I'll come out and say it. I supported legalization of pot (or Amendment 64)) in Colorado. But mainly because I believe pot can only be as if not as less harmful as alcohol. But I have a feeling before joints come like beer mugs, a lot of people will try doing what happened for alcohol: ban it. Yay or nay?
I don't want no pothead or alcoholic working or driving next to me.
after that its all tea party
have at it as long as they stay inside.
If you believe in tea party principles you should want to legalize pot. Small government believers don't believe government should regulate what people do to themselves. ( As long as it doesn't effect others.)
Wahhh ? what does this mean ?
Smoking pot or drinking alcohol is completely different to driving and working while intoxicated. You're completely mixing up two issues.
Wrong! That's Libertarians.What part about "I have no use for drug users" do you not get?I didn't say that, but if it impedes your abilities, then they are the same.
With all the problems that have been proven for tobbacco smoking, why legalize another product that is going to just add to the health care problems we already have to deal with?
I have absolutely no use for drug users. But if they want to destroy their own life, and it doesn't effect my life in anyway, have at it as long as they stay inside.
Yes.Same rules as alcohol, in regard to age and driving.Employers would retain the right to terminate employees that use it, at their discretion.It's not so much about drug legalization, as it is that it's unconstitutional. The government has no constitutional authority to stop people from doing things that affect no one but themselves.It's this same overreach that has led to Michelle Obama's food police, and mayor Bloomberg's Orwellian dictates on everything from transfat, to salt, to soda portions.We can't call on government to stop people from doing something we disagree with, and be surprised when our turn comes around.