GOP sweeps the nation.

[FunkyTown]

Re marijuana:  If it's not addictive, then how come so many people are willing to go to jail rather than quit?  I do agree that search-and-seizure jurisprudence in this country has gone way too far in favor of government entities; but legalizing marijuana won't stop that.

 

For the same reasons people were willing to drink alcohol during prohibition. 

 

I don't smoke marijuana. Or anything for that matter. That said, I don't see it as worse than alcohol. Canada decriminalized it several years back and when I was home, I could look out my window and see this completely fine urban community:

 

[Guest Godless]

I want to see four major things happen:

1) A complete repeal of the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare)

 

I really don't see Congress repealing a law that was voted on and passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. There's no evidence that it isn't working and not enough public support for a repeal.

 

 

2) Major slashes in the Federal budget to bring it to levels where the National Deficit is increasing by feet rather than by miles

 

 

FACT: The national deficit has been cut in half under Obama. And unemployment has been on the decline since 2010. I'm genuinely curious as to why Democrats didn't put more focus on these two points this year.

 

 

3) Major tax cuts to boost the economy

 

 

Trickle-down economics? Hasn't that been debunked already?

 

 

4) The discontinuation of the National Security Agency spying on the American public

 

 

I'd like to see that as well, but it won't happen. The ugly truth about our government is that its lack of respect for our privacy is bipartisan. The GOP denounced Obama's administration for it, but I don't believe for a second that a Republican administration wouldn't do the exact same thing.

[Just_A_Guy]

For the same reasons people were willing to drink alcohol during prohibition. 

Touché.

 

I don't smoke marijuana. Or anything for that matter. That said, I don't see it as worse than alcohol.

Alcohol is pretty bad, actually . . . And the hidden secret about Prohibition is that it did reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related health problems in the United States (see here). The notion that Prohibition or the drug war have "failed" comes primarily from the fact that they haven't completely eradicated the problems they were meant to address. By that logic we may as well give up the "war on poverty" since there are still poor people, end government-subsidized health care since some people don't take advantage of it, and of course legalize rape, murder, and pretty much every other illegal activity that occurred last year.

[jerome1232]

 

FACT: The national deficit has been cut in half under Obama. And unemployment has been on the decline since 2010. I'm genuinely curious as to why Democrats didn't put more focus on these two points this year.

Mmmmm, well, the primary driver for the drop in unemployment has been people *dropping out of the workforce*, last I checked, the labor participation rate was at 62.7%, it hasn't been that low in a very, very long time.

Progress! right?

[Guest]

 

Who are you and who gave you the God-given right to decide for me what medicines my wife and I decide we should take.

 

 

 

And you call yourself a Conservative?

 

Conservative only when it suits your own personal tastes.  Gotcha.

 

One more time:  This is not about Marijuana.  This is about PROPER GOVERNMENT.  There are a quadzillion meds flooding the Florida market including strains of Marijuana.  All vetted, all legal... otherwise, the mass tort lawyers that also floods Florida are after your butt.  You want your own flavor of pain meds?  Work to get your meds vetted in the proper manner instead of just whining like a little kid, "who are you and who gave you the right to decide for me what medicines.. blah blah blah"... Who are you is called the Rule of Law.

Edited November 6, 2014 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

I really don't see Congress repealing a law that was voted on and passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.

Like . . . The Fugitive Slave Act?

I see your point about the political will not being there; but this notion that once something is enshrined in law, it's there forever is antithetical to the notion of government by the people.

FACT: The national deficit has been cut in half under Obama. And unemployment has been on the decline since 2010. I'm genuinely curious as to why Democrats didn't put more focus on these two points this year.

The deficit is a nice talking point; but the fact is that annual spending is up from 2.9 trillion in 2008 to 3.4 trillion now. The only spending reduction came between 2011 (3.6 trillion) and now; and that was when the Republicans were holding the purse. What's closing the deficit gap is increased tax revenues after the '08 recession.

When unemployment was down under Reagan, the classic retort was that these were just burger-flipping jobs and people weren't really more secure economically. There is a sense that the same is true now--people have jobs; but wages are stagnant and cost-of-living is slowly creeping ever upwards.

Trickle-down economics? Hasn't that been debunked already?

I think it has its limits (Laffer curve and all), but no; I don't think it's been debunked any more than the Great Depression debunked the general concept of free markets.

