View Full Version : Legalized Marijuana
Montmorency
12-04-2012, 23:30
If alcohol were illegal, and you thought it should be made legal, wouldn't you want to make sure people were aware of its effect on driving, aware of fetal alcohol syndrome, aware of alcoholism and the downsides in general?
Sure. Perhaps mass-legalization could coincide with a steep rise in the severity of penalties for operating heavy machinery under the influence of any psychotropic. That would catch attention.
Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare, not a worship of abstract principles of justice.
It's counterproductive and a waste of resources. A different approach is needed, though certainly not a totally hands-off "libertarian utopia".
Strike For The South
12-04-2012, 23:31
But, but, people should be able to do what they want short of rape and murder
TYRRANY TYRRANY TYYRRRRRRANNNNNNY
Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare, not a worship of abstract principles of justice.
I am struggling to see how concern about the measurable local, state, and national expense (and tangible personal damage) created by incarcerating tens of thousands of non-violent drug users is "abstract." Feel free to explain. By way of comparison, jaywalking is illegal and dangerous. No argument from anyone about that. However, if we were to treat jaywalking as a serious crime, and fill our jails and prisons with jaywalkers, spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year feeding, clothing, guarding and medicating this class of criminals, would you find concern about this madness "worship of abstract principles of justice"? When something is clearly, obviously, broken, and somebody points this out, how on earth is it "abstract"?
Meanwhile, an interesting article (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/12/why-legalizing-pot-wont-curb-the-drug-war/265729/) that argues the Mexican Cartels won't feel the pinch of legalization until Southern states decriminalize.
[T]alk to entrepreneurs familiar with the existing marijuana industry in Washington and Colorado—and to law enforcement agents who deal with gang crime—and there is reason for skepticism. Not only have the cartels diversified their portfolios (to borrow language applied to other multinational, multibillion dollar operations); the Mexican suppliers have already been edged out of the local markets in the two new green states. [...]
The only way cartels will be seriously affected by the new pot laws, according to the Mexican Center for Competitiveness, is if Washington and Colorado's legal weed spreads to parts of the country more reliant on Mexican grass. These states include the more conservative ones that are unlikely to legalize marijuana anytime soon.
Major Robert Dump
12-06-2012, 00:51
Weed weed weed weed weed weed weed weed cant wait to smoke some weed weed weed weed and blow it in a fascists face
weed weed weed weed weed weed weed weed smoke your cigarettes and drink and drive and eat yourself into obesity meanwhile i will smoke some weed weed weed weed
weed weed weed weed weed weed oh i love me some weed weed and hate me some fascists weed weed weed
weed weed gonna make your daughter wet gonna make her giggle she gonna listen to pink floyd with me and then we do the nasty on some weed weed weed weed
weed weed gonna marry me some weed weed
Major Robert Dump
12-06-2012, 01:05
Exactly.
Look, Broseph. I don't care if you are older, or puritanical, or totally unhip, because I a friendly man k? You me friends, ya?
I just want you to know that, should you pass through my state, or when the momentum of the Weed Movement finally overtakes your state and I happen to be passing through to visit some of my bitches, that I will totally share my weed with you. It will be good times.
Look, Broseph. I don't care if you are older, or puritanical, or totally unhip, because I a friendly man k? You me friends, ya?
I just want you to know that, should you pass through my state, or when the momentum of the Weed Movement finally overtakes your state and I happen to be passing through to visit some of my bitches, that I will totally share my weed with you. It will be good times.
Appreciated.
Montmorency
12-06-2012, 01:45
I am struggling to see how concern about the measurable local, state, and national expense (and tangible personal damage) created by incarcerating tens of thousands of non-violent drug users is "abstract." Feel free to explain. By way of comparison, jaywalking is illegal and dangerous. No argument from anyone about that. However, if we were to treat jaywalking as a serious crime, and fill our jails and prisons with jaywalkers, spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year feeding, clothing, guarding and medicating this class of criminals, would you find concern about this madness "worship of abstract principles of justice"? When something is clearly, obviously, broken, and somebody points this out, how on earth is it "abstract"?
How long until the police state has images on file of all of us jaywalking, so that they have the casus tyrannus to sequester us away once they think we're out of step with their fascist ideologies!?!?!? :scared:
I would leverage it, at least. :wink:
Sasaki Kojiro
12-07-2012, 07:54
I am struggling to see how concern about the measurable local, state, and national expense (and tangible personal damage) created by incarcerating tens of thousands of non-violent drug users is "abstract."
Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare--for example, the people smoking while driving are also arrested, or the may crash and hurt themselves or others, or perhaps the smoke a lot as a young teen and become stupid. But some people focus entirely on libertarian types of arguments "nanny state authoritarians" etc--for them there are sacred principles involved that they care about more deeply than the actual welfare of the people. It shouldn't be "abstract" but for them it is, passionately so.
edit:
I found these two articles interesting
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/07/10/an-unhappy-ending-to-the-drug-war/
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1316
Montmorency
12-07-2012, 08:01
Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare
This is just as abstract, and just as much of a principle. :inquisitive:
Major Robert Dump
12-07-2012, 10:06
Yeah but I think you guys are forgetting about weed, and how awesome it is, and how high people are going to get, andhow much Top40 music will improve, and how The Cartels will have to diversify their portfolios and start invesing in Dollar General, and how good pot brownies taste, and how much more gooder movies will become with the legalization.
Montmorency
12-07-2012, 10:11
I heard cocaine is mad blessed.
It's maximum-best.
It has overtaken weed, at God's behest,
In the Wild-Mild West.
rory_20_uk
12-07-2012, 15:06
Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare--for example, the people smoking while driving are also arrested, or the may crash and hurt themselves or others, or perhaps the smoke a lot as a young teen and become stupid. But some people focus entirely on libertarian types of arguments "nanny state authoritarians" etc--for them there are sacred principles involved that they care about more deeply than the actual welfare of the people. It shouldn't be "abstract" but for them it is, passionately so.
In the UK, using a phone is illegal whilst driving as is driving without due care and attention - so it is already covered.
The age was 18+, so most teens smoking was as illegal as it is now.
Any others? Users will beel compelled to smoke crack after 6 months of week is another concern I imagine... ~;)
~:smoking:
The only plausible opposition can be that long term, problematic use will increase. If this doesn't happen then I can't see how the destructive effects of criminal sanctions can be justified.
HopAlongBunny
12-07-2012, 17:13
The good news is you have two test tubes. If they neither implode into navel gazing wastes of space, nor explode in orgies of excess:
http://youtu.be/y64T-kYQ2B8
But some people focus entirely on libertarian types of arguments "nanny state authoritarians" etc--for them there are sacred principles involved that they care about more deeply than the actual welfare of the people. It shouldn't be "abstract" but for them it is, passionately so.
I haven't been making any sort of "abstract" libertarian argument in these pages; quite the opposite. I've thrown down more hard numbers and legit links than anyone arguing in favor of continued prohibition. Hell, I even did my own debunking of my own sources, since prohibition proponents such as you and RVG can't be bothered, resting your arguments instead on the "stigma" concept.
Here are the criteria given for a Schedule 1 prohibited substance, per the Controlled Substances Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_I_controlled_substances):
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Marijuana fails on all three counts. In fact, you would have a hard time arguing that marijuana qualifies as a Schedule II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_II_controlled_substances) substance:
The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
The best case anyone could make, based on what we know about cannabis, would be that it might fall under Schedule IV or V (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act#Schedule_V_controlled_substances): "limited physical dependence or psychological dependence".
The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV
The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
Major Robert Dump
12-07-2012, 19:54
Legalizing marijuana would give a huge boost to the PC and console gaming industries. Jobs will be created.
Jobs will be created.
And lost.
From the Seattle PD's spokesman (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9728034/Washington-state-lights-up-as-smoking-marijuana-becomes-legal.html), who completely rocks: "The police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a Lord of the Rings marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to."
From the Seattle PD's spokesman (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9728034/Washington-state-lights-up-as-smoking-marijuana-becomes-legal.html), who completely rocks: "The police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a Lord of the Rings marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to."
