Rep. Barney Frank Educates George Will and Paul Ryan on Marijuana Legalization

Emperor Septimius Severus said:
No....are you arguing that police organizations are less powerful on a political level than churches?
Click to expand...

Not at this time, no. However, the Roman Catholic Church owns property in almost every single town in the world, so they certainly make money. In my hometown of Chatham Mass, they own at least 3 properties that I know of.

As to their influence on political process however, I think an argument could be made that some churches exert undue influence through their parishioners.
 
Return of Dune said:
Not at this time, no. However, the Roman Catholic Church owns property in almost every single town in the world, so they certainly make money. In my hometown of Chatham Mass, they own at least 3 properties that I know of.

As to their influence on political process however, I think an argument could be made that some churches exert undue influence through their parishioners.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with that, but with the caveat that said influence is still of little consequence politically, at least when it comes to drugs.
 
Damocles said:
That isn't quite true. A portion of responsibility lies in understanding consequences. However, it is my position in a free society laws should be made only if there are direct victims.

In this case. I rob you, I should be sent to jail. I buy some smoke, light myself up, forget the football game and eat a bunch of Cheetos, not so much.
Click to expand...
I hear ya and in a better world maybe but reality and human nature being what it is....
 
The Dude said:
December 19th, 2011 By: Erik Altieri, NORML Communications Coordinator

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the primary sponsor of HR 2306: The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, appeared on ‘This Week with Christiane Amanpour’ on ABC with fellow guests George Will of the Washington Post and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).

The conversation found its way to marijuana legalization which led to Barney Frank calling out the hypocrisy of most of his conservative colleagues.

“It’s a great embarrassment to the conservatives,” said Frank, “They want to tell people who they can have sex with. Come on, all this is big government! Who can I have sex with? Who can I marry? What can I read? What can I smoke? You guys, on the whole — not all of you — but the conservatives are the ones who intrude on personal liberty there.”

The debate got heated between Frank and George Will. “I mean, personal liberty, if someone wants to smoke marijuana who’s an adult, why do you want to make them go to jail?” Frank questioned.

“I need to know more about whether it’s a gateway drug to other drugs, I need to know how you’re going to regulate it,” George Will replied.

“Anything is a gateway to anything,” Representative Frank shot back, “That’s the slippery slope argument which is a very anti-libertarian argument. The fact that if somebody is doing something that’s not in itself wrong, that it might lead later on to something else then stop the something else. Don’t lock them up for smoking marijuana.”

Will defended himself claiming, “What you’re calling a cop-out, I’m calling a quest for information.”

“How long’s it going to last, George?” Frank asked, “We’ve been doing this for decades.”

Watch the clip below:



You can read more coverage of this story here and here.

Tags: ABC, Barney Frank, debate, george will, legalization, media, News, paul ryan, tv


This entry was posted on Monday, December 19th, 2011 at 2:25 pm and is filed under Cannabis and Culture, News, Pot and Politicians. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a trackback from your own site.
Click to expand...

yeah barney
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well there we would have to agree to disagree and this position of yours is a reason why many people view libertarians as anarchist in drag.

I personally don't have a problem with public policy. The idea of the constitution is to place limits and contraints on the scope and reach of public policy. Not eliminate it all togther. As long as public policy focuses on the big rocks of government it usually works well to the peoples advantage. It's when public policy focuses of the little rocks, pebbles and sand that it becomes problematic.

I do really understand the position of libertarians. I just don't see it as realistic. Is there really a way that one can govern affectively outside of a utilitarian philosophy? Tyranny never succeeds in the long haul because, as we know, Governments can only govern with the consent of the governed. I've seen no other governing philosophy, outside of the utilitarian philosophy, that has ever really been proven to work.

