Pot, Gay Marriage and Overturning the supreme court

[DaveW]

 

Um, revenue? It's no different than the taxes you pay on cigarettes, liquor, gas ...

The funny thing is, gasoline is poor for the enivornment and slowly killing our future of this planet, Cigs are the worst thing you can consume, Liqour, while delcious also causes a ton of health and societal problems.

 

You know what product does none of those things? WEED!

[DaveW]

 

Are you also opposed to legalized alcohol?

If not, you might want to consider the similarities between prohibition--a colossal failure that succeeded only in making honest people criminals, actual criminals rich, and many innocents dead or injured--and current marijuana laws.

Marijuana use is no more damaging to society than alcohol, and the only logical response is to treat them similarly. Yet here we are, in 2015 for Pete's sake, still having this discussion. It's ridiculous, and I'm tired of seeing my tax dollars wasted on it, if nothing else.

And I don't even use marijuana.

To be honest, Alcohol is significantly more damaging to society. Just look at drunk driving numbers and domestic abuse alone.

[DaveW]

 

Yeah, Carson is a bit of a crackpot, but we were talking about tolerability relative to the rest of that field.

 

The only guys I'd seriously consider voting for are Paul or Kasich.

I lost all respect for Carson ( I didn't have much to begin with polictial wise) with his absurd blatant racism towards Muslims.

[DaveW]

 

I'd sooner see all drugs legalized and regulated.  I have a hard time fearing the consequences of legalizing anything when we're so content with the catastrophic social effects of alcohol.

 

Seriously, how much worse could legalizing and regulating everything be than the abuse of alcohol and the effects that has on violence, rape, and a host of other issues?

Yeah, I am all for legalizing everything for consumption (Won't ever happen). Heroin is obvioulsy a nasty drug and I don't think you will have Target selling it, but you should not send users to jail, with the money you save by not putting them into the system you could send them to treatment for significantly cheaper.

Also, prostitution should have been legalized 100 years ago.

[twinsnorth49]

It was still a ridiculous analogy. And while I'm no proponent of the legalization of marijuana, you really have to consider the practicality of the situation. Smoking tobacco and drinking are both perfectly legal (under certain situations, I should clarify), but marijuana, which allegedly is no worse, is not. Given time, it will inevitably all balance out; tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar ... you name it ... will all be prohibited, or marijuana will be legalized. What do you suppose is the most likely (and practical) outcome?

 

Heroin and cocaine present a completely different scenario. My main concern when it comes to the legalization of marijuana is that those will be next on the list. But again, my personal opinion is that drug users ​are proceeding at their own risks. I'm not saying I support it - quite the opposite. What I'm saying is that maybe we should forget about being so hard on the users and focus more on the dealers. Drugs are really a non-violent crime, and the person you hurt the most by using them is yourself. (I know there are arguments against that, but if you take that stance, you have to add that drinking an alcoholic beverage is ​committing a violent crime.) Drug dealers ... different story. All they care about is making a king's ransom off of the demise of others. Heroin and cocaine should never be legalized ... but punishing the users? What they really need is therapy. Fining/jailing isn't going to "help" anyone overcome an addiction.

You want to learn something? Read Don Winslow's "The Power of The Dog" and the sequel "The Cartel".

 

These are two of the best books written about the impact the War on Drugs has had in the US. Read them, and then post again

[Willihammer]

Step one should be decriminalization. The economic and social costs are undeniable but I'm too familiar with the negative side effects of pot to get on board with full blown federal legalization. Give states a generation or so to handle decriminalization how they want and then take a federal step if necessary. I suspect the results of that would prove that a middle ground is best.

[DaveW]

 

Step one should be decriminalization. The economic and social costs are undeniable but I'm too familiar with the negative side effects of pot to get on board with full blown federal legalization. Give states a generation or so to handle decriminalization how they want and then take a federal step if necessary. I suspect the results of that would prove that a middle ground is best.

