The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

March 24, 2009 Lynn B. DeSpain writes:

Legalize marijuana, and sell it under the same conditions as we do any alcohol.
The Government mkes exremem profits from the sales, new stores open up and employ, more taxes paid.
It becomes decriminalized, except where related to minors, and there profits from illicit saales are removed.
It sis not such a terrible thing that thousands should die over, and billions should be spent on war over,
Hozro

March 24, 2009 Natalie Georgia writes:

Weed is a mind altering drug. I have no desire to be out on the road with people who are driving around wasted. And please don’t argue that it will only be legal to smoke at home. When you get stoned you get hungry and you get “happy”. Both of those give you lots of reasons to leave the house. With your judgement impaired, you jump in the car and go. You can have a drink or two without having impaired judgement, but it only takes a couple of hits off a decent joint to be stoned, so don’t compare it to drinking. Besides the fact that pot is only one of the drugs causing so much financial trouble. What about the others? Would you legalize cocaine, heroin, speed?

March 24, 2009 Dave, AZ writes:

It’s not only drugs that are problems here in Arizona. Kidnappings and murders are escalating at an exponential rate. The local media hardy reports on the issue because they are pushing for amnesty for illegal immigrants. The southwest sector of the US will eventually explode if things continue to progress.

March 24, 2009 George, Austin writes:

All drugs, including cocaine, heroin, and amphetamines were legal for most of our country’s history without any significant problems or ill effects. Alcohol has caused considerably more problems.

As a conservative Christian, I believe the biblical edict to “be of sober mind and spirit.” But that is my personal choice that should not be forcibly imposed upon anyone in a land that touts itself as free.

The ability to exercise personal choices that don’t directly harm others is the difference between liberty and totalitarian police states!

March 24, 2009 Ben Franklin, Kendallville IN writes:

G. Gordon Liddy used to explain the difference between alcohol and drugs thus:

People can and regularly do drink alcohol without getting drunk. No one smokes pot without intending to get high.

Further, a person who is drunk is usually obviously so, especially to a trained observer. A person who is high is not so obvious.

Having said all that, however, I agree with George from Austin: at its heart, this is a question of personal liberty, conscience and responsibility. Why is it that I can’t go to a pharmacist and purchase anti-biotics when I think I need them? Why do I have to (by law) consult a licensed physician before buying any of a myriad of drug products? This is an informed choice that I ought to be able to make on my own, and the government should not be involved. If I, or the Pharmacist for that matter, mis-use this privelege, just like drunk driving, the penalties should be severe. However, I doubt that drunk driving laws really significantly reduce the incidence of that behavior.

We have the same set of social ills as were experienced during prohibition, and we know that prohibition did not stop people from drinking, any more than drug laws stop people from getting high.

However, what drug laws do produce is revenue for local law enforcement activities; and for pharmaceutical companies. Always follow the money.

March 31, 2009 Marshall Hill MI. writes:

We are too tolerant of Elected Officials sitting on their Hands and hiding from Reality!