempt to call out my point with (what you assert to be) a silly analogy actually helps make my point precisely. To be sure, school zones and residential zones make sense (I’d also suggest proper locality-based zoning for ‘drug-stores’ are fair). But a federal law dictating speed limits? Hm…where have I seen that before? If only you could see how easy your example just made my whole argument!
Still, by the way, hoping you’ll actually answer the question I posed in my last comment: “Please point out how all aspects of that parallel are “ridiculous”.” I still stand by them, and (as gillie often does), your resistance to addressing them constitutes either intellectual dishonesty in your dismissal of them, or laziness in your lack of capability to counter them.
Hope you’re feeling better soon from that awful attack. Yikes. Wouldn’t wish that on anybody.
Comment by ColoradoPatriot — October 20, 2009 @ 10:41 pm - October 20, 2009
No Nick, had I been shot, I’d be arguing the same as I am now, that I wouldn’t have been assaulted at ALL if that man had not been a drug user. You’re not using logic at all, let alone mine.
And far from giving him a pass, I am arguing that he should be held responsible for both his drug use AND his violence, BOTH of which are illegal, and the former or which is proven to lead to higher rates of the latter.
But, he will not be held accountable for his actions period because the Seattle police department refuses to do anything about arresting him, despite telling them I can identify him and know where he is likely to be, unless I see him first, call 911, and keep in close vicinity to him until police arrive, which I am not going to do for my own safety. Even then, they tell me it would be very difficult to prosecute if he comes up with an alibi or any other number of reasons. In other words I spent about 15 minutes on the phone with a police sergeant rattling off a thousand reasons why they couldnt arrest the man who broke my teeth gave me a concussion, bruises, scrapes, screwed up my balance and robbed me.
And actually, its funny you should mention it, Seattle is one of the cities that has instructed police to basically ignore people breaking pot laws. I’ve seen this guy lighting up a joint in public so many times I lost count. Good thing no one prosecuted him for his “victimless” crimes! I wonder how many other people have been victims to his victimless crimes?
No, they really aren’t. Because we live in a world where we interact with other people, not in separate universes where our actions affect no one but us. There are behaviors we can engage in that put OTHER people at greater risk, not just ourselves. Most people agree that the government has every right in the world to regulate such behaviors….drug use and speeding being a prime examples.
If you want to buy a large piece of property and build a private track, then you can hop in your car and drive as fast as you want, Until then, you will be driving on public roads that must be used by other people, and we know irrefutably that driving at higher speeds causes more and deadlier accidents, just as we know irrefutably that drug use leads to more crime — even when they are legal drugs like alcohol. We also know that once drugs are made legal, that usage, and the subsequent crime, skyrockets.
Benjamin Franklin spoke of what he called “essential liberty”, liberals and libertarians often misquote him as speaking of “liberty” in general, but he was not. He knew what you apparently do not, that government is, by its very nature, the restriction of liberty. He qualified his statement because he recognized that we sacrifice liberty for safety and the general welfare all the time.
You are defending very non-essential liberty (drug use) at the expense of very real, sustained, and demonstrable public safety. Indeed, you are defending non-essential liberty of drug use OVER the essential liberty of being able to move about without increased danger.
And yes, I am far too lazy to explain the ideological spectrum, and how at one end you have complete liberty, and the other complete tyranny, and that conservatism, Republicanism, Liberalism, Democratism, progressivism all lie in between.
That does not, however, make your argument that anything short of anarchy is the same as Stalinism any less ridiculous. It makes it more so.
Comment by American Elephant — October 21, 2009 @ 1:29 am - October 21, 2009
that should read: “And yes, I am far too lazy to explain the ideological spectrum, and how at one end you have complete ANARCHY, and the other complete tyranny…”
Comment by American Elephant — October 21, 2009 @ 1:32 am - October 21, 2009
So why can’t I drive 60 MPH past a school or in a residential area?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 21, 2009 @ 4:28 am - October 21, 2009
I think you are both right and butting each others heads. The issue is not a federal issue; it’s a 10th amendment issue and should be addressed at the state level pursuant to the states constitutions. However, if you want it addressed at the federal level, then it is best to seek the wisdom of Article V and get a constitutional amendment just as they had to do for Alcohol. Then no one can ever use history to point out that the constitution was not followed then why should it be followed now. The Democrats are going to try and ram this health-care stuff through, the majority of opinion be damned. Perhaps, if we had followed the rules better in the past, it would be that much harder for them today?
Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — October 21, 2009 @ 5:57 pm - October 21, 2009
Nick,
I finally thought of a much more concise response to why your argument is ridiculous.
Godwins Law.
There seems to be widespread understanding that the first person to compare their opponent to Hitler automatically loses an argument.
I think the same can be said for comparing parking tickets to Stalinism.
Comment by American Elephant — October 21, 2009 @ 6:39 pm - October 21, 2009
er, speeding tickets
Comment by American Elephant — October 21, 2009 @ 6:40 pm - October 21, 2009
Victimless Crime – ROTFLOL. I live in the country – outside the Bay Area – for 12 years. We have had at least 20 power outages during that time – 90% from drunk drivers speeding 80 miles an hour on country roads and hitting power poles – knocking our power out for hours and hours. A couple of weeks ago a drunk driver doing 80 miles an hour in a 55 mile an hour zone, hit multiple power poles sending an extremely high power surge through the power lines. Forty five houses were affected including mine. I have over $1500 in damages – it blew out my dryer, dishwasher, airbed pump, GFI in my garage shutting down my water softner, sprinkler time, it destroyed my home theatre system, 5 surge protectors and a couple of computers. I know of one home owner who lost their well pump – $5,000. The power poles are 10,000 grand a piece and the transformers are around $30,000 each. Bad enough we have drunk drivers who carelessly destroy property and people’s financial well being. Now we will have high on the hog dope heads driving at unsafe speeds slamming into power poles. Great. If they are going to smoke pot or drink and drive, they should be required by law to get a $90 million dollar insurance pollicy to cover the potential damages to not only property, but people. Victimless my a$$.
Comment by cowgirl — October 21, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - October 21, 2009
Very tired of these attacks on the President/Democrats. I wonder where organziation / money for these Tea Party protests lead back to – Insurance companies who have a lot to lose if there’s a public option? Most likely. (By the way, it’s major insurance companies who have death panels, not the government).
I’d like to see each and every person who attends a tea party and see what their reaction would be to the government getting out of the Social Security and Medicare business? Government run welfare programs to be sure, but I bet you’d hear a lot of protest against getting rid of those.
Comment by Kevin — October 22, 2009 @ 4:50 am - October 22, 2009
[...] Medical Marijuana Gets the Liberty You Don’t Two cheers today for the Obama Administration which announces that federal drug agents will cease harassment of medical marijuana users in states where it’s legal. That’s good news for liberty advocates in states such as my Colorado where dispensaries are beginning to pop up after medical MJ was legalized by referendum back in 1996. [...]
Pingback by Marijuana, Pot, Ganja, the Chronic … — October 28, 2009 @ 4:09 pm - October 28, 2009
As we all know SB109 passed on Tuesday setting regulations for younger patients and doctors. Thursday in the state capital our senate committee will take public comment so please get out and exercise your free speech if you can on Thursday.
Comment by Colorado Medical LLC — February 4, 2010 @ 8:20 am - February 4, 2010