I'd like to see that as well, but it won't happen. The ugly truth about our government is that its lack of respect for our privacy is bipartisan. The GOP denounced Obama's administration for it, but I don't believe for a second that a Republican administration wouldn't do the exact same thing.

Amen.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

Touché.

 

Alcohol is pretty bad, actually . . . And the hidden secret about Prohibition is that it did reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related health problems in the United States (see here). The notion that Prohibition or the drug war have "failed" comes primarily from the fact that they haven't completely eradicated the problems they were meant to address. By that logic we may as well give up the "war on poverty" since there are still poor people, end government-subsidized health care since some people don't take advantage of it, and of course legalize rape, murder, and pretty much every other illegal activity that occurred last year.

 

That's a slippery slope fallacy and you know it!

 

Alcohol is bad. It contributes to broken families, poverty and is bad on many, many levels. But it's legal.

 

Marijuana is bad. The question is: Is it worse than alcohol? If not, do we legalize it and reduce the strain on our courts and reduce the income received by the various illegal gangs currently selling it or do we continue to criminalize it?

 

It was decriminalized in Canada and I didn't see a big uptick in people smoking it. That's been on-going for... 7 years now?

 

Ideally, I'd like to see society becoming more decentralized. The more power(And the more laws) that are administrated federally, the more power the federal government has. I'm not a fan of that. The things that work in downtown Manhattan don't necessarily work in rural Idaho

[NeuroTypical]

Very mis-informed.  Medical marijuana is not smoked it is taken in a pill format just like the opiums that are given with regular pain meds . . . 

 

yjacket, you're doing the online version of walking around with your zipper undone, while telling someone else their shirt isn't modest.

 

Who told you medical MJ only comes in pills?  At the risk of sounding cliche, they must have been smoking something.

 

Here in smoky Colorado, where the weed is more legal every election cycle, we started with MMJ before just making it legal altogether.  As the thousands upon thousands of dispensaries cropped up after it was legalized, they sold it in all forms. Yes, pills, but also cigarettes, 'stuff your own' blends for joints, pipes, bongs, and cigars, mixtures to paint on candies, or spray on foods, or mix into drinks, or bake into brownies.

 

If you're not interested in spending 5 seconds googling "mmj dispensary", here's a sampling.  I don't think any of these pictures come from Colorado, but from from other states with MMJ:

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2014 by NeuroTypical

[RMGuy]

A bishops take on the election results:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/jews_and_mormons/item/good_riddance_to_harry_reid_the_mormon_senate_leader

[Just_A_Guy]

That's a slippery slope fallacy and you know it!

I don't think so. I was going for reductio ad absurdam. :) "Slippery slope", as I understand it, would be saying that legalized pot as a practical matter will lead to legalized everything-else, which isn't my argument at all.

Alcohol is bad. It contributes to broken families, poverty and is bad on many, many levels. But it's legal.

Marijuana is bad. The question is: Is it worse than alcohol? If not, do we legalize it and reduce the strain on our courts and reduce the income received by the various illegal gangs currently selling it or do we continue to criminalize it?

I think we should criminalize both, actually--but under state, not federal, law; and giving states the legal authority they need to stop these substances at their own borders should they wish to do so.

It was decriminalized in Canada and I didn't see a big uptick in people smoking it. That's been on-going for... 7 years now?

I'd be interested to see statistical evidence. Common sense suggests that legally prohibiting an activity reduces public access to, and therefore participation in, that activity. The whole debate over legalized abortion, for example, hinges on that proposition.

Ideally, I'd like to see society becoming more decentralized. The more power(And the more laws) that are administrated federally, the more power the federal government has. I'm not a fan of that. The things that work in downtown Manhattan don't necessarily work in rural Idaho

Agreed. Edited November 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

A bishops take on the election results:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/jews_and_mormons/item/good_riddance_to_harry_reid_the_mormon_senate_leader

I partially sympathize with him politically, but I hope that guy isn't really a bishop . . . Edited November 6, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[jerome1232]

I partially sympathize with him politically, but I hope that guy isn't really a bishop . . .

He reminds me of an Onion article I read. When your actual opinion resembles satire, it's time to rethink imo.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-help-us-destroy-jesus-and-start-a-new-age-of,29478/

[RMGuy]

JAG,

it looks like he is...he's been in deseretnews a few times as well.  

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

[Windseeker]

That guy is getting handled in the comments. 

 

Our Bishop wound't even put a sticker on his car despite being very active in the Republican party and even hosting Romney who came to our ward the day before the debate last election. He and I have spent countless hours discussing politics but as a Bishop he was very concerned about keeping the approach to his office welcoming to all and unstained by political partisanship. 

