Tom Tancredo on Pot

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Tom Tancredo on Pot

This is the show from Tuesday, October 9th, 2012.

SUMMARY:

* Bob Enyart Debates a Former Presidential Candidate on Pot: Tom Tancredo ventures into the BEL studio to argue for his position, which Bob describes as immoral, that Tancredo wants to decriminalize even the recreational use of marijuana.

* Examples of Tancredo's Contradictions: Bob made an effort to show that, because Tancredo does not have a moral foundation for his position, it is not surprising that Tom contradicted himself with every one of his arguments. Tom Tancredo says that he wants to legalize marijuana but not other drugs like crack, heroine, cocaine, etc. The following loose transcript is representative of the entire debate. Tom says... Bob reveals...
"I'm for legalizing pot, but not other drugs" "Tom, all your arguments apply to other drugs also."
"No they don't" "Let's see..."
"It's a person's right to get high." "Tom, that would apply to cocaine also."
"No it wouldn't."
"The federal gvt has no right to criminalize pot" "That would apply to cocaine also."
"No it wouldn't."
"The war on drugs is ineffective" "That would apply to cocaine also."
"So what?" "Tom, I'm showing that your arguments are invalid and even contradictory."
"You're not." "The war on child molestation is ineffective."
"So what?" "The war on murder is ineffective."
"So what?" "The war on wife beating is ineffective."
"What does that have to do with anyting?" "You don't go from ineffective to surrender in a moral fight."
"What right does the gvt have to criminalize pot?" "The Bible shows that gross negligence is actionable."
"Smoking pot doesn't hurt other people" "God doesn't require society to put up with the risk of human beings who lose control of their faculties by being high, whether by getting drunk or high from other drugs."
"Getting drunk doesn't put others at risk" "Drunks put first responders and others at risk."
"No they don't" "Drunks and people high think they drive better, and make harmful decisions."
"Getting drunk doesn't put others at risk" "We ban shooting in City Park because of gross negligence."
"So what" "It's grossly negligent to permit people to get drunk and take drugs the normal use of which makes people high."
"Mexican cartels benefit from pot criminalization" "That would apply to Afghan cocaine drug lords also?"
"So what?" "Tom, that shows that your arguments are arbitrary, and you contradict yourself."



* Other Tancredo Tidbits
: Tom broke the news, sad but not surprising, that Focus on the Family will not oppose the legalization of pot. He wrongly criticized Mike Huckabee for giving us John McCain as the presidential nominee when that was squarely Mitt Romney's fault, whom Tom endorsed even though Colorado RTL had shared with Tom, in person, Romney's recent and aggressively pro-abortion record, as well as Mitt's rpro-homosexual marrige, pro-government health care reform with the individual mandate, etc., record.

* Dr. Michael Brown & Line of Fire to Interview Bob: Wednesday, Oct. 10th at noon Eastern Time, Dr. Brown, who has indicated that he might be voting for Romney, will interview Bob Enyart to hear the case against Mitt Romney.

* From Bob's popular Article: What Does the Bible Say About Pot?

[August 2012: Landmark study: pot "permanently lowers IQ".
April 2012: Bob debates pot at HuffingtonPost.com/Bob-Enyart.
June 2012: Scientists cultivate medical marijuana without the high; many bummed out.
July 2012: Miami cannibal and cannabis smoker who shocked the world tested positive only for marijuana.]

The question of marijuana legalization, often debated emotionally, turns on some fundamental biblical principles. Christians, or anyone really, must understand these moral concepts before being able to argue conclusively. God does not require society to put up with the risk of human beings who lose control of their faculties by being high, whether through alcohol or other drugs. Further, as shown in the Neighbors section below, the Bible reveals that negligence has legal consequences. Thus, if the government wrongly decriminalizes some activity, then the government itself would share in the guilt for the resulting harm. While THC prescription drugs made from marijuana are currently available, and a non-intoxicating strain of marijuana has been developed in 2012, many advocate going far beyond this toward making "medical marijuana" generally available and even toward the ultimate decriminalization of cannabis. However, if the normal use of any chemical or herb, such as crack cocaine, ecstasy, or marijuana, makes a person intoxicated, then the government is right to outlaw or to classify that drug as a controlled substance. To begin with though, consider this list of research warning about the effects of marijuana...

research.jpg


Research Showing the Harmful Effects of Marijuana Use

Pot Research and Political Correctness

For half a century now, marijuana has been overwhelmingly politically correct among the faculty and students on college campuses. Thus as with many controversial research topics, the inherent bias for and against marijuana can easily produce false study results.

