View Full Version : Legalized Marijuana
Ok, it's finally happened (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/11/07/big-night-for-gay-marriage-and-marijuana-legalization/). Washington and Colorado have both legalized the possession, production, and sale of marijuana for recreational use. The drug remains illegal on a Federal level. Will the Fed actually try and enforce that law without the cooperation of state authorities? With no border controls at all between states, how can the Fed possibly hope to contain legal marijuana production in two states from spilling over into the rest of the country, particularly the west? Is this the beginning of the end of the Federal ban?
Kadagar_AV
11-07-2012, 14:32
This is a good day for successful people who wants to chill back once in a while.
For people not having much human interaction it's a rather black day IMHO.
I have seen my brother go down because of marijuana (and WoW). I have also seen plenty of people who appreciate the drug as a recreational thing without any ill effects.
Social isolation is the problem, not the drugs.
This is a bad day for the Mexican Cartels, who are estimated to lose up to $1.2 billion in revenues if even a single state legalizes mary jane. Weep for the hardworking cartel, my friends.
Vladimir
11-07-2012, 15:37
I imagine federal fines will be a new source of revenue.
Do we really need drunk AND high people driving about?
This is a bad day for the Mexican Cartels, who are estimated to lose up to $1.2 billion in revenues if even a single state legalizes mary jane. Weep for the hardworking cartel, my friends.
That is what worries me, been arguing that since forever. They won't like it and they are beyond cruel. What do people expect.
Ironside
11-07-2012, 17:25
That is what worries me, been arguing that since forever. They won't like it and they are beyond cruel. What do people expect.
Do they have enough influence in those state to something serious about it without losing most of their firepower though?
rory_20_uk
11-07-2012, 17:43
Do we really need drunk AND high people driving about?
Strawman, but I'm sure we'll hear a lot more theoretical problems emerging.
Assuming these states don't implode with Domino's vans whizzing street to street with and almost universal unemployment it will provide a good case study for the rest of us.
~:smoking:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-07-2012, 17:58
I imagine federal fines will be a new source of revenue.
Do we really need drunk AND high people driving about?
Yeah, and I've met quite a few people who think marijuana doesn't impair driving.
I'm hopeful about the cartel's losing money, but we'll have to see how it turns out.
I'm hopeful about the cartel's losing money, but we'll have to see how it turns out.
I got my numbers off; in fact I was lowballing the predicted impact on the cartels. Details (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/11/legalising-marijuana):
What would happen if Colorado, Oregon or Washington were to vote for such a “market alternative” on Tuesday? None of those states is a very big drug market in itself. But if it were legal to grow pot in, say, Washington, it’s not hard to imagine that a certain amount of it would illegally leak out into neighbouring states. Would Mexico’s bandits find themselves undercut by “El Cártel de Seattle”?
IMCO reckons they could be. [...] Mexico’s traffickers would lose about $1.4 billion of their $2 billion revenues from marijuana. The effect on some groups would be severe: the Sinaloa “cartel” would lose up to half its total income, IMCO reckons. Exports of other drugs, from cocaine to methamphetamine, would become less competitive, as the traffickers’ fixed costs (from torturing rivals to bribing American and Mexican border officials) would remain unchanged, even as marijuana revenues fell.
Legalisation could, in short, deal a blow to Mexico’s traffickers of a magnitude that no current policy has got close to achieving. The stoned and sober alike should bear that in mind when they cast their votes on Tuesday.
Do they have enough influence in those state to something serious about it without losing most of their firepower though?
What do you do about it, I think it's a mistake but we will see. Drugs is currency nothing more, and destroying it might just be not the brightest idea ever. Or just might be really stupid because it will not just be accepted and you won't have the means to do anything about the violence that's comming towards you.
Crazed Rabbit
11-07-2012, 18:13
Of note for the WA law is that you still can't legally grow your own; you have to buy it from a state store.
CR
I wonder if Government run vending machines would 'buy' confiscated weed from other states to sell in the said machines.
A few musings....
I don't like marijuana. I don't like getting high. Tried it a few times back in college and I decided I'd rather keep my wits about me.
Having said that, I'm fine with legalization with one caveat- I don't want to be breathing the stuff. If you want to live in a cloud of it, that's your business- but what about people who don't want to? What if you live in a duplex and your neighbors are (now legal) hardcore stoners. What's my recourse to their smoke infiltrating my living space? Do the laws that were just passed address any of this?
Of note for the WA law is that you still can't legally grow your own; you have to buy it from a state store.
So if the feds do crack down, they will be raiding state property? That ought to lead to some amusing incidents. Does the law specify where the state gets the product from?
The sports radio guys this morning were talking about the new-found advantage the Denver Nuggets now have on signing free agents. ~D
So if the feds do crack down, they will be raiding state property? That ought to lead to some amusing incidents. Does the law specify where the state gets the product from?
The sports radio guys this morning were talking about the new-found advantage the Denver Nuggets now have on signing free agents. ~DOr they'd just take it to the federal courts and the law gets overturned by the commerce clause.
Or they'd just take it to the federal courts and the law gets overturned by the commerce clause.
Yeah, this is really more of the kind of discussion I'm interested in. There are going to be massive problems for Federal drug policy as a result of this. I don't really see any options other than the Fed cracking down on Washington and Colorado and finding a way to force them to reverse the laws, or abandoning drug enforcement as far as marijuana goes. The question seems to be what the Obama administration will do about it. While Obama is clearly liberal, his administration hasn't exactly been lax on enforcement over the last four years.
Fisherking
11-07-2012, 18:50
Before you get too hyped up I am sure they will have to stand some kind of court challenges.
Disappointingly neither seemed to have legalized commercial hemp, that I could find in the text.
I hope that comes next, as it is only banned due to its resemblance to MJ.
I-502 WA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502
http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502%20bookmarked.pdf
Amendment 64 CO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64_%282012%29
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/s/regulate-marijuana-alcohol-act-2012
Forgot the obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwARpaKHx_w
Fisherking
11-07-2012, 21:41
When the song was over this was then next choice for a Rocky Mountain High.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=szBafBoN2nY
Which I figure two jerks did post joint.
Strike For The South
11-07-2012, 23:17
I agree with Fragony
In the long run this will work,but in the short run you're going to see burned out dispensaries and dismembred small buinsess owners (Those poor job creators)
Provided it picks up steam and by that I mean California. I don't care what these fly over country hippies do
HopAlongBunny
11-07-2012, 23:42
It will be interesting to see the Federal gov't aligned with the drug cartels in stamping out this initiative.
That might make the relationship too transparent for some...
ICantSpellDawg
11-08-2012, 01:19
Republicans should jump on this issue, pronto. Make it an issue of local governance and Federal overstep into the lives of Americans. We should creep towards this. Let the Democrats pander to the dying old people on the issue, the G.O.P. needs to start branching out and this is one way to do it. I think that a focus on the disproportionate impact on Americans along with individual sovereignty concerns will we easily adopted over a short period of time.
Republicans should jump on this issue, pronto. Make it an issue of local governance and Federal overstep into the lives of Americans. We should creep towards this. Let the Democrats pander to the dying old people on the issue, the G.O.P. needs to start branching out and this is one way to do it. I think that a focus on the disproportionate impact on Americans along with individual sovereignty concerns will we easily adopted over a short period of time.
I think you're spot on. Shockingly, a medical marijuana provision in Arkansas only failed by 52% to 48% (http://www.katv.com/story/20025438/medical-marijuana-fails-in-arkansas). If a state that voted over 60% for Romney is borderline on medical marijuana, it's an issue that's ripe for the Republicans to pick up and run with.
ICantSpellDawg
11-08-2012, 02:33
Exactly. Personally, I am hard-core pro-life (willing to strategically compromise, but with an intense agenda), but almost everything else is negotiable. I favor a traditionally strong and active military, tax reform (maybe higher capital gains rates coupled with drastically reduced corporate taxes - all corporate loopholes closed), nearly unlimited gun rights, legalize most drugs, abolish government sham marriage to strengthen it at home, and I'm ok with more aspects of the affordable care act than you might expect because 80% of the ideas were some that I championed in Romney's state based (and actualized) plan, but I am obsessively interested in private insurance/consumer related cost solutions. I want equal funding for education based on the student and a highly regulated voucher system utilizing public, charter, private, religious schools. Let schools rely on private grants for the extras.
The beautiful thing about the G.O.P. is that it was formed as a radically progressive party and today it represents a tested conservative agenda. It is a suit filled with the talent of the time. Fill it, they are in need of good ideas right now and the country is in need of a viable alternative.
HopAlongBunny
11-08-2012, 13:37
How are you going to compensate your private prisons for loss of a reliable revenue stream?
How are you going to compensate your private prisons for loss of a reliable revenue stream?
We can rent them out to China. Outsourcing can benefit us as well!
Seamus Fermanagh
11-08-2012, 14:10
We agree on more things than we disagree. I think the biggest (perhaps the only...) difference between you and I is the notion of a 'strong and active military.' Unfortunately, that's a big one. Strong and active militaries cost a lot of money that could be better spent on things that help people.
As with our healthcare system and our retiree living stipend system, our military is bitwixt and between. While for the former two examples, some argument can be made for not fully embracing one organizing philosophy over another, it doesn't make sense on the military.
If you want an active military that kick ass whenever we get annoyed with some party then you have to staff it and fund it to suit. If not, then staffing it and funding it to do that on the cheap with overlong deployments and never quite enough resources to squelch any trouble is NOT the way to go.
I imagine federal fines will be a new source of revenue.
Do we really need drunk AND high people driving about?