[yjacket]

yjacket - you're out of line

ROTFLOL . . . I don't really care.

 

Not too much really gets my goat, except when someone claims they have the right to infringe on my liberties.  My main function in life is to protect my family with my wife being #1.  My wife came back from the dead . . .literally thanks to Almighty God.  I can list the pain meds . . .Delata -nope too ichty, percaset, not long lasting can only give it every 4 hours, Finagrin short acting. The only pain med that "works" is oxycotin and that is some serious narcotic power-she was addicted for over 2 months as I had to slowly encourage her to drop down the dosage and her body went through withdrawal each time she stopped.

 

My wife has been in such wreathing pain and suffering; most people can't possibly comprehend the ordeal she and I went through. 

 

 One thing I have learned through this is that all one can really do when someone is faced with such a massive ordeal is for compassion.  For some random person on the internet to denigrate our experience and my wishes with this when they supposedly have someone who is going through it . . .  well to me it means they have no clue what it means, they only think they have a clue.  I won't stand for it; for some one to make the claim to me that a) it's evil . . . it's a natural plant that is outlawed!! b) well because 51% of the voters say we shouldn't have it, it's settled you just have to deal with it.

 

Well boy isn't that great.  So 51% percent of the voters in a town can pass a law against having a fence and everyone is okay with it.  That's not rule of law, that's tyranny cloaked in legitimacy.  Laws should only be to protect life, liberty, property not to restrict it.

 

Would marijuana pills be better than oxycotin . . . I don't know, but it should be an option.  As for medical studies . . . goodness let's review history.  It is extremely difficult for any studies to be done on medical marijuana simply because of the political forces aligned against it.  Studies only just started about 10 years ago as laws started getting passed in favor of medical marijuana.  

 

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000088

[yjacket]

Who told you medical MJ only comes in pills?  At the risk of sounding cliche, they must have been smoking something.

 My apologies, the research I have read states that the desire is for pill format because the dosage can be regulated.  Smoking it provides a quick release into the system, but the effects can't be quantized.  I therefore assumed that for a doctor to proscribe it they would want it to be in pill format such as satavex and marinol. . . .

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000883

[yjacket]

And you call yourself a Conservative?

 

Conservative only when it suits your own personal tastes.  Gotcha.

 

One more time:  This is not about Marijuana.  This is about PROPER GOVERNMENT.  There are a quadzillion meds flooding the Florida market including strains of Marijuana.  All vetted, all legal... otherwise, the mass tort lawyers that also floods Florida are after your butt.  You want your own flavor of pain meds?  Work to get your meds vetted in the proper manner instead of just whining like a little kid, "who are you and who gave you the right to decide for me what medicines.. blah blah blah"... Who are you is called the Rule of Law.

 

Nope, I'm not a Conservative, never called myself that never will.  I'm a libertarian, small l.  No it's not flooding the market b/c you can't get it.  Have you actually purchased any of those new pain meds?

 

Proper Government . . . FDA, DEA is proper government??  DEA drug busts into homes that have children and then fire-bombing the place putting kids in hospitals is proper government?  Our jails are 80% full of drug offenders (mostly marijuana) proper government, while they can't find who stole appliances out of my house proper government?

 

 

Working to get meds approved by the FDA rule of law?? What, what rule of law, Congress doesn't come up with all the rules that govern the FDA, they do.  All of the EPA regulations, FDA regulations, DEA regulations etc. never passed congress, no representative voted on those regulations.  The government agencies themselves created the regulations.

 

Laws made that get to tell my neighborhood how they should run their personal life?  That's not proper government that's a recipe for tyranny.

 

The FDA created in 1906 "The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was a key piece of Progressive Era legislation, signed by President Theodore Roosevelt".  I don't see conservative in that.

 

All of the things you mention were never "conservative", they were progressive and in today's terminology liberal!

 

Governments were institute to protect life, liberty and property.

 

Regardless of whether it is moral or not (I firmly believe abusing your body through drugs is immoral), but really, what right does my neighbor have to force me on my own land to not smoke a joint?  How am I infringing on his life, liberty or property by smoking a joint on my own property.  What right does he have to force me to not grow a plant?

 

Now the moment I start smoking on his land or start polluting his land then yes I infringe on his rights, but until then why can we not just live and let live?

[yjacket]

Touché.

