Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
What makes you think this? A great majority of California's voted to legalize pot for medicinal purposes, but the Feds are balking.
|
Remember how we Republicans joke around that we are not the party that reads daily polls to find out what positions we should take? Well, just on the off-chance that you or someone else here didn't get it, its supposed to pose a complete contrast between our solid law-abiding moral stance as a party and the shifty murky lie-when-you-can-get-away-with-it and there-is-no-such-thing-as-morality stance of the Clinton era.
In other words, Clinton did whatever the polls said to do, and that ain't us. See where I'm going now? If the polls told Clinton to eliminate the war on drugs entirely, he would at least have raised the idea. Instead, he didn't touch it with a ten foot stick. Nor has any other mainstream party leader.
Funny thing is here, I'm in favor of it, and only because I think we could do better by regulating it. But there is no way that doing drugs can be described as "moral"; so if its against the law to do drugs, I'm pretty content thinking that its moral to obey the law and not-moral not to. And Republicans, Democrats, martians or anybody else better think long-and-hard before giving a blanket pass to lawbreakers, particularly when the lawbreaking activity does not provide any documented positive effect to society. Sitting at the front of the bus this is not, and I'd hate to think that you or any other solid rightist would argue that merely-self-gratifying (but illegal) behavior should not be counted as a strike against a candidate for our nation's leadership.
Or do you (or anyone else here) see this as something other than merely-self-gratifying behavior? Do junkies provide some societal benefit of which I'm not aware?
Hello