<facepalm>
The whole point is that people smoke weed regardless of the law. Responsible people will not drive when impaired and reckless people will continue to do so. Legalisation won't make much long term difference to usage, just a difference to law enforcement costs and the destructive effects a criminal penalty can have on people's lives.
Tellos Athenaios
11-08-2012, 23:53
We can rent them out to China. Outsourcing can benefit us as well!
Yeah. Plus I think with all your highly trained medical staff you can probably cut an organ transplant deal as well... And you could sell empty territory to China to expand into. Would also solve the Puerto Rico problem, and help the balance sheet.
a completely inoffensive name
11-09-2012, 01:55
The War on Drugs is now going have its guns pointed at citizens "who matter" (aka, boring, middle class, probably white, business people). It will be interesting how the public reacts.
The Lurker Below
11-09-2012, 16:48
there's a business opportunity in this. are any of you chemist enough to remove the odor from weed? or make it's smell mirror tobacco?
And remove one of its best features? That's like removing the aroma of wine.
Fisherking
11-11-2012, 18:57
So what is the latest on this? Colorado’s law was to take effect as soon as the election result was certified.
Anyone know any thing about long lines at Home Depot in Denver, with a run on grow lights and potting soil?
Or is every third guy still on his way back from Oregon with a sack of seeds?
You jest, but it will be interesting to review the impact on consumption. If consumption doesn't rise significantly in the medium-long term (as suggested by all other studies) then what is the point of the prohibitionist approach?
Fisherking
11-12-2012, 07:51
If its legal, who needs grow lights and potting soil? Farm that shiznit! Pot plants can grow as big and thick as trees if you let em.
Read the law.
Each individual is allowed 6 plants. Only three mature plants and they can not be grown where they could be seen. If a home owner can’t grow them on the lawn where do you think he is going to grow them.
The farming operation is different.
Populus Romanus
11-12-2012, 08:46
awaiting The Stoners' tThread.
Its pretty stupid to legalize an easy growable "drug".
In Europe you can see the price going downwards or at least dont get up on a moderate scale.
Also, if you consider that tons of heavy drugs a completely legal in most countries, I fail to understand the hype of marihuana anyway.
The only country which almost closed the door is USA, you poor guys cant even enjoy some San Pedro or something similar :D
Major Robert Dump
11-13-2012, 05:03
I come from a long line of professional bakers
Based on how the fed responds to this, opening a WEED BAKERY may be the only thing to stop me from moving to the Philippines
Heh, me and a friend made one we put half an ounce in it, my mom wasn't very pleased the whole house smelled for days
HopAlongBunny
11-13-2012, 09:24
A bakery is an excellent idea and the health benefits of ingestion vis. inhaling might make it very popular :)
The problems would be bending the interpretation of personal use and keeping enough pot on hand to do your morning "run" w/o breaking the allowable.
The Daily Mail (national paper of curtain twitchers and demented reactionaries) is going ballistic about this. Apparently the states that have legalised are, as we speak, turning into dens of idle depravity. It's hilarious.
spankythehippo
11-13-2012, 11:16
Gay marriage and marijuana? I guess the Bible had it right, for once.
"If a man lies with another man, he shall be stoned."
By the way, I love marijuana. I don't smoke it as much as I should. I know, I'm a terrible person.
Apparently a young woman died when run down by a stoned driver. This sad story was used by the Mail as a reason why continuing prohibition was essential. Of course the fact that this happened under prohibition and is dwarfed by the one accident per minute stat regarding drunk driving was not examined. But that's the Mail for you.
Kralizec
11-13-2012, 11:41
Heh, me and a friend made one we put half an ounce in it, my mom wasn't very pleased the whole house smelled for days
I once tried to make pancakes this way, but it didn't turn out as as expected. Something about using oil instead of butter as I heard later.
rory_20_uk
11-13-2012, 11:48
A bakery is an excellent idea and the health benefits of ingestion vis. inhaling might make it very popular :)
The problems would be bending the interpretation of personal use and keeping enough pot on hand to do your morning "run" w/o breaking the allowable.
I think the solution is a supplier which is heavily regulated. There is already a sort of similar process that takes place with supply of controlled drugs such as heroin, opium and the other opiates.
As supply becomes easy, the transport would not be worth raiding as you can purchase the stuff so cheaply you might as well rob a Tescos delivery van of groceries.
~:smoking:
Apparently a young woman died when run down by a stoned driver. This sad story was used by the Mail as a reason why continuing prohibition was essential. Of course the fact that this happened under prohibition and is dwarfed by the one accident per minute stat regarding drunk driving was not examined. But that's the Mail for you.
More people drink, but driving stoned is just as bad a thing to do.
Edit, this is not meant as an argument
There are a wealth (pun intended) of industries related to and dependent on prohibition. These people will fight tooth and claw to maintain the status quo. Keep an eye out for stories from the prison rehabilitation industry. A lot of people with a lot to lose.
More people drink, but driving stoned is just as bad a thing to do.
Edit, this is not meant as an argument
Driving impaired in any way is irresponsible and should be prevented. The actual research about cannabis and driving impairment is mixed. Decent research still needs to be done.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-13-2012, 14:08
There are a wealth (pun intended) of industries related to and dependent on prohibition. These people will fight tooth and claw to maintain the status quo. Keep an eye out for stories from the prison rehabilitation industry. A lot of people with a lot to lose.
Quite possibly true. If we were to return all of the non-violent drug offenders to the population, we might actually have enough prison space.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-13-2012, 14:18
General question:
Why does any hint/step toward the legalization of marijauna generate such joy on forums such as this?
I myself have never partaken, but favor legalization on grounds of practicality and individual rights -- no research indicates that the stuff is any more deleterious to one's health than is tobacco or alcohol and driving while impaired should be stamped out regardless of the source of the impairment -- yet so many who post on this thread and similar one's seem so avid about it.
In practical terms, legalization won't make it all that easier for any who do partake to acquire the stuff. My 17-year-old assures me that he could get me connected and supplied in under an hour and with fewer than a half dozen phone calls even though he doesn't and his friends don't use the stuff either. Apparently, getting supplied when one is in high school is not a matter of difficulty.
So why?
spankythehippo
11-13-2012, 14:32
General question:
Why does any hint/step toward the legalization of marijauna generate such joy on forums such as this?
I myself have never partaken, but favor legalization on grounds of practicality and individual rights -- no research indicates that the stuff is any more deleterious to one's health than is tobacco or alcohol and driving while impaired should be stamped out regardless of the source of the impairment -- yet so many who post on this thread and similar one's seem so avid about it.
In practical terms, legalization won't make it all that easier for any who do partake to acquire the stuff. My 17-year-old assures me that he could get me connected and supplied in under an hour and with fewer than a half dozen phone calls even though he doesn't and his friends don't use the stuff either. Apparently, getting supplied when one is in high school is not a matter of difficulty.
So why?
Can your son hook me up? I lost contact with my dealer. ~:smoking:
rory_20_uk
11-13-2012, 14:36
General question:
Why does any hint/step toward the legalization of marijauna generate such joy on forums such as this?
I myself have never partaken, but favor legalization on grounds of practicality and individual rights -- no research indicates that the stuff is any more deleterious to one's health than is tobacco or alcohol and driving while impaired should be stamped out regardless of the source of the impairment -- yet so many who post on this thread and similar one's seem so avid about it.
In practical terms, legalization won't make it all that easier for any who do partake to acquire the stuff. My 17-year-old assures me that he could get me connected and supplied in under an hour and with fewer than a half dozen phone calls even though he doesn't and his friends don't use the stuff either. Apparently, getting supplied when one is in high school is not a matter of difficulty.
So why?
I'm not a 17 year old. I have a job. I also have a Medical Lisence. Although I can get smashed and pitch up with a hangover and that is (to a point) A-OK I can not engage in illegal usage.
I am not a pot-head, but I might like the rare use of small amounts. Hence I am happy that some day I might be able to do so.
Plus, the fact it is illegal flies in the face of all evidence (that the scientific committee in the UK got booted for using evidence is a case in point) and hence altering this is a step towards reason.
~:smoking:
Hello everyone. My name is Idaho and I am a pot head. I have a good job in a multi national company. I am to all outward appearances a normal person. Perhaps an outside observer would say I was a bit of a fitness/health food freak and that I didn't go out drinking as much as most in my demographic.
However I love weed. It's a passion for me. I don't grow but I would love to. I love trying new strains just like a wine buff loves to taste wine. I don't partake during the week or if I have important stuff to do at the weekend. I am no more dangerous to myself or others than any other normal person.
So what is the problem? The problem is that I can't be honest about my life. I have to sneak about. I have to worry about what would happen if the company found out. This is in a work environment where drinking to excess is considered healthy and natural.
I would love to go out on the weekend to a cannabis club/cafe. I don't mind going to the pub but after 2 pints I've had enough and want a smoke. Do that in a pub and things can get serious. Most pubs have a "pubs against drugs" sign up - which is laughable.
There are millions of us. Normal people who want to engage normally with society.
You are not the problem Idaho, weed itself isn't the problem. The problem is the crime that is related to it, which isn't going to disapear but will probably get more cynical. With many shades of grey things can still always get really dark, better to just keep it illegal and turn a blind eye, do you want any recognision because you smoke pot and are succesfull anyway.
There isn't much crime related to the production and supply of alcohol. Quite a lot from those who have consumed it though.
Make cannabis legal and it will effectively dissappear as a crime and public order issue.
rory_20_uk
11-14-2012, 13:27
You are not the problem Idaho, weed itself isn't the problem. The problem is the crime that is related to it, which isn't going to disapear but will probably get more cynical. With many shades of grey things can still always get really dark, better to just keep it illegal and turn a blind eye, do you want any recognision because you smoke pot and are succesfull anyway.