Honest question: What are the negative side effects of pot that you speak of? Especially when compared to alcohol, cigs etc?

[Willihammer]

 

Honest question: What are the negative side effects of pot that you speak of? Especially when compared to alcohol, cigs etc?

At a minimum, I think it causes people to lose focus and motivation. I had friends in college, and myself, who changed majors or dropped out due to missing class or falling behind in studies. All of us daily pot users. I'd also argue it causes anxiety and depression for a lot of people. But these are harder things to prove than the direct physiological impact of alcohol on your liver, for example, so a lot of people are skeptical. Pot's more insidious.

[USMCTwin]

 

I lost all respect for Carson ( I didn't have much to begin with polictial wise) with his absurd blatant racism towards Muslims.

 

1. Muslim is not a race.

 

2. Would it be just as absurd if Bernie said the same thing about Christians?

[DaveW]

 

1. Muslim is not a race.

 

2. Would it be just as absurd if Bernie said the same thing about Christians?

1. Semantics, you know what I am getting at.

2. Uh, yes, yes it would. It would be just as absurd if Huckabee, Hillary, Trump said the same thing about Jews (Bernie Sanders)

 

Are you actually defnding Carson?

[Mike Sixel]

 

1. Muslim is not a race.

 

2. Would it be just as absurd if Bernie said the same thing about Christians?

 

Of course it would be absurd if anyone said a Christian should not be president......was that a real question?

 

Oh, wait, Republicans did make that argument against John Kennedy and his Catholicism. Let's just be real here, fear sells....

[Mike Sixel]

The real irony here is that the Republicans of today want to impose their religion on the rest of us....

[USMCTwin]

 

1. Semantics, you know what I am getting at.

2. Uh, yes, yes it would. It would be just as absurd if Huckabee, Hillary, Trump said the same thing about Jews (Bernie Sanders)

 

Are you actually defnding Carson?

 

It's important to note his clarification that if a Muslim rejected Sharia Law than he would support that person for President, however at that point it becomes about whether Muslims would consider that person actually a Muslim, or as Carson put it in his clarification an infidel or heretic.  Have you read the Sharia Law?  I find it hard to believe that liberals of all people would want someone in office that believed in Sharia Law.  You talk about the war on women.  I think this may be a case of the evil you know is better than the one you don't. 

 

I am actually a libertarian, but I agree with Carson that I don't want someone in office that wants to implement Sharia Law and I think that should not be that outlandish of a statement.  So then you wonder what makes the media/people jump all over this statement.  Is it that he's a Republican or a Christian?  I don't think so.  I think it falls more towards that he's not a career politician or something you hit on it may be more sinister and about his own actual race rather than religion. 

 

I think the Republican party doesn't really like him because he isn't a career politician and some in my honest opinion don't want a black person running for office.  It's that kind of mentality that has doomed the party in previous elections.  However, I think the difference here is Democrats/Media took the bait this time for whatever ulterior motives they may have.

 

But as to your question yeah I guess I am defending Carson, however I think he should have been much more clear when he talked about it the first time.  Unfortunately enough for him people don't really care about clarifications they will only read the headlines and come up with their own motives behind what he said.  He is about the only person on the republican ticket I can get behind so it looks like Libertarians, or at least me, head towards another rock and a hard place when it comes time to pick.

[USMCTwin]

 

The real irony here is that the Republicans of today want to impose their religion on the rest of us....

 

Not ironic, some of us just get tired of government overreach and I insure you a proponent of Sharia Law would have some serious implications.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I lost all respect for Carson ( I didn't have much to begin with polictial wise) with his absurd blatant racism towards Muslims.

 

Let me couch this by saying one of the most obnoxious trends out there is Christians whining about being persecuted ala Davis and Huckabee.  It's beyond ridiculous - they need to shut up.  

 

But, I think the point Carson was very poorly making is that he'd be concerned having a Muslim in the oval office during a time when the greatest threat to world peace is the instability and radicalism in that religion right now.  I don't necessarily agree, but I can't totally dismiss the issue either.  He was an idiot to phrase it like that or talk about it at all, however.

