A yes vote on Prop 205 would have the effect of legalizing recreational
marijuana in the State of Arizona.
A 'No' vote on Prop 205 is so obvious I am amazed it is even on the ballot or that I would need to convince anyone to vote against 205. If you want to legalize marijuana, then there probably isn't anything I could say to convince you otherwise anyway.
This proposition is promoted by big businesses that stand to get rich
selling marijuana in many forms (smoking, food, ‘gummy bears’ that look like
candy, etc) at the expense of our health, safety and morals. No responsible parent wants marijuana to be
more readily available to kids which is what will happen if it is
legalized.
Will our neighborhoods be
safer? Of course not! Proponents argue drug cartels are going to
somehow disappear if we legalize marijuana.
The truth is the drug cartels can hardly wait to legalize
marijuana. They will openly sale
marijuana, the ‘gateway’ drug to other more harmful illegal drugs, to a growing
list of marijuana users making the demand for their underground operations for other drugs more lucrative and our
neighborhoods more dangerous. Also,
marijuana does in fact contribute to auto accidents on our roads. Therefore, more marijuana means more
accidents and more dangerous roads.
Recreational marijuana is a moral issue because it violates natural laws of good health, is pushed by conniving conspiring men to enslave people to addictive drugs and would harm our society in numerous ways especially the youth, our next generation.
Vote "NO" and let the State protect the morals of the people!
See the following discussion on protecting the morals of the people.
How can you claim to "Defend the Constitution" and then argue for something that is blatantly unconstitutional? Neither the state nor federal Constititions convey authority to any level of government to control what an individual puts into their own body. When prohibition began it was recognized that Washington had no authority to ban alcohol so they amended the Constitution to grant that authority. Predictably, it was such a disaster that not only did they put an end to the ban but the Constitution was amended again to remove the authority as well. No such authority has ever been granted for the so-called "war on drugs."
ReplyDeleteOur grandparents went to the local drug store for narcotics when they had a headache, drank sodas containing real cocaine, and the local "drug pusher" was Walgreens. Do you believe they were living immorally?
Good comment. I have been thinking a lot about your comment and think you are probably correct. I feel strongly that marijuana is a harmful substance, but why should I care what my neighbor does in his own house? I want to protect my kids from marijuana, but do I want an abusive state restricting my neighbor's right any more than I would want an abusive state from restricting my right to eat kale out of my own garden?
ReplyDeleteJust for argument sake, if you can accept that marijuana is harmful and that you are afraid the commercial companies will push marijuana as hard as they can because of the love of money, how do you protect the rights of the majority who believe marijuana use harms your neighbor in a variety of ways (assume for now it is a majority) without trampling on the rights of the minority who see no problem with marijuana being ubiquitous?
Maybe marijuana lovers and marijuana haters should both be voting 'NO' on Prop 205 for the same reason?
1. A 'YES' vote will clearly increase the size of government and gives more power to an already abusive government to have more control than ever before. They will have the right to inspect your marijuana operations, weigh every packet, invade for inspections, rob you of part of your profits, etc
2. It provides another source of income to feed an ever growing bureaucracy. It is wrong to grow government and give them the means to rob income to pay for it.
3. Voting yes may increase the power of drug lords.
For or against marijuana, you should probably vote NO on Prop 205?
Again, thank you for your comments.