Marijuana and the definition of conservative

[woodwork201]

Fiscal conservatism is finanical restraint

Social conservatism refers to morality laws

You're confusing them. You can be both or one and not the other

That's bull crap.

And social conservatism isn't about morality laws, it's about personal responsibility and accountability.

If you don't care about the government spending trillions they don't have as long as they're forcing people to live their lives the way you think they should live them then you are not a conservative; you're a socialist-style authoritarian.

If you believe that the government should spend money responsibly and wisely, conservatively, but bail should be eliminated and the borders should be open and let's give everyone a minimum cash allowance, then you are not conservative.

Specialized conservatism is to conservatism as "some of my best friends are _ _ _ _" is to racism. If you have to do either then you really aren't what you say you are.

Government does so well enforcing "responsibility and accountability" at the point of a gun, huh?

That's a job for families, communities and churches, not government. You're as naive as Democrats turning to government for charity

Did I say otherwise? You're just walking around with a chip on your shoulder.

Other way around. I am not anti-religious, I just said morality isn't a job for government.

You're arguing with me on that, then say you don't disagree.

Make up your mind

The only thing disagreed with was your definition of social conservatism. Up to that point, there had been no specific discussion about whether or not government could or should be the arbitrator of morality. Reread the whole thing in the quote in this post.

 

[kaz]

That's bull crap.

And social conservatism isn't about morality laws, it's about personal responsibility and accountability.

If you don't care about the government spending trillions they don't have as long as they're forcing people to live their lives the way you think they should live them then you are not a conservative; you're a socialist-style authoritarian.

If you believe that the government should spend money responsibly and wisely, conservatively, but bail should be eliminated and the borders should be open and let's give everyone a minimum cash allowance, then you are not conservative.

Specialized conservatism is to conservatism as "some of my best friends are _ _ _ _" is to racism. If you have to do either then you really aren't what you say you are.

Government does so well enforcing "responsibility and accountability" at the point of a gun, huh?

That's a job for families, communities and churches, not government. You're as naive as Democrats turning to government for charity

Did I say otherwise? You're just walking around with a chip on your shoulder.

Other way around. I am not anti-religious, I just said morality isn't a job for government.

You're arguing with me on that, then say you don't disagree.

Make up your mind

The only thing disagreed with was your definition of social conservatism. Up to that point, there had been no specific discussion about whether or not government could or should be the arbitrator of morality. Reread the whole thing in the quote in this post.

OK, if you're saying that social conservatives aren't all politically socially conservative than that would be true. It would have been a lot simpler just to say that. This is a political message board. Political social conservatives who support things like banning abortion and the war on drugs

 

[woodwork201]

You're a ******* liar, as I said the only ones with the power to rein in the courts are congress and/or the States. You can sit around crying like a little ***** or you can contact your reps and make them aware of what you see a the problem as I have been doing for decades. In the mean time I think you need one of these.

.

Well, like all leftists (which you really are), you're changing the story. I asked the question:

What's the constitutional authority for the Federal Government to ban the use of marijuana?

You responded:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

That's the Commerce Clause. So, do you stand by your statement that the Commerce Clause actually grants the government the authority to ban marijuana use or are you taking it back and standing by your later, conflicting, statement:

Well child, if you had been around this forum more than a minute, you'd know I disagree with most of the supreme court precedents on the commerce clause.

Ignore the part about how to fix it - you're right, it will take an Article V convention - we're discussing under what authority the government bans the use of marijuana. You're trying to change the subject just like leftists do when defeated with facts and logic.

More wingnut friendly fire.

No; it's not friendly fire at all. It really highlights exactly the OP's point in the title of the thread. There are those who say they're conservative and they hate it when the Supreme Court uses the Commerce Clause in ways not intended when it concerns things like insurance or gun manufacturing or anything - until they use it in ways not intended in order to force their morality on others regarding drugs.

So they don't really support the Constitution; they aren't really conservative. Many of those on this site who call themselves conservative aren't so conservative at all. They love it when the Courts or the Congress violate the Constitution.

Wouldn't the definition of conservative be someone who defends the Constitution in every single case?

If you accept that the Government can violate the Constitution in one thing then you must accept that they can violate it in any thing that they choose. The only thing left is to negotiate over which things they violate the Constitution. A conservative always defends the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

You called yourself a "conservative" not a Conservative.

