Marijuana legalization?

[Montrovant]

It may be a stretch to apply a political term to a personal trait, but inasmuch as the political Liberal means "laissez faire", it's not inaccurate. You can't very well take that attitude with less than an open mind.

That "classical Liberalism" term is a piece of bullshit conjured up in an attempt to force the historical revisionism. It requires that we first accept the McCarthyist redefinition of Liberal into something it has never meant. And it's as nakedly mendacious as that demagoguery that came up with that association for no other purpose than to demonize one party in elections. That's certainly no basis for rewriting the dictionary. Without looking it up I suspect the term "classical liberalism" probably emanates from Jonah Goldberg, who penned a Doublethink screed about what he imagined to be "liberal fascism". Which is like saying "original copy".

Obviously we can't have the same word meaning entirely different things. So this equation of Liberal with left just doesn't work. Because that isn't what it means, and never was.

Again, many words either change or add meanings over time. Liberal is such a word. I don't understand why you are so adamant to refuse to acknowledge that.

Because Liberal is not such a word. It doesn't become such a word just because some group of demagogues decide to dump on it. No more than Adolf Hitler moves to the left just because the same revisionists declare him to be there. And I might add, for exactly the same reason.

Once you found out Nero played a lyre and not a fiddle, did you resume making allusions to "Nero fiddling while Rome burned"?



There cannot be multiple definitions that contradict each other. Suppose the word wet could mean either "wet" or "dry"... how would we ever buy pet food?

It doesn't mean you have to use it as it is popularly defined.

I think that's what I'm saying.

It is, however, easy enough to show various words with different current meanings than those they began with, including an example which you gave. Why can the same not be true of the word liberal?

Because there's a difference between a natural evolution and an intentionally cynically engineered revisionism. This particular revisionism is as Orwellian as that author's "Ministry of Truth". Shall we read "1984" and conclude that the word truth now means both "truth" and "lies"?

Here, read the intro to this -- it's a pretty good definition and background.

We have always been at war with Oceania. Except when we haven't...

Words can't have multiple definitions that contradict each other? Isn't that basically what a contronym is?

75 Contronyms (Words with Contradictory Meanings)

I'm pretty sure people still say Nero fiddled.

I don't care how or why the word liberal has come to mean what it commonly does today when used in a political context. It's completely unimportant to my point, which is simply that it does have a commonly used definition of the political left in the US.

Oh, and Hitler could be on the political left if that term were to change meaning. That's the whole point. The word used to describe Hitler or the Nazi party in terms of politics is only important inasmuch as it is accurate as used. Are the political left and right the same today as they were in the past? If not, does that mean that everyone who uses those terms is wrong, or is it just that the definitions have changed over time?

You can be as annoyed by it as you like, but I bet you know what someone means when they talk about liberals in the US.

 

[Dragonlady]

You equate being in full control of one's faculties with being stoned out of your mind. Interesting. It has to make sense to a pothead.

Do you equate having a social drink with being falling down drunk? Every person who has an occasional drink is not an alcoholic, nor have their lost control of their faculties.

Just because a person smokes pot, doesn't mean they are stoned out of their mind. It is quite possible to have a social toke or two, and be quite lucid.

 

[Pogo]

Again, many words either change or add meanings over time. Liberal is such a word. I don't understand why you are so adamant to refuse to acknowledge that.

Because Liberal is not such a word. It doesn't become such a word just because some group of demagogues decide to dump on it. No more than Adolf Hitler moves to the left just because the same revisionists declare him to be there. And I might add, for exactly the same reason.

Once you found out Nero played a lyre and not a fiddle, did you resume making allusions to "Nero fiddling while Rome burned"?



There cannot be multiple definitions that contradict each other. Suppose the word wet could mean either "wet" or "dry"... how would we ever buy pet food?



I think that's what I'm saying.

It is, however, easy enough to show various words with different current meanings than those they began with, including an example which you gave. Why can the same not be true of the word liberal?

Because there's a difference between a natural evolution and an intentionally cynically engineered revisionism. This particular revisionism is as Orwellian as that author's "Ministry of Truth". Shall we read "1984" and conclude that the word truth now means both "truth" and "lies"?

Here, read the intro to this -- it's a pretty good definition and background.