Of course there are many studies showing that marijuana is harmless and endlessly beneficial. And there are decades of studies that show that:
* Abortion does not increase breast cancer [recently refuted]
* Spanking should not be part of child discipline [recently refuted]
* The death penalty is not a deterrent [long refuted]



Marijuana is intensely politically correct on college campuses where many of the pro-marijuana studies originate. Thus bias, problematic on both sides, is especially expected both to counteract the studies showing that marijuana is harmful, and as an expression of the rampant rebellion against God in the relentless effort to overturn beneficial Christian norms. By producing millions of graduates, overtly anti-Christian universities have succeeded even in turning entire professions, like law, medicine, and education, against Christ. This is one reason why conflicting studies abound on many important and moral issues. So the Christian must think outside of the box, and have the broader perspective to judge between studies, and to discern the truth from the bias.



Millions of Observers


Millions of people believe that smoking pot makes you stupid. Yet, while long-term cigarette smoking is bad for your lungs, there are not millions of people whose observations led them to believe that tobacco lowers your IQ and makes you slow and stupid. Why the distinction? These millions of people don't believe this because they've weighed conflicting scientific studies (including those showing learning and memory impairments from using pot), but because they've seen the results first hand. Studies conflict, of course, but extensive studies show what millions have perceived, that long-term routine pot use leads to serious mental health issues. On the other hand, a nightly glass of red wine has the opposite reputation, of not making anyone slow or stupid, of sustaining mental health, and decreasing the likelihood of dementia.

Applying the principles in God's Word as best we can at Denver Bible Church (which we know does not prove that we are right), we conclude:
- that the studies that show the dangers of marijuana are telling the truth and
- that those who accept the reports that there are no serious harmful side effects to marijuana are deceived, and not all but many of those, willfully so.



Marijuana, by its harmful effects on the brain, eventually owns its users by making them think that they are more insightful than others. They think they become more creative, and smart. In reality millions of people can testify from firsthand use and from firsthand observations that regular pot use makes you stupid. Drinking a glass of red wine nightly has no similar effect.

Smoking pot makes people think they are alert and smart but it puts their minds in a fog. Potheads for example will point to websites like drugwarfacts.org and claim that marijuana is responsible for ZERO deaths per year. Only those with extreme bias or dull minds would believe such a thing. Just from the few notes we're jotted down over the years for reporting on our radio program, we recall the "accident" in which a Mr. Bedell's “use of marijuana hours before the Mother’s Day crash in New Orleans that killed 22 people was the main cause of the wreck,” reported USA Today.

Pot and Mental Health

Those who defend pot tell us that reports claim there is no evidence of long-term harmful mental health effects. But just from our notes for the radio program, here are examples to the contrary. The London Telegraph wrote that a Dr. Turner, England's most senior coroner, estimates that marijuana is "a significant contributing factor" in 10% of the deaths he's worked, notably including suicides. In one British study of 853 drug-related deaths, whereas cocaine was a principal factor in 147, pot was used as the principle drug or in a cocktail in another 51 of those deaths. The Royal College of Psychiatrists reviewed research with similar results from Sweden, Holland and New Zealand. A study of 50,000 Swedish Army conscripts found that those who admitted at age 18 to having taken cannabis on more than 50 occasions were six times more likely to develop schizophrenia (paranoia, delusions, disorganized thinking, social dysfunction, etc.) in the following 15 years. A Dutch study of 4,000 people in the general population showed that those taking large amounts of cannabis were almost seven times more likely to have psychotic symptoms three years later. Such findings are largely ignored. And as I write this the Colorado State police have just announced that with the new "medical marijuana" regulations, Colorado now has a lot more people driving under the influence of marijuana than before. Even one of our own Denver Bible Church members observes that about 90% of the many mental health patients he works with for severe depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, etc., have pot use in their profiles. And another medical professional friend of DBC who works for a government health care program reports from her own experience that pot smoking appears to retard emotional maturity and that many of her patients suffer from psychosis seemingly related to their marijuana use.

