boonecountygirl
Wiley Coyote
hal
Herman Cain
Mark Pellin
Pot Party
a.k.a. the NC Democrat Party, which was all toked up at its state convention this summer for urging legislators to legalize marijuana for medical use, according to this report from the N&O’s Under The Dome:
The state Democratic Party wants the legislature to legalize marijuana for medical use.
At its state convention this summer in Fayetteville, the delegates passed a resolution urging the legislature to legalize marijuana when prescribed by a physician as part of pain management, reports Rob Christensen.
Fourteen states have legalized the medical use of marijuana, but none of them are located in the more conservative South.
Legalizing marijuana has its merits, but does it really make sense in a state where you can’t even fire up a Cohiba in a bar without facing sanction.
Like this story? Contribute $1.00! Click to Support PunditHouse!
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=3121
I would like to be there for the debate about what defines ‘pain’ and ‘management’. That could be very interesting. “My girlfriend is a pain, I need some weed, doc”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Yeah, I’d much rather put cancer patients in prison than violent felons.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
We incarcerate violent felons in Mecklenburg County?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Mark, the REASON why we don’t incarcerate violent felons is because prisons are full of drug “offenders”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Sadly the smoking ban was a bi-partisan effort.
Plus one to the Dems though for seeking legalization…at least in a medical sense. Totally insane waste of money to fight a drug less dangerous than alcohol…
Of course “plus one” still puts them at like negative 87…
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
If a free citizen chooses to snort a spoon of dry cement, what principle of freedom entitles me to demand a law to stop it? I may advocate, I may organize, I may raise private funds for my “Just say no to dry cement!” campaign, but no law of God’s creation can justify me throwing you in jail when I discover signs of powdered cement on your nose! This is a fundamental concept that we conservatives must come to terms with. Until we do, our call for more liberty and less government will continue to have a morally hollow, politically motivated ring.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
One of the reasons, Charles, but far from the only one, to include historically disgraceful funding levels for the DA’s office that result in wholesale plea-bargains; a reluctance to build adequate jail space; and a backlog of illegal aliens that exacerbates overcrowding of existing space, to name a few.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
some good reasoned comments here.kim,astuely, has zeroed in on the important aspect of this issue.intrusion into ownership of oneself violates the very natural law of private property rights so vital for society.the call for “coming to terms”, echoes the rising tide of folks reexamining their personal commitment to freedom.for a revival and reformation to take place the hypocrisy of statist conservatism must yield to the morally superior liberty.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The ‘so-called’ owning of oneself, always leads to the debate of does the unborn baby own itself or does the expecting mother own it? The problem with the idea of “ownership of oneself” is that it is not part of the natural law of property rights, because we are all owned by the One who created us. He is the one who gives us our lives, our Governments and our freedom. The founding fathers realized this as is evident in many of their statements and in the following from The Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. ***Note Pursuit of Happiness, not guaranty of happiness.***
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Self-ownership is not inconsistent with natural law. Saying you own yourself and own your life simply means that no other human being has a higher claim on your life than you do. It does not preclude giving your life over to God, if that is your choice.
To be personally against using mind-altering drugs because you object to them morally or believe they’re an affront to God is one thing, and is consistent with self-ownership. To believe that the government (i.e., other people) should be able to tell people what they can and can’t put in their bodies because you don’t want anyone else to be able to ingest things of which you don’t approve is NOT consistent with self-ownership or natural law.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0