There is no crime with oilseed rape crops, which would be almost the same cost to produce (the only difference being the potential cost of tax). Where would the crime be? True, there could be some with legal crops in the UK going elsewhere - but that is again dealt with by a grown up, evidence based approach across the board - you take away the margins and as if by magic crime stops as it is not profitable. Criminals are in the main business people. They want money.
Are we then left with the risable tale of persons after taking hash cakes for two weeks suddenly get the urge to mainline heroin as if one is taking soft drugs that are legal one will want to take harder illegal drugs (and only recently legalised ones, not any existing legal ones)?
Public disorder is still a criminal matter. Selling things without a license is still a criminal matter. We just have rather pretty fields of hemp and a new source of revenue for the state.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
11-14-2012, 15:37
Hello everyone. My name is Idaho and I am a pot head. I have a good job in a multi national company. I am to all outward appearances a normal person. Perhaps an outside observer would say I was a bit of a fitness/health food freak and that I didn't go out drinking as much as most in my demographic.
However I love weed. It's a passion for me. I don't grow but I would love to. I love trying new strains just like a wine buff loves to taste wine. I don't partake during the week or if I have important stuff to do at the weekend. I am no more dangerous to myself or others than any other normal person.
So what is the problem? The problem is that I can't be honest about my life. I have to sneak about. I have to worry about what would happen if the company found out. This is in a work environment where drinking to excess is considered healthy and natural.
I would love to go out on the weekend to a cannabis club/cafe. I don't mind going to the pub but after 2 pints I've had enough and want a smoke. Do that in a pub and things can get serious. Most pubs have a "pubs against drugs" sign up - which is laughable.
There are millions of us. Normal people who want to engage normally with society.
Okay, that is a direct and clear answer to my question. While I had no great grief with Gelcube's five points, I had pretty much acknowledged them as "givens" without the need of restatement. Your response goes to the heart of my question. Thanks.
There are millions of us. Normal people who want to engage normally with society.
QFT. I have not smoked for four years, but that's simply because it's a pain in the butt for me to get these days and it's simply not worth the effort. I smoked regularly for over 10 years, during which time I managed to write an honors thesis (done mostly while stoned), graduate from college, graduate from law school, pass the bar, get married, and find a successful career. I drink alcohol almost daily and am considered 'posh' by many parts of society because I spend a great deal of money on that alcohol (wine). Yet I am threatened with jail if I take a single toke on a joint. Why am I applauded by many people for consuming alcohol and punished for consuming marijuana?
I have many friends who also do, or used to smoke marijuana. Nearly all of them are employed (those that aren't have nothing to do with marijuana), many of them are married, some of them have children. Amongst them are multiple surgeons, lawyers, judges, accountants, bankers, engineers, professors, filmmakers, video game developers, IT professionals, teachers, and more.
There is no crime with oilseed rape crops, which would be almost the same cost to produce (the only difference being the potential cost of tax). Where would the crime be? True, there could be some with legal crops in the UK going elsewhere - but that is again dealt with by a grown up, evidence based approach across the board - you take away the margins and as if by magic crime stops as it is not profitable. Criminals are in the main business people. They want money.
Are we then left with the risable tale of persons after taking hash cakes for two weeks suddenly get the urge to mainline heroin as if one is taking soft drugs that are legal one will want to take harder illegal drugs (and only recently legalised ones, not any existing legal ones)?
Public disorder is still a criminal matter. Selling things without a license is still a criminal matter. We just have rather pretty fields of hemp and a new source of revenue for the state.
~:smoking:
In the UK it would work fine, but not in the US. As was posted before just one state would mean a net loss of 1.2 billion to the black market. They are not just going to accept that without a fight.
Montmorency
11-14-2012, 19:40
They are not just going to accept that without a fight.
The black market (i.e. the cartels) has other sources of revenue. There's a limit to what they'll risk in a reaction.
Yes, and while criminal cartels are very good at avoiding or cooping officials tasked with catching them, they have limited success in combating nation-states head-on. I don't see what the Mexican cartels can do beyond take taking the financial hit, and contributing as much money as possible to politicians who promise to continue prohibition.
I've asked this already, but what about people who don't want to smoke or have to smell the stuff everywhere? How do we respect their rights if marijuana is legalized? If someone is sitting across from me drinking, at least I don't run the risk of getting drunk too by virtue of being in close proximity. Do we allow people to smoke weed in bars and public places? At home with the children? I have yet to see any of these concerns addressed.
The black market (i.e. the cartels) has other sources of revenue. There's a limit to what they'll risk in a reaction.
I wouldn't be all that eager to anger them, accepting some hypocracy to not have video's of kids getting their heads sawn of with an electric buzzsaw sounds good. For fighting the cartels you would have to be able to outbudget them, until you do you can forget about any effort, it only exists on paper.
Xiahou, nobody does that here. Tourists think it's hilarious to ask a police-officer for a light but you will never see anything of what you are pondering about.
Fisherking
11-14-2012, 20:00
I've asked this already, but what about people who don't want to smoke or have to smell the stuff everywhere? How do we respect their rights if marijuana is legalized? If someone is sitting across from me drinking, at least I don't run the risk of getting drunk too by virtue of being in close proximity. Do we allow people to smoke weed in bars and public places? At home with the children? I have yet to see any of these concerns addressed.
Have them install those god awful smoking booths.
I think it is silly that it was a banned substance in the first place. It was first outlawed in the US. 1906 in Washington DC. Then in South Africa in 1911. I think the reason was they thought it made the peasants too lazy. Odd that it was outlawed in the US before opiates.
Anyway I don’t see it as a threat to society. Also it would remove the excuse for having industrial hemp illegal.
I've asked this already, but what about people who don't want to smoke or have to smell the stuff everywhere? How do we respect their rights if marijuana is legalized? If someone is sitting across from me drinking, at least I don't run the risk of getting drunk too by virtue of being in close proximity. Do we allow people to smoke weed in bars and public places? At home with the children? I have yet to see any of these concerns addressed.
You can't get high from just smelling it. Nonetheless it is reasonable to question whether you will be obliged to tolerate it. I suppose in all likelihood it would be easiest to restrict it to private cafes clubs and bars and to people's homes.
That said, no one asks me permission to smoke a cigarette in the street or drive by my house in a diesel truck. I don't think you can legislate courtesy into existence.
I've asked this already, but what about people who don't want to smoke or have to smell the stuff everywhere? How do we respect their rights if marijuana is legalized? If someone is sitting across from me drinking, at least I don't run the risk of getting drunk too by virtue of being in close proximity. Do we allow people to smoke weed in bars and public places? At home with the children? I have yet to see any of these concerns addressed.
Presumably the same laws as smoking anything else would apply. Where I live that means no smoking in public places.
In any case, it's pretty much impossible to accidentally get high off of second-hand marijuana smoke. In order to get stoned, the smoke has to be relatively concentrated in your lungs. I have never seen someone get stoned through second-hand smoke unless they were shotgunning or hotboxing. Shotgunning cannot be done accidentally, and hotboxing requires such an extreme amount of smoke in such a small, confined area that no one can possibly stumble into that situation unless they are intentionally going there for that purpose. It would also never happen in a restaurant or bar, as those spaces are too large.
Major Robert Dump
11-14-2012, 22:27
As soon as I get out of the Army, I am going to try my hardest to overdose on marijuana.
for research.
As soon as I get out of the Army, I am going to try my hardest to overdose on marijuana.
for research.
Maybe you can be the first person ever! You'd be famous for sure.
Tellos Athenaios
11-15-2012, 11:41
it contains almost none of the same carcinogens as cigarette smoke.
And there was me thinking that the main source of those carcinogens would be, in fact, the tar like substance itself which is what makes the smoke a smoke and not a gas in the first place?
Cannabis smoke does contain carcinogens, but most research seems to suggest that it isn't a significant factor in lung cancer. There is also some suggestion from studies that CBD (one of the main cannabinoids) has cancer preventing/restricting properties.
spankythehippo
11-15-2012, 14:25
Cannabis smoke does contain carcinogens, but most research seems to suggest that it isn't a significant factor in lung cancer. There is also some suggestion from studies that CBD (one of the main cannabinoids) has cancer preventing/restricting properties.
To overdose on marijuana, you would need to smoke 20 pounds of it.
I wish they would hurry up and legalise it in Australia. I'm getting tired of smoking in alleys when I'm outside.
rory_20_uk
11-15-2012, 14:39
When I was foing my Pharm and Tox BSc, one article I read was clearly anti-drugs, and with cannabis managed to find danger if the crushed plant material was administered... intranvenously!
The fact that this holds true for almost all plant materials (and indeed many of the problems drugs cause is the impurities rather than the drugs themselves.
~:smoking:
When I was foing my Pharm and Tox BSc, one article I read was clearly anti-drugs, and with cannabis managed to find danger if the crushed plant material was administered... intranvenously!
The fact that this holds true for almost all plant materials (and indeed many of the problems drugs cause is the impurities rather than the drugs themselves.
~:smoking:
Damn. You mean mainlining vegetable matter is bad for you? I'll have no hobbies left at this rate.
Most pubs have a "pubs against drugs" sign up - which is laughable.
While I agree with the idea of pot being legal, given that the pub trade is my profession, I should point out that preventing the use of illegal drugs on your premises is a condition of your license. Although enforcement may vary from pub to pub, everytime someone lights up, snorts a line etc they are putting someone's livelihood at risk. If the licensee fails to take action against users then they themselves are risking their livelihood.
It's laughable because it should say "pubs against the drugs we don't sell on the premises" or even "customers are not permitted to take drugs bought off the premises". The whole culturally ingrained notion that people going to the pub and sinking a few pints are not embarking on an evening of drug taking needs to be challenged at every turn.
