Did Christine O'Donnell pass High School Civics?

[Muravyets]

If you legalize marijuana you go down a slippery slope of legalizing other dangerous drugs. Why not make cocaine legal while you're at it? The idea that laws against marijuana have any less a purpose than laws against other drugs is ludicrous to me.

its a good idea.

taking the far more dangerous organized crime out of the drug business is well worth the potential increase in usage (of drugs that would now have quality control)

Possession and use of up to 2 ounces of pot has been legal in Massachusetts for a little while now. You can smoke it in public - anywhere you're allowed to smoke at all - without any trouble. So far I have seen two people doing so, and based on certain details of her appearance, I think one of them of them may have been smoking to relieve medical symptoms. Considering how many people do smoke pot and smoked it when it was illegal, there has not been any uptick at all in overt usage. My guess is there really isn't a flood behind those floodgates that legalization would open. What I've seen so far in Mass only bolsters that idea.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

If you legalize marijuana you go down a slippery slope of legalizing other dangerous drugs. Why not make cocaine legal while you're at it? The idea that laws against marijuana have any less a purpose than laws against other drugs is ludicrous to me.

What I find ludicrous is when people say something is a "slippery slope." That's the name of a logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Using the phrase "slippery slope" is basically the same as saying "ATTENTION: I am about to be employing bad logic. The sentence I am about to utter is logically invalid."

[Ashmoria]

its a good idea.

taking the far more dangerous organized crime out of the drug business is well worth the potential increase in usage (of drugs that would now have quality control)

Possession and use of up to 2 ounces of pot has been legal in Massachusetts for a little while now. You can smoke it in public - anywhere you're allowed to smoke at all - without any trouble. So far I have seen two people doing so, and based on certain details of her appearance, I think one of them of them may have been smoking to relieve medical symptoms. Considering how many people do smoke pot and smoked it when it was illegal, there has not been any uptick at all in overt usage. My guess is there really isn't a flood behind those floodgates that legalization would open. What I've seen so far in Mass only bolsters that idea.

i dont believe there is either.

but even if there were the benefits far outweigh the potential damage.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences

Drug trafficking is still illegal. Drugs are decriminalized, not legalized.

A study by Glenn Greenwald (commissioned by the libertarian Cato Institute) found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled, while usage in the EU continued to increase, including in states with "hard-line drug policies."[3]

Since Portugal's policy reform in 2001, the rates of overdoses and HIV cases have been reduced significantly.[9][10][11]

WOW! You mean, like, if I don't have to worry about going to jail when I bring my ODing friend to the hospital, I'm more likely to do it? Who would've thought? Wait, hold on, hold on, I'm more likely to seek treatment if I'm not incredibly stigmatized? I'm less likely to get HIV from sharing needles if needles are more readily accessible? Wow, this is really just mind blowingly unexpected!

[L3 Communications]

If you legalize marijuana you go down a slippery slope of legalizing other dangerous drugs. Why not make cocaine legal while you're at it? The idea that laws against marijuana have any less a purpose than laws against other drugs is ludicrous to me.

Why not?

[Muravyets]

Possession and use of up to 2 ounces of pot has been legal in Massachusetts for a little while now. You can smoke it in public - anywhere you're allowed to smoke at all - without any trouble. So far I have seen two people doing so, and based on certain details of her appearance, I think one of them of them may have been smoking to relieve medical symptoms. Considering how many people do smoke pot and smoked it when it was illegal, there has not been any uptick at all in overt usage. My guess is there really isn't a flood behind those floodgates that legalization would open. What I've seen so far in Mass only bolsters that idea.

i dont believe there is either.

but even if there were the benefits far outweigh the potential damage.

I agree. I fail to see how pot is any more addictive or damaging than either tobacco or alcohol. If they can be legal but controlled, I don't see why pot can't. Also, I don't see why pot is guaranteed to lead to use of other "harder" drugs, while tobacco and alcohol aren't. What is a guaranteed connection is that crime leads to more crime. If pot is connected to cocaine, heroine, etc., that is because the trade in it is illegal, just like the trade in those other drugs. Once upon a time, alcohol was illegal in the US and crime associated with it skyrocketed to alarming levels. When Prohibition was repealed, the booze-related crime rate plummeted. Based on history, I would think it far more likely that legalizing pot would eliminate an entire section of organized and gang criminal activity.