We have always been at war with Oceania. Except when we haven't...

Words can't have multiple definitions that contradict each other? Isn't that basically what a contronym is?

75 Contronyms (Words with Contradictory Meanings)

I'm pretty sure people still say Nero fiddled.

I don't care how or why the word liberal has come to mean what it commonly does today when used in a political context. It's completely unimportant to my point, which is simply that it does have a commonly used definition of the political left in the US.

Oh, and Hitler could be on the political left if that term were to change meaning. That's the whole point. The word used to describe Hitler or the Nazi party in terms of politics is only important inasmuch as it is accurate as used. Are the political left and right the same today as they were in the past? If not, does that mean that everyone who uses those terms is wrong, or is it just that the definitions have changed over time?

You can be as annoyed by it as you like, but I bet you know what someone means when they talk about liberals in the US.

And I also know how wrong they are when they do, and I'll continue to say so. Why would we go on using a term we know is wrong? When you lose your keys and you find them, do you still go on looking for them?

It's an unworkable definition. Unusable. Leave demonization to the demagogues, and we'll end up with a one-party state as they eliminate every opponent with their fake labels. I'm not coming to that party. The fact remains, Liberalism is what founded this country. If the Eliminationists don't like that, they can just get the fuck out and go take an island somewhere and put their dictatorshit there. But they can't take over our words. So yes, the question of why this conflation exists is absolutely crucial. It is never a bad thing to be aware when you're being manipulated.

There's no such thing as the "Democrat Party" either, but Lush Rimjob says it. Does it make him right to not know the difference between a noun and an adjective? What the hell good are language rules and definitions if we're just going to ignore them?

 

[Montrovant]

Because Liberal is not such a word. It doesn't become such a word just because some group of demagogues decide to dump on it. No more than Adolf Hitler moves to the left just because the same revisionists declare him to be there. And I might add, for exactly the same reason.

Once you found out Nero played a lyre and not a fiddle, did you resume making allusions to "Nero fiddling while Rome burned"?



There cannot be multiple definitions that contradict each other. Suppose the word wet could mean either "wet" or "dry"... how would we ever buy pet food?



I think that's what I'm saying.



Because there's a difference between a natural evolution and an intentionally cynically engineered revisionism. This particular revisionism is as Orwellian as that author's "Ministry of Truth". Shall we read "1984" and conclude that the word truth now means both "truth" and "lies"?

Here, read the intro to this -- it's a pretty good definition and background.

We have always been at war with Oceania. Except when we haven't...

Words can't have multiple definitions that contradict each other? Isn't that basically what a contronym is?

75 Contronyms (Words with Contradictory Meanings)

I'm pretty sure people still say Nero fiddled.

I don't care how or why the word liberal has come to mean what it commonly does today when used in a political context. It's completely unimportant to my point, which is simply that it does have a commonly used definition of the political left in the US.

Oh, and Hitler could be on the political left if that term were to change meaning. That's the whole point. The word used to describe Hitler or the Nazi party in terms of politics is only important inasmuch as it is accurate as used. Are the political left and right the same today as they were in the past? If not, does that mean that everyone who uses those terms is wrong, or is it just that the definitions have changed over time?

You can be as annoyed by it as you like, but I bet you know what someone means when they talk about liberals in the US.

And I also know how wrong they are when they do, and I'll continue to say so. Why would we go on using a term we know is wrong? When you lose your keys and you find them, do you still go on looking for them?

It's an unworkable definition. Unusable. Leave demonization to the demagogues, and we'll end up with a one-party state as they eliminate every opponent with their fake labels. I'm not coming to that party. The fact remains, Liberalism is what founded this country. If the Eliminationists don't like that, they can just get the fuck out and go take an island somewhere and put their dictatorshit there. But they can't take over our words. So yes, the question of why this conflation exists is absolutely crucial. It is never a bad thing to be aware when you're being manipulated.

There's no such thing as the "Democrat Party" either, but Lush Rimjob says it. Does it make him right to not know the difference between a noun and an adjective? What the hell good are language rules and definitions if we're just going to ignore them?

The rules of language have always been subject to change.

I've got no problem with you wanting the definition of liberal to remain what it originally was.....but I think if you are honest about it you will agree that the original definition is not the one commonly used today.