The former has no relation to the latter except in spelling.

Explain the difference.

 

[woodwork201]

Poor child, you asked a question, I answered, simple as that. As for the fix, Article 5 is the correct method, but blue States like a court that is all for an expanding government and it only take 13 to kill any amendment to rein in the courts. Any more false conclusions you want to jump to?

Your dismissive attitude is exactly like the other leftists.

You're still changing the subject. It's not about how to change it. You did answer the question that you believe that the Courts and Congress are OK to exceed the intent of the Commerce Clause for banning the use of Marijuana but you are against it in other cases. You're a hypocrite. And definitely not a conservative. To you, the Constitution is merely a suggestion - exactly like the left.

You're standing by your answer that the Commerce Clause authorizes the Government to ban the use of Marijuana while pretending to believe that you are against Government overreach using the Commerce Clause. Please provide cases where the Commerce Clause was used inappropriately that you stood against and tell how it was different from marijuana bans.

 

[woodwork201]

Carter put those troops in Lebanon.


Credit patriotic American Jew Caspar weinberger for not joining with Israel's false flag hate hoax designed to bait us into war with hezbollah.

Had W, LBJ, or Biden been president, we would have hit Hezbollah.....

You come into this thread pretending to be, at a minimum, libertarian but really talk more liberal/leftist. So why should it surprise me that you're an anti-Semite racist? Most leftists are both. You blow your own credibility out of the water; you're just another racist idiot on the left.

Too dumb to figure out that 2200F molten steel did not get that way by jet fuel burning at 600F

You have no patriotism to America. You think Israel has the right to murder our people and steal our wealth and sell out our troops.

You cheered when the IDF gave the order

You have your orders, hit it (the USS Liberty)

I actually do not agree with that. I think Israelis who murder americans are bad, not good, and for that you just called the most fiscally conservative poster on USMB a liberal, because America's debt is nothing your treasonous Zionist ass cares about.....

You're rambling. When you stay focused on this thread you do OK. You're also an anti-semite. Best option is to save that for other threads if you want to focus on the definition of conservatism and the hypocrisy of drug bans in this thread. Your thread; up to you.

 

[OKTexas]

Poor child, you asked a question, I answered, simple as that. As for the fix, Article 5 is the correct method, but blue States like a court that is all for an expanding government and it only take 13 to kill any amendment to rein in the courts. Any more false conclusions you want to jump to?

Your dismissive attitude is exactly like the other leftists.

You're still changing the subject. It's not about how to change it. You did answer the question that you believe that the Courts and Congress are OK to exceed the intent of the Commerce Clause for banning the use of Marijuana but you are against it in other cases. You're a hypocrite. And definitely not a conservative. To you, the Constitution is merely a suggestion - exactly like the left.

You're standing by your answer that the Commerce Clause authorizes the Government to ban the use of Marijuana while pretending to believe that you are against Government overreach using the Commerce Clause. Please provide cases where the Commerce Clause was used inappropriately that you stood against and tell how it was different from marijuana bans.

Damn child, you lie as much as the commies. When marijuana is moved internationally or interstate the feds have every ******* right to regulate or outlaw it, via the commerce clause. The only question is, do the feds have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce or marijuana that is grown for personal use and never enters commerce? The courts have ruled they do, because any sources of a commodity has an effect on the overall market. What I don't get is how this doctrine can be extended to a commodity that is illegal in the first place.

But hey, you can keep pretending that congress doesn't have the authority to regulate international and interstate commerce all you want, and you'd still be wrong. Those are powers expressly conveyed by the commerce clause and are by their very nature, constitutional.

.

 

[HappyJoy]

You're a ******* liar, as I said the only ones with the power to rein in the courts are congress and/or the States. You can sit around crying like a little ***** or you can contact your reps and make them aware of what you see a the problem as I have been doing for decades. In the mean time I think you need one of these.

.

Well, like all leftists (which you really are), you're changing the story. I asked the question:

What's the constitutional authority for the Federal Government to ban the use of marijuana?

You responded:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

That's the Commerce Clause. So, do you stand by your statement that the Commerce Clause actually grants the government the authority to ban marijuana use or are you taking it back and standing by your later, conflicting, statement:

Well child, if you had been around this forum more than a minute, you'd know I disagree with most of the supreme court precedents on the commerce clause.