I guess the question here is really what do people fear more: Armed gangs committing violent crime for profit right and left? Or a few people getting high now and then, maybe even habitually?

[Jingoist Hippostan]

If you legalize marijuana you go down a slippery slope of legalizing other dangerous drugs. Why not make cocaine legal while you're at it? The idea that laws against marijuana have any less a purpose than laws against other drugs is ludicrous to me.

Why not?

Cocaine is bad, mmkay?

No, seriously, cocaine's addictiveness is greatly exaggerated. I've never done cocaine, but I know a few people who have. That's not "SWIM" bullshit, I actually have not. I've been told by them that, while it's fun, it's highly overrated and it's popularity has more to do with it being a "glamorous" status symbol. Really, very few people have enough money to sustain a cocaine addiction, and I'd be willing to say that most people are not at risk of winding up selling all their possessions and becoming hookers to feed their coke habit.

[Deus Malum]

If you legalize marijuana you go down a slippery slope of legalizing other dangerous drugs. Why not make cocaine legal while you're at it? The idea that laws against marijuana have any less a purpose than laws against other drugs is ludicrous to me.

You're right, let's ban tobacco and alcohol.

Yeah, but that's a slippery slope too. Ban tobacco and alcohol, and someday we'll ban water!!! The idea that bans on water are any less purposeful than bans on tobacco and alcohol is frankly ludicrous.

[Conserative Morality]

I agree. I fail to see how pot is any more addictive or damaging than either tobacco or alcohol. If they can be legal but controlled, I don't see why pot can't. Also, I don't see why pot is guaranteed to lead to use of other "harder" drugs, while tobacco and alcohol aren't. What is a guaranteed connection is that crime leads to more crime. If pot is connected to cocaine, heroine, etc., that is because the trade in it is illegal, just like the trade in those other drugs. Once upon a time, alcohol was illegal in the US and crime associated with it skyrocketed to alarming levels. When Prohibition was repealed, the booze-related crime rate plummeted. Based on history, I would think it far more likely that legalizing pot would eliminate an entire section of organized and gang criminal activity.

Oh God, we agree. First I started agreeing with GnI, and now you. I'm becoming part of the hivemind.

I guess the question here is really what do people fear more: Armed gangs committing violent crime for profit right and left? Or a few people getting high now and then, maybe even habitually?

Considering the fact that the Republican party still stands firm on the 'War on drugs'? The latter. Not that I'm particularly surprised.

[Saiwania]

the benefits far outweigh the potential damage.

How is legalizing dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs beneficial? You want everyone to be too high/stoned to work or for children to have more access to it with mainstream availability?

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah, but that's a slippery slope too. Ban tobacco and alcohol, and someday we'll ban water!!! The idea that bans on water are any less purposeful than bans on tobacco and alcohol is frankly ludicrous.

1. Water is essential to human survival.

2. My post was sarcastic.

[Conserative Morality]

How is legalizing dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs beneficial? You want everyone to be too high/stoned to work or for children to have more access to it with mainstream availability?

Wait, I thought we were talking about pot, not alcohol?

[Deus Malum]

Yeah, but that's a slippery slope too. Ban tobacco and alcohol, and someday we'll ban water!!! The idea that bans on water are any less purposeful than bans on tobacco and alcohol is frankly ludicrous.

1. Water is essential to human survival.

2. My post was sarcastic.

So was I. It...it was a joke on slippery slope fallacies.

[Deus Malum]

the benefits far outweigh the potential damage.

How is legalizing dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs beneficial? You want everyone to be too high/stoned to work or for children to have more access to it with mainstream availability?

Where did you get "dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs" from for pot? Watching a bit too much "Reefer Madness" are we?

[Conserative Morality]

So was I. It...it was a joke on slippery slope fallacies.