When someone says a country was decimated, I'm not going to assume they mean one in ten people were killed. When they talk about liberals in a political discussion, I'm not going to assume they mean a person who follows Locke.

 

[Katzndogz]

The next step, getting taxpayers to fund marijuana.

Colorado to Accept EBT Cards for Marijuana from Welfare Recipients | Vision to America

A majority of those licenses were issued to businesses in Denver with just eighteen city stores completing the process in time for opening day. One of those shops, Rite Greens, located on E. Colfax Ave in Denver, has taken the steps needed to accept food stamps (now called EBT cards) for the purposes of purchasing marijuana effectively leading to taxpayer funded marijuana for welfare recipients.

 

[Nate]

The next step, getting taxpayers to fund marijuana.

Colorado to Accept EBT Cards for Marijuana from Welfare Recipients | Vision to America

A majority of those licenses were issued to businesses in Denver with just eighteen city stores completing the process in time for opening day. One of those shops, Rite Greens, located on E. Colfax Ave in Denver, has taken the steps needed to accept food stamps (now called EBT cards) for the purposes of purchasing marijuana effectively leading to taxpayer funded marijuana for welfare recipients.

snopes.com: Colorado Pot Shop Accepting Food Stamps - Taxpayer Funded Marijuana for Welfare Recipients

 

[Pogo]

Words can't have multiple definitions that contradict each other? Isn't that basically what a contronym is?

75 Contronyms (Words with Contradictory Meanings)

I'm pretty sure people still say Nero fiddled.

I don't care how or why the word liberal has come to mean what it commonly does today when used in a political context. It's completely unimportant to my point, which is simply that it does have a commonly used definition of the political left in the US.

Oh, and Hitler could be on the political left if that term were to change meaning. That's the whole point. The word used to describe Hitler or the Nazi party in terms of politics is only important inasmuch as it is accurate as used. Are the political left and right the same today as they were in the past? If not, does that mean that everyone who uses those terms is wrong, or is it just that the definitions have changed over time?

You can be as annoyed by it as you like, but I bet you know what someone means when they talk about liberals in the US.

And I also know how wrong they are when they do, and I'll continue to say so. Why would we go on using a term we know is wrong? When you lose your keys and you find them, do you still go on looking for them?

It's an unworkable definition. Unusable. Leave demonization to the demagogues, and we'll end up with a one-party state as they eliminate every opponent with their fake labels. I'm not coming to that party. The fact remains, Liberalism is what founded this country. If the Eliminationists don't like that, they can just get the fuck out and go take an island somewhere and put their dictatorshit there. But they can't take over our words. So yes, the question of why this conflation exists is absolutely crucial. It is never a bad thing to be aware when you're being manipulated.

There's no such thing as the "Democrat Party" either, but Lush Rimjob says it. Does it make him right to not know the difference between a noun and an adjective? What the hell good are language rules and definitions if we're just going to ignore them?

The rules of language have always been subject to change.

I've got no problem with you wanting the definition of liberal to remain what it originally was.....but I think if you are honest about it you will agree that the original definition is not the one commonly used today.

When someone says a country was decimated, I'm not going to assume they mean one in ten people were killed. When they talk about liberals in a political discussion, I'm not going to assume they mean a person who follows Locke.

I guess the point of all this is that when language does change, it has to be by consensus. Not by some political hack out to demonize his perceived enemies. I accept change, but only when it's legitimate change. I'm not going to admire the emperor's new clothes when I can easily see he's buck naked.

 

[Pogo]

The next step, getting taxpayers to fund marijuana.

Colorado to Accept EBT Cards for Marijuana from Welfare Recipients | Vision to America

A majority of those licenses were issued to businesses in Denver with just eighteen city stores completing the process in time for opening day. One of those shops, Rite Greens, located on E. Colfax Ave in Denver, has taken the steps needed to accept food stamps (now called EBT cards) for the purposes of purchasing marijuana effectively leading to taxpayer funded marijuana for welfare recipients.

snopes.com: Colorado Pot Shop Accepting Food Stamps - Taxpayer Funded Marijuana for Welfare Recipients

The poster who openly calls for cannabis users to be shot in the face gets punked by a satire website

>> The National Report is a satirical web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples."