"The Dude abides, take it inside". :laugh4:
Major Robert Dump
12-08-2012, 00:44
And lost.
Yes. Police jobs and drug agent jobs. What a terrible thing that these people will have to go find another career in which to oppress people in order to compensate for their power issues and penile lackage. I'm crying all over my keyboard. I think I need some weed to cheer me up
What about the industry "treating" people for the cannabis addiction the courts have told them that they have? Who is going to tell us about this dreadful scourge that will send us all crazy unless we get treatment now?
Won't somebody think of those poor Scientologists at Narconon?
You are going to hate what the, out of all, the liberals tried here. To acces the coffeeshops they wanted to have you registred, for 7 years the data would have been stored at the tax-agency. To their absolute amazement people won't do that as it can be harmfull professionally or when travelling abroad, so in the south where they allready implemented it they lost all control over the market and sreet-trade flourishes, there is no way the quid pro quo situation we had can be restored there anymore
This idiot http://www.google.nl/search?num=10&hl=nl&authuser=0&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&q=ivo+opstelten&oq=ivo+&gs_l=img.1.0.0l10.4024.5803.0.8542.4.4.0.0.0.0.141.484.0j4.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.RIK6UhExt4E&biw=1024&bih=644&sei=NurCUPnEC8Od0QXq_YGgAg
The situation in the Netherlands is very interesting. The situation was a finely balanced compromise with everyone choosing to let the the reality and the law diverge. And then they had, essentially, traffic problems with Germans coming over and buying weed, so embarked on a foolish and ill thought out "fix".
What they should have done is just built a car park in the first place.
Mostly French, and they aren't buying it at the counter, such quantities aren't for sale in coffeshops. It are just tourists who like a smoke and don't cause any trouble at all that go to the coffeeshops. In most towns the new 'rules' that idiot thought up are just ignored and all is just fine there, nobody really wants to enforce them because it's a bad idea. But in Maastricht and Tilburg where they actually did it it's completely out of control, the tourists who have other things in mind than a smoke and just want to eat at a nice restaurant are not comming there anymore. It's so incredibly stupid to destroy a perfectly fine situation.
HopAlongBunny
12-08-2012, 12:22
The US has always shown limited imagination politically; why would they surrender the only tool they understand: terror.
International and domestic politics hinges on violence; economic, physical and psychological. The war on drugs is best tool in the drawer for domestic terror; limits "rights", debate, even communication. There is no answer to: "Because it's right!" and no reply asked for or needed from the community of the converted.
You think somewhat unreasonably bad about your country. America has it's problems but it's hardly hell
Major Robert Dump
12-08-2012, 17:13
One of my dearest friends is an old captain who is an anti-marijuana fascist. By fascist I mean "wants life sentences" type.
Why is he like this? Well, becuase his brother ambushed a police officer in california and sits on death row. And was apparently "high on the pot" when it happened, an angle that was very strongly played in the old news stories I have read. I try to reason with him, to let him know that there was something else that pushed his brother over the edge, but he will have none of it. Love the guy, but he will not listen to reason. And even if it was the weeds fault, it would be a rather isloated incident.
Now, if only our resident marijuana fascists had stories as cool to defend their police state beliefs
He COULD be right, cannabis tends to emphasise psychosis if one is vulnerable for it. There are a lot studies that support that, smoking weed could have absolutily have lead him to doing that.
Major Robert Dump
12-08-2012, 20:28
I can think of a lot of other legal things that tend to expedite psychosis in people already dispositioned, so where is the outcry against the Oxygen Channel and the band Rush?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-09-2012, 01:46
It's true that in rare cases weed can cause anxiety our panic in those already prone to it (PTSD and borderline personalities for example). That is not the weed's fault though, and no serious studies suggest it can make you crazy crazy axe murderer.
Well, it's not the weed's fault any more than it's the tobacco's fault you get cancer - but I don't think anyone should be saying we should ignore the carcenogens.
Bottom line - people get freak-outs on weed, I have seen it happen personally, and not from sitting down and smoking it all evening.
That's not an argument for it being illegal - but the people who try to obscure the fact are not helping the debate.
There's always a down side. Those not busy being born are busy dieing.
It's true that in rare cases weed can cause anxiety our panic in those already prone to it (PTSD and borderline personalities for example). That is not the weed's fault though, and no serious studies suggest it can make you crazy crazy axe murderer.
True enough. Other drugs like cocaine are much more dangerous when it comes to that. But I will always resist those who assume it's perfectly harmless, it isn't harmless for everybody, but I admit it's really rare.
Oh i agree. All substances have a risk.
A very specific one here maybe, weed won't make you crazy, but it can work as an amplifier if you are already kinda off. Why he was kinda off already has nothing to do with smoking weed, but it certainly doesn't help to be doing it once you already have been broken it can absolutily tear you apart even more badly. The good parts like having better concentration, thinking things through better, aren't all that much fun if things aren't all that much fun.
a completely inoffensive name
12-09-2012, 11:40
Alcohol can work as an amplifier in certain individuals to piss on my lawn. This is a terrible tragedy. If only we had the cultural stigma to protect society from tearing itself apart.
There are now dead patches from the sheer volume of piss that these disturbingly accurate drunkards are able to expel.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-10-2012, 00:32
Oh i agree. All substances have a risk.
Yes, and hash has the risk of causing a psychotic break in certain individuals, or of causing permanent brain damage in teenagers - and don't tell me that's not true, because I lived with a former smoker. At one point I had to sit him down and gently explain that he hadn't been buying milk for two weeks, he'd been using the tiny Welsh girl's and she was too timid to tell him.
Papewaio
12-10-2012, 04:34
Alcohol can work as an amplifier in certain individuals to piss on my lawn. This is a terrible tragedy. If only we had the cultural stigma to protect society from tearing itself apart.
ACIN "Officer, our pet dog kept getting out so we put up an electric fence. I honestly did not think someone would pee on it."
ACIN's roommate "What dog?"
a completely inoffensive name
12-10-2012, 08:33
At one point I had to sit him down and gently explain that he hadn't been buying milk for two weeks, he'd been using the tiny Welsh girl's and she was too timid to tell him.
I had to read this 6 times to make sure I understood what was being said.
HopAlongBunny
12-10-2012, 09:04
I agree with legalization and most of the arguments in its favor. Pranks like this http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/us-usa-colorado-marijuana-idUSBRE8B901620121210 give ammunition to the opposition.
I mean, really; administering drugs to people without consent or knowledge!?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-10-2012, 09:26
Hate to break it to you, but that's not the weed. The dude was just a dick.
Hate to break it to you - but he wasn't, and that's just the most obvious example. Nor was he stupid.
rory_20_uk
12-10-2012, 10:26
Yes, and hash has the risk of causing a psychotic break in certain individuals, or of causing permanent brain damage in teenagers - and don't tell me that's not true, because I lived with a former smoker. At one point I had to sit him down and gently explain that he hadn't been buying milk for two weeks, he'd been using the tiny Welsh girl's and she was too timid to tell him.
And...? Or is the State there to ban everything that could be dangerous to us? Most scales of drugs that assess both the medical and social damage drugs do has little if any correlation between legality / class of drugs and damage.
Not to mention:
Asprin causes people to die from haemorrages in the brain and GI tract.
Paracetamol can cause people to die from liver failure
I've yet to hear anti-drugs campaigners try to argue the data and prefer to head off into case studies or, in the case of the UK government, sack the independant panel for being independant.
There are many other activities that certain persons will suffer because of, be that gambling, exercise or even (manipulated) images of models.
~:smoking:
UK to have a rethink on their policy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20648276)
I think there is an error in the article, I remember reading that drugs are actually fully legalised in Portugal.
UK to have a rethink on their policy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20648276)
We go through this sham every couple of years. Some people get given the job of looking at the current policies. They duly oblige and come back with the unsurprising conclusion that our current laws make no sense and cause more problems than they solve. Government then ignores the recommendations and a combination of tabloid opinion writers and vested interests launch a propaganda campaign to make sure the political agenda stays just were it is.