Ignore the part about how to fix it - you're right, it will take an Article V convention - we're discussing under what authority the government bans the use of marijuana. You're trying to change the subject just like leftists do when defeated with facts and logic.

More wingnut friendly fire.

No; it's not friendly fire at all. It really highlights exactly the OP's point in the title of the thread. There are those who say they're conservative and they hate it when the Supreme Court uses the Commerce Clause in ways not intended when it concerns things like insurance or gun manufacturing or anything - until they use it in ways not intended in order to force their morality on others regarding drugs.

So they don't really support the Constitution; they aren't really conservative. Many of those on this site who call themselves conservative aren't so conservative at all. They love it when the Courts or the Congress violate the Constitution.

Wouldn't the definition of conservative be someone who defends the Constitution in every single case?

If you accept that the Government can violate the Constitution in one thing then you must accept that they can violate it in any thing that they choose. The only thing left is to negotiate over which things they violate the Constitution. A conservative always defends the Constitution.

No true Scotsman. Eh, no worries Christians and libertarians are always running each other through the hoops to see who is allowed to carry the title. Waste your time all day on this for all I care.

 

[EMH]

Carter put those troops in Lebanon.


Credit patriotic American Jew Caspar weinberger for not joining with Israel's false flag hate hoax designed to bait us into war with hezbollah.

Had W, LBJ, or Biden been president, we would have hit Hezbollah.....

You come into this thread pretending to be, at a minimum, libertarian but really talk more liberal/leftist. So why should it surprise me that you're an anti-Semite racist? Most leftists are both. You blow your own credibility out of the water; you're just another racist idiot on the left.

Too dumb to figure out that 2200F molten steel did not get that way by jet fuel burning at 600F

You have no patriotism to America. You think Israel has the right to murder our people and steal our wealth and sell out our troops.

You cheered when the IDF gave the order

You have your orders, hit it (the USS Liberty)

I actually do not agree with that. I think Israelis who murder americans are bad, not good, and for that you just called the most fiscally conservative poster on USMB a liberal, because America's debt is nothing your treasonous Zionist ass cares about.....

You're rambling. When you stay focused on this thread you do OK. You're also an anti-semite. Best option is to save that for other threads if you want to focus on the definition of conservatism and the hypocrisy of drug bans in this thread. Your thread; up to you.

New USMB definition

Anti Semite - one who does not think Israel has the divine right to murder Americans, steal America's wealth, or that Americans have the right to

READ THE ACTUAL USS LIBERTY transcript....

Or practice rational science in analyzing 911.


Indeed, lies about pot, and the treasonous prohibition bureaucrat who made Reefer Madness with US taxdollars to keep his taxpayer funded job and power was....

Yeah, that demographic....

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

A conservative, at least when that word had a real definition, meant being inherently against expanding government power and authority. Conservatism embraces freedom and privacy, and only real threat to others would justify changing and supporting increasing government at the expense of freedom and privacy.

You work a full day. You come home

You have a beer

Or

You have a bong hit


Neither activity would in any way bother a conservative. But here we are with self proclaimed "conservatives" embracing increased government power and authority at the expense of freedom and privacy over ... A plant.

Nice.


The origin of marijuana prohibition is a case study of the truth of conservatism, that big government should not be trusted, and that those in government will lie and spread fear and panic to keep themselves in power. The head of prohibition knew prohibition was going to be repealed (because the church going sub human morons who pushed it had no clue what they were doing, and in the end the American people figured out that al Capone was worse than alcohol). So this guy created a new issue, a new cause, to keep his job and title and budget etc. marijuana was the target. Using American taxdollars, this uber greedy kleptocratic traitor funded the making of mass misinfo about marijuana, most famously the movie Reefer Madness, which many morons still believe. In reality, by pushing marijuana underground, we enriched and empowered criminal elements here and abroad, and packed our prisons with people who are not a threat to society.

The war on marijuana is the epitome of BIG GOVERNMENT using lies, falsehoods, propaganda, and the law to do unreal harm to America and abroad for the sole purpose of enriching and empowering liars in government.

Nobody who opposes total marijuana legalization is in any way a conservative.

The pot haters are classic morons with bird brains filled with falsehoods who want big government to rescue them from the bogeyman.....