The National Report's disclaimer page notes that:
National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. <<

 

[Montrovant]

And I also know how wrong they are when they do, and I'll continue to say so. Why would we go on using a term we know is wrong? When you lose your keys and you find them, do you still go on looking for them?

It's an unworkable definition. Unusable. Leave demonization to the demagogues, and we'll end up with a one-party state as they eliminate every opponent with their fake labels. I'm not coming to that party. The fact remains, Liberalism is what founded this country. If the Eliminationists don't like that, they can just get the fuck out and go take an island somewhere and put their dictatorshit there. But they can't take over our words. So yes, the question of why this conflation exists is absolutely crucial. It is never a bad thing to be aware when you're being manipulated.

There's no such thing as the "Democrat Party" either, but Lush Rimjob says it. Does it make him right to not know the difference between a noun and an adjective? What the hell good are language rules and definitions if we're just going to ignore them?

The rules of language have always been subject to change.

I've got no problem with you wanting the definition of liberal to remain what it originally was.....but I think if you are honest about it you will agree that the original definition is not the one commonly used today.

When someone says a country was decimated, I'm not going to assume they mean one in ten people were killed. When they talk about liberals in a political discussion, I'm not going to assume they mean a person who follows Locke.

I guess the point of all this is that when language does change, it has to be by consensus. Not by some political hack out to demonize his perceived enemies. I accept change, but only when it's legitimate change. I'm not going to admire the emperor's new clothes when I can easily see he's buck naked.

Fair enough. I think there has been that consensus, at least based on what I see and hear of the use of liberal. I'm not going to claim any expertise or to have a bunch of data backing that up, though. It's just my impression.

 

[bkeating]

Maybe every definition you are willing to accept in this thread.

Are you trying to say that liberal is not commonly used to define the political ideology of the Democrats, or the left, in this country? <snip>

"Liberal" is not "left". That conflation is common around here and in the right wing demonization noise machine; that doesn't make it accurate.

When a word or phrase use becomes common enough, it does become accurate. I feel confident that were you to do a search through these boards, the word liberal would be used the vast majority of the time to describe the political 'left' in the US. If you were to perform a poll of the country, I think that the majority would equate liberal with the political left.

Besides, no matter what political ideology liberal entails, it does not prevent the possibility someone can be a liberal and be close minded. Unless you are saying that open mindedness is a political ideology?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of this is that a liberal would be a person who has lets say, 70% democratic views on a specific topic, and 30% republican views. Also, a conservative republican would be the opposite of a liberal democrat. As for the LIBERATARIAN party, they are the ones that are 'open mindedness.' But at the same time, saying that open mindedness is a political ideology would be a very weak opinionated person, in the sense that they would constantly be changing their minds. When talking about this though, you have to take into consideration ALL views such as economic views, social views, healthcare views, immigration, civil rights and foreign policy just to name a few. I feel like with the political parties in todays world, that you also have to label yourself with a 'sub' party so to speak; like moderate, liberal, conservative ect.

 

[Esmeralda]

I think it's funny that people who are for legalization of pot are accused of being pot heads. I haven't smoked pot for about 40 years, a lifetime ago, but I am for legalization. It is only common sense. They have legalized it in my home state (don't live there anymore), and it is legal in Holland, both with no ill effects. Currently 55% of the country favor legalization, and I imagine most of them are not pot smokers. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/06/cnn-poll-support-for-legal-marijuana-soaring/

 

[Pogo]

"Liberal" is not "left". That conflation is common around here and in the right wing demonization noise machine; that doesn't make it accurate.

When a word or phrase use becomes common enough, it does become accurate. I feel confident that were you to do a search through these boards, the word liberal would be used the vast majority of the time to describe the political 'left' in the US. If you were to perform a poll of the country, I think that the majority would equate liberal with the political left.

Besides, no matter what political ideology liberal entails, it does not prevent the possibility someone can be a liberal and be close minded. Unless you are saying that open mindedness is a political ideology?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of this is that a liberal would be a person who has lets say, 70% democratic views on a specific topic, and 30% republican views. Also, a conservative republican would be the opposite of a liberal democrat. As for the LIBERATARIAN party, they are the ones that are 'open mindedness.' But at the same time, saying that open mindedness is a political ideology would be a very weak opinionated person, in the sense that they would constantly be changing their minds. When talking about this though, you have to take into consideration ALL views such as economic views, social views, healthcare views, immigration, civil rights and foreign policy just to name a few. I feel like with the political parties in todays world, that you also have to label yourself with a 'sub' party so to speak; like moderate, liberal, conservative ect.