 

But let's be clear - not all Muslims are bad people - most are wonderful in fact!  (Being a teacher for Somali kids has been a treat, the parents are generally great to work with!) - but we also can't ignore the reality of the world.  It isn't racist or hateful to say that Islam (misused or corrupted or whatever) is a major component of terrorism and violence.  

[USMCTwin]

 

Let me couch this by saying one of the most obnoxious trends out there is Christians whining about being persecuted ala Davis and Huckabee.  It's beyond ridiculous - they need to shut up.  

 

But, I think the point Carson was very poorly making is that he'd be concerned having a Muslim in the oval office during a time when the greatest threat to world peace is the instability and radicalism in that religion right now.  I don't necessarily agree, but I can't totally dismiss the issue either.  He was an idiot to phrase it like that or talk about it at all, however.

 

But let's be clear - not all Muslims are bad people - most are wonderful in fact!  (Being a teacher for Somali kids has been a treat, the parents are generally great to work with!) - but we also can't ignore the reality of the world.  It isn't racist or hateful to say that Islam (misused or corrupted or whatever) is a major component of terrorism and violence.  

 

Thank you this is the point I was trying to make. Although, I did a poor job and am not so eloquent.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Not ironic, some of us just get tired of government overreach and I insure you a proponent of Sharia Law would have some serious implications.

 

No one is going to vote for someone that wants Sharia law, this is just about as real as a UFO......and keeps us from discussing the actual hatred and fear of muslims in general that the right is using to generate votes.

[USMCTwin]

 

No one is going to vote for someone that wants Sharia law, this is just about as real as a UFO......and keeps us from discussing the actual hatred and fear of muslims in general that the right is using to generate votes.

 

Sure, but that's why I don't get why this is all being blown out of proportion, literally everyone in America should agree with him. It's only inflammatory if you want it to be for reasons I discussed earlier.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Sure, but that's why I don't get why this is all being blown out of proportion, literally everyone in America should agree with him. It's only inflammatory if you want it to be for reasons I discussed earlier.

 

Well, mike has a point though.  This issue generally gets derailed because the two factions are both going in two opposite, bat **** crazy directions.  The right uses anti-Islam sentiment to drum up support while the left yells "racist" every time someone says "The Islamic faith is a major component to terrorism right now".

 

I'd argue it's also a major problem with how we deal with the situation and it's my biggest beef with Carson here: it's a stupid point to make to try and galvanize support behind you by being anti-Islam.

[USMCTwin]

 

Well, mike has a point though.  This issue generally gets derailed because the two factions are both going in two opposite, bat **** crazy directions.  The right uses anti-Islam sentiment to drum up support while the left yells "racist" every time someone says "The Islamic faith is a major component to terrorism right now".

 

I'd argue it's also a major problem with how we deal with the situation and it's my biggest beef with Carson here: it's a stupid point to make to try and galvanize support behind you by being anti-Islam.

 

I agree with you on most of it, including Carson didn't handle it like I would have preferred. The only thing I would disagree on and perhaps I am giving him too much benefit of the doubt, I don't think he said it to try and drum up support on the anti-Islam stance. From what I know of him and his persona, that is just not his style. In the same way he doesn't really attack the other candidates, he doesn't really go after opponent's issues, but rather prop his up.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I agree with you on most of it, including Carson didn't handle it like I would have preferred. The only thing I would disagree on and perhaps I am giving him too much benefit of the doubt, I don't think he said it to try and drum up support on the anti-Islam stance. From what I know of him and his persona, that is just not his style. In the same way he doesn't really attack the other candidates, he doesn't really go after opponent's issues, but rather prop his up.

 

I appreciate you are assuming positive intent, having worked in politics for the republicans for years, and talked to many democrats in power, I am no longer capable of that with either side for the most part. It's why I have declined several offers.