It's laughable because it should say "pubs against the drugs we don't sell on the premises" or even "customers are not permitted to take drugs bought off the premises". The whole culturally ingrained notion that people going to the pub and sinking a few pints are not embarking on an evening of drug taking needs to be challenged at every turn.
Is it really so unusual for people to completely abhor drugs and at the same time be social drinkers?
Is it really so unusual for people to completely abhor drugs and at the same time be social drinkers?
Perhaps not unusual, but highly illogical, as Spock would say.
When you tell some people that alcohol is a drug, they either don't believe it, or think you are making some point of semantic pedantry.
It's a drug. It's a chemical that affects your mood and behavior. It's isn't analogous to a drug. It isn't the equivalent of a drug. It isn't like a drug. IT'S A DRUG!
Tellos Athenaios
11-15-2012, 23:06
The point is alcohol is a drug. By far one of the most potent, poisonous and dangerous in general. Easy to overdose on, as well.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-16-2012, 05:02
The point is alcohol is a drug. By far one of the most potent, poisonous and dangerous in general. Easy to overdose on, as well.
Actually, a lethal overdose is rather difficult, albeit not impossible. On the other hand, alcohol certainly holds its own in the long term damage potential category.
Major Robert Dump
11-16-2012, 05:47
I thought Republicans were all for small gubberment?
legalizing teh pot will make gubberment smaller because we will have less drug cops and pay less prison contracts
Except prison contracts typically have a gauranteed % of capacity ensured by the state, perfectly legitimate and not the least bit immoral, so the private prisons are all too unhappy about this
Incidentally, the state ok oklahoma just voted to establish a commission that handles parole for non violent offenders and takes it out of the governors hands. The governor opposed this measure. The governor is great friends with the GEO Group
weed weed I loub weed
spankythehippo
11-16-2012, 09:16
When some people drink alcohol, they are inclined to beat their family.
When most people smoke weed, they are inclined to eat all your food, giggle manically then promptly fall asleep.
Unless I've smoked a lot, you wouldn't be able to tell if I've had a smoke, other than I am in a positive mood and quite chatty.
I thought Republicans were all for small gubberment?
legalizing teh pot will make gubberment smaller because we will have less drug cops and pay less prison contracts
Except prison contracts typically have a gauranteed % of capacity ensured by the state, perfectly legitimate and not the least bit immoral, so the private prisons are all too unhappy about this
Incidentally, the state ok oklahoma just voted to establish a commission that handles parole for non violent offenders and takes it out of the governors hands. The governor opposed this measure. The governor is great friends with the GEO Group
weed weed I loub weed
The prison business in the US is unbelievable. A complete contradiction in a country that prides itself on notions of freedom and small government.
While we're at it, let's legalize crystal meth. It'll make lots of people happy.
While we're at it, let's legalize crystal meth. It'll make lots of people happy.
What do you want to see in ten years time rvg?
Less drug related crime?
Less drug use?
Less drug related illness?
Less expensive prison process?
Less black market violence?
I don't see any of these being achieved by prohibition.
Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Legality doesn't mean approval, it means control.
What do you want to see in ten years time rvg?
Less drug related crime?
Less drug use?
Less drug related illness?
Less expensive prison process?
Less black market violence?
I don't see any of these being achieved by prohibition.
Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Legality doesn't mean approval, it means control.
I just want to see my favorite drug legalized, that's all.
My name is rvg and I am a meth head. I have a good job in a multi national company. I am to all outward appearances a normal person. Perhaps an outside observer would say I was a bit of a fitness/health food freak albeit with bad teeth and bad skin.
However I love meth. It's a passion for me. I don't cook it but I would love to. I love trying new chemical combos just like a wine buff loves to taste wine. I don't partake during the week or if I have important stuff to do at the weekend. I am no more dangerous to myself or others than any other normal person.
So what is the problem? The problem is that I can't be honest about my life. I have to sneak about. I have to worry about what would happen if the company found out. This is in a work environment where drinking to excess is considered healthy and natural.
I would love to go out on the weekend to a meth club/cafe. I don't mind going to the bar but after 2 pints I've had enough and want a smoke. Do that in a bar and things can get serious. Most bars have a zero tolerance policy against drugs - which is laughable.
There are millions of us. Normal people who want to engage normally with society.
I am rvg and I want my meth.
Er... I don't understand.
If you want to mock me - fine. What's your point? Are you suggesting that all drugs (other than your favourite - alcohol) are the same and should be treated alike?
Perhaps you might want to examine why you don't want to smoke meth. I am guessing that the legal status is the least of it.
I am rvg and I want my meth.
A cute parody, but blissfully disassociated from reality.
I would like to think that we learned about the effects of prohibition in the 1920s (http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/organized_crime1_final.html), but apparently we didn't.
I don't smoke pot, but criminalizing a popular drug has several obvious side-effects:
Encourges lawbreaking
Decreases respect for the law
Criminalizes a broad swath of citizens
Incarcerates citizens who could be contributing to the economy
Deprives states of tax revenue
Incentivizes a level of policing and incarceration that is helpful to nobody
And most importantly ...
Leaves a giant WELCOME mat for organized crime
I don't smoke meth, but criminalizing a popular drug has several obvious side-effects:
Encourages lawbreaking...
etc.
You aren't making a point.
Sure I am. If pot deserves legalization, so does crystal meth.
Sure I am. If pot deserves legalization, so does crystal meth.
Why's that?
Perhaps we should outlaw alcohol yeah?
Greyblades
11-16-2012, 16:53
Sure I am. If pot deserves legalization, so does crystal meth.
pot makes you slow, meth makes you eat peoples faces.
pot makes you slow, meth makes you eat peoples faces.
Actually that's pot as well.
Perhaps we should outlaw alcohol yeah?
A drug is a drug is a drug.
Booze = Pot = Meth.
I am fairly confident that alcohol is leagues ahead of meth when it comes to associated violence.
Ok. So you are in favour of outlawing all drugs yeah? Ok, fair enough. As long as you are consistent.
A drug is a drug is a drug.
Booze = Pot = Meth.
No, not all drugs are created equal, as you well know.
For example, you can look at the ratio of effective dose to fatal dose (http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/03/drugs-and-toxicity/229893/). By this metric, alcohol is a fairly dangerous drug, heroin is extremely dangerous, and oral marijuana is kids' stuff. Admittedly, this is just one metric, but unlike your grandstanding, it's based on evidence and reason.
https://i.imgur.com/QfFnT.jpg
From American Scientist:
"Alcohol thus ranks at the dangerous end of the toxicity spectrum. So despite the fact that about 75 percent of all adults in the United States enjoy an occasional drink, it must be remembered that alcohol is quite toxic. Indeed, if alcohol were a newly formulated beverage, its high toxicity and addiction potential would surely prevent it from being marketed as a food or drug. This conclusion runs counter to the common view that one's own use of alcohol is harmless."
According to the chart cocaine is less lethal than alcohol. I say, let's put the coca back into Coca Cola. After all, cocaine ban was mostly fueled by racism, i.e. the fear of the big bad coked up Negro running around violating all those proper White ladies.
rvg, when you're prepared to make an argument, let us know!
It's like trying to have a serious discussion with your kid brother when he's just od'd on Halloween candy.
It's like trying to have a serious discussion with your kid brother when he's just od'd on Halloween candy.
Says the drug addict...
rvg, given the clear, demonstrated, real-world dangers of prohibition, would you at least agree that a nation needs to have a serious think before going down that road?
As it stands, we tolerate caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, largely because they have a long history in our society. We don't tolerate them for public health or safety reasons (all three have strong negatives), we do it because they're so embedded in our society that prohibition is an absurdity, as demonstrated in the 1920s.
Marijuana, much like alcohol, has a large following in all classes of society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States#Usage). Unlike meth, it is not insanely toxic in production (http://www.azag.gov/StopMeth/AboutMeth.html#environmental_impact) and consumption (http://www.methproject.org/answers/will-using-meth-change-how-i-look.html#Mug-Shot-Match-Up). Unlike cocaine, it falls into the lowest echelon of effective-to-toxic dose (http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/03/drugs-and-toxicity/229893/). Unlike heroin (http://chartsbin.com/view/h0z), it can be produced with minimal agricultural impact, and can easily be grown in all 50 states.
If you can make an argument against ending marijuana prohibition that does not rest on the slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope), I'd like to hear it.
Says the drug addict...
Nice!
You're just trolling :yes:
Shame as it is an interesting topic.
rvg, given the clear, demonstrated, real-world dangers of prohibition, would you at least agree that a nation needs to have a serious think before going down that road?
We're not talking about prohibition. We're talking about maintaining status quo vs introducing new legal drugs into the society. I do not have a problem with status quo.
We're not talking about prohibition.
Prohibition is precisely what we are discussing. A long, failed campaign of prohibition and incarceration that has cost the government and the people of the United States too much money and time.
We're talking about maintaining status quo vs introducing new legal drugs into the society. I do not have a problem with status quo.
Prohibition is a failure. The status quo is changing, as the recent ballot initiatives have shown. The USA has passed the tipping point at which more that 50% of the population sees the madness of criminalizing a popular and comparatively safe recreational drug.
And you can't put it on the hippies and pot-heads. Last estimate was that only 3.9 million Americans smoke pot regularly. That means there are a lot of people like me, who see a stupid, failed, obstinate, counter-factual policy for what it is.
Prohibition is a failure. The status quo is changing, as the recent ballot initiatives have shown. The USA has passed the tipping point at which more that 50% of the population sees the madness of criminalizing a popular and comparatively safe recreational drug.