Rinse and repeat.
rory_20_uk
12-10-2012, 15:57
Already rejected by the PM (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20667139)
~:smoking:
A decent argument is made here (http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/the_war_on_drugs_is_a_war_on_human_nature/). Bonus points for historical perspective. Summation: "America's been fighting this battle for decades. It can't be won, and it's costing us upwards of $20 billion a year."
-edit-
Have to work, so can't watch this now, but here's a high-production-value documentary about the U.S.A.'s history in the War on Drugs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtNF-Le2L0
Major Robert Dump
12-11-2012, 00:47
Damn I am already 3 documentaries behind and still need to finish the Lincoln movie, looks like I need some WEED to get me through this
Damn I am already 3 documentaries behind and still need to finish the Lincoln movie, looks like I need some WEED to get me through this
Yeah but once you hit that blunt, you know you are going to be stuck on Big Bang Theory re-runs.
Major Robert Dump
12-11-2012, 16:43
Yeah but once you hit that blunt, you know you are going to be stuck on Big Bang Theory re-runs.
that show is more educational than a DEA pamphlet or anything discovered by congressional committee
Montmorency
12-11-2012, 20:01
Not a very good documentary. Not worth watching.
Not unless you have the sole desire to hear Morgan Freeman and other former world leaders speak.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-11-2012, 23:26
A decent argument is made here (http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/the_war_on_drugs_is_a_war_on_human_nature/). Bonus points for historical perspective. Summation: "America's been fighting this battle for decades. It can't be won, and it's costing us upwards of $20 billion a year."
I'm interested by this line of argument, define "won"?
Major Robert Dump
12-12-2012, 03:28
Well, I would think eradication of supply lines and a lowered demand would be one version of "won", neither of which apply to the war on drugs.
If we "won" is defined as incarcerating people for non violent and victimless crimes, and helping to push the us into a militarized police state, then yes, the drug war has been a resounding success
HopAlongBunny
12-12-2012, 06:07
Face it, any policy that continues for for half a century and shows no statistically significant results ought to be scrapped. If you had a city council that spent 50 years building a bridge, and the bridge was still not completed, you would be more than a little upset. In any other context voters would yell "Foul!" demand an audit and lynch the posse; for whatever reason this colossal failure gets a "pass".
Probably more apt to compare it to a road traffic reduction policy. If the state had been talking about reducing road traffic levels for 50 years by policy x, and levels had not only increased, but all sorts of negative unintended consequences had occurred... Who would rate policy x as a success.
Here comes the UK media backlash :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246977/Amsterdam-forced-ban-smoking-marijuana-schools-number-students-turning-stoned.html
Here comes the UK media backlash :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246977/Amsterdam-forced-ban-smoking-marijuana-schools-number-students-turning-stoned.html
Quoting from the article:
After several decades of the tolerance policy, Dutch marijuana usage rates are in the middle of international norms, higher than those in neighboring Germany, but lower than those in France, Britain or the United States.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
12-12-2012, 22:30
Well, I would think eradication of supply lines and a lowered demand would be one version of "won", neither of which apply to the war on drugs.
If we "won" is defined as incarcerating people for non violent and victimless crimes, and helping to push the us into a militarized police state, then yes, the drug war has been a resounding success
Well, drug-use is not victimless.
Let's stop thinking about this as a "war" and instead think about it as a judicial matter.
Unless you want to consider the War on Burglary.
Face it, any policy that continues for for half a century and shows no statistically significant results ought to be scrapped. If you had a city council that spent 50 years building a bridge, and the bridge was still not completed, you would be more than a little upset. In any other context voters would yell "Foul!" demand an audit and lynch the posse; for whatever reason this colossal failure gets a "pass".
Take a look at the history of Heroin use int eh UK - it spiked violently when it was legal.
Montmorency
12-12-2012, 22:50
Take a look at the history of Heroin use int eh UK - it spiked violently when it was legal.
When, the 1950s? I was under the impression that addiction was a minimal problem, experienced by a handful of middle-to-upper class individuals...
And isn't it still prescribed by your doctors?
HopAlongBunny
12-13-2012, 00:56
Here comes the UK media backlash :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2246977/Amsterdam-forced-ban-smoking-marijuana-schools-number-students-turning-stoned.html
Obviously the authors didn't attend my Junior High under the policy of "Just say no!" Gee, students showing up stoned to class; at least the ones in the article went off school property to smoke :p
Major Robert Dump
12-13-2012, 02:17
Well, drug-use is not victimless.
Let's stop thinking about this as a "war" and instead think about it as a judicial matter.
Unless you want to consider the War on Burglary.
Take a look at the history of Heroin use int eh UK - it spiked violently when it was legal.
No, its not all victimless. However, marijuana is by far more victimless than something like crack, which takes us back to the Scheduling of the drugs. The primary victims of marijuana usage are the familes that lose a pareent or child because the cops come in and sieze all the assets in the house and any "drug money."
I just saw a story today of a guy caught in OKC with weed. He had an ounce and was considered a dealer, even though drugs like anything else are cheaper in bulk. Furthermore, he was a lawyer, and I find it hard to believe an attorney needed to sell weed to make ends meet. Next, he was charged with owning a gun while committing a felony, and the only reason it was a felony was because they tacked "intent to distribute" on to the possession charge. And finally, my favorite, was a charge for "using a communication device while in commission of a felony" which basically means the dude used his cell phone while in possession of weed, even though the call was not made in reference to a drug deal, even the police admit this. How can anyone, even the likes of you, say that the above charges are anything remotely reasonable or fair?
We don't call it a war on burglary. We dont send billions of dollars to south american countries to turn them into police states for a War on Burglary. We don't have ad campaigns about Just Say No to Burgalry, we don't tie highway and educational funds to wehtehr or not a state commits to the War on Burglary and last BUT NOT LEAST private prisons do not spend millions lobbying federal and state lawmakers to keep mandatory sentences for The War on Burglary, probably because the sentences are generally stiff enough as it is. The fact that someone has to PAY people in government to NOT say "hmm maybe this sentence is too harsh" is a pretty good indication that something is rotten in stink town.
I just saw a story today of a guy caught in OKC with weed. He had an ounce and was considered a dealer, even though drugs like anything else are cheaper in bulk. Furthermore, he was a lawyer, and I find it hard to believe an attorney needed to sell weed to make ends meet. Next, he was charged with owning a gun while committing a felony, and the only reason it was a felony was because they tacked "intent to distribute" on to the possession charge. And finally, my favorite, was a charge for "using a communication device while in commission of a felony" which basically means the dude used his cell phone while in possession of weed, even though the call was not made in reference to a drug deal, even the police admit this. How can anyone, even the likes of you, say that the above charges are anything remotely reasonable or fair?
You're right, this is a travesty. Punishments for possession of weed need to be toned down by an order of magnitude. That however does not imply that weed needs to be legalized. Let's make it a civil infraction, I'm down with that. Go to court, pay your $200 ticket and smoke away.
Major Robert Dump
12-13-2012, 02:38
A civil offense and a fine is loads better than criminalzing it. It would also mean drug tasks forces would be scaled back as the jack booted thugs will no longer invade your house solely over a civil offense. And this way, there would be tangible money made (fines) without having to figure in all the ridonkulous costs of enforcing.
However, as soon as people begin to see the money aspect of the issue, its gonna be gangbusters going legal.
Let see, we as a state can either spend loads of money enforcing and incarcerating people, in exchange for some highway funds that have all sorts of criteria and red tape attached to them, or we can legalize and tax and spend our money how we see fit while also working to disempower the drug cartels. Yay I think I will pick option 2.
The issue of marijuana will soon go the same direction as gay marriage opposition. George Will summed it up a few days ago when he said the opposition to gay marriage was, quite literally, dying.
Well, drug-use is not victimless.
Let's stop thinking about this as a "war" and instead think about it as a judicial matter.
Unless you want to consider the War on Burglary.
Take a look at the history of Heroin use int eh UK - it spiked violently when it was legal.
Everything is interconnected. All action or activity can be shown to have knock on effects. The problem with recreational drug is that the worst knock on effects are directly related to prohibition.
As for increased use. The figures from societies who have removed criminal penalties have shown that long term problematic use decreases. The total number of people trying recreational drugs increases., but most try it, and don't particularly want to do it again.