Just make sure warnings come with usage.
And imprison anyone who subjects another to their pot use while in public or involving another’s property…

Cannabis, marijuana, weed, pot, anxiety and panic attacks

Drugs like marijuana, (cannabis, weed, hash, pot, skunk) can, in some people, activate anxiety and panic attacks. Discover how and why.

www.npadnews.com

Still Feeling High Days After Smoking Weed? Here's What To Do.

Why do I still feel high the next day? Discover why Depersonalization from weed is more common than you think, and steps to feel better today

www.dpmanual.com

 

[woodwork201]

Damn child, you lie as much as the commies. When marijuana is moved internationally or interstate the feds have every ******* right to regulate or outlaw it, via the commerce clause. The only question is, do the feds have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce or marijuana that is grown for personal use and never enters commerce? The courts have ruled they do, because any sources of a commodity has an effect on the overall market. What I don't get is how this doctrine can be extended to a commodity that is illegal in the first place.

But hey, you can keep pretending that congress doesn't have the authority to regulate international and interstate commerce all you want, and you'd still be wrong. Those are powers expressly conveyed by the commerce clause and are by their very nature, constitutional.

More lies, more changing the topic. We weren't discussing whether or not Congress has the right to regulate international and interstate commerce; we were discussing whether or not Congress has the right to ban the USE of marijuana. Here it is again, fir the third time - notice the word USE. I did not ask whether the Congress has the right to regulate international or interstate trade in marijuana.

What's the constitutional authority for the Federal Government to ban the use of marijuana?

You said that the Commerce Clause grants that power. Do you stand by that statement? It's OK if you do; we can disagree, but then you must admit that you're a liar when you say you object to the Congress and the Courts overreaching their authority by leaning on the Commerce Clause. Which is it? In which case are you lying because you are most certainly lying in one or the other.

Here's a quote I find in many results searching your user ID and the word commerce:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

How is regulating the private use of marijuana covered in the commerce clause?

Here's another quote from you, correctly pointing out that the Commerce Clause does not allow the Congress to regulate crops not traded; I'm sure your thoughts are driven by Wickard v Filburn.

The courts interpretation of the commerce clause is a perfect example. There is nothing contained in the clause itself that would allow them to consider everything that could tangentially effect commerce, like crops that are grown to be used on a farm where its grown and never enters into commerce. Activist judges have found otherwise, and I can think of at least one such case where even Scalia screwed the pooch on.

Here's another one you get wrong. Nothing in the Constitution allows an exception to the 4th Amendment regarding commerce, agriculture, or immigration. But, like the marijuana laws, you, like me, support efforts to stop illegal immigration so you, unlike me, support twisted interpretations of the Commerce Clause to support it.

Why do you hate law and order? The Constitution gives the feds every right to inspect commercial vehicles engaged in interstate commerce and our immigration laws, which are constitutional, gives the feds the right to check the status of anyone within 100 miles of the border. Neither are unconstitutional searches.

And another reversal where, once again, the Commerce Clause is about trade and not use:

The courts interpretation of the commerce clause is a perfect example. There is nothing contained in the clause itself that would allow them to consider everything that could tangentially effect commerce, like crops that are grown to be used on a farm where its grown and never enters into commerce. Activist judges have found otherwise, and I can think of at least one such case where even Scalia screwed the pooch on.

Now here's a really crazy twist in your vacillating opinion:

The courts interpretation of the commerce clause is a perfect example. There is nothing contained in the clause itself that would allow them to consider everything that could tangentially effect commerce, like crops that are grown to be used on a farm where its grown and never enters into commerce. Activist judges have found otherwise, and I can think of at least one such case where even Scalia screwed the pooch on.

Apparently, on January 5, 2018, the Commerce Clause didn't apply to regulating intrastate growing of marijuana but on July 10, 2021 the Commerce Clause does apply to the USE of marijuana.


You're a ******* hypocrite. Your opinion changes more often than a baby's diaper. I agree with most of your policy/political views but I do not agree with either the left or the right twisting the Constitution to get what they want out of it.

When you support twisting the Constitution to allow the Government the power to ban marijuana then you must accept that they have the power to twist it in other cases. Otherwise, who is the arbitrator of when and how the government violates the Constitution? Defense of the rights of Americans depend upon absolute defense of the Constitution. You only defend it when you agree with the outcome.