Available by Prescription

Not only marijuana (including its THC component) but even the most mind-altering drugs, like opiates, should be available as strictly controlled substances carefully and mercifully prescribed for medical conditions. What Denver Bible Church warns against is the denial that the normal use of marijuana, even from a single drag on a joint, easily produces a quick high. And so we disagree with advocacy of mainstreaming marijuana and making it available as a standard treatment for all kinds of aches and pains. It's one thing for a doctor to write a prescription for a controlled substance, but in Colorado, the "medical marijuana" law doesn't even require that. The doctors basically make pot recommendations, and patients not only end up deciding for themselves how much pot they're going to smoke, they even get to grow their own. Smoking your medicine, and producing it at home no less, has far more to do with normalizing potheads than it has to do with medical treatment.

Many churches will now begin to see members becoming addicted to pot which they have procured from "legal" dispensaries. And experience tells us that these Christians will begin diagnosing ailments, prescribing treatment, and then even distributing the cannabis if need be. Churches can list in their directories who to contact to get hooked up. Alcohol has been legal almost always, but to our knowledge, pastors do not routinely advise friends with various aches and pains to drink rum and coke until the pain goes away. But pot seems to be the drug that's beneficial for every ailment.

Kids Around Pot

Christian parents who smoke pot for aches and pains (or even for much more serious ailments) will end up with kids who smoke to relax or for whatever excuse strikes them. But parents who smoke pot will think that, just as it makes them more creative and intelligent, it'll make their children smarter too.

Immature Christians including parents who are already vulnerable to long-term recreational drug use will have a special weakness toward "medical marijuana." Extensive past drug use of course can affect their ability to think clearly. For example, some long-term marijuana users demonstrate paranoia and can fall victim to paranoid conspiracy theories. Cannabis can lead someone to believe that airplane contrails will control your mind but that smoking pot clears your head.

Kids growing up with parents who drink beer and wine virtually guarantees that they will drink alcohol also. Likewise, the pot user's child will likely grow up to smoke pot, and will be attracted to a boyfriend or girl friend who smokes pot. And those kids will very predictably exploit mom and dad's pot smoking to their own harm. And it is from that harmful influence that the pastor and elders of Denver Bible Church want to protect the adults and the children of Colorado.

Parents on Pot

In addition to the studies showing pot as destructive to to our DNA genetic code, as more destructive to the lungs than tobacco, as negatively affecting neurons, as an impediment to learning and memory, and as especially dangerous to people with weakened immune systems, aside from all that, millions of people intuitively question the ability of long-term marijuana users to think straight, but users themselves think it keeps them sharp.



Researchers who either smoke themselves, or who are politically correct, will bias their studies to undermine this common knowledge. Users say they drive well after smoking. But we doubt that most potheads would let their own young son or daughter get into a car with someone who had just taken a couple hits. And it's sad that that those who use pot at home will, at unexpected times including in emergencies, end up driving their own children to the hospital after they've smoked half a joint.

In addition to making people slow and stupid, pot also makes it harder to control anger and makes users paranoid. The normal use of pot puts a man at greater risk of harming his own family. Self control becomes more elusive, and pot's quick intoxicating effect will weaken a man's moral compass and then, exactly as the Bible warns of drunkenness, increase his lust.

Marijuana and Alcohol

To the argument that pot is like alcohol and so should not be regulated differently, Denver Bible Church judges that reasoning as wrong and believes that pot should be illegal because:
1. It should be illegal to be high (intoxicated)
2. Any substance should be controlled whose normal use makes one high

The reason that God prohibits drunkenness is because a drunk is an unacceptable risk to society and to himself. Yet decades ago the federal government bribed the states to decriminalize even public drunkenness. Now, Christians being seduced by the grotesquely immoral libertarian party platform of states right (to decriminalize child killing and legalize homosexual marriage), are going far beyond marijuana to even advocate for the decriminalization of cocaine too. But when the normal use of a substance gets someone intoxicated, it should not be decriminalized.

Billions of people cannot get drunk on a sip of wine. Hundreds of millions cannot get drunk even on a glass of wine or a can of beer. Conversely, there are countless millions of people who would (and do) get high even with a single drag on a joint (normal use) inhaled and held in the lungs. That single hit affects the moral compass, and as with drunkenness, increases lust. And the potent pot sold today at dispensaries worsens this consequence.