It's late, so let's just single this one out:

Also, a conservative republican would be the opposite of a liberal democrat.

In many respects, probably. But keep in mind there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats as well. Entertain also the thought that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are not quite exact opposites of each other. When we try to reduce politics to a two-dimensional left/right scale we doom ourselves to failure.

As for labels, in spite of all of the above, I'm against 'em. We do need labels for our endless quest of categorizing everything we see including philosophies; where we get into trouble is applying them to people, as if people are static rather than dynamic.

 

[Pogo]

I think it's funny that people who are for legalization of pot are accused of being pot heads. I haven't smoked pot for about 40 years, a lifetime ago, but I am for legalization. It is only common sense. They have legalized it in my home state (don't live there anymore), and it is legal in Holland, both with no ill effects. Currently 55% of the country favor legalization, and I imagine most of them are not pot smokers. CNN Poll: Support for legal marijuana soaring ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Portugal's doing well with its legalisation programme too. I think someone else brought that up backthread.

 

[Esmeralda]

I think it's funny that people who are for legalization of pot are accused of being pot heads. I haven't smoked pot for about 40 years, a lifetime ago, but I am for legalization. It is only common sense. They have legalized it in my home state (don't live there anymore), and it is legal in Holland, both with no ill effects. Currently 55% of the country favor legalization, and I imagine most of them are not pot smokers. CNN Poll: Support for legal marijuana soaring ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Portugal's doing well with its legalisation programme too. I think someone else brought that up backthread.

Portugal is a pretty relaxed country; I can see them legalizing marijuana.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would like to reply to the comment up thread that people who change their stances on issues are "weak". When a politician does this, they're called a "flip flipper" and it's not a compliment.

If voters or elected officials are not open to debate and receiving new information or ideas, how do we learn or progress? If changing your mind on an issue is always a bad thing, why discuss it at all?

I think one of the reasons why the US government is in such a state of dysfunction is that no one wants to listen to the other side. Everyone has become intractable. Respect and compromise are dirty words. But not all ideas put forth by the other side are bad. Everyone has something of value to contribute and if we aren't open to accepting this fact, then the country is doomed to fighting every issue along partisan lines and the party with the most votes will always win whether or not the proposal was sound.

 

[Pogo]

I would like to reply to the comment up thread that people who change their stances on issues are "weak". When a politician does this, they're called a "flip flipper" and it's not a compliment.

If voters or elected officials are not open to debate and receiving new information or ideas, how do we learn or progress? If changing your mind on an issue is always a bad thing, why discuss it at all?

I think one of the reasons why the US government is in such a state of dysfunction is that no one wants to listen to the other side. Everyone has become intractable. Respect and compromise are dirty words. But not all ideas put forth by the other side are bad. Everyone has something of value to contribute and if we aren't open to accepting this fact, then the country is doomed to fighting every issue along partisan lines and the party with the most votes will always win whether or not the proposal was sound.

That's absolutely accurate. I don't think we're even divided on that observation; we'd all agree here.

Which is very much my point about the demagoguery on the word Liberal; being a device expressly for that purpose: to polarize one's opposition in a quest to eliminate it as any kind of reasonable alternative view. Which in turn is exactly why I refuse to play along with it.

 

[Katzndogz]

If someone is proposing a new law, at least think it through and make it thorough and specific enough. Also, make it so that the less fortunate in the intellectual department can understand it to avoid the uneducated voter. Legalizing marijuana sends messages to America's youth that drugs are in fact, okay. In Colorado it is becoming a big issue when it comes to the recreational use of marijuana; kids are brining it to school (more so than before) and that causes a problem for school districts. While I understand the tax benefits that this may provide, I do think that there are other, more effective ways of doing so; why marijuana? Marijuana is a drug, plain and simple and to make it legal is sending a subliminal message to the youth that drugs are in fact, okay. Now what is stopping the youth from being scared of other drugs, like Math for example. "Hey, marijuana is legal, depicted as bad before, I like the high, so ill stick a needle in my arm, it'll be legal one day!" The mentality of the youth is going to be extremely corrupt because of the very stupid and irresponsible decisions we as "role models" are making today. I think that marijuana should remain ILLEGAL, however I do believe that it should be extremely decriminalized so that people who DO use it, and caught, that their lives aren't ruined because of a little bit of "pot." Now on a different scale, I do believe that marijuana is in fact a safe drug, don't get me wrong, all I'm saying is legalization of such sends a bad message to our youth; not to mention it IS a gateway drug.