Damn you sarcasm and your inability to be translated through the written word. *shakes fist*

[Pope Joan]

The Constitution does not anywhere state that church and state must be separate.

Jefferson in his VA Constitution endeavored to impose a "wall of separation". but despite his centrality at the Constitutional Convention, this language was obviously NOT adopted there and so therefore it appears that something LESS is our national standard.

There is , instead, to be no laws effecting "establishment of religion". This means that no state may have an official church. State established churches had caused much harm in Europe and most Americans wanted to avoid repeating that mistake.

It does not mean in any way that the state may have nothing to do with religion, and I doubt the idea ever crossed the minds of the founders. This is despite the railings of Adams against the influence of "priests", since I reasonably suppose him to be attacking the Church of Rome.

So on a strictly literal and historical basis, we have a document which prohibits state-sponsored churches but leaves everything else up for grabs.

I do not then think this candidate is constitutionally illiterate. I was top in my class in Con Law at Northwestern U School of Law and am a former board member of the Albany NY ACLU.

I would not vote for her, but that's neither here nor there.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

I agree. I fail to see how pot is any more addictive or damaging than either tobacco or alcohol. If they can be legal but controlled, I don't see why pot can't.

Pot is actually less addictive and damaging. Alcohol is really, really, really fucking bad for you.

Also, I don't see why pot is guaranteed to lead to use of other "harder" drugs, while tobacco and alcohol aren't. What is a guaranteed connection is that crime leads to more crime. If pot is connected to cocaine, heroine, etc., that is because the trade in it is illegal, just like the trade in those other drugs.

Exactly. There's also a few other factors, IMO.

1. Misinformation in the education system about weed: If they lied about one drug, that damages their credibility on all drugs. If a kid finds out weed isn't particularly addictive or bad for you, they might suspect heroin isn't either. While the internet allows kids to do research and find out, I feel like this is nonetheless a problem. What's even worse is when they don't actually explain how drugs work - A kid who'd never touch heroin in his life will pop vicodin like there's no tomorrow, not realizing that they do the same thing in your brain.

2. The illegality of drugs promotes a clique factor in drug users. Hence the "change in social group" anti-drug pamphlets love to talk about. It's easier to find drugs, do drugs with people, do other people's drugs, etc. if you hang out with other drug users. If you could go down to the store and buy weed, without the hassle or the stigma of use, there'd be less of a reason to hang out with other drug users. The reason this is bad, of course, is that if one person in a group of potheads starts doing, I don't know, oxycodone, it becomes far more likely for the others to start doing it.

Once upon a time, alcohol was illegal in the US and crime associated with it skyrocketed to alarming levels. When Prohibition was repealed, the booze-related crime rate plummeted. Based on history, I would think it far more likely that legalizing pot would eliminate an entire section of organized and gang criminal activity.

I guess the question here is really what do people fear more: Armed gangs committing violent crime for profit right and left? Or a few people getting high now and then, maybe even habitually?

I know this has been beaten into the ground, but it's still a good point. Many people who are constantly stoned are annoying, unable to carry on a coherent conversation, and prone to reeking of patchouli. On the other hand, I'd rather have some guy saying "Whoa man, like...what if we all saw colors differently, like, your orange is my blue, man!? HOW CAN WE KNOW?" to me than a guy yelling "YOU WANNA GO FAGGOT ALRIGHT FAGGOT LET'S GO LET'S TAKE THIS OUTSIDE FAGGOT I'M GONNA KICK YOUR FAGGOT QUEER ASS!" Which is the general endpoint of people who are drunk all the time.

I'm generalizing, I know. I'm aware, Carl Sagan, blah blah classy alcoholics, blah etc.

[Muravyets]

the benefits far outweigh the potential damage.

How is legalizing dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs beneficial? You want everyone to be too high/stoned to work or for children to have more access to it with mainstream availability?

Kindly respond to this post, thank you.

Then prove that if pot is legalized, everyone will be too stoned to work or that children will have any more access to it than they currently do to tobacco and alcohol - as well as porn, driving, voting, military service, and other age-restricted activities.

