RE: Steemit Libertarians, are you happy about Vermont legalizing marijuana?
@davidpakman, I think libertarians would be more happy if Vermont didn't regulate access to plant matter. In Britain people need a license to own, operate, and watch TV, that's a good example of stupid legislation. Just as it's stupid to regulate what plant products people choose to consume.
You also claimed that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK, before he realized they smoked pot. Do you have proof of your claim that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK or are you just making things up to smear him?
The facts alone, or his stance on the drug war alone is enough to make him look bad. No need to fabricate, or summon the whole racist viral mind meme. It's tired, and played out, and unless you can prove it, it just speaks volumes about your character and intentions.
Far too often, the mainstream media has used anonymous sources as a weapon in order to cast aspersions onto their political opponents. The trick isn't working anymore. They don't realize it, but the people using these techniques are steadily destroying their collective reputations, and credibility. Just look at the viewership of the Grammy's from last night as they quoted from that garbage book, written by Wolff.
Real people who know how to think, they're quite sick of the crap, and BS claims. They want substance, not non-sense, lies, rumors and innuendo. When I was watching your video I was like, wow I can finally agree with this guy on something, but then you polluted it with the Sessions claim.
Companies like CNN who have weaponized themselves for their masters fail to realize that it's a double-edged sword. They've destroyed themselves completely and don't even know it. Many other outlets are following suit. To be quite frank, it's a pleasure watching them destroy themselves.
Im not full out libertarian - but id support legalisation of all drugs for recreational use. Well, all which arent potent enough to be more likely used as a chemical weapon than for recreational purposes anyways. Heroin definatly, fentanyl is pushing it, carfentanyl (which is far more potent than fentanyl) definatly not.
I agree with you about fentanyl, and carfentanyl, as they can be a danger to non drug users by simply coming into contact with it. Heroin on the other hand, if they legalized that, then survival of the fittest would take hold. Instead of cops conducting no-knock raids and hurting innocent bystanders, or putting people in cages. Addicts could safely be addicts, wherever they choose. Insurance companies though, they ought to have the right to not cover health issues arising from the voluntary use of heroin, or whatever drug they list in their contract.
Yeah i think it would actualy reduce ODs as well. At least unintentional ODs, thats usualy related to usualy having an impure product and when you have a purer product using the same amount as before. As for coverage, i think it should be covered but this coverage financed by taxing it. To the degree it actualy leads to more costs. For instance, if it has some costs but like tobacco removes primarily the last few years of your life which would otherwise be quite expensive, both should be taken into account.
Yes you can argue that not all people would let it come to any healthproblems, but in the end i think that makes the most sense. After all, espacialy if you are still young, you being more productive might in the end bring more money back in than the therapy required for that to happen. I dont think other people should have to cover that though so taxing it for that purpose makes the most sense to me.