Thoughts?

Let's see alcohol is a very harmful drug deemed to be OK, so is tobacco.

All we are doing is engaging in a hypocritical battle against other drugs that we capriciously deem unacceptable.

We have wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a so called war on drugs that has not worked.

So tell me is letting people who already smoke pot do it legally going to make any difference good or bad?

Yes it will. It will save us billions of dollars and thousands more lives. A mere fraction of the money saved would allow us to offer drug addicts treatment instead of prison time.

What you propose is that bad behavior is somehow made better behavior by creating more bad behavior. If there are ten thousand drunk drivers on the road, the roads will be made safer by having ten thousand drunk drivers, ten thousand drugged drivers and another ten thousand who are both drunk and drugged.

 

[Steven_R]

I think it's funny that people who are for legalization of pot are accused of being pot heads. I haven't smoked pot for about 40 years, a lifetime ago, but I am for legalization. It is only common sense. They have legalized it in my home state (don't live there anymore), and it is legal in Holland, both with no ill effects. Currently 55% of the country favor legalization, and I imagine most of them are not pot smokers. CNN Poll: Support for legal marijuana soaring ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

I'm not for pot. I'm for liberty.

 

[Steven_R]

If someone is proposing a new law, at least think it through and make it thorough and specific enough. Also, make it so that the less fortunate in the intellectual department can understand it to avoid the uneducated voter. Legalizing marijuana sends messages to America's youth that drugs are in fact, okay. In Colorado it is becoming a big issue when it comes to the recreational use of marijuana; kids are brining it to school (more so than before) and that causes a problem for school districts. While I understand the tax benefits that this may provide, I do think that there are other, more effective ways of doing so; why marijuana? Marijuana is a drug, plain and simple and to make it legal is sending a subliminal message to the youth that drugs are in fact, okay. Now what is stopping the youth from being scared of other drugs, like Math for example. "Hey, marijuana is legal, depicted as bad before, I like the high, so ill stick a needle in my arm, it'll be legal one day!" The mentality of the youth is going to be extremely corrupt because of the very stupid and irresponsible decisions we as "role models" are making today. I think that marijuana should remain ILLEGAL, however I do believe that it should be extremely decriminalized so that people who DO use it, and caught, that their lives aren't ruined because of a little bit of "pot." Now on a different scale, I do believe that marijuana is in fact a safe drug, don't get me wrong, all I'm saying is legalization of such sends a bad message to our youth; not to mention it IS a gateway drug.

Thoughts?

Let's see alcohol is a very harmful drug deemed to be OK, so is tobacco.

All we are doing is engaging in a hypocritical battle against other drugs that we capriciously deem unacceptable.

We have wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a so called war on drugs that has not worked.

So tell me is letting people who already smoke pot do it legally going to make any difference good or bad?

Yes it will. It will save us billions of dollars and thousands more lives. A mere fraction of the money saved would allow us to offer drug addicts treatment instead of prison time.

What you propose is that bad behavior is somehow made better behavior by creating more bad behavior. If there are ten thousand drunk drivers on the road, the roads will be made safer by having ten thousand drunk drivers, ten thousand drugged drivers and another ten thousand who are both drunk and drugged.

And all it's cost us to have this safety is the largest prison population on the planet, en endless costly war on a plant, the successes of Prohibition all over again (establishing black markets, public corruption, a disregard for the law), narco-wars south of the Border and in places like Kentucky, and the gutting of the Fourth Amendment.

But it's totally worth it.

 

[Katzndogz]

The cartels might have better fortune in dealing with drug dealers and their customers than our insipid law enforcement.

I gotta hand it to the cartels, they will follow a customer home and waste the whole family.