Pot as Prescription

Any intoxicating herb, the normal use of which makes one high like typical recreational drugs, should not be available easily either grown at home or as an over-the-counter product. In Colorado, a Google search and self-diagnosis along with a lightly rehearsed complaint easily leads to a doctor's recommendation, followed by ongoing self-prescribing, self-medicating, and self-production of the drug. Then once on pot the user, who is very smart, concludes that he makes better decisions and even drives better. But in reality, over months and years, he lives in a deepening fog which puts others, including his children, neighbors, and first-responders, at the kind of increased risk that God does not require society to tolerate.

Proponents seem to think that prescription drug abuse somehow argues in favor of decriminalizing pot. Yet drugs from Ativan to Valium and Xanax took time to garner their reputation as significantly abused medications (years or decades). Whereas medical marijuana, which Colorado law now permits by a doctor's "recommendation" and "without a prescription," clearly has an immediate out-of-the-gate abuse track record.

[/url]So THC and other cannabis-based drugs should be available as strictly controlled substances, like other drugs, and prescribed carefully to treat specific medical conditions, and not generally advocated and made easily available to the general public so that they can self-medicate whenever they feel the urge. And the medical community should pursue the 2012 breaktrhough designed to "help those smoking marijuana for medical purposes" in which "scientists have cultivated a cannabis plant that doesn't get people stoned." Yet one of the world's leading marijuana sites asks, Why? That is, exposing their own concern for hurting people as just a ploy to normalize getting high, they ask, Why would anyone want to provide medical marijuana that doesn't get you high? So don't look for this brand stocked on your local dispensary's shelves. Still though, regardless of disinterest from the pro-pot lobby, the medical community should aggressively pursue such developments.


Neighbors and Gross Negligence

dumb-stuff.jpg


Biblically, gross negligence has legal consequences (Exodus 22:6; Deut. 22:8; etc.). If the government tolerated gross negligence by, for example, allowing drunk driving, and someone is thereby injured, the governing officials (with all of America) would be guilty before God for the harm done. Thus God does not require society to put up with gross negligence. Therefore the government should ban recreational drugs and outlaw drunkenness from alcohol. (The federal government strong-armed the states to decriminalize drunkenness during the mid twentieth century so that today, unwisely, in the U.S., and in Australia and Britain, etc., it is no longer a crime to be drunk.)

The guy claiming a right to shoot a gun in a city park because he's a good shot and hasn't (yet) hit anyone is rightly overruled. Examples of the predictable consequences of the grossly negligent behavior of getting high or drunk include:
- stoned drivers who actually think they drive better when smoking pot
- people who've smoked a joint who then end up driving a car after they thought they were home for the night
- a stoner who laughs that his cigarette fell behind the couch which then starts a fire that kills a baby upstairs
- the pot mom who drives away with her baby on the roof of her car
- pornography consumed even by many who may not otherwise have viewed it
- crimes and sexual immorality committed (like Ted Bundy who couldn't violate his conscience to murder unless he was intoxicated)
- the dollars spent on emergency room services, etc., for domestic violence and other victims hurt by stoners
- the cost of treating the user for injuries and illnesses resulting from drug abuse and alcoholism.

So when the normal use of any substance makes a person intoxicated, then the government correctly outlaws and classifies that drug as a controlled substance. Thus while THC and related medications should be available on a prescription basis from a pharmacy, pot use should not be normalized and the marijuana drug should be illegal.

* Telethon Update: We're at $10,800 of our $30,000 goal to keep Bob Enyart Live on the air! Please help!

Today's Resource: For our BEL Telethon, please consider one of our monthly subscriptions that will not only help support BEL, but they also promote better understanding of the Bible and will equip you to be a better witness to those around you.





BEL SUBSCRIPTIONS


Monthly Sermons: Enjoy all of Bob's sermons from the month on Sermon Video DVDs, great also to watch with the family. Or, get these on Sermon Audio CDs which are standard audio Compact Discs that will play on any CD player including the one in your car. Or get them on a single Sermon MP3-CD which will play on an MP3 player, in a DVD player, or in your computer.

Monthly Bible Studies: Enjoy the Scriptures with Bob's Monthly Bible Study DVDs, great too for a small group Bible study. Or get these teachings on a single Monthly Bible Study Audio MP3- CD which will play on an MP3 player, in a DVD player, or in your computer.