And you can't put it on the hippies and pot-heads. Last estimate was that only 3.9 million Americans smoke pot regularly. That means there are a lot of people like me, who see a stupid, failed, obstinate, counter-factual policy for what it is.
Why would I support something from which I don't stand to gain anything and potentially lose something? Why in the world would I do that? It makes no sense to me.
Why would I support something from which I don't stand to gain anything and potentially lose something?
Could you please be more specific? What do you "potentially lose" by allowing a few of your friends and neighbors to purchase and consume marijuana legally? And what do you "stand to gain" by continuing a massively expensive, failed policy of prohibition?
Note that the average cost for incarcerating a marijuana smoker is $23,000 per year. And because our jails are full of these non-violent perps, states are forced to either expand their prison budgets and facilities or release violent criminals to make room for all of the pot heads. Where is your benefit?
Why would I support something from which I don't stand to gain anything and potentially lose something? Why in the world would I do that? It makes no sense to me.
What would you lose?
There are many potential gains.
Could you please be more specific? What do you "potentially lose" by allowing a few of your friends and neighbors to purchase and consume marijuana legally?
By having a marijuana dispensery in my town for instance. 18 year olds (or 21 or whatever) smoking it openly. Recreational use of it does not make my state a better place for me.
And what do you "stand to gain" by continuing a massively expensive, failed policy of prohibition? Note that the average cost for incarcerating a marijuana smoker is $23,000 per year. And because our jails are full of these non-violent perps, states are forced to either expand their prison budgets and facilities or release violent criminals to make room for all of the pot heads. Where is your benefit?
The current policy can certainly use some work. However, the substandard policy doesn't mean that legalization is needed. It just means that the policy needs to be retooled by punishing the dealers more and punishing the users less. Users can be dealt with by high fines and no jail time, while the dealers should be looking at life w/o parole.
18 year olds (or 21 or whatever) smoking it openly.
Public intoxication is already a crime in most states. I seriously doubt you would be subject to legions of weed-smoking teens or young adults toking up in public.
The current policy can certainly use some work.
No, the current policy is a failure by any objective measure. I challenge you to find me a metric -- any metric -- that indicates marijuana prohibition is a success. On any level.
ajaxfetish
11-16-2012, 19:07
Says the drug addict...
Well, when the drug addict makes more sense than the teetotaler ...
No, the current policy is a failure by any objective measure. I challenge you to find me a metric -- any metric -- that indicates marijuana policy is a success. On any level.
It makes access to the drug more difficult and more importantly it keeps the drug branded as socially unacceptable. When you're trying get a job you have to pass a drug test. Smoke pot == no job. There are of course ways to beat the system, but the point is that it discourages the drug usage. I like that. I'd like it to stay that way.
Heh... We aren't going to convince you.
People are already using it in your town. Usage in the medium term won't increase. The difference is that people will pay tax on it and the money won't go to organised crime.
Try and squeeze supply eh? What does that do to price again... And where will those boosted profits go...?
It makes access to the drug more difficult and more importantly it keeps the drug branded as socially unacceptable.
That's an assertion, not a metric. Please, find me a measurable impact or result of marijuana prohibition that indicates the policy is a success.
Heh... We aren't going to convince you.
People are already using it in your town. Usage in the medium term won't increase. The difference is that people will pay tax on it and the money won't go to organised crime.
Try and squeeze supply eh? What does that do to price again... And where will those boosted profits go...?
This isn't anything personal, mind you. I do not believe drugs to be a positive influence on our society. Alcohol is tolerable because it is so deeply ingrained in our culture. It's grandfathered in if you will. That however does not mean that I should vote to open the doors for other drugs.
That's an assertion, not a metric. Please, find me a measurable impact or result of marijuana prohibition that indicates the policy is a success.
Not a metric perhaps, but good enough for me to stick to my view. Not trying to win any converts.
That's an assertion, not a metric. Please, find me a measurable impact or result of marijuana prohibition that indicates the policy is a success.
I understand where rvg is coming from. For him, the very fact of illegality is a measurable success. He will remain unconvinced even if legalisation was implemented, reduced drug use and harms and saved money.
I find it a little difficult to see it as "not personal" when you called me a drug addict.
Drugs aren't a positive in society, but they can bring pleasure to individuals. A part of the pursuit of happiness. It never said anything about finding it.
I find it a little difficult to see it as "not personal" when you called me a drug addict.
That was uncalled for. I guess I overreacted to being compared to a "kid brother OD'd on candy." Seriously though, it's nothing personal. We have ideological differences and I have no problem with it. For now the status quo is on my side. If that changes, I would lament the loss and move on. I won't however lift a finger to expedite that change, in fact I would do whatever I can to impede it. It is my right just as it is your right to push for it. Nothing personal.
I think my local police could be doing better things than chasing potheads; I think my county could do with a downsizing of the bloated jail system; I think my state could spend money more wisely elsewhere; I think my town, county and state could do with a shiny new sales tax gladly (gratefully!) paid by the consumer.
And lastly, I think my nation should learn its freaking lesson about prohibition, and enter into it with more thought and care from now on.
That was uncalled for. I guess I overreacted to being compared to a "kid brother OD'd on candy." Seriously though, it's nothing personal. We have ideological differences and I have no problem with it. For now the status quo is on my side. If that changes, I would lament the loss and move on. I won't however lift a finger to expedite that change, in fact I would do whatever I can to impede it. It is my right just as it is your right to push for it. Nothing personal.
No problem rvg. I fully accept and respect the fact that you want me Imprisoned and my family destitute :laugh4:
I think my local police could be doing better things than chasing potheads; I think my county could do with a downsizing of the bloated jail system;
Like I said, these can be changed to shift the bulk of the punishment on the dealers.
I think my state could spend money more wisely elsewhere; I think my town, county and state could do with a shiny new sales tax gladly (gratefully!) paid by the consumer.
Money can also be extracted via fines (not so gratefully) paid by the consumers.
And lastly, I think my nation should learn its freaking lesson about prohibition, and enter into it with more thought and care from now on.
I do believe this to be a false analogy, because as I mentioned earlier, alcohol has been a part of our culture for centuries. There's a huge gap in social acceptance between alcohol and marijuana. Huge.
There you go restricting supply and bumping up the illegal pay day. The gangsters couldn't agree more.
It's hard to make money from fines. Legal costs, court fees and associated infrastructure is massively expensive. If you want to make money off drug users, that's about the daftest way to do it.
As for alcohol being different, you are right. It will always be vastly more popular and vastly more harmful.
RVG you're position is needlessly contrarian. It's easier, safer and more politically and morally sound just to legalize it.
If the majority believes that, then I won't be able to stop them. I do not believe however that we as a society are somehow morally obligated to make that happen. Thus I will fight it for as long as it is feasible.
There you go restricting supply and bumping up the illegal pay day. The gangsters couldn't agree more.
It's hard to make money from fines. Legal costs, court fees and associated infrastructure is massively expensive. If you want to make money off drug users, that's about the daftest way to do it.
Fines are strictly a punitive measure. Their financial benefit is not important.
As for alcohol being different, you are right. It will always be vastly more popular and vastly more harmful.
True, but it's part of who we are as a society. Marijuana is not.
a completely inoffensive name
11-16-2012, 20:02
Heavy drug usage by % of population has remained steady since the war on drugs started. All that money and time for nothing.
True, but it's part of who we are as a society. Marijuana is not.
Ah! We get to the heart of it!
This is the essence of a conservative:
Society as it is, minus a few things that I don't like is how it should forever be.
Ah! We get to the heart of it!
This is the essence of a conservative:
Society as it is, minus a few things that I don't like is how it should forever be.
Status Quo is a powerful thing. Changing it is always an uphill battle as it should be. Prevents the society from acting impulsively and thus stepping on too many rakes at once.
a completely inoffensive name
11-16-2012, 20:32
Status Quo is a powerful thing. Changing it is always an uphill battle as it should be. Prevents the society from acting impulsively and thus stepping on too many rakes at once.The essence of life is change. Fashions change, you get old, society becomes more or less inclusive, more or less wealthy/powerful. Status Quo is an illusion, the institutions we use are nothing like they were 200 years ago and only semi like they were 20 years ago.Enforcement of the old ways onto the new generations is a tyranny of the worst kind.
Status Quo is a powerful thing. Changing it is always an uphill battle as it should be. Prevents the society from acting impulsively and thus stepping on too many rakes at once.
A fair point well made :yes:
Enforcement of the old ways onto the new generations is a tyranny of the worst kind.
The new generation will get its turn to shape the society the way it sees fit. For now it's my turn.
a completely inoffensive name
11-16-2012, 20:41
The new generation will get its turn to shape the society the way it sees fit. For now it's my turn.You will be saying that until you die. The Baby Boomers still believe that it is their turn, and demand that their medicare and SS should be paid for by the 3 younger generations who are in the work force.
The new generation will get its turn to shape the society the way it sees fit. For now it's my turn.
Fair enough. We're coming for you old timer. We'll hang out in the street next to your old people's home and make you nervous with our new fangled music and marry-jew-wanna.
Fair enough. We're coming for you old timer. We'll hang out in the street next to your old people's home and make you nervous with our new fangled music and marry-jew-wanna.
Git off mah lawn!!!
Montmorency
11-16-2012, 22:54
All drugs should be legalized.
All drugs should be controlled, though to varying degrees.
The commission of certain crimes under the influence of certain drugs should entail severe punitive consequences.
Can you dig it?
I don't think it's an easy thing to do. I reckon it needs to be done in a very variable and flexible way. Each drug is different. There will need to be hard choices and adjustments. Prohibition is the easiest solution in many respects. We can just push it all underground and not really face it.