[Jingoist Hippostan]

How is legalizing dangerously addictive, harmful, socially deleterious drugs beneficial? You want everyone to be too high/stoned to work or for children to have more access to it with mainstream availability?

Kindly respond to this post, thank you.

Then prove that if pot is legalized, everyone will be too stoned to work or that children will have any more access to it than they currently do to tobacco and alcohol - as well as porn, driving, voting, military service, and other age-restricted activities.

It's really just a stupid claim. Alcohol is legal, but everyone doesn't go to work drunk. And weed is a lot less popular than alcohol, and I'm guessing it's not just because it's illegal.

[Muravyets]

The Constitution does not anywhere state that church and state must be separate.

Jefferson in his VA Constitution endeavored to impose a "wall of separation". but despite his centrality at the Constitutional Convention, this language was obviously NOT adopted there and so therefore it appears that something LESS is our national standard.

There is , instead, to be no laws effecting "establishment of religion". This means that no state may have an official church. State established churches had caused much harm in Europe and most Americans wanted to avoid repeating that mistake.

It does not mean in any way that the state may have nothing to do with religion, and I doubt the idea ever crossed the minds of the founders. This is despite the railings of Adams against the influence of "priests", since I reasonably suppose him to be attacking the Church of Rome.

So on a strictly literal and historical basis, we have a document which prohibits state-sponsored churches but leaves everything else up for grabs.

I do not then think this candidate is constitutionally illiterate. I was top in my class in Con Law at Northwestern U School of Law and am a former board member of the Albany NY ACLU.

I would not vote for her, but that's neither here nor there.

No. You are not correct. The 1st Amendment does more than that. To understand that, you have to understand how government works and how it does the stuff it does. Then you see that that the 1st prohibits any government involvement in religion by shutting down all avenues by which government can become involved with religion, either by state interfering in religion or religion interfering in state. The 1st Amendment creates the separation of church and state as a practical matter. No debate or philosophy about the topic in it. Not even a statement of intent. It just sets the rules so as to separate government from religion -- and from the press, too, btw.

[Conserative Morality]

There is , instead, to be no laws effecting "establishment of religion". This means that no state may have an official church. State established churches had caused much harm in Europe and most Americans wanted to avoid repeating that mistake.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, rather than effecting, can very well be interpreted as separation of Church and State.

respecting [rɪˈspɛktɪŋ]
prep
concerning; regarding

[Muravyets]

I agree. I fail to see how pot is any more addictive or damaging than either tobacco or alcohol. If they can be legal but controlled, I don't see why pot can't. Also, I don't see why pot is guaranteed to lead to use of other "harder" drugs, while tobacco and alcohol aren't. What is a guaranteed connection is that crime leads to more crime. If pot is connected to cocaine, heroine, etc., that is because the trade in it is illegal, just like the trade in those other drugs. Once upon a time, alcohol was illegal in the US and crime associated with it skyrocketed to alarming levels. When Prohibition was repealed, the booze-related crime rate plummeted. Based on history, I would think it far more likely that legalizing pot would eliminate an entire section of organized and gang criminal activity.

Oh God, we agree. First I started agreeing with GnI, and now you. I'm becoming part of the hivemind.

There's no shame in finally being right, CM.

I guess the question here is really what do people fear more: Armed gangs committing violent crime for profit right and left? Or a few people getting high now and then, maybe even habitually?

Considering the fact that the Republican party still stands firm on the 'War on drugs'? The latter. Not that I'm particularly surprised.

Of course they still stand firm on it. Can we even start to guess how much money is involved in the "War on Drugs"? How much political dealing and influence is involved in it? How much international influence? I'd guess a ton more than in the "War on Poverty," about which they never gave a shit.

[Tekania]

The Constitution does not anywhere state that church and state must be separate.

Jefferson in his VA Constitution endeavored to impose a "wall of separation". but despite his centrality at the Constitutional Convention, this language was obviously NOT adopted there and so therefore it appears that something LESS is our national standard.

There is , instead, to be no laws effecting "establishment of religion". This means that no state may have an official church. State established churches had caused much harm in Europe and most Americans wanted to avoid repeating that mistake.