Monthly Topical Videos: Coming to your mailbox, you'll get a Monthly Topical DVD to enjoy one of Bob's great videos specially selected to be entertaining and to teach about life from a biblical worldview.

Monthly Best of Bob Shows: Every month our crew selects the eight best BEL shows of the month and for the folks who might have missed some of them, we mail them out on the Best of Bob MP3-CD.

Monthly BEL TV Classics: Enjoy Bob Enyart's timeless, popular TV show delivered to your home on the Monthly BEL TV Classics DVDs with great audio and video clarity thanks to our state-of-the-art mastering from the studio-quality Sony beta tapes to DVD!

Monthly Donation: For folks who just want to make sure that Bob Enyart Live stays on the air, please consider making a pledge in the form of a Monthly Donation.

* Free Gift: When you sign up for any monthly subscription or give a one time donation of $50 or more, we will send you Bob's brand new DVD of his classic teaching series: The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

You can [url=http://www.kgovstore.com/servlet/Categories?category=Subscriptions]subscribe
or give online or by calling 1-800-8Enyart (303-463-7789).
 

WizardofOz

New member
Does Bob think that alcohol should be legal? Because almost every argument Bob used against Tom could likewise be used against him if he supports legalized booze.

Just sayin ;)

"I'm for legalizing alcohol, but not other drugs"
"Bob, all your arguments apply to other drugs also."
"No they don't"
"Let's see..."
"It's a person's right to get drunk."
"Bob, that would apply to cocaine also."
"No it wouldn't."
"The federal gvt has no right to criminalize alcohol"
"That would apply to cocaine also."
"No it wouldn't."
"Prohibition was ineffective"
"That would apply to cocaine also."
"So what?"
"Bob, I'm showing that your arguments are invalid and even contradictory."
"You're not."
"The war on child molestation is ineffective."
"So what?"
"The war on murder is ineffective."
"So what?"
"The war on wife beating is ineffective."
"What does that have to do with anyting?"
"You don't go from ineffective to surrender in a moral fight."
"What right does the gvt have to criminalize alcohol?"
"The Bible shows that gross negligence is actionable."
"Getting drunk doesn't hurt other people"
"God doesn't require society to put up with the risk of human beings who lose control of their faculties by being drunk, whether by getting drunk or high from other drugs."
"Getting drunk doesn't put others at risk"
"Drunks put first responders and others at risk."
"No they don't"
"Drunks and people high think they drive better, and make harmful decisions."
"Getting drunk doesn't put others at risk"
"We ban shooting in City Park because of gross negligence."
"So what"
"It's grossly negligent to permit people to get drunk and take drugs the normal use of which makes people high."
"Mexican cartels benefit from pot criminalization" "That would apply to Afghan cocaine drug lords also?"
"So what?" "Tom, that shows that your arguments are arbitrary, and you contradict yourself."

So, why should alcohol remain legal Bob? I'd love to subject you to the same and expose the contradictory and arbitrary nature of your arguments in favor of legalized booze.

Why shouldn't the very possession of booze be criminalized like with marijuana?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Does Bob think that alcohol should be legal? Because almost every argument Bob used against Tom could likewise be used against him if he supports legalized booze.

Before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already have, read the entire article.
 

WizardofOz

New member
Before you make yourself look even more foolish than you already have, read the entire article.
:yawn:
Is there something important you feel I missed? The arguments Bob used against Tom can just as easily be used against alcohol. That's the point.

If you're here to discuss my sex organs again, kindly take that gutter brain of yours to your homosexual fascination thread. Kthxbye :wave:

You've proven yourself far too immature and far too prone to lies to take seriously.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
:yawn:
Is there something important you feel I missed? The arguments Bob used against Tom can just as easily be used against alcohol. That's the point.

Yes, you missed the part on what the Bible says about intoxication. If you're not basing your morality on the Bible (which anyone who knows anything about libertarianism knows that they don't), then your morals are relative to your own belief system.

If you're here to discuss my sex organs again, kindly take that gutter brain of yours to your homosexual fascination thread. Kthxbye :wave:

You've proven yourself far too immature and far too prone to lies to take seriously.

I have an idea: Since Pastor Bob made someone like former CongressmanTom Tancredo look foolish on this topic (Tancredo is normally a good Christian conservative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tancredo), why don't YOU debate Bob on the Libertarian Party and in particular drug legalization? I'm sure he'll just love it when you move the conversation to blasphemy and 13 year old girls marrying during Biblical times.
 