 

Alcohol is pretty bad, actually . . . And the hidden secret about Prohibition is that it did reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related health problems in the United States (see here). The notion that Prohibition or the drug war have "failed" comes primarily from the fact that they haven't completely eradicated the problems they were meant to address. By that logic we may as well give up the "war on poverty" since there are still poor people, end government-subsidized health care since some people don't take advantage of it, and of course legalize rape, murder, and pretty much every other illegal activity that occurred last year.

 

No it failed in that it created a whole other host of problems.  Were the benefits really worth it?

 

"It was estimated that Al Capone, Chicago’s most famous gangster, bootlegger and crime boss, raked in $60 million alone on alcohol sales in 1927.

 

After Prohibition was repealed in 1933, many Chicago gangs turned their attention to labor racketeering and gambling. Interestingly, the Berghoff Restaurant in Chicago has the first liquor license issued in Chicago after Prohibition ended and it's on display in the restaurant's bar."

 

So prior to prohibition we have a lot of money going to honest businessmen for alcohol.  After prohibition prices skyrocket, and the money goes to the unscrupulous.

 

Not to mention the invasion of privacy as now one has to have a bigger police force, more stringent enforcement, more weapons, more money for the police to catch the newly created bad guys.  It didn't fail in that it didn't reduce consumption, it failed in the costs far outweighed the benefits.

 

I served a mission in Argentina, during the 80s they had cops on every street corner, was crime reduced, sure, was it eliminated no, was it worth it having to pay all those cops for the added benefit and "security" probably not.

 

Should we give up on the war on poverty-absolutely.  Legalize rape??? Umm, how do you go from one illegal activity which does not violate basic natural rights to one that does violate natural rights??  Rape and prohibition are 2 completely different beasts.  One is an act of aggression of one individual against another individual, the other is an act of aggression by the government against an individual.

Edited November 8, 2014 by yjacket

[notquiteperfect]

ROTFLOL . . . I don't really care.

 

For the record - it's not your opinion that's out of line, it's your language and tone.

[Still_Small_Voice]

FACT: The national deficit has been cut in half under Obama. And unemployment has been on the decline since 2010. I'm genuinely curious as to why Democrats didn't put more focus on these two points this year.

 

I don't know where you are getting your information but that is simply not true at all.  The United States National Deficit has increased by leaps and bounds since around the year 2006.  We are currently at 17.9 trillion dollars in debt.  To put those number into perspective one trillion dollars in one hundred dollar bills tightly stacked is close to about 986 miles high.  Please see: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

 

Under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act it is impossible to pay off the United States National Deficit.  Every time the Federal Reserve prints a dollar they charge the American people more than a dollar.  It is impossible to pay off the National Deficit under this system.  All that can be done under the current system is slow the debt build up.

[Just_A_Guy]

No it failed in that it created a whole other host of problems.  Were the benefits really worth it?

 

"It was estimated that Al Capone, Chicago’s most famous gangster, bootlegger and crime boss, raked in $60 million alone on alcohol sales in 1927. . . .

 

So prior to prohibition we have a lot of money going to honest businessmen for alcohol.  After prohibition prices skyrocket, and the money goes to the unscrupulous. . . .

 

It didn't fail in that it didn't reduce consumption, it failed in the costs far outweighed the benefits.

 

Have you considered what the benefits really were, or have you formed your conclusions after watching Hollywood-produced gangster movies?

 

Have you tallied up the drunk driving deaths, and permanent injuries, and incidences of alcohol-related spousal abuse, child abuse, assaults both sexual and non-sexual, and other crimes committed by intoxicated persons?  Have you compared that with the number of people Capone killed per year during his heyday?  And have you considered that if Capone and other gangsters were willing to kill to keep their "businesses" profitable, they probably would have done so regardless of whether the underlying business was ostensibly "legal"?

 

Not to mention the invasion of privacy as now one has to have a bigger police force, more stringent enforcement, more weapons, more money for the police to catch the newly created bad guys. 

 

Sure; but those considerations come into play whenever we make any behavior illegal.  Stating that "the ends do not justify the means" does not mean that the ends must therefore be abandoned.

 

Should we give up on the war on poverty-absolutely.  Legalize rape??? Umm, how do you go from one illegal activity which does not violate basic natural rights to one that does violate natural rights??  Rape and prohibition are 2 completely different beasts.  One is an act of aggression of one individual against another individual, the other is an act of aggression by the government against an individual.