It's not an unreasonable thing for society to want to prevent people from being selfish and self destructive. But what we want, and what works out best are seldom aligned. In some things people feel entitled to intervene, in others they don't. Only the most extreme fundamentalists in our societies would suggest that adultery should be punished under the law, yet most would agree that adultery was a bad thing, and society would be better with less of it. But we all know that trying legislate this element of human nature would be disastrous.
Expanding beyond teh weed is questionable, but I would approach it in the manner of production. Making naturally occurring drugs like pot and mushrooms illegal is silly, controlling refined/created substances is more justifiable.
Montmorency
11-17-2012, 00:13
Expanding beyond teh weed is questionable, but I would approach it in the manner of production. Making naturally occurring drugs like pot and mushrooms illegal is silly, controlling refined/created substances is more justifiable.
As I said, all drugs should be controlled. Many may even be restricted, the degree to which requires careful calibration on a case-by-case basis. The point is that drugs should not be illegal per se. I don't see that such a policy will reduce abuse and societal costs in the long-term.
Harsh punishments for committing crimes while high on those drugs that tend to make upstanding citizens uneasy would serve as a disincentive and permit the legal system to isolate the truly disruptive elements.
Clinics should even be permitted to hand out daily rations of whichever substance to those who crave. The goal is to undermine the black market across an entire industry while tacitly discouraging the use of substances that are well-known to be addictive or inductive to violent behavior - and rehabilitating those that can be with alacrity. Repeat offenders and addicts with no hope of recovery given current means - I'm open to thoughts on this aspect, but I figure they can safely be locked away for a few decades with no parole.
Major Robert Dump
11-17-2012, 00:43
The real reason marijuana is not legal yet is because Big Pharma cannot patent it and sell to the government at 40x cost. Oh yeah, and privatizing prisons.
Weed is bad because the people who make money incarcerating potheads tell you its bad. The whole reason it ws banned in the first place is because no one could make money off something you grew in your flower bed, and the fed needed an excust to fuel the DEA so we convinced whitey that weed=your daughter listening to jazz and sleeping with the negro
Incidentally, polygraph administers are the most ardent defender of polygraphs. Go figure.
I just do not see how any reasonably intelligent person who did not make money off of prohibition could argue that marijuana prohibition is effective or justified, much less incarcerating people for it.
In that regards, RVG must be a drug agent or own stock in a prison company, or he is 87 years old and hangs out with my grandma
spankythehippo
11-17-2012, 06:11
True, but it's part of who we are as a society. Marijuana is not.
I don't drink alcohol, but smoke pot. Am I a social outcast?
I don't drink alcohol, but smoke pot. Am I a social outcast?
Er.. Yes.
Seattle Police Department "FAQ": Marijwhatnow (http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/11/09/marijwhatnow-a-guide-to-legal-marijuana-use-in-seattle/).
gaelic cowboy
11-20-2012, 21:07
Bet there are whole van loads of hippies and college students heading for that Four Corners place right now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Corners_Monument)
Seamus Fermanagh
11-21-2012, 22:35
Status Quo is a powerful thing. Changing it is always an uphill battle as it should be. Prevents the society from acting impulsively and thus stepping on too many rakes at once.
Actually, this is the best point of argument that you have presented thus far. In fairness to those supporting legalization of canibas usage, the public has been hearing arguments for and against legalized usage for at least 4 decades (and probably longer). That 2 of our 54 constituent political subdivisions want to try legalization after decades of prohibition is hardly "impulsive."
By the way, your efforts earlier to lampoon Idaho's position by inserting crystal meth in place of marijuana -- thus suggesting that if we legalize one we implicitly begin the process to legalize all, even where the "all" includes some that are obviously more dangerous -- takes it the wrong direction.
What right have we to restrict a person's usage of any substance or service that cannot be shown to be harmful to others or to impinge on the rights of another?
If a person chooses to destroy their mind with crystal meth, providing that they do no harm to others, how and why should the government be involved?
And, by the way, this topic is a little unusual for me. A glance back through the backroom files will very seldom reveal Idaho and myself to be on the same side of a given issue...bless his political leftist little heart.
In fairness to those supporting legalization of canibas usage, the public has been hearing arguments for and against legalized usage for at least 4 decades (and probably longer). That 2 of our 54 constituent political subdivisions want to try legalization after decades of prohibition is hardly "impulsive."
The will of the people reigns supreme, but my personal vote is a firm "nay". If the people decide otherwise, there isn't much I can do about it.
By the way, your efforts earlier to lampoon Idaho's position by inserting crystal meth in place of marijuana -- thus suggesting that if we legalize one we implicitly begin the process to legalize all, even where the "all" includes some that are obviously more dangerous -- takes it the wrong direction.
It was my attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
What right have we to restrict a person's usage of any substance or service that cannot be shown to be harmful to others or to impinge on the rights of another?
Drugs have been shown to be harmful to others. That face-eating guy from Miami was a good example. Thus, public safety is a legitimate concern.
If a person chooses to destroy their mind with crystal meth, providing that they do no harm to others, how and why should the government be involved?
Same as above. It can potentially hurt the public. Compare it with the Seat Belt Laws.
Drugs have been shown to be harmful to others. That face-eating guy from Miami was a good example. Thus, public safety is a legitimate concern.
Meh, garden-variety drug panic. Take a dangerous, unstable, paranoid schizophrenic, have him gnaw someone's face off, declare it's all because of a new drug. Completely ignore the fact that Mr. Face-bitey was already a mental case.
We've been here before, with previous drug panics. The very familiarity of the emotions and public gestures should have tipped everyone off.
Public safety concern in Gnawface has to do with mental health, and the very large and real holes in our system for dealing with those who have wandered out of consensual reality.
Did you know that the #1 mental health provider in the USA is the prison system? Now you do. Draw obvious conclusions.
Completely ignore the fact that Mr. Face-bitey was already a mental case.
Then there was this guy (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Camden-Children-Throats-Slashed-Arrest-168368426.html)... These things add up.
Montmorency
11-22-2012, 02:53
Clearly, illegalizing the drugs did not prevent the incident.
Then there was this guy (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Camden-Children-Throats-Slashed-Arrest-168368426.html)... These things add up.
Yes, and every year we hear about some woman murdering her children because of post-partum depression. The logical conclusion: we must criminalize childbirth.
Mentally ill people are more likely that the rest of us to attempt self-medication with prescription and illegal drugs. Plenty of studies show that.
As per usual, all of this strikes me as a health, not a criminal issue.
Moms need help with post-partum depression. Paranoid schizophrenics need to be locked up and medicated. Frat boys who binge drink need to be allowed to do so.
Yes, and every year we hear about some woman murdering her children because of post-partum depression. The logical conclusion: we must criminalize childbirth.
It's one thing to criminalize something that's currently legal. It's a whole different thing to decriminalize something that is currently illegal.
Clearly, illegalizing the drugs did not prevent the incident.
Clearly. It does not however make the case for decriminalizing the drug.
Montmorency
11-22-2012, 03:08
Perhaps legalization could be part of an overall shift in the legal framework, to effect greater public safety than the outdated and ineffectual policy could?
RVG, you strike me as someone who has spent next to zero time in and amongst the weed-smoking sub (or not so sub) culture.
You are absolutely right. I have NEVER smoked weed. I don't even know what it looks like or smells like. I know what a hemp leaf looks like, but that's about it.
Legalizing it has only benefits, no downsides.
Not for me. I quite honestly do not need it nor want it. As for the society at large, what benefits are we talking about?
Fisherking
11-22-2012, 19:27
I wouldn’t bother trying to convert him.
If it proves to be a sweet tax item then state legislatures will be passing bill without having to go to the people.
What really needs done now is the re-legalization of industrial hemp. The stuff that won’t get you high. Replace wood paper with hemp paper and allow its other uses.
a completely inoffensive name
11-22-2012, 21:11
Well, I could refer to you to my 5-point list earlier in the thread, but I think I can reach you better by outlining why it would be helpful to you--a responsible, law-abiding, straight-edged conservative:
MONEY. That's why. By decriminalizing--and especially by fully legalizing and regulating--you take the single-largest step towards a balanced budget in this country that could possible be taken. Entire portions of the federal government become suddenly useless, and ripe for extinction. State and Federal criminal justice systems would be free from prosecuting the hundreds of thousands of minor drug offendors that currently clog our courts and prisons, and the federal government would lose much of its incentive to create intrusive policies (more of which have stemmed from the war on drugs than any other driving force). Jobs would be created. Millions of jobs. Businesses would be able to quickly step in and make money in a market for which there is already a great demand. The taxes--assuming it was taxed at the same rate as Alcohol--would bring in astronomical profits for state and federal coffers. Organized crime would take a massive financial death blow, lessening the burden on our criminal justice system even further. Money, money, money. That affects you, whether you care about weed or not.
LODES OF MONE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON-7v4qnHP8
HopAlongBunny
11-23-2012, 15:28
It is hard to add much beyond Gelatinous Cube's excellent post:bow:
Changing terms of reference can be useful though: "rvg, why do you insist on a public subsidy to organized crime?"
It is hard to add much beyond Gelatinous Cube's excellent post:bow:
Changing terms of reference can be useful though: "rvg, why do you insist on a public subsidy to organized crime?"
Because it's easier to be a hypocrite, and I would be ok with being one really. Much better than importing the amount of violence that goes on in this trade, less people will get hurt if you just accept the existance of an undercurrent in economics aka the black market. Do not mess with it.
HopAlongBunny
11-23-2012, 17:01
No argument really.
Legalization reduces violence, reduces the pain and "captures" lost economic activity. :2thumbsup:
No argument really.
Legalization reduces violence, reduces the pain and "captures" lost economic activity. :2thumbsup:
Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.
rory_20_uk
11-23-2012, 17:47
Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.