WizardofOz

New member
Yes, you missed the part on what the Bible says about intoxication. If you're not basing your morality on the Bible (which anyone who knows anything about libertarianism knows that they don't), then your morals are relative to your own belief system.

What I or Tom or Bob base their morality on has nothing to do with the legalization or criminalization of pot or alcohol in the United States. I am sure Bob and a congressman would acknowledge this as well.

I can imagine how the debate in The House would go if a congressman or woman posited that the justification behind marijuana prohibition actually originates with scripture. :hammer:

Where morals originate for each individual in Washington is irrelevant to the argument, which must be won via secular justification.

Alcohol is more destructive to society than marijuana. I can show this to be true with or without scripture. Yet, because I actually believe in liberty (something you has shown to loathe) I don't think either should be outright illegal.

I have an idea: Since Pastor Bob made someone like former CongressmanTom Tancredo look foolish on this topic (Tancredo is normally a good Christian conservative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tancredo), why don't YOU debate Bob on the Libertarian Party and in particular drug legalization? I'm sure he'll just love it when you move the conversation to blasphemy and 13 year old girls marrying during Biblical times.

If Bob responds to my post, great. I've debated him before. I would certainly rather debate him than debate an immature and debased proven liar like yourself.

Making you eat your words was fun the first few dozen times. Lately, it has grown a bit dull.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
:yawn:
Is there something important you feel I missed? The arguments Bob used against Tom can just as easily be used against alcohol. That's the point.
You missed the part where Bob talked about alcohol and getting drunk.
 

WizardofOz

New member
Your argument says otherwise.

Bob specifically said that laws against getting drunk are good laws, and exist for the same reason as laws against pot.
:AMR:
Should an adult have the right to get drunk/intoxicated if they are in the privacy of their own home?
 

WizardofOz

New member
Not according to Bob. He was clear on that.

No, his point about drunkenness has to do with gross negligence. Negligence is a completely separate issue that may or may not necessarily be tied to drunkenness.

You can think for yourself, right? I asked you. Should an adult have the right to get drunk/intoxicated if they are in the privacy of their own home?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
No, his point about drunkenness has to do with gross negligence. Negligence is a completely separate issue that may or may not necessarily be tied to drunkenness.
But drunkenness can lead to negligence, and often does if one is drunk enough. And that was Bob's point: the potential for negligence as a result of intoxication, whether from alcohol, pot, cocaine, etc.

You can think for yourself, right? I asked you. Should an adult have the right to get drunk/intoxicated if they are in the privacy of their own home?
That wasn't the issue. You were contesting Bob's stance and you had missed what he said regarding drunkenness in the privacy of a home.

I have yet to state whether or not I agree with Bob, so why even ask me?

But if you want to know; I do think that if we allow alcohol to be bought and sold for consumption then it is not possible to prevent people from becoming intoxicated in the privacy of their own homes. However, it is possible to prosecute them if they commit crimes as a result of the negligence they exhibit in their drunkenness. But until a crime is committed, or at least known to have been, then it is impossible to prove that one was drunk in the privacy of a home. If such a law were enacted it would be nearly impossible to enforce outside of returning to prohibition.

But since it is possible for some to drink without getting drunk we should not prohibit the trade or consumption of alcohol.

However, it may be possible to enact a law preventing those who have been convicted of alcohol related crimes from purchasing it in the future. That would require placing something on their IDs and carding everyone who purchases alcohol.:think:

People would be able to find ways to get around it, of course, but it would be a good step, I think.

And before you respond, is it possible to smoke from a joint without getting high?
 

WizardofOz

New member
But drunkenness can lead to negligence, and often does if one is drunk enough.

Exactly my point when I said "Negligence is a completely separate issue that may or may not necessarily be tied to drunkenness."

And that was Bob's point: the potential for negligence as a result of intoxication, whether from alcohol, pot, cocaine, etc.

The negligence is the issue/possible crime, whether drunkenness leads to negligence or not. The same can be said about his other examples:
"Drunks put first responders and others at risk."
"Drunks and people high think they drive better, and make harmful decisions."

The behavior a drunk engages in can possibly put first responders at risk. Again, the behavior would be criminal not the intoxication.