 

[woodwork201]

New USMB definition

Anti Semite - one who does not think Israel has the divine right to murder Americans, steal America's wealth, or that Americans have the right to

READ THE ACTUAL USS LIBERTY transcript....

Or practice rational science in analyzing 911.


Indeed, lies about pot, and the treasonous prohibition bureaucrat who made Reefer Madness with US taxdollars to keep his taxpayer funded job and power was....

Yeah, that demographic....

I just reread the title of the thread - your thread. Nowhere in it does it mention the USS Liberty. I served on ships doing exactly what the Liberty was doing when I was in the service. I have known about the Liberty for decades and have been in classes in the Navy where it was reviewed at length.

The attack on the Liberty was bad but that's just one thing in your anti-Semite tirades. You find every opportunity to attack Jews and Israel as a group rather than individuals or actions. We have a constitutionally protected right to free speech in the United States so you're totally allowed to be an anti-Semite. Even though I disagree with all racism, it is your choice to be one. Just be one and quit denying it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

$1.19 billion worth of marijuana seized in massive drug bust in California

The operation is the largest marijuana eradication of illegal cultivations in the history of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, officials said.

www.cbsnews.com

What does that have to do with legal marijuana?

If it's marijuana being destroyed, I don't care if it's legal or not.

 

[woodwork201]

If it's marijuana being destroyed, I don't care if it's legal or not.

You bought into the government propaganda hook, line, and sinker, didn't you?

 

[OKTexas]

Damn child, you lie as much as the commies. When marijuana is moved internationally or interstate the feds have every ******* right to regulate or outlaw it, via the commerce clause. The only question is, do the feds have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce or marijuana that is grown for personal use and never enters commerce? The courts have ruled they do, because any sources of a commodity has an effect on the overall market. What I don't get is how this doctrine can be extended to a commodity that is illegal in the first place.

But hey, you can keep pretending that congress doesn't have the authority to regulate international and interstate commerce all you want, and you'd still be wrong. Those are powers expressly conveyed by the commerce clause and are by their very nature, constitutional.

More lies, more changing the topic. We weren't discussing whether or not Congress has the right to regulate international and interstate commerce; we were discussing whether or not Congress has the right to ban the USE of marijuana. Here it is again, fir the third time - notice the word USE. I did not ask whether the Congress has the right to regulate international or interstate trade in marijuana.

What's the constitutional authority for the Federal Government to ban the use of marijuana?

You said that the Commerce Clause grants that power. Do you stand by that statement? It's OK if you do; we can disagree, but then you must admit that you're a liar when you say you object to the Congress and the Courts overreaching their authority by leaning on the Commerce Clause. Which is it? In which case are you lying because you are most certainly lying in one or the other.

Here's a quote I find in many results searching your user ID and the word commerce:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. -James Madison Federalist 45

How is regulating the private use of marijuana covered in the commerce clause?

Here's another quote from you, correctly pointing out that the Commerce Clause does not allow the Congress to regulate crops not traded; I'm sure your thoughts are driven by Wickard v Filburn.

The courts interpretation of the commerce clause is a perfect example. There is nothing contained in the clause itself that would allow them to consider everything that could tangentially effect commerce, like crops that are grown to be used on a farm where its grown and never enters into commerce. Activist judges have found otherwise, and I can think of at least one such case where even Scalia screwed the pooch on.

Here's another one you get wrong. Nothing in the Constitution allows an exception to the 4th Amendment regarding commerce, agriculture, or immigration. But, like the marijuana laws, you, like me, support efforts to stop illegal immigration so you, unlike me, support twisted interpretations of the Commerce Clause to support it.

Why do you hate law and order? The Constitution gives the feds every right to inspect commercial vehicles engaged in interstate commerce and our immigration laws, which are constitutional, gives the feds the right to check the status of anyone within 100 miles of the border. Neither are unconstitutional searches.

And another reversal where, once again, the Commerce Clause is about trade and not use:

The courts interpretation of the commerce clause is a perfect example. There is nothing contained in the clause itself that would allow them to consider everything that could tangentially effect commerce, like crops that are grown to be used on a farm where its grown and never enters into commerce. Activist judges have found otherwise, and I can think of at least one such case where even Scalia screwed the pooch on.