It does not mean in any way that the state may have nothing to do with religion, and I doubt the idea ever crossed the minds of the founders. This is despite the railings of Adams against the influence of "priests", since I reasonably suppose him to be attacking the Church of Rome.

So on a strictly literal and historical basis, we have a document which prohibits state-sponsored churches but leaves everything else up for grabs.

I do not then think this candidate is constitutionally illiterate. I was top in my class in Con Law at Northwestern U School of Law and am a former board member of the Albany NY ACLU.

I would not vote for her, but that's neither here nor there.

Yes, perhaps you can now show which particular powers the federal government possesses over religion that are enumerated in the US Constitution.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The Constitution does not anywhere state that church and state must be separate.

Jefferson in his VA Constitution endeavored to impose a "wall of separation". but despite his centrality at the Constitutional Convention, this language was obviously NOT adopted there and so therefore it appears that something LESS is our national standard.

There is , instead, to be no laws effecting "establishment of religion". This means that no state may have an official church. State established churches had caused much harm in Europe and most Americans wanted to avoid repeating that mistake.

It does not mean in any way that the state may have nothing to do with religion, and I doubt the idea ever crossed the minds of the founders. This is despite the railings of Adams against the influence of "priests", since I reasonably suppose him to be attacking the Church of Rome.

So on a strictly literal and historical basis, we have a document which prohibits state-sponsored churches but leaves everything else up for grabs.

I do not then think this candidate is constitutionally illiterate. I was top in my class in Con Law at Northwestern U School of Law and am a former board member of the Albany NY ACLU.

I would not vote for her, but that's neither here nor there.

Although I don't doubt your unverifiable claims to personal authority, they don't make you any less in error -- as to the literal wording, meaning, intent, and history of the Establishment Clause. See, e.g., my earlier post.

[Muravyets]

Kindly respond to this post, thank you.

Then prove that if pot is legalized, everyone will be too stoned to work or that children will have any more access to it than they currently do to tobacco and alcohol - as well as porn, driving, voting, military service, and other age-restricted activities.

It's really just a stupid claim. Alcohol is legal, but everyone doesn't go to work drunk. And weed is a lot less popular than alcohol, and I'm guessing it's not just because it's illegal.

I agree. I also agree with the points you made in your other post. Far, far, FAR more violence, destructiveness, accidents and deaths are associated with alcohol than with pot, yet still some people carry on as if booze is perfectly controllable while pot will destroy society if let loose. My argument, and I guess yours too, is that if society can survive and function even with alcohol being legal and controlled, then why should it not be able to manage with the far less dangerous pot being legal and controlled as well?

Another point: I'm no drug user, never have been. I have absolutely no clue whether other drugs such as cocaine and opiates should be legal or banned. I do know that they were once legal in the US, and the nation still managed to function quite well. However, that said, I do not currently support the legalization of "harder" drugs in the US for a reason that has nothing to do with the substances themselves. It's because of how those drugs are made, in countries and under either legal or illegal systems that often grossly abuse innocent people -- farmers, laborers, etc. For me, it's an issue of social justice and labor and land rights in other countries. To buy those drugs supports abusive systems elsewhere.

Pot, on the other hand, can be grown locally. Hell, every user could grow their own in their gardens, if it's legal to do so. Pot is nothing more than a dried leaf off a plant. It is fairly non-toxic and does not require a lot of chemical processing to use. Hell, technically, you don't even have to smoke the stuff. Whether grown privately or commercially, it has the ability to enter the market as a recreational intoxicant in a way that is not abusive to anyone or anything -- if it is legalized.

You compare that to the current situation, in which you have illegal secret pot farms, many on public lands, guarded by armed thugs, creating a situation of extreme danger to the public.

But I'm afraid this has turned into a true hijack. To try to steer back the topic, to me, this blind recitation of the same old, simply untrue, moralistic anti-legalization propaganda is par for the course for people like Christine O'Donnell and her supporters (of whom that poster is one). Facts be damned, they have what they declare to be true, and the Declared Truth is better than real truth because it comes with the force of their preference for it.