If people drive drunk, it doesn't matter if they think they can drive better, the behavior is criminal regardless.

These laws are already in place.

That wasn't the issue. You were contesting Bob's stance and you had missed what he said regarding drunkenness in the privacy of a home.

I didn't miss anything. He didn't say anything specifically about the legality of being drunk in your own home, just that such behavior can lead to behavior that may be criminal: negligence, putting first responders at risk, etc.

Rather than continuously claim I missed something, please quote what you feel I missed.

I have yet to state whether or not I agree with Bob, so why even ask me?

It's certainly relevant to the discussion. Should an adult have the right to get drunk/intoxicated if they are in the privacy of their own home?

Why not just answer the question? :think:

But if you want to know; I do think that if we allow alcohol to be bought and sold for consumption then it is not possible to prevent people from becoming intoxicated in the privacy of their own homes.

Even if alcohol was completely outlawed, it is not possible to prevent people from becoming intoxicated in the privacy of their own homes.

There's a reason why there is no longer an 18th Amendment ;)

However, it is possible to prosecute them if they commit crimes as a result of the negligence they exhibit in their drunkenness.

Of course it is. This is quite my point. The negligence is the crime, not the intoxication itself.

But until a crime is committed, or at least known to have been, then it is impossible to prove that one was drunk in the privacy of a home. If such a law were enacted it would be nearly impossible to enforce outside of returning to prohibition.

Do you feel that the 18th Amendment should still be law?

But since it is possible for some to drink without getting drunk we should not prohibit the trade or consumption of alcohol.

As noted above, it is the behavior one may engage in when intoxicated that is the true litmus test of whether behavior is criminal, not the intoxication or possibility of intoxication alone.

If a man drinks a liter of vodka at home and gets drunk, he should be free to do so. If he engages in criminal behavior while intoxicated, that is the focus of the law. Such behaviors are already criminal.

However, it may be possible to enact a law preventing those who have been convicted of alcohol related crimes from purchasing it in the future. That would require placing something on their IDs and carding everyone who purchases alcohol.:think:

People would be able to find ways to get around it, of course, but it would be a good step, I think.

You know what, that's not a bad idea. It works with firearms (not allowing felons or violent offenders from purchasing/owning/possessing them).

And before you respond, is it possible to smoke from a joint without getting high?

As is true with alcohol, the level of high/intoxication depends on the amount consumed. A person could take low doses of marijuana or booze and not be high or intoxicated, absolutely. Endless studies support this.

It all depends on what you constitute as "high". I would be happy to provide research on the motor functions of people who have smoked marijuana if it would compel you.

The following is a study of the ability to drive under the influence of marijuana and/or alcohol. Of course, driving under the influence should never be legal, but the results are relevant to the discussion.

Surprisingly, given the alarming results of cognitive studies, most marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on actual road tests. Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol.

Many investigators have suggested that the reason why marijuana does not result in an increased crash rate in laboratory tests despite demonstrable neurophysiologic impairments is that, unlike drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to underestimate their degree of impairment, marijuana users tend to overestimate their impairment, and consequently employ compensatory strategies. Cannabis users perceive their driving under the influence as impaired and more cautious, and given a dose of 7 mg THC (about a third of a joint), drivers rated themselves as impaired even though their driving performance was not; in contrast, at a BAC 0.04% (slightly less than two “standard drinks” of a can of beer or small 5 oz. glass of wine; half the legal limit in most US states), driving performance was impaired even though drivers rated themselves as unimpaired.

cite




In contrast to the effects of alcohol, a series of publications during the past few years suggest that stimulating the brain's marijuana neurotransmitter system appears to have the exact opposite effects upon neurogenesis in the hippocampus of both young and old laboratory animals and humans, i.e. neurogenesis is increased by stimulation of our brain's marijuana receptors.

When we are elderly, our brain displays a dramatic decline in neurogenesis within the hippocampus. This decline may underlie age-associated memory impairments as well as depression. Research in my laboratory has demonstrated that stimulating the brain's marijuana receptors restores neurogenesis. Thus, later in life, marijuana might actually help your brain, rather than harm it.

