For those of you unfamiliar with Karn Dobner,who's son died in a car accident after ingesting an herbal blend and driving at 100mph, she's been aggressively campaigning to get HR1254 passed, which would outlaw many synthetic cannabinoids federally, as well as the many state bans, which are in effect, or under consideration. She's doing so because she would rather that, than to teach children around the country that many dangerous things are legal. She would rather give her and every mother's responsibilities as a mother to the state, than to exercise them.
UPDATE 4/4/12:Dobner has removed any intelligent arguments against bans, in an effort to censor intelligent debate that cannot win and now requires you to register/log in to comment. She has also turned on comment moderation. Continues to post news hyping dangers of "synthetic marijuana" while ignoring the fact that it's only dangerous because KAREN DOBNER does not want it to be regulated and the impurities that are harmful, removed and sold only to adults. Karen Dobner must not be able or willing to actually refute my points to any degree of competency, or she would not be glossing over them as though a ban will hinder flow of a substance, when history has proven that is naive at best. Her consistently malicious behavior against the youth and the public in pushing bans suggests that she wants more, impure, dangerous chemicals ON THE STREET, and this indicates to me that it is because she wants others to suffer for her mistakes and irresponsibility, because she doesn't have the courage to face them herself. Still, I encourage you all to comment on her blog http://tothemaximusblog.org/?p=582 and force her to read your comments and know that she is in the minority!
I encourage readers to comment on HER blog, not mine, telling her what she's doing is not helping:
Karen's argument is that if it were illegal, kids would not have thought it was safe, and not have tried it, and gotten bad reactions.
Well, Karen, whether you want to admit it or not, it is not the role of government to tell people what is and isn't safe, and prohibition has never been about safety. If you want a nanny state to tell your kids what's safe and what isn't then you may as well hand over your kids to the state, just as your handing them your responsibility to teach your child better than you did.
Anslinger said prohibition of cannabis was about this dangerous weed making "white women have sex with black men". It was about racism.
You aren't protecting children by instituting bans, you are ensuring that sale to minors will NEVER be prohibited, as police officers and high schools students will be dealing these substances to children- not herbal blends, but the actual chemicals themselves, and they will never have any assurance that they are not contaminated with deadly/dangerous impurities that you can't seem to understand are the obvious cause of these reactions you claim to be fighting to stop.
You aren't passing a law that protects children, you're passing one that lets government profit off of you lack of responsibility in making sure your son knew better than to think it was safe. If you or he though that illegal drugs are illegal because they are dangerous then you must not have listened to, or had real parents. If you thought the inverse was true; that legal drugs are safe, then you should have educated yourself. Prescription drugs kill thousands of people legally every year. You and your son had no excuse to think the government should protect you or has the authority to protect you from things you should know not to do, or to do only with serious caution and after educating yourself.
If your son thought that something made in China with a label that clearly reads "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" was safe because it was legal, then that's not the government's problem or duty as outlined in our founding documents, IT'S YOURS.
Hard as it is for you ti accepts, both your son's bad judgment, and your lack of educating him or yourself, is what allowed him to do what he did, and meet death in a fatal car accident.
Hard as it is to swallow, government's role is clearly outlined. They have no authority to ban substances, which is why they AMENDED the constitution to outlaw alcohol. There is no such amendment allowing bans on other substances.
Those of you reading, I encourage you to comment on Karen's blog just to let her know that she's got more opposition than she thinks.
Be kind, but especially if you're a parent, PLEASE weigh in on your position.http://tothemaximusblog.org/?p=582