That's a major problem Libertarians have beside their lack of leadership. They have not demonstrated that their philosophy can govern competently.
Click to expand...

the fatal flaw in your position is that governing through public policy, nobody really knows what the law is. it can change on a case to case basis simply because someone found a way around a restriction or performed some action that there doesn't happen to be a law that forbids it. It leaves people vulnerable to a tyrannical government. something i'm sure the founders did not write in to the constitution.

and you are wrong about the constitution. it isn't to place limits and constraints on the scope and reach of public policy. It was to provide the government a select set of powers and forbid them the rest.

tyranny never succeeds in the long haul.....can only govern with the consent of the governed? tell us mott, how does a government oppress an entire nation?

one group at a time. if you can't see that's whats been happening. there really is no hope for you.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the fatal flaw in your position is that governing through public policy, nobody really knows what the law is. it can change on a case to case basis simply because someone found a way around a restriction or performed some action that there doesn't happen to be a law that forbids it. It leaves people vulnerable to a tyrannical government. something i'm sure the founders did not write in to the constitution.

and you are wrong about the constitution. it isn't to place limits and constraints on the scope and reach of public policy. It was to provide the government a select set of powers and forbid them the rest.

tyranny never succeeds in the long haul.....can only govern with the consent of the governed? tell us mott, how does a government oppress an entire nation?

one group at a time. if you can't see that's whats been happening. there really is no hope for you.
Click to expand...

while i like some of the libertarian goals, i do not think libertarianism is viable
 
SmarterThanYou said:
other than mott just saying it's anarchic (it's not. how can the strict rule of law be anarchic?) please explain why Libertarianism is not viable
Click to expand...

because the u s of a is too large for a libertarian style society

that is why we have big government and seem unable to reduce it, more and more people want the feds to solve problems that could or should be solved on a local, but other problems like roads and bridges used by the entire nation, airlines, railroads or any other concerns that cross state lines

we are a very mobile society and when you take your kid(s) out of one school they should be up to speed in any other school (public) that they go to either locally, statewide or nationally
 
Don Quixote said:
because the u s of a is too large for a libertarian style society

that is why we have big government and seem unable to reduce it, more and more people want the feds to solve problems that could or should be solved on a local, but other problems like roads and bridges used by the entire nation, airlines, railroads or any other concerns that cross state lines

we are a very mobile society and when you take your kid(s) out of one school they should be up to speed in any other school (public) that they go to either locally, statewide or nationally
Click to expand...
and yet everything the feds touch, seems to get worse. definition of insanity, right?

your public education system example shows that to be true.
 
Don Quixote said:
while i like some of the libertarian goals, i do not think libertarianism is viable
Click to expand...
agreed. That's why I see it as a waste of time as a political party. I don't see as a waste of time as movement within a political coalition but again, I find Libertarianism is essentially not viable as it's a self fullfilling prophecy for incompetent governance.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
and yet everything the feds touch, seems to get worse. definition of insanity, right?

your public education system example shows that to be true.
Click to expand...
I think you've provided the perfect example of why Libertarianism is not viable and why when you scratch a libertarian you have an anarchist. How can one trust a group to competently run the central government when that group does not believe that such a role is a legitimate function of government? You base your entire argument on a false premise. That the central government makes worse anything it touches. That's just demonstrably false. Hell it's just plain silly. I can provide you a whole host of things the central government does quite well and does so better and more affectively then can be done by the private sector or local government....which is why we have a central/federal government.

You're argument is nothing but a self full filling prophecy for failed government.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think you've provided the perfect example of why Libertarianism is not viable and why when you scratch a libertarian you have an anarchist. How can one trust a group to competently run the central government when that group does not believe that such a role is a legitimate function of government? You base your entire argument on a false premise. That the central government makes worse anything it touches. That's just demonstrably false. Hell it's just plain silly. I can provide you a whole host of things the central government does quite well and does so better and more affectively then can be done by the private sector or local government....which is why we have a central/federal government.

You're argument is nothing but a self full filling prophecy for failed government.
Click to expand...
you've thrown out this theory before and it's sheer crap.

there are CERTAIN things the central government is supposed to do and regulate, that's it. no more. you've allowed the central government to become so bloated and full of bureaucracy, that there isn't anything it does well or more effectively than the private sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top