Now here's a really crazy twist in your vacillating opinion:

The courts interpretation of the commerce clause is a perfect example. There is nothing contained in the clause itself that would allow them to consider everything that could tangentially effect commerce, like crops that are grown to be used on a farm where its grown and never enters into commerce. Activist judges have found otherwise, and I can think of at least one such case where even Scalia screwed the pooch on.

Apparently, on January 5, 2018, the Commerce Clause didn't apply to regulating intrastate growing of marijuana but on July 10, 2021 the Commerce Clause does apply to the USE of marijuana.


You're a ******* hypocrite. Your opinion changes more often than a baby's diaper. I agree with most of your policy/political views but I do not agree with either the left or the right twisting the Constitution to get what they want out of it.

When you support twisting the Constitution to allow the Government the power to ban marijuana then you must accept that they have the power to twist it in other cases. Otherwise, who is the arbitrator of when and how the government violates the Constitution? Defense of the rights of Americans depend upon absolute defense of the Constitution. You only defend it when you agree with the outcome.

Ok, I get it, you're a stoner. But congress and the States, especially the States can ban the use of weed. BTW, quoting the same post 3 times to lengthen your post doesn't earn you extra credit. And none of the posts you quoted are in the least bit contradictory to what I've posted in this thread. So run along and smoke your weed, you're wasting my time.

BTW, none of the quotes you posted were made in Jan 2018, so I guess you pulled that out of your ass.

.

 

[HappyJoy]

$1.19 billion worth of marijuana seized in massive drug bust in California

The operation is the largest marijuana eradication of illegal cultivations in the history of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, officials said.

www.cbsnews.com

What does that have to do with legal marijuana?

If it's marijuana being destroyed, I don't care if it's legal or not.

Ok, it's not like it makes a difference since there is more than enough of the legal stuff for your neighbors to get ahold of.

 

[EMH]

New USMB definition

Anti Semite - one who does not think Israel has the divine right to murder Americans, steal America's wealth, or that Americans have the right to

READ THE ACTUAL USS LIBERTY transcript....

Or practice rational science in analyzing 911.


Indeed, lies about pot, and the treasonous prohibition bureaucrat who made Reefer Madness with US taxdollars to keep his taxpayer funded job and power was....

Yeah, that demographic....

I just reread the title of the thread - your thread. Nowhere in it does it mention the USS Liberty. I served on ships doing exactly what the Liberty was doing when I was in the service. I have known about the Liberty for decades and have been in classes in the Navy where it was reviewed at length.

The attack on the Liberty was bad but that's just one thing in your anti-Semite tirades. You find every opportunity to attack Jews and Israel as a group rather than individuals or actions. We have a constitutionally protected right to free speech in the United States so you're totally allowed to be an anti-Semite. Even though I disagree with all racism, it is your choice to be one. Just be one and quit denying it.

You toss isms like a member of the squad. The truth is that you know all of what was posted is true. You do not like truth. And that is why you hide behind card tosses while America is maimed by the only country you care about....

If you define reading the USS Liberty transcript as racism and antisemitism, you uber fail as a conservative....

 

[EMH]

A conservative, at least when that word had a real definition, meant being inherently against expanding government power and authority. Conservatism embraces freedom and privacy, and only real threat to others would justify changing and supporting increasing government at the expense of freedom and privacy.

You work a full day. You come home

You have a beer

Or

You have a bong hit


Neither activity would in any way bother a conservative. But here we are with self proclaimed "conservatives" embracing increased government power and authority at the expense of freedom and privacy over ... A plant.

Nice.


The origin of marijuana prohibition is a case study of the truth of conservatism, that big government should not be trusted, and that those in government will lie and spread fear and panic to keep themselves in power. The head of prohibition knew prohibition was going to be repealed (because the church going sub human morons who pushed it had no clue what they were doing, and in the end the American people figured out that al Capone was worse than alcohol). So this guy created a new issue, a new cause, to keep his job and title and budget etc. marijuana was the target. Using American taxdollars, this uber greedy kleptocratic traitor funded the making of mass misinfo about marijuana, most famously the movie Reefer Madness, which many morons still believe. In reality, by pushing marijuana underground, we enriched and empowered criminal elements here and abroad, and packed our prisons with people who are not a threat to society.

The war on marijuana is the epitome of BIG GOVERNMENT using lies, falsehoods, propaganda, and the law to do unreal harm to America and abroad for the sole purpose of enriching and empowering liars in government.