Professor Gary L. Wenk, Ph. D



Marijuana dosage is found to be on par to that of alcohol in a study conducted by the Psychopharmacology Research Unit Department of Pharmacology from University of Sydney, NSW for the Federal Office of Road Safety.
Executive Summary:

The subjective assessment of the doses of each drug employed indicated that they were comparable. The subjects assessed the degree of intoxication by marijuana as being of a similar intensity as that produced by alcohol. The doses selected therefore appear to be relevant to those used within the social experience of the volunteer population



When one compares the dangers of marijuana use with that of alcohol, alcohol will always lose the fight. I guarantee it.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Nice avatar Ralphie. Are you making fun of mentally retarded children now?

Regarding your imaginary world where dopers only smoke their poison in the confines of their own dope den:

Many emergency situations arise where you're needed to be alert. It's not wise to get intoxicated in your home on alcohol, but not illegal. Many other problems come with intoxication in the home: domestic violence, etc. Being the Libertarian that you are, you're of course trying to compare recreational drugs with alcohol, and you can't.

Alcohol is terribly abused by our hedonistic society. Legalizing recreational drugs on an irresponsible society isn't going to make things better.

But then Libertarians don't care about others, it's all about them.
 

WizardofOz

New member
Nice avatar Ralphie. Are you making fun of mentally retarded children now?
:doh:
That's my son you dolt. He's not mentally retarded, it's a swirling effect from the IPAD camera.

Regarding your imaginary world where dopers only smoke their poison in the confines of their own dope den:

Should it be legal for an adult to get intoxicated in their own home? If people are intoxicated in public, there are already laws/ordinances against such behavior.

Many emergency situations arise where you're needed to be alert. It's not wise to get intoxicated in your home on alcohol, but not illegal. Many other problems come with intoxication in the home: domestic violence, etc. Being the Libertarian that you are, you're of course trying to compare recreational drugs with alcohol, and you can't.

Sure it can. Endless peer-reviewed studies have done just that. And, guess what...alcohol is far worse than marijuana on every level. I quoted a few if you'd like to actually address their findings.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Nice avatar Ralphie. Are you making fun of mentally retarded children now?

That's my son you dolt. He's not mentally retarded, it's a swirling effect from the IPAD camera.

I'm sure he's a beautiful child. Out of curiousity, were you high on drugs when you posted that avatar?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding your imaginary world where dopers only smoke their poison in the confines of their own dope den:

Should it be legal for an adult to get intoxicated in their own home? If people are intoxicated in public, there are already laws/ordinances against such behavior.

You tell me. Should it be illegal for someone to shoot heroin in their own home? Should it be illegal for someone to snort cocaine or smoke crack? (there are functioning smack, coke and crackheads you know). For that matter, should it be legal for someone to run a prostitution business out of their own home? Etc etc etc. You Libertarians seem to think that the immoral sewer inside someone's home doesn't overflow out into society. Newsflash: it does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Many emergency situations arise where you're needed to be alert. It's not wise to get intoxicated in your home on alcohol, but not illegal. Many other problems come with intoxication in the home: domestic violence, etc. Being the Libertarian that you are, you're of course trying to compare recreational drugs with alcohol, and you can't.

Sure it can. Endless peer-reviewed studies have done just that. And, guess what...alcohol is far worse than marijuana on every level. I quoted a few if you'd like to actually address their findings.

Let me give you a real life scenario:

You've had a rough day at the notell motel, the pencil sharpener broke and your favorite male employee ran off with his bisexual lover. You go home and feel you need to escape from the realities of the world and decide to blow some dope. You see that you're down to your last couple of hits, enough to get you hiiiiiiigh, but not the super hiiiigh that you really want. Your signifcant other, wanting to keep you happy, says that he/she will run down to the 7-11 and pick you up a lid. Not wanting FDA approved dope, you tell him/her to run over to Ron Paul's house and buy some from him, as he has the best dope that money can buy (straight from Mexico). The problem is that Ronnie's dope compound is clear across town, roundtrip time 45 minutes. About a half hour into your significant others journey, Ralphie Jr., who you were trusted to keep an eye on, starts choking on something. Being that your thought process and motor skills aren't functioning properly you can't remember if the heimlich involves putting your arms around the victim's stomach or throat. For that matter you can't remember if the emergency number to call is 119 or 191. Fortunately Ralphie Jr. spits up the object that he had in his mouth, and all is well, thus you can go back to living your life for yourself and not have to worry about others.

Repent and accept Jesus as your Savior and the wisdom of God as seen in Holy Scripture.
 
Top