Everything is interconnected. All action or activity can be shown to have knock on effects. The problem with recreational drug is that the worst knock on effects are directly related to prohibition.
As for increased use. The figures from societies who have removed criminal penalties have shown that long term problematic use decreases. The total number of people trying recreational drugs increases., but most try it, and don't particularly want to do it again.
That is certainly true here, we have the lowest use in Europe for at least cannabis. There are hardly any excesses with cocaine or xtc, both of which small quantities will not get you into any trouble (they will take it from you but there won't be any charges) and heroin is virtually absent I wouldn't even know where to get it if I wanted to. Meth or Croc are non-existant.
Kralizec
12-13-2012, 12:12
Heroin use is less common than other use of other drugs, but I wouldn't say virtually absent. Why else would we bother with methadon distribution to heroin addicts. A common expression here is (a quantity of) "brown", i.e. heroin, as opposed to "white", i.e. cocaine.
It has gotten less and less popular though, AFAIK the people who are addicted to it tend to be fairly old.
Heroin use is less common than other use of other drugs, but I wouldn't say virtually absent. Why else would we bother with methadon distribution to heroin addicts. A common expression here is (a quantity of) "brown", i.e. heroin, as opposed to "white", i.e. cocaine.
It has gotten less and less popular though, AFAIK the people who are addicted to it tend to be fairly old.
Absent relatively, it is not really a problem to speak off. Methadon keeps the few who do it from causing any trouble but it's not that unfair to call it at least almost extinct.
The situation with heroin is much more pressing. We need to supply addicts with a decent, regular fix. Unregulated heroin leads to increasing numbers of users, as addicts persuade others to use in order to "go halves". Also they sometimes pay for their own use through dealing. It also creates epidemic levels of burglary. They trialled such a programme of Heroin provision in Plymouth. The burglary rate practically evaporated within a few weeks.
The other thing the study showed was that addicts could stabilise their lives, start work /education and generally sort themselves out.
Prohibition has been disastrous in this regard.
Obviously legal heroin wouldn't mean general sale. It would be prescribed and monitored. Methodone is pointless. Addicts generally don't like it and still top up with illicit heroin.
The situation with heroin is much more pressing. We need to supply addicts with a decent, regular fix. Unregulated heroin leads to increasing numbers of users, as addicts persuade others to use in order to "go halves". Also they sometimes pay for their own use through dealing. It also creates epidemic levels of burglary. They trialled such a programme of Heroin provision in Plymouth. The burglary rate practically evaporated within a few weeks.
The other thing the study showed was that addicts could stabilise their lives, start work /education and generally sort themselves out.
Prohibition has been disastrous in this regard.
Obviously legal heroin wouldn't mean general sale. It would be prescribed and monitored. Methodone is pointless. Addicts generally don't like it and still top up with illicit heroin.
It's no problem anymore. The few who got addicted to it probably can never be really helped, so in most city's here we just give them enough to make it through the day, much cheaper. Methadon can help though if they really want to quit. A girlfriend of mine it worked wonders for she is completely clean now. If she will remain clean remains to be seen but so far so good. Call it shady or just being pragmatic, it works
In the UK in the 60s we had a similar situation. A small and dwindling number of Heroin addicts who got the drug prescribed. Burglary and mugging were rare. Now doctors cannot prescribe it and the illegal market booms, attracting users and dealers. Burglary and mugging are common in large cities.
In the UK in the 60s we had a similar situation. A small and dwindling number of Heroin addicts who got the drug prescribed. Burglary and mugging were rare. Now doctors cannot prescribe it and the illegal market booms, attracting users and dealers. Burglary and mugging are common in large cities.
Flexibility and pragmatism are a better trait than conviction and opinion imho. The latter screwed up it seems.
Kralizec
12-13-2012, 14:21
Obviously legal heroin wouldn't mean general sale. It would be prescribed and monitored. Methodone is pointless. Addicts generally don't like it and still top up with illicit heroin.
AFAIK methadon prevents withdrawal symptons, but is considered to be less pleasant than heroine. That's why it was considered a suitable surrogate for people who genuinely regret that they're addicted.* If the person involved is just looking for a regular influx of chemically induced euphoria then it's indeed pointless.
*the idea was originally that it could be used to cure addicts by gradually diminishing the dosage, but according to someone I know who worked professionally with drug addicts that usually doesn't work out.
AFAIK methadon prevents withdrawal symptons, but is considered to be less pleasant than heroine. That's why it was considered a suitable surrogate for people who genuinely regret that they're addicted.* If the person involved is just looking for a regular influx of chemically induced euphoria then it's indeed pointless.
*the idea was originally that it could be used to cure addicts by gradually diminishing the dosage, but according to someone I know who worked professionally with drug addicts that usually doesn't work out.
As the physical addiction in only half the problem. It's basicly borderline on substances.
A large number of addicts in this country came through the "care" system or have backgrounds that feature abuse. Taking away feelings feels great to them. Most people don't realise that most heroin users believe themselves to have happy lives.
A large number of addicts in this country came through the "care" system or have backgrounds that feature abuse. Taking away feelings feels great to them. Most people don't realise that most heroin users believe themselves to have happy lives.
Don't mind me saying but the UK is a really depressing place to be, it aren't just the drug users that suffer from it's sadness.
Greyblades
12-13-2012, 17:22
Yup, we've fallen a long way since ye good olde days.
Don't mind me saying but the UK is a really depressing place to be, it aren't just the drug users that suffer from it's sadness.
Thatcher cut the country's heart out. There are whole towns in the north that had their economies removed and replaced with smack.
She gave the country to the banks and squeezed the bottom to pay off the middle. Even now, middle class English, like pvc and insaneapache blame everything on the poorest.
Greyblades
12-13-2012, 17:43
It is the practice of those at the top to set the lower levels against each other to keep attention away from themselves.
Major Robert Dump
12-13-2012, 20:43
A life sentence???????????? for cooking hash???????? you could be a meth cooking rapist and get less time than that?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/26/oklahoma-lawmakers-approve-life-sentence-for-cooking-hashish/
It's Oklahoma, the reddest of all red states.
Kralizec
12-13-2012, 22:37
A life sentence???????????? for cooking hash???????? you could be a meth cooking rapist and get less time than that?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/26/oklahoma-lawmakers-approve-life-sentence-for-cooking-hashish/
Well that's a bummer. If you're unfortunate enough to end up in trial for this in your state, be sure to let us know. I remember that as a child I saw cartoons where they'd bust out an inmate by delivering a file (as in, the tool) hidden in a cake, we could try that. Want any sort of cake in particular?
In all seriousness, that's messed up: 1) upping sentences to ridiculous proportions does not work as a deterrence and 2) even if disregarding the former, this is insanely harsh
That this law passed through the Oklahoma legislature by such a large margin makes it even more disturbing.
Wtf? Why? Such a random thing to give that penalty to.
Major Robert Dump
12-14-2012, 02:14
It's Oklahoma, the reddest of all red states.
This is not a red-blue issue.
I disagree. When it comes to the over-the-top punitive creativity red states take the cake. "2yrs to life" is so deliciously devious.
Crazed Rabbit
12-14-2012, 06:43
A life sentence???????????? for cooking hash???????? you could be a meth cooking rapist and get less time than that?
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/26/oklahoma-lawmakers-approve-life-sentence-for-cooking-hashish/
Good God in heaven.
The bill was requested by the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, which said the state has seen few cases of hash manufacturing in Oklahoma.
OBNDD spokesman Mark Woodward said the goal of the bill is to "send a message" that illegal drugs won't be tolerated in Oklahoma.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=336&articleid=20110420_336_0_OKLAHO247887
Words fail me in describing that insane mentality.
CR
This pisses me off. They mangle the laws and interfere with the basis of liberty and justice to "send a message". Why not leave the law alone and send out some pamphlets?
An interesting response from the POTUS:
“We’ve got bigger fish to fry,” Obama said of marijuana smokers in Colorado and Washington, the two states where recreational use is now legal.
“It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it’s legal,” he said.