Nobody who opposes total marijuana legalization is in any way a conservative.

The pot haters are classic morons with bird brains filled with falsehoods who want big government to rescue them from the bogeyman.....

Just make sure warnings come with usage.
And imprison anyone who subjects another to their pot use while in public or involving another’s property…

Cannabis, marijuana, weed, pot, anxiety and panic attacks

Drugs like marijuana, (cannabis, weed, hash, pot, skunk) can, in some people, activate anxiety and panic attacks. Discover how and why.

www.npadnews.com

Still Feeling High Days After Smoking Weed? Here's What To Do.

Why do I still feel high the next day? Discover why Depersonalization from weed is more common than you think, and steps to feel better today

www.dpmanual.com

At some point, just parroting these endless taxpayer funded fear pieces should succumb to the actual lives you observe.

Mick Jagger - major life long marijuana user - singing and dancing in his late 70s.... Major talent.
Willie Nelson - well, can't dance but the rest is the same
Michael phelps - world's greatest ever swimmer, bong user.
Josh Gordon - played NFL WR at HOF level while consuming marijuana regularly


Government lies.

It lies to scare people out of rights and wealth and freedom.

Marijuana is exhibit A of that truth

 

[Dadoalex]

You called yourself a "conservative" not a Conservative.

The former has no relation to the latter except in spelling.

Explain the difference.

Conservatives know the difference.
"conservatives" do not have sufficient self awareness to comprehend the conflict between their day to day words and actions and the Ideology they purport to be supporting.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

A conservative, at least when that word had a real definition, meant being inherently against expanding government power and authority. Conservatism embraces freedom and privacy, and only real threat to others would justify changing and supporting increasing government at the expense of freedom and privacy.

You work a full day. You come home

You have a beer

Or

You have a bong hit


Neither activity would in any way bother a conservative. But here we are with self proclaimed "conservatives" embracing increased government power and authority at the expense of freedom and privacy over ... A plant.

Nice.


The origin of marijuana prohibition is a case study of the truth of conservatism, that big government should not be trusted, and that those in government will lie and spread fear and panic to keep themselves in power. The head of prohibition knew prohibition was going to be repealed (because the church going sub human morons who pushed it had no clue what they were doing, and in the end the American people figured out that al Capone was worse than alcohol). So this guy created a new issue, a new cause, to keep his job and title and budget etc. marijuana was the target. Using American taxdollars, this uber greedy kleptocratic traitor funded the making of mass misinfo about marijuana, most famously the movie Reefer Madness, which many morons still believe. In reality, by pushing marijuana underground, we enriched and empowered criminal elements here and abroad, and packed our prisons with people who are not a threat to society.

The war on marijuana is the epitome of BIG GOVERNMENT using lies, falsehoods, propaganda, and the law to do unreal harm to America and abroad for the sole purpose of enriching and empowering liars in government.

Nobody who opposes total marijuana legalization is in any way a conservative.

The pot haters are classic morons with bird brains filled with falsehoods who want big government to rescue them from the bogeyman.....

Just make sure warnings come with usage.
And imprison anyone who subjects another to their pot use while in public or involving another’s property…

Cannabis, marijuana, weed, pot, anxiety and panic attacks

Drugs like marijuana, (cannabis, weed, hash, pot, skunk) can, in some people, activate anxiety and panic attacks. Discover how and why.

www.npadnews.com

Still Feeling High Days After Smoking Weed? Here's What To Do.

Why do I still feel high the next day? Discover why Depersonalization from weed is more common than you think, and steps to feel better today

www.dpmanual.com

At some point, just parroting these endless taxpayer funded fear pieces should succumb to the actual lives you observe.

Mick Jagger - major life long marijuana user - singing and dancing in his late 70s.... Major talent.
Willie Nelson - well, can't dance but the rest is the same
Michael phelps - world's greatest ever swimmer, bong user.
Josh Gordon - played NFL WR at HOF level while consuming marijuana regularly


Government lies.

It lies to scare people out of rights and wealth and freedom.

Marijuana is exhibit A of that truth

Speak for yourself.
My perspective comes from actual experience. I know several others who have had similar issues. People need to be made aware of the risks and harm. And the risks are greatest for young people.
You’re a sucker to big pot. They’re hypocritically picking up where big tobacco left off.