Terrorise who exactly? Dictate the USA on which laws it enacts? Take on the most powerful armed forces on the planet? Terrorise the population to not purchase from legal channels but to purchase illegally?
If that were possible, there are many other areas where criminals would get laws to get money.
Frankly, you've been smoking some really strong stuff today.
~:smoking:
Crazed Rabbit
11-23-2012, 18:17
Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.
Good grief, Frags. You bring this up again and again, but there's no evidence for it at all. In Washington we already get a lot of weed from BC Canada and there's no attacks from the cartels.
There's not going to be any narco-wars or -terrorism.
Until you have solid evidence that this is actually a possibility and not just something you have a hunch is going to happen, would you consider not using this as a reason to oppose legalized pot?
Not for me. I quite honestly do not need it nor want it. As for the society at large, what benefits are we talking about?
People should have the freedom to smoke pot. A freer society is a better society.
Also, the end of the drug war that was put millions of people in jail, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, militarized our police, normalized no-knock raids on people for having/selling a plant (and we thought the secret police of totalitarian states actually knocking on doors at night was bad), led to tens of thousands of people being killed by violence in Central and South America.
You need to look at the broader view rather than just 'people can smoke pot now'.
I do not believe drugs to be a positive influence on our society.
I do not like this position, because I believe it stems from an authoritarian mindset; the idea that anyone has a right to prohibit (consider the full meaning of that word) anything they believe to be a negative influence on society at large.
But you and other authoritarians should not have the power to decide how others should best spend their lives (excepting the prevention of violence and fraud, etc.). IT is a fundamental right of people to direct their own lives, and live them their own way, even if that displeases others because they are not living up to what is imagined to be best for society.
CR
HopAlongBunny
11-23-2012, 19:38
Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.
Violence in the context of American (Canadian, EU) legalization is unlikely. Like any good business, investment in political influence is much safer-corruption is the much bigger concern. It too, is purely hypothetical.
I thought and realized corruption in unnecessary as well. Most Western systems are sufficiently porous that simple funding of the "right" causes can keep reform bogged down for decades.
Greyblades
11-24-2012, 00:05
There is very little violence in the weed business, especially in the west where most of it comes from peaceful local distributors. It is still organized crime, to be sure, but we're not talking Al Capone here.
Aren't the fellows supplying weed and other narcotics from south of the border fighting a civil war in Mexico? They seem pretty violent.
I'd love to be wrong and probably are, but I think a third way is better, the Dutch way. Keep it illegal but just don't enforce the law with small quantities. Everybody happy, no harm done.
Is a billion dollar loss per state for the cartels enough of an argument, do you really think they will let that happen when it is so much easier to terrorise? Little reality check, they outbudget you 4 to 1.
The cartels can get away with what they do in Mexico because they pay off the police or they're in the police themselves, so nobody can really stop them. Here in the US our government institutions are a lot stronger; the cartels do operate here but they could never carry out the kind of violence they do in Mexico without serious consequences.
The cartels can get away with what they do in Mexico because they pay off the police or they're in the police themselves, so nobody can really stop them. Here in the US our government institutions are a lot stronger; the cartels do operate here but they could never carry out the kind of violence they do in Mexico without serious consequences.
Difference is that Mexico they are used to it, and you guys aren't. A few horrific incidents might be enough to completely destroy what you are trying here. I might be wrong but imho you should always take babysteps if you want something to work in the long term. Give it 20 years or so, in the meantime just don't harass people who like a smoke, just turn a blind eye.
Crazed Rabbit
11-24-2012, 10:07
Oh for **** sake, Frags. Still more of this argument from you and yet not the tiniest bit of evidence to support it.
It's been 40 years since the beginning of the war on drugs, and decades more since marijuana was made illegal.
Keeping it illegal is stupid, for the reasons I've outlined above. Not going after small amounts of possession is basically what we do now, and it's wrong on principle and practically.
CR
Oh for **** sake, Frags. Still more of this argument from you and yet not the tiniest bit of evidence to support it.
It's been 40 years since the beginning of the war on drugs, and decades more since marijuana was made illegal.
Keeping it illegal is stupid, for the reasons I've outlined above. Not going after small amounts of possession is basically what we do now, and it's wrong on principle and practically.
CR
I am not making any claims I am just worried. You say it's wrong on principle but is the government supposed to be your mother who tells you what is right and wrong? It is not a matter of principle for me at all. Between right and wrong there is this thing called pragmatic. If you slowly build it down and give everyone some time to recover it will probably work much better. Nothing wrong with the idea itself but why a hammer if you have a scalpel.
No. The Cartel won in Mexico because the government was already corrupt. It could never happen here unless over a period of years and great weakening in our institutions.
I find it a bit funny how you supporters seem to want recognision from your government and insist on it being legal, why not settle for it being available without getting prosecuted. All the violence will remain for Mexico's government to deal with and the user in America can just smoke his joint without worries. All weed production is in the hands of organised crime in the Netherlands and nobody notices it, it's blissfully invisable. It's a perfect quid pro quo-situation as long as you don't get all too principal about hearing from the government what you can and can't do. Why even risk doing more harm than good? It's stupid and unnecesary.
Taxes. You can't tax an illegitimate business.
We don't tax it over here, we just turn a blind eye because it is convenient. People shouldn't think in rules so much if I am not mistaken an officer still has to wear a sword in court. They also don't do that anymore.
Right. That's my point. Taxes are the biggest reason to legalize it completely.
Taxes that are wasted on an inneficient governemt while you could just let the money get spend in the actual economy?
The status quo in the Netherlands is a bodge. Decriminalisation is a bodge. Just sort it out properly. To defend the current policy in the Netherlands is daft.
Either sh*t or get off the pot.
The status quo in the Netherlands is a bodge. Decriminalisation is a bodge. Just sort it out properly. To defend the current policy in the Netherlands is daft.
Either sh*t or get off the pot.
It just works, don't see what's so daft about it unless it's just a matter of principle, although it was taken a turn to the worse with a plan only a politician could come up with, to have yourself registered if you want to buy in coffeeshops. People are not going to do that and in the south where it was implemented first the damage has been done, dealers everywhere.
a completely inoffensive name
11-25-2012, 09:19
Okay, now let's throw a wrench in the question: What if the Netherlands had a budget crisis, crippling debt, and a legislature that was utterly incapable of making spending cuts or creating revenue gains through traditional avenues? Would not then total legalization, regulation, and taxation of an enourmously profitable industry that already exists be a pretty simple and logical thing to do?
And perhaps more importantly, what about the consumers? Do you not believe in consumer protection? The Black Market doesn't do Q&A. You can't sue your dealer for false advertisement. What about the real entrepreneurs, who could be creating real jobs and real businesses revolving around the industry? They can't compete with the black market. Regulation breeds quality, and quality breeds good products. The reason Pacific Northwest weed is so good is because it is grown locally, usually by very small enterprises, and sold locally by people who have reputations to protect--not with violence, but with good product. But that is an anomoly, and normally such quality only comes from regulation. Mexico is proof of that, insofar as allowing the business to go totally unregulated leads to the very opposite of what you want.
Your posts have been featuring more bold words, sounds like you need to relax and smoke up buddy. Want to drive up to Washington with me?
Okay, now let's throw a wrench in the question: What if the Netherlands had a budget crisis, crippling debt, and a legislature that was utterly incapable of making spending cuts or creating revenue gains through traditional avenues? Would not then total legalization, regulation, and taxation of an enourmously profitable industry that already exists be a pretty simple and logical thing to do?
And perhaps more importantly, what about the consumers? Do you not believe in consumer protection? The Black Market doesn't do Q&A. You can't sue your dealer for false advertisement. What about the real entrepreneurs, who could be creating real jobs and real businesses revolving around the industry? They can't compete with the black market. Regulation breeds quality, and quality breeds good products. The reason Pacific Northwest weed is so good is because it is grown locally, usually by very small enterprises, and sold locally by people who have reputations to protect--not with violence, but with good product. But that is an anomoly, and normally such quality only comes from regulation. Mexico is proof of that, insofar as allowing the business to go totally unregulated leads to the very opposite of what you want.
All makes sense but it just works for us
I'm a big believer in emphasis. :creep:
I'm sure it does. I'm just trying to explain to you why it is such a big deal here, for Americans, to have it legalized.
Back at ya, if you just discriminalise it without taxing it the money flows directly back in the economy and the government will still get revenues from consumer purchases, without having to set up an expensive government-institution tasked with regulating it. Win-win situation.
Obviously not. That kind of extreme trickle-down theory has never been successful in practice. Millions of Americans smoke weed. That money goes to people selling the weed, whether it be organized crime like the cartel (in which case it never goes back into the economy in a meaningful way) or it goes to the local grower (who will put most of it back into his growing operation). What spare money the 'owners' of the business have for personal use is going to be spent quietly, under the table, in ways that don't attract undue attention--and also in ways that probably won't get taxed.
Still probably worth the lack of trouble, no government hunting it down will save you a lot of money, and no government regulating will save you money. And the end-user can just enjoy his joint without getting mauled by the system, same for small local growers who don't have to worry about unwanted attention. Growing it in big quantities is asking for trouble and who likes trouble
Wrong again, grasshopper. Because the entire business is illegal, prices are high. This is always true in black markets, because prohibition creates risk, and risk has to be mitigated by raising prices. In places where small quantities are decriminalized (most of the west coast) even small growers still have to worry about government crackdown.
So make sure they don't they have to worry about crackdowns, with my proposition they don't. As for consumers protection, provide a bad product and people go to someone else.
Such a situation might be fine where you're at, but here in the US of A we have a serious want of revenue, and that requires that business be taxed. In your system, the economy does not benefit from the drug trade.