Under Obama, the Drug Enforcement Administration has aggressively gone after medical marijuana dispensaries in California, where they are legal. In September, federal officials raided several Los Angeles shops and sent warnings to many more.
“This is a tough problem, because Congress has not yet changed the law,” Obama told Walters of the legalization in Colorado and Washington. “I head up the executive branch; we’re supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we’re going to need to have is a conversation about, how do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it’s legal?”
Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech Wednesday that he would announce a policy on the new state laws “relatively soon.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/14/obama-ive-got-bigger-fish-to-fry-than-pot-smokers/?hpid=z2
Thats lovely, so in MA where anything under an ounce is like getting a parking ticket am i still good Mr President? Im getting older now but I still enjoy a toke on the peace pipe now and again, dont worry ms Odin wont let me drive or do anything silly but if its a nice spring evening Id like to be able to smoke on my porch unmolested by zealous police. I understand Im a threat, sitting there smoking some weed in my own home. Meantime johnny down on his luck, missed his afternoon pill so better hurry over to the local mall as hes likely to shoot the place up.
I bet it all got started for him with marijuana too, the dead will take solace. Leave citizens alone who arent hurting and have no record of hurting others. Liberty is far more important then ideological foolishnes derived from cultural expirences 50 years past.
Sounds vaguely promising...
Meh, he made exactly the same noises about the CA legal medical dispensaries, before launching a massive crackdown.
I don't trust our President on this issue, strictly based on past performance.
Is it down to him? Don't the DEA just do what they believe they have been tasked with according to federal law?
Crazed Rabbit
12-15-2012, 19:07
Well, I think he can fire and appoint a new head of the DEA at will, so it should be straightforward to get them to do whatever he wants - like not focusing on legal pot in WA and CO.
Lemur's right though - Obama lied through his teeth about medical pot in the past, so no reason to be hopeful yet.
CR
Prison for thee, not for me (http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id/34289/pn/all/p/0/?KSID=c803b0aff1a73e6564906b6e21f0e531&ints_viewed=1)
[Assistant Attorney General Lanny] Breuer this week signed off on a settlement deal with the British banking giant HSBC that is the ultimate insult to every ordinary person who's ever had his life altered by a narcotics charge. Despite the fact that HSBC admitted to laundering billions of dollars for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels (among others) and violating a host of important banking laws (from the Bank Secrecy Act to the Trading With the Enemy Act), Breuer and his Justice Department elected not to pursue criminal prosecutions of the bank, opting instead for a "record" financial settlement of $1.9 billion, which as one analyst noted is about five weeks of income for the bank.
The banks' laundering transactions were so brazen that the NSA probably could have spotted them from space. Breuer admitted that drug dealers would sometimes come to HSBC's Mexican branches and "deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account, using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows."
This bears repeating: in order to more efficiently move as much illegal money as possible into the "legitimate" banking institution HSBC, drug dealers specifically designed boxes to fit through the bank's teller windows. Tony Montana's henchmen marching dufflebags of cash into the fictional "American City Bank" in Miami was actually more subtle than what the cartels were doing when they washed their cash through one of Britain's most storied financial institutions.
Though this was not stated explicitly, the government's rationale in not pursuing criminal prosecutions against the bank was apparently rooted in concerns that putting executives from a "systemically important institution" in jail for drug laundering would threaten the stability of the financial system. The New York Times put it this way:
Federal and state authorities have chosen not to indict HSBC, the London-based bank, on charges of vast and prolonged money laundering, for fear that criminal prosecution would topple the bank and, in the process, endanger the financial system.
rory_20_uk
12-18-2012, 16:20
And of course, we don't lock up persons who are well placed to show their thanks later on when one is looking for plum jobs in retirement; also, if we start locking up powerful people for flagrantly abusing the law - where might it end???
~:smoking:
I thought HSBC was HongKong based (as it is called Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation and has its Headquarters there) and used to be British before the exchange. British in the past-tense, like BP.
I thought HSBC was HongKong based
Then they need to edit their Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC) post-haste: "HSBC Holdings plc (commonly known as HSBC) is a British multinational banking and financial services company headquartered in London, United Kingdom."
Not that it really matters to a multi-national like that. Their nationality is nominal. (Yes! Managed to fit an interest-rate pun in there! Gregoshi would be so proud of me!)
In the war on drugs it's far more effective to arrest millions of the grubby people on the street who take drugs rather than the small number of multimillionaire who profit at the top of the industry.
Prison for thee, not for me (http://m.rollingstone.com/entry/view/id/34289/pn/all/p/0/?KSID=c803b0aff1a73e6564906b6e21f0e531&ints_viewed=1)
I liked the Post's phrase, Too Big To Jail (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/too-big-to-jail-critics-question-why-big-banks-execs-dont-face-money-laundering-charges/2012/12/18/b6e86ff6-48e6-11e2-8af9-9b50cb4605a7_story.html).
As long as we're looking at rank hypocrisy and profiteering from the War on Drugs:
It's only a dangerous, Schedule I narcotic until we can patent and sell it (http://www.anh-usa.org/readers-corner-its-a-drug-when-big-pharma-wants-it-to-be-a-drug/)
Xyrem is actually not a patent medicine (“drug”). It is entirely identical to the natural substance gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB). In the US, it was once used as a sedative. In Europe, it is still used safely as a sedative during childbirth. In the US, by contrast, it was categorized as a Schedule I controlled substance (like heroin) by act of Congress in 2000, principally on the grounds that it had been used for date rape. Alcohol, also associated with date rape, was not included in the same act.
As a controlled substance, GHB cannot be compounded by a compounding pharmacy. It can, however, be sold as Xyrem (http://www.xyrem.com/). Because it is federally approved, it is able to be manufactured by only one company, is sold retail by only one pharmacy, costs (as of 2011) $1,750 per prescription—and is covered by insurance.
As long as we're looking at rank hypocrisy and profiteering from the War on Drugs:
It's only a dangerous, Schedule I narcotic until we can patent and sell it (http://www.anh-usa.org/readers-corner-its-a-drug-when-big-pharma-wants-it-to-be-a-drug/)
Xyrem is actually not a patent medicine (“drug”). It is entirely identical to the natural substance gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB). In the US, it was once used as a sedative. In Europe, it is still used safely as a sedative during childbirth. In the US, by contrast, it was categorized as a Schedule I controlled substance (like heroin) by act of Congress in 2000, principally on the grounds that it had been used for date rape. Alcohol, also associated with date rape, was not included in the same act.
As a controlled substance, GHB cannot be compounded by a compounding pharmacy. It can, however, be sold as Xyrem (http://www.xyrem.com/). Because it is federally approved, it is able to be manufactured by only one company, is sold retail by only one pharmacy, costs (as of 2011) $1,750 per prescription—and is covered by insurance.
Prohibition is a great business opportunity. From big pharma to big prison.
rory_20_uk
12-20-2012, 10:13
Big Pharma and phrohibition? I'm confused.
Whoops - I see. The American system is a complete mess.
With de novo products there is the valid argument that if you're going to sink over £1 Billion into a drug you'd like to get a return on the investment, but handing out monopolies like we are in the 16th Century is oh so funny in the "Land of the Free"
~:smoking:
HopAlongBunny
12-20-2012, 10:19
The granting of monopolies and rule of law that differentiates on basis of class. Hurrah! We have come full circle :)
I also enjoy the narrative surrounding issues in the West. Bank bail-outs and the War on Drugs are not class warfare; though the cost/benefits of such policies certainly penalize certain social classes over others. Raising taxes to deal with needed revenue short falls is class warfare. I am amazed how media chooses to frame these issues exactly as fed from various interest groups.
Major Robert Dump
12-20-2012, 18:44
Right wing, crusty old pundits are already pointing out a pedestrian killing by a driver that was high on marijuana in washington.... oh no that never happened with alcohol or texting!!!
Oh, and the guy was jaywalking and all witnesses said it was the pedestrians fault, as well as the cops saying it wasn't his fault.... but because the driver said he was stoned his normal non-liability now makes him liable, and he will be charged, oh the horror
Right wing, crusty old pundits are already pointing out a pedestrian killing by a driver that was high on marijuana in washington.... oh no that never happened with alcohol or texting!!!
