SUBSCRIBE:

Michael linked to his source, Julie. There's no …

by
Posted on November 1 2014 9:17 am

Comment posted on Palin: It’s Perfectly Fine If You Want to Smoke Marijuana by DavidSwindle

Michael linked to his source, Julie. There's no attempt to deceive anyone. Michael's rightfully emphasizing that Palin isn't really concerned about marijuana use. Chill out.

DavidSwindle also commented

  • I'm not disputing that marijuana can be unhealthy. But no differently than alcohol, tobacco, and junk food — and you're not advocating a nanny state government step in with those are you? I'm disputing the Reefer Madness argument that it somehow destroys the country if it gets legalized.

    You're using the Left's braindead arguments about tobacco and applying them to marijuana as though they were legitimate to begin with. They aren't. If a business wants to allow its customers to smoke then it should be allowed to do so. It should be the same with marijuana. If marijuana is such a big deal at concerts then those that put them on would lose so much business that they'd enforce it more vigorously.

    What it boils down to is this: what is the purpose of government? Conservatives need to have a unified answer on this. Parents blowing smoke in their children's faces is not the business of government for a simple reason: government is incapable of doing anything about it without putting a camera and a cop in everyone's home. As conservatives we're supposed to understand this.

    The purpose of government is to guarantee freedom, not create a better world.

    I had a debate last year with Mary Grabar on this subject that you might want to refer to: http://frontpagemag.com/2009/12/24/the-marijuana-… http://frontpagemag.com/2009/12/29/the-marijuana-…

  • Because arguments are supposed to stand on their own regardless on who the person is making them. When someone is making arguments about Islam then it's irrelevant what their personal religious views are. If someone is making arguments about abortion then it's irrelevant if they've ever had an abortion.

    One's viewpoint is relevant, one's personal behavior is not. Do you know what an ad hominem argument is? It's when you shift the discussion from the arguments at hand to the person making them.

  • Well it's on the ballot in California this November. And it's probable going to pass.
  • That's an ad hominem argument.
  • Like what studies, David? You want to cite studies then cite them.

    Are you seriously trying to argue that a "contact high" is a plank in the reasoning to keep marijuana criminalized? SERIOUSLY?

Recent comments by DavidSwindle

powered by SEO Super Comments

83 Responses

Comments are closed.

Copyright 2014 NewsReal Blog

The Theme Foundry