[ashbury]

 I don't think he said it to try and drum up support on the anti-Islam stance.

What other purpose could his original comment have?

 

There aren't any Muslims running for president, at least among the dozen-plus in either party with any media coverage.

 

So there was no reason to take a stance for or against that eventuality.

 

No, he was just trying to play dog-whistle politics, but by mistake picked up a regular whistle. It looks easy, but that kind of thing really needs to be left to the pros.

[USMCTwin]

 

What other purpose could his original comment have?

 

There aren't any Muslims running for president, at least among the dozen-plus in either party with any media coverage.

 

So there was no reason to take a stance for or against that eventuality.

 

No, he was just trying to play dog-whistle politics, but by mistake picked up a regular whistle. It looks easy, but that kind of thing really needs to be left to the pros.

 

It's not like he mentioned it in a prepared speech. He was asked a spinoff question of "Do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?" I mean seriously how was he supposed to respond to this question, without completely not answering the question. I am going to go ahead and guess if you had read Sharia Law you would have answered the question in a very similar manner, although hopefully more specific and recognizing that not all Muslims follow Sharia Law. 

 

So yes there was a very real reason to take a stance for or against it, you know, since he was asked the question.

 

As far as your hitting on the pros I suspect that is why so many are trying to play gotcha games with him because he is not a career politician. It is likely that or race, but I think for the most part it's to try and get rid of the non-establishment types. 

[Squirrel]

 

It's not like he mentioned it in a prepared speech. He was asked a spinoff question of "Do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?" I mean seriously how was he supposed to respond to this question, without completely not answering the question. I am going to go ahead and guess if you had read Sharia Law you would have answered the question in a very similar manner, although hopefully more specific and recognizing that not all Muslims follow Sharia Law. 

 

So yes there was a very real reason to take a stance for or against it, you know, since he was asked the question.

 

As far as your hitting on the pros I suspect that is why so many are trying to play gotcha games with him because he is not a career politician. It is likely that or race, but I think for the most part it's to try and get rid of the non-establishment types. 

I would like to be able to ask Christians, then, what form of Christianity they follow and not allow anyone to run for president who adheres to a very strict, 'born again,' conservative, literally interpreted form.

[USMCTwin]

 

I would like to be able to ask Christians, then, what form of Christianity they follow and not allow anyone to run for president who adheres to a very strict, 'born again,' conservative, literally interpreted form.

 

That's kind of my point. This would be much more accepted in our PC run amok society.

[USMCTwin]

 

I would like to be able to ask Christians, then, what form of Christianity they follow and not allow anyone to run for president who adheres to a very strict, 'born again,' conservative, literally interpreted form.

 

Also important to notice the subtle difference in your language versus Carson's although very different implications. Carson said he would not advocate a Muslim for president, while you say born again Christians should not be allowed to run. One still allows a choice for the people the other is more in line with communism.

[TheLeviathan]

 

That's kind of my point. This would be much more accepted in our PC run amok society.

 

If we weren't so PC, you'd really hear Christians get what they have coming every time they whine about being oppressed.

 

There is a double standard on the left about Islam, though, that's very much true.

[USMCTwin]

 

If we weren't so PC, you'd really hear Christians get what they have coming every time they whine about being oppressed.

 

There is a double standard on the left about Islam, though, that's very much true.

 

I get it. Everytime Christians complain about being persecuted I want to send them to Israel to see what persecution looks like. Although I can sympathize that much like the Jewish people the Christian people have kind of become a punching bag that you land blows on that are still off-guards for other religions for whatever reasons.

[TheLeviathan]

That's somewhat true, though most left-wing people are pretty brutal on Israel for no good reason either.  But yeah, there is a bizarre double standard in willingness to attack Christians and Jews, but not Islam.

 

On that issue there are very few on the left with any consistency or good sense.  Bill Maher is taking a pretty brave and correct stance on it, but he's an island to himself on the left.

[formerly33]

 

One still allows a choice for the people the other is more in line with communism.

Huh?