Oh, and the guy was jaywalking and all witnesses said it was the pedestrians fault, as well as the cops saying it wasn't his fault.... but because the driver said he was stoned his normal non-liability now makes him liable, and he will be charged, oh the horror
Are you happy with the nightmare future you've decided on Washington?!
Major Robert Dump
12-20-2012, 21:14
It is the end of the world. And now students will smoke before going to school, so now the 10th graders who read at a 4th grade level will now be reading at a 3rd grade level!11 The horror!!
HopAlongBunny
12-21-2012, 17:25
Oakland sez: "Hands off our pot!"
Taking the feds to court.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-lawsuit-marijuana-idUSBRE8BK05V20121221
It is the end of the world. And now students will smoke before going to school, so now the 10th graders who read at a 4th grade level will now be reading at a 3rd grade level!11 The horror!!
And people who used to be bring shame on their families by wasting their lives getting high and watching TV, will now bring slightly less shame on their families. Congratulations America. You just ruined the future.
Major Robert Dump
12-21-2012, 23:45
People who smoke marijuana tend to be really good at video games. If the military/police were smart, they would allow their drone and autogun pilots to smoke weed
Tellos Athenaios
12-22-2012, 17:10
People who smoke marijuana tend to be really good at video games. If the military/police were smart, they would allow their drone and autogun pilots to smoke weed
The military does not exist to be smart. It exists to keep a lot of young men with too much time on their hands and little responsibility off the streets and make them perform all sorts of silly rituals. Like extra exercises, silly walks, and wearing funny clothes. Being smart would be counter to all this, so no weed for you, sir. ~;)
Seriously though: the more you learn about armies the more they seem to be some parallel universe wherein normal laws do not apply...
Montmorency
12-22-2012, 18:54
The military does not exist to be smart. It exists to keep a lot of young men with too much time on their hands and little responsibility off the streets and make them perform all sorts of silly rituals. Like extra exercises, silly walks, and wearing funny clothes. Being smart would be counter to all this, so no weed for you, sir. ~;)
Seriously though: the more you learn about armies the more they seem to be some parallel universe wherein normal laws do not apply...
Why was he himself there? “Orders, of course. We’re professional soldiers. We don’t give a damn what we fight for! It’s our job. We’ve nothing else in life. No families, no ideals, no loves
Induce them to find something in "the Fatherland" to fight for, and it's a Hitlerian wet-dream!
It is always being drummed into the legionnaire that he is intended for nothing else in this world except for marching. If the pangs of hunger are gnawing at his stomach or thirst parches his tongue, that is so much the worse for him, but it is no reason for his not marching on! He may be tired, dead tired, completely exhausted—but he must not stop marching. If his feet are bleeding and the soles burn like fire, that is very sad—but the marching pace must not be slackened. The sun may burn till his senses are all awhirl, he must go on.
Martial stalwartry always gets me giddy.
Bumped because I just watched this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125653/
Looks interesting, I'll pick it up if I see it laying around
It's on the BBC iplayer. But I don't know if you foreigners can get that.
Sadly not, odd as BBC does broadcast here
Strike For The South
02-05-2013, 02:36
1. I would have sex with that woman
2. The only time I smoked the synthetic stuff, I ended up putting a whole bunch of apples in a baking dish and screaming "COBBLER COBBLER COBBLER" at my then G/F
College bro
Hope something comes of this (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/dems_move_to_change_federal_pot_laws/):
An effort is building in Congress to change U.S. marijuana laws, including moves to legalize the industrial production of hemp and establish a hefty federal pot tax.
While passage this year could be a longshot, lawmakers from both parties have been quietly working on several bills, the first of which Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jared Polis of Colorado plan to introduce Tuesday, Blumenauer told The Associated Press.
Polis’ measure would regulate marijuana the way the federal government handles alcohol: In states that legalize pot, growers would have to obtain a federal permit. Oversight of marijuana would be removed from the Drug Enforcement Administration and given to the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, and it would remain illegal to bring marijuana from a state where it’s legal to one where it isn’t.
The bill is based on a legalization measure previously pushed by former Reps. Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Ron Paul of Texas.
Fisherking
02-05-2013, 18:33
They should just get out of the issue and leave it to the states. It was never something that required Federal involvement in the first place.
I see it as just another tax and a money grab.
You can not smoke industrial hemp. It needs no regulation, other than checking to see if it is a THC producing verity of the plant.
Tellos Athenaios
02-05-2013, 23:21
the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms
So there's hope after all, then. One day, we'll have an impossible to pronounce acronym containing pretty much all letters of the alphabet which expands to something something "-inator". And it'll be introduced with a lovable jingle.
Why do you Americans insist on calling it marijuana? It's Mexican slang. Call it cannabis.
the newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and FirearmsSo there's hope after all, then. One day, we'll have an impossible to pronounce acronym containing pretty much all letters of the alphabet which expands to something something "-inator". And it'll be introduced with a lovable jingle.
So, basically, the Bureau of Fun. I assume Explosives is still in the name as well?
Adding pot to the ATF's realm of responsibility would be a cruel joke, they can barely cope with what they have on their plate now. They are already despised by most, adding "harshing people's buzzes" to their purview might get them to 100%.
HopAlongBunny
02-06-2013, 03:11
So, basically, the Bureau of Fun. I assume Explosives is still in the name as well?.
Will that include "stress positions" and...and pictures!? :clown:
The ATF gets a bad rap.
THey have also been messed-with by Congress to such a degree that it's almost impossible for them to fulfill their job description. Whether it's not allowing them to have a chief for years and years, or passing laws that forbid them to do their job, there's really no way in which Congress hasn't given a great big "up yours" to the ATF. Free example (http://www.thecrimereport.org/news/crime-and-justice-news/wi-gun-store-case-illustrates-loopholes-that-hobble-atf):
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel says the case of a Wisconsin gun shop that continues to operate despite having its licence revoked illustrates how Congress has hobbled the ATF's enforcement of gun laws. Shawano Gun and Loan, which opened in 1998, had its license revoked in 2007 after repeated ATF warnings about missing records and other violations. Yet three years later, the case is tied up in federal court, where an appeal could go on for years. And the store continues to sell guns - thousands of them each year - with the ATF's blessing.
The case shows how laws enacted by Congress hobble the ATF and protect dealers who repeatedly break the law. The ATF doesn't crack down on dealers because there are so many loopholes in the law protecting them, agency veterans say. The case involving the Shawano store is notable because of what experts call blatant evidence of "straw buying," where people with clean records purchase guns for felons and others who are forbidden from buying and owning them. Straw buying is a crime, both for the buyer and for the clerk who knowingly makes the sale. It is a federal felony but remains a misdemeanor in Wisconsin after the Legislature failed to pass a law making it a felony this year.
In my mind, the ATF is the wrong place for this, and really needs to be renamed anyway. When they got moved from Treasury to Justice, they lost most of their responsibilities for booze and tobacco to the TTB. I think all they do now is hunt moonshiners, which should have been moved over to the TTB as well. Put pot under the TTB, and make the "ATF" responsible for firearms and explosives only. And confirm a director for a change!
Fisherking
02-06-2013, 20:34
They brought a great deal upon themselves. Their conduct during the 1980 resulted in congressional hearing and they were pretty much damned. Add to that their role in Ruby Ridge and the Waco Siege resulted in a big lack of trust of the agency. They have not done too well in the 21st century either.
They have seemingly lost dozens of firearms and hundreds of computers. There was the gun walking scandal , fast and furious, and what comes next. If they put these guys in charge of pot the whole years crop may go missing.
Well then, the logical response is to either abolish the agency, or rebuild it. The current Republican policy of crippling it bit-by-bit, denying it a director for years, and underfunding it massively, doesn't appear to address any problem anywhere. I don't see how a zombie agency is better than either no agency or a fixed agency.
Fisherking
02-06-2013, 22:28
And how is it a Republican policy?
It is part of DOJ. The executive branch names a prospective head, does it not?
Then it is up to the Senate to give its advice and consent in naming the head, right?