 

Rape and alcohol consumption both create externalities for which larger society pays a heavy burden.  If you think the latter doesn't--I'd invite you to attend a sentencing hearing for a drunk driver who's just killed or maimed an innocent bystander.  In fact, go to lots of 'em.  Like, eight hundred.  Per day, for a year.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

ROTFLOL . . . I don't really care.

Not too much really gets my goat, except when someone claims they have the right to infringe on my liberties. My main function in life is to protect my family with my wife being #1. My wife came back from the dead . . .literally thanks to Almighty God. I can list the pain meds . . .Delata -nope too ichty, percaset, not long lasting can only give it every 4 hours, Finagrin short acting. The only pain med that "works" is oxycotin and that is some serious narcotic power-she was addicted for over 2 months as I had to slowly encourage her to drop down the dosage and her body went through withdrawal each time she stopped.

My wife has been in such wreathing pain and suffering; most people can't possibly comprehend the ordeal she and I went through.

One thing I have learned through this is that all one can really do when someone is faced with such a massive ordeal is for compassion. For some random person on the internet to denigrate our experience and my wishes with this when they supposedly have someone who is going through it . . . well to me it means they have no clue what it means, they only think they have a clue. I won't stand for it; for some one to make the claim to me that a) it's evil . . . it's a natural plant that is outlawed!! b) well because 51% of the voters say we shouldn't have it, it's settled you just have to deal with it.

Well boy isn't that great. So 51% percent of the voters in a town can pass a law against having a fence and everyone is okay with it. That's not rule of law, that's tyranny cloaked in legitimacy. Laws should only be to protect life, liberty, property not to restrict it.

Would marijuana pills be better than oxycotin . . . I don't know, but it should be an option. As for medical studies . . . goodness let's review history. It is extremely difficult for any studies to be done on medical marijuana simply because of the political forces aligned against it. Studies only just started about 10 years ago as laws started getting passed in favor of medical marijuana.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000088

Yep. That's what they always say when what they want is against the law... Name it - abortion, gay marriage, crossing borders, buying livers from eBay... Instead of going through the proper government process of representative debate and vetting, they always pull out the emotional arsenal to demonize the ones who present the other side, effectively shutting them out of the democratic process. And if that doesn't work, they just wrap it in some untouchable wrapper like medical privacy (like what they did to legalize abortion) to completely bypass the entire legislative process. Yep, democrats and Republicans alike.

Never mind that the measure has zero provision on the limits of marijuana usage. Never mind that the law is couched in medical applications without any presentation of medical research or clinical trials. Never mind that there is already a process in place to legalize medicinal applications of marijuana IF it passes FDA... Nope. That doesn't matter. Because when somebody wants it, the rule of law becomes irrelevant.

Edited November 8, 2014 by anatess

[Guest Godless]

I don't know where you are getting your information but that is simply not true at all. The United States National Deficit has increased by leaps and bounds since around the year 2006. We are currently at 17.9 trillion dollars in debt. To put those number into perspective one trillion dollars in one hundred dollar bills tightly stacked is close to about 986 miles high. Please see: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Under the 1913 Federal Reserve Act it is impossible to pay off the United States National Deficit. Every time the Federal Reserve prints a dollar they charge the American people more than a dollar. It is impossible to pay off the National Deficit under this system. All that can be done under the current system is slow the debt build up.

My information came from the Congressional Budget Office website .

My post was in response to a remark about the budget deficit, which has gone down considerably over the last few years. Not to be confused with the national debt, which is still rising. So it's far from a total victory, but still something that could have made a great talking point for Democrats, who instead decided to run on a "not Obama" platform.

[Just_A_Guy]

But again, Godless, that's primarily a function of rising tax revenues affiliated with the economic recovery; and as even Democratic politicians and analysts are acknowledging--for whatever reason, rank-and-file Americans just aren't feeling the recovery.  Spending has only declined since 2011 (when the Republicans took the House).

[bytor2112]

People aren't feeling the recovery because wages are stagnant and the tax code is oppressive. Taxes are the same as they were under Clinton, yet, the cost of goods and services (inflation) is much, much higher. Americans have less purchasing power and unless/until the view from the elitist in DC begin to recognize that more take home money is actually a good thing, things will continue to be stinky regardless of who controls Congress or the Executive Branch. 

 

Obama and Gruber the architect should be marched off to the Federal Penitentiary. They are no different than Jeff Skilling from Enron. Time to hold elected officials to at least the same standard as we hold other Americans.