I thought that the Democrats controlled the upper house of Congress…
You know some things actually cross party lines.
But of course you are right. They should fix it or get rid of it, but that is also an executive decision, isn’t it?
And how is it a Republican policy?
Oh, I dunno, that's just a baseless assertion, I guess. Oh, wait, it isn't (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/06/nation/la-na-atf-director-20110907). There's a persistent pattern of crippling, blocking, and generally making the ATF into the toothless eunuch of the executive branch (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us/legislative-handcuffs-limit-atfs-ability-to-fight-gun-crime.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).
You also may want to familiarize yourself with the Tihart Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Tiahrt#Tiahrt_Amendment). Just, you know, for giggles.
It is part of DOJ. The executive branch names a prospective head, does it not?
ATF was separated from the DOJ eight years ago. Also, the President cannot name a single acting head without 60+ votes in the Senate, as you doubtless know.
I thought that the Democrats controlled the upper house of Congress…
Google "filibuster" and have your head explode.
ATF was separated from the DOJ eight years ago. Also, the President cannot name a single acting head without 60+ votes in the Senate, as you doubtless know.
Actually, the ATF was separated from the Treasury Dept in 2002(?), and moved to DoJ. In 2006, confirmation for the director spot became a requirement. This was the real neutering, as the GOP and any NRA-bought Dems could and have stopped confirmation hearings for any potential appointees. And I think you mean permanent head, acting directors is all the ATF has had since the confirmation requirement was levied.
Adding more responsibility to the ATF at this point is foolish, pot enforcement would lead to epic comedic episodes (where comedy = tragedy + time). Send all remaining booze & baccy tasks (plus pot) to the TTB and rename the Bureau the BFE, which describes the political location of it's leaders quite well. ~D
Thanks for the corrections, drone, they are much appreciated.
Fisherking
02-07-2013, 08:23
The article also go a fact or two wrong. It was the President who moved the agency from Treasury to the DOJ after 9-11. Congress had nothing to do with it. The reason for Congress putting the director on the conformation list was because under the previous administration it had been used more as a political tool than as an enforcement agency.
I don’t know how you feel about that but I find it a good idea to limit the use of any agency to push the agenda of any political party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/04/legalize-it-poll-shows/
High points:
A majority of Americans now say marijuana should be made legal, with far fewer viewing it as a gateway to harder drugs or as morally wrong, according to a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center.
By 52 to 45 percent more say marijuana should be made legal than not, with support for legalization jumping seven points in two years and 20 points since the 2002 General Social Survey. Last November, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found the public split 48 to 50 percent on whether to legalize small amounts of marijuana for personal use. And 51 percent of registered voters supported legalization in a December Quinnipiac University poll.
The rapid change matches an increase in usage – in the new poll, nearly half of Americans report trying marijuana at some point in their lifetime (48 percent), up eight points since 2010 and also a record high.
The overall shift in support is driven by younger Americans who overwhelmingly support legalization, with nearly two-thirds of people born since 1980 (between ages 18 and 32) saying marijuana should be legal (65 percent). Baby Boomers and Generation Xers have become far more supportive than in the early 1990s, with at least half of each now supporting legalization.
Far fewer people see marijuana leading to harder drugs today (38 percent) than in the 1970s (60 percent), and only one in three say smoking marijuana is morally wrong (32 percent), down 18 points from 2006.
The day is coming. And on that day, I will smoke so much goddamn weed my head will explode. :smoking:
Major Robert Dump
04-05-2013, 04:36
WEED A HAIKU
Gonna Smoke Some Weed
Weed, Weed, Weed, Weed, Weed, Weed, Yeah
Weed Weed Weed Sweet Weed
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/04/legalize-it-poll-shows/
High points:
The day is coming. And on that day, I will smoke so much goddamn weed my head will explode. :smoking:
Am I the only one that noticed that this was post 420? :pimp:
It's already fully legal in my house. Well out the back door anyhow.
Seamus Fermanagh
04-07-2013, 02:48
[URL]High points: The day is coming. And on that day, I will smoke so much goddamn weed my head will explode. :smoking:
"High" points....and post #420 no less...what a coincidence....
Sleepers... http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-impact-cartels-dispatch-agents-deep-inside-us
Sure, deprive them of 6 billion a state, they will go down without a fight for sure
ajaxfetish
04-13-2013, 20:02
Sleepers... http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-impact-cartels-dispatch-agents-deep-inside-us
Sure, deprive them of 6 billion a state, they will go down without a fight for sure
Didn't see anything in the article about $6 billion. Assuming the figure is correct, how much of that is weed, compared to the cocaine and heroin also mentioned?
Ajax
Didn't see anything in the article about $6 billion. Assuming the figure is correct, how much of that is weed, compared to the cocaine and heroin also mentioned?
Ajax
Isn't in the article, sorry. It is estimated that cartels will lose 6 billion per state on just cannabis
Major Robert Dump
04-15-2013, 05:43
I just wanted to point out to everyone who has to take urinalysis that in approximately 3 weeks I will not be subject to such and will henceforth do the pot
Tellos Athenaios
04-15-2013, 06:55
I just wanted to point out to everyone who has to take urinalysis that in approximately 3 weeks I will not be subject to such and will henceforth do the pot
Related: the USA is weird.
LittleGrizzly
04-20-2013, 19:52
Well that was some interesting googling/wiki'ing...
The complete and utter failure of the drug war in a single graph. If the hundreds of billions we throw at this problem annually cannot keep the street price/purity down, then our position is unsupportable.
https://i.imgur.com/L46iDgm.jpg
Free coke/heroin for everyone!
Free coke/heroin for everyone!
Would solve more problems than it causes probably.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-30-2013, 16:45
Free coke/heroin for everyone!
Patently silly. Nothing is free. The only question is who pays and how.
I've agreed with the point made so well above by the Lemur for some time now. Our war on drugs is a King Canute effort.
You want to stop drug use/marijuana use? Teach people why it isn't a good idea and let them choose not to do so. If they choose to do so, there will be a market. Where there is a market, a provider will arise.
Only the most draconian efforts can curtail this kind of market -- summary execution of users caught for example -- and even then it cannot eradicate it. The police measures needed to curtail drug use in the USA would make the Patriot Act provisions look like the soul of rights-protection.
If the war on drugs was draconian but effective then we would be arguing over liberty versus safety. However it's draconian, ineffective and counterproductive.
If the war on drugs was draconian but effective then we would be arguing over liberty versus safety. However it's draconian, ineffective and counterproductive.
Full legalisation and taking over the production is also draconian, ineffectice and counterproductive as well. Why does there have to be a point in it being legal that always confuses me, there are so many dumb laws that are just ignored, so why not just ignore the law when it suits you. You won't get rid of the criminal networks behind it but at least you can have a nice smoke in your garden
LittleGrizzly
05-30-2013, 20:41
Full legalisation and taking over the production is also draconian, ineffectice and counterproductive as well.
....................................................
If the idea is to save money then drugs legalisation would be extremely effective...
It wouldn't just stop us wasting money but make us quite a bit of money in taxation as well. I wonder how much we make off alcohol and tobacco.
Full legalisation and taking over the production is also draconian, ineffectice and counterproductive as well. Why does there have to be a point in it being legal that always confuses me, there are so many dumb laws that are just ignored, so why not just ignore the law when it suits you. You won't get rid of the criminal networks behind it but at least you can have a nice smoke in your garden
Because the rest of the world isn't populated by you crazy dutchmen :laugh4: The rest of us prefer to just change the law.
The Lurker Below
05-30-2013, 22:04
If I'm reading that graph correctly coke and heroin are nearly the same price at 100,000. I see that the product is scaled. I have some very large scales here. How much product can one get for that amount?
Only the most draconian efforts can curtail this kind of market -- summary execution of users caught for example -- and even then it cannot eradicate it. The police measures needed to curtail drug use in the USA would make the Patriot Act provisions look like the soul of rights-protection.
The television rights to this summary execution thing could generate quite a bit of revenue.
I'm happy with the zero tolerance, summary execution for anyone with drugs in their system. My only requirement is that the families of politicians, judges, police and journalists are tested first.
LittleGrizzly
05-30-2013, 22:41
I'm happy with the zero tolerance, summary execution for anyone with drugs in their system. My only requirement is that the families of politicians, judges, police and journalists are tested first.
Sign me up for that one!
Empire*Of*Media
05-30-2013, 22:46
does consuming normaly Marjuana inflict bad things to human ?!!
i dont know mmuch about marijuana !!
LittleGrizzly
05-30-2013, 23:16
does consuming normaly Marjuana inflict bad things to human ?!!
i dont know mmuch about marijuana !!
.............................................
On a scale of caffeine, cigarettes and alcohol...
Caffeine
Marijuana
Cigarettes
Alcohol...
Although if you are eating the stuff rather than smoking it...
Marijuana
Caffeine
Cigarettes
Alcohol
Actually cigarettes and alcohol are probably the other way around if we are just talking about their effect on the person taking them... if you manage to avoid poisoning yourself with alcohol it is just everyone else who has to put up with your idiotic behaviour.
Eh? Cigarettes kill ten times as many people as alcohol.
Personally I don't think you can measure relative drug harms on a 2D axis.
LittleGrizzly
05-30-2013, 23:35
Eh? Cigarettes kill ten times as many people as alcohol.
.....................................................
That is why I had my little disclaimer at the bottom...
If we are just talking effect on the user then Alcohol isn't nearly as bad as cigarettes but if we are talking about the user affecting other people than aside from a bad smell it is unlikely a smoker will affect you negatively*
*If you were to spend a lifetime performing in smoking clubs though then you would have to reverse it again but I can't imagine there are many people at all especially in our rich western democracies who are going to die of inhaling the cigarette smoke of other people only...
Heroin doesn't do much damage to the human body either, apart from the physical addiction and the much lower LD50. The main problems with heroin addiction is the crap the dealers cut it with, and the crimes involved in paying for the next fix.
My drug is booze, I don't touch the illegal stuff, but anyone can see the sheer wastefulness of the war on drugs.
Papewaio
05-31-2013, 01:00
LG I think you need to review your data.
A very strong link between smoking and SIDS. It is not like the babies are lighting up. So it's pretty clear passive smoking is the culprit.
Longer term repercussions include asthma, hay fever and other immune response misfires.
LittleGrizzly
05-31-2013, 01:22
Always happy to be corrected.
We talking about pregnant women who smoke here then?
Just a quick read of wiki seems to make reference to babies in a passive smoking environment...
Admittedly babies didn't even cross my mind when I made the post so mea culpa.
Papewaio
05-31-2013, 01:33
http://m.dailytelegraph.com.au/time-to-pack-in-the-cigs-as-smoking-gun-found-in-sids-research/story-e6freuy9-1226341476821
"Of the 67 babies who died of SIDS in the research group, 81 per cent were exposed to cigarette smoke.
International studies have shown the babies of mothers who smoke during pregnancy have a five-fold increase in the risk of SIDS, while babies born into a home where there is a smoker have a three-fold risk."
LittleGrizzly
05-31-2013, 01:50
I think I suffer the opposite problem too overly concerned parents and politicians where I never think of the children...
Papewaio
05-31-2013, 01:53
SIDS is just a very obvious case of second hand smoke as he babies aren't smoking.
Second hand smoke also affects older children and adults. Except it isn't as obvious until one delves into all the data.
LittleGrizzly
05-31-2013, 02:06
I would have thought the effects would be fairly negligible when it comes to adults (at least in countries with smoking bans) outside of some unfortunate and extreme circumstances.
If I'm reading that graph correctly coke and heroin are nearly the same price at 100,000. I see that the product is scaled. I have some very large scales here. How much product can one get for that amount?
Yeah, obviously we're missing some data there. The only labeled axis is for prison population.
There's a lot more information here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/29/the-most-embarrassing-graph-in-american-drug-policy/).
When it comes to drugs, it’s all about prices.
The ability to raise prices is– at least is perceived to be–a critical function of drug control policy. Higher prices discourage young people from using. Higher prices encourage adult users to consume less, to quit sooner, or to seek treatment. (Though higher prices can bring short-term problems, too, as drug users turn to crime to finance their increasingly unaffordable habit.)
An enormous law enforcement effort seeks to raise prices at every point in the supply chain from farmers to end-users: Eradicating coca crops in source countries, hindering access to chemicals required for drug production, interdicting smuggling routes internationally and within our borders, street-level police actions against local dealers.
That’s why this may be the most embarrassing graph in the history of drug control policy. (I’m grateful to Peter Reuter, Jonathan Caulkins, and Sarah Chandler for their willingness to share this figure from their work.) Law enforcement strategies have utterly failed to even maintain street prices of the key illicit substances. Street drug prices in the below figure fell by roughly a factor of five between 1980 and 2008. Meanwhile the number of drug offenders locked up in our jails and prisons went from fewer than 42,000 in 1980 to a peak of 562,000 in 2007.
Because the rest of the world isn't populated by you crazy dutchmen :laugh4: The rest of us prefer to just change the law.
You are already ignoring laws, by law an officer still needs to carry a sword in trial I believe. Can change it but you can also just ignore it. You can just choose to not prosecute people who smoke some pot. It works great here with our coffeeshops, people can smoke there or at home without having to worry, and people who aren't into it don't even notice it exists. There is some etiquette, it's not ok to light one up if you are sitting on a terrace or other public places, parks are fine. You won't be into any trouble if the police sees you smoking anywhere but it's a bit of an unspoken deal to be discrete
I am quite happy for you Dutch to keep your strange legal bodge. For my country I would like to see a properly worked out solution.
I am quite happy for you Dutch to keep your strange legal bodge. For my country I would like to see a properly worked out solution.
I don't find it all that strange, really strange would be enforcing all laws as there are some really silly ones that make no sense nowadays whatsoever. It's just pragmatic to ignore some laws, shaking things up too much will probably do more harm than good. I tend to think that this whole legalisation-thing is more about recognition rather than liberty, but I don't need that all that much recognisition from people I wouldn't even drink a beer with. Easiest option is best.
ICantSpellDawg
05-31-2013, 12:23
The complete and utter failure of the drug war in a single graph. If the hundreds of billions we throw at this problem annually cannot keep the street price/purity down, then our position is unsupportable.
https://i.imgur.com/L46iDgm.jpg
I don't see any sources for this graph. I like it and want to use it; if you would be so kind.
I don't see any sources for this graph. I like it and want to use it; if you would be so kind.
Ah, you were deceived by the page break; I posted the source (with a reference to the PDF of the original research) here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?142816-Legalized-Marijuana&p=2053530302&viewfull=1#post2053530302).
HopAlongBunny
06-01-2013, 15:29
It looks like the "push" is on from Big Marijuana:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/05/jamen_shively_and_the_starbucks_of_pot_obama_should_let_big_business_marijuana.html
It's the American way alas. I would prefer a not-for-profit co-op style model.
HopAlongBunny
06-02-2013, 05:02
I just wonder if the model will follow beer/wine or whiskey.
Beer/wine are regulated/controlled but you can make your own as long as it is not for sale; whiskey etc. is "don't you dare!"
So will "freedom break out all over!":jumping: or will the state impose its iron-fist:soapbox:
Not that strange that you are not allowed to brew strong alcoholic drinks, in the east of Europe they make their own wodka a lot, you can make it out of anything, and it causes a lot of deaths because it can be poisenous. Beer and wine will just taste bad if you don't know what you are doing, but it won't kill you
a completely inoffensive name
06-04-2013, 21:48
Not that strange that you are not allowed to brew strong alcoholic drinks, in the east of Europe they make their own wodka a lot, you can make it out of anything, and it causes a lot of deaths because it can be poisenous. Beer and wine will just taste bad if you don't know what you are doing, but it won't kill you
Or even worse, if there is dangerous amounts of methanol, it won't kill you but you will go blind.
Seamus Fermanagh
06-04-2013, 22:09
It's the American way alas. I would prefer a not-for-profit co-op style model.
Don't worry too much. Starbucks will go the co-op route when they add it in. Big Corps are not the only American way.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.