Oh it does, but indirectly. It could even work better for the US as the money is almost guarentied to be spend in the US because it's so big. Dutch businesses at the borders suffer from the taxation, goods are cheaper in Germany and Belgium, US doesn't has such a problem. Why overly complicate things?
It's interesting that being a conservative is so dependent on the status quo. Your status quo is the strange halfway house of the Netherlands. For rvg it's the current situation in the us. There is a belief that we have got to the current situation through careful analysis and measured decision, when in truth we have bumbled to now through mistake, opportunity and compromise.
It's interesting that being a conservative is so dependent on the status quo. Your status quo is the strange halfway house of the Netherlands. For rvg it's the current situation in the us. There is a belief that we have got to the current situation through careful analysis and measured decision, when in truth we have bumbled to now through mistake, opportunity and compromise.
Me a conservative you kidding me. Just an observation don't hurt me if I'm wrong, but legalising often appears to be more about recognistion rather than sensible policy, recognistion FROM that very status-quo.
I think you are right. Legalisation is about recognition. Recognising that drug use is an inherent part of society that won't go away with moralising or legislating.
I think you are right. Legalisation is about recognition. Recognising that drug use is an inherent part of society that won't go away with moralising or legislating.
Why care about how it's frowned upon, just go for the easiest solution. Outright legalization doesn't really serve any purpose imho, building it down like an addiction is better
Kralizec
11-25-2012, 14:16
The Dutch policy does not "work".
Cannabis is still classified as an illegal drug, but there's a policy of not prosecuting people for possessing small quantities. Likewise, coffeeshops are tolerated and not prosecuted provided that they don't have an inventory exceeding 500 grams at any given time. Growing the substance, or supplying it to the coffeeshop, is still actually prosecuted. If that's not hypocricy, then what is?
About the 500 grams: that's not a lot to begin with for a shop owner. There's a city in the southern part of our country where the local government resisted the establishment of more than the existing two coffeeshops. You can't service all your local clients in such a case with 500 grams, nevermind the Belgians and the French who come over here to buy the stuff. So they had a considerably larger turnover and inventory than was strictly speaking allowed for years. Then, completely out of the blue the cops raid the shop and arrest the owner.
Then, our last cabinet tried to eliminate drug tourism by mandating that coffeeshops can only serve registered, card-carrying clients based on residence. In other words, the government wanted to regulate something that they continued to maintain was illegal. Totally surreal.
All of this nonsense could be avoided by introducing national legislation that determines under what conditions you can grow, sell and possess cannabis. Probably not going to happen, sadly.
It's actually being regulated, do you think the police doesn't know where the growers are.
Kralizec
11-25-2012, 14:28
You mean before they shut them down and arrest them?
You mean before they shut them down and arrest them?
Some, not all. They know exactly where they are, deal is that they don't move to anything harder. Newcommers to the market will be arrested yes because it upsets things. It has it's own logic.
HopAlongBunny
11-25-2012, 16:09
Newcommers to the market will be arrested yes because it upsets things. It has it's own logic.
Don't you get just how crooked that arrangement is? Essentially the gov't aids organized crime by keeping prices artificially high, and limits entry of competition. There is not a business on earth that would turn down such a sweet deal if they could get it.
Kralizec
11-25-2012, 16:09
There's no actual policy on growers, other than that it's illegal and can land you in jail if they go after you. Since police and prosecution are somewhat decentralised it would not surprise me if in some regions the police strongly suspects/knows that person A is a harmless grower and leaves him alone, but that would be an exception. And it just proves what a mess our drug policy is; with all the differences in how local authorities deal with the issue.
They should simply have legalised the junk and made clear regulations on the subject back in the '90ies. Our current half-assed policy was a result of short-sighted pragmaticism and I never understood why people ever presented the Netherlands as some sort of role model for drug policies.
A case in point: anti-cannabis sentiment is on the rise in some political circles and one argument they use is that the THC content of Dutch weed has risen dramaticly, and therefore it should be considered a hard-drug nowadays. That argument is debatable in itself, but in any case that would never have happened if we had legalized the stuff with conditions like purity, THC content etc.
Don't you get just how crooked that arrangement is? Essentially the gov't aids organized crime by keeping prices artificially high, and limits entry of competition. There is not a business on earth that would turn down such a sweet deal if they could get it.
It isn't all that crooked it's an agreement.
It isn't all that crooked it's an agreement.
Ok. So if it's such a good solution, then why don't the police come clean about what is really happening? How come it's kept a secret that they are protecting a select few tax dodging gangsters who are running a multi million euros business? Seems the potential for high level corruption is massive.
Ok. So if it's such a good solution, then why don't the police come clean about what is really happening? How come it's kept a secret that they are protecting a select few tax dodging gangsters who are running a multi million euros business? Seems the potential for high level corruption is massive.
If you do it on a big scale you will get caught. It's just not a priority to go after small game, and that's what's provide the coffeeshops. Mostly people who grow a bit in their attic it's 40.000 a harvest at best in a normal house.
If you do it on a big scale you will get caught. It's just not a priority to go after small game, and that's what's provide the coffeeshops. Mostly people who grow a bit in their attic it's 40.000 a harvest at best in a normal house.
Coffee shops are supplied by small growers? No way. I've seen the brisk trade that many dutch coffeeshops have. I've seen them get re-supplied hourly. That's a lot of weed. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that level of consumption can be met with a few hobby grows.
Coffee shops are supplied by small growers? No way. I've seen the brisk trade that many dutch coffeeshops have. I've seen them get re-supplied hourly. That's a lot of weed. You are living in a fantasy land if you think that level of consumption can be met with a few hobby grows.
You can't have seen that as that doesn't happen. Purchases go under the counter not in plain sight
a completely inoffensive name
11-26-2012, 02:33
You can't have seen that as that doesn't happen. Purchases go under the counter not in plain sight
Woah, woah, woah Frag's. You know who else tells other people what they see? Al Gore.
You can't have seen that as that doesn't happen. Purchases go under the counter not in plain sight
Heh. Sit in a popular coffee shop, one without a back entrance, and watch how it works. It's not hard to figure out.
Heh. Sit in a popular coffee shop, one without a back entrance, and watch how it works. It's not hard to figure out.
I have been in the trade I know how it works. You say that it aren't small growers who supply, but that isn't true it is almost impossible to make large spaces invisible for infrared-camara's police helicopters are equiped with, and growing takes a lot of power to begin with they can pinpoint you with that if you are a floor lower, leeching power won't help you from getting detected. It isn't all that easy to grow larger quantities. Popular coffeeshops by the way, especially those where a lot of tourists come don't risk being supplied in the open as there are always undercover police watching those, getting caught means having the establishment closed. That is not to say it isn't in the hands of organised crime mind you, they supply the equipment if you offer them the right amount of space.
It's one thing to criminalize something that's currently legal. It's a whole different thing to decriminalize something that is currently illegal.
Clearly. It does not however make the case for decriminalizing the drug.
Do you believe it was wrong to repeal Prohibition?
Do you believe it was wrong to repeal Prohibition?
No, I do not.
No, I do not.
Then you are acknowledging that, in some cases, decriminalizing something that is currently illegal can be beneficial to society.
Then you are acknowledging that, in some cases, decriminalizing something that is currently illegal can be beneficial to society.
Yes.
Short easy and painless, you guys really need to think things through better before you embark on experimenting and start outweighting things.
you guys really need to think things through better before you embark on experimenting and outweighting things.
The only way this sentence makes sense is if I read "outlawing" or "decriminalizing" for "outweighting."
Bonus points for making me read the sentence three times and still having no idea what you're saying.
The only way this sentence makes sense is if I read "outlawing" or "decriminalizing" for "outweighting."
Bonus points for making me read the sentence three times and still having no idea what you're saying.
Exactly that really, you are reading just fine.
Edit, I suck. I meant 'start outweighting things'
Yes.
As a hypothetical - if legalisation guaranteed not to increase consumption, increased tax revenue, saved money on prisons and took out a big chunk of organised crime. Would you be in favour?
I'm trying to understand if you don't believe that these will happen or if your objections have other origins.
As a hypothetical - if legalisation guaranteed not to increase consumption, increased tax revenue, saved money on prisons and took out a big chunk of organised crime. Would you be in favour?
I would not. My biggest issue with the legalization is that it largely lifts the social stigma. I want the stigma to remain in place.
As a hypothetical - if legalisation guaranteed not to increase consumption, increased tax revenue, saved money on prisons and took out a big chunk of organised crime. Would you be in favour?
Would you still be in favour of it if it would greatly actually aid chunks of organised crime and make everybody worse off just because of you being kinda egocentric, being egocentric enough to allow that to happen just because you feel you have the right to smoke it. Because that's kinda it in the end. Drugs are currency. You cannot fight it.
Please show me an example of a first-world nation where decriminalizing an intoxicant has increased organized crime. Because every example I can think of has the opposite effect.
Counter-factual posturing is counter-factual.
"Drugs are currency. You cannot fight it."—another sentence that seems to be saying something, but on close examination turns out to be word salad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad).
rory_20_uk
11-26-2012, 17:32
I would not. My biggest issue with the legalization is that it largely lifts the social stigma. I want the stigma to remain in place.
Laws already exist for this - the equivalent of drunk and disorderly, creating a public nuisance, unfit for work and so on. The other half is parents, frankly.
~:smoking:
Please show me an example of a first-world nation where decriminalizing an intoxicant has increased organized crime. Because every example I can think of has the opposite
That's my point no, nowhere is the western world is the use of cannabis lower then here, just because it's availlable. Yes it's dodgy ofcourse agreed, but it's simly better to have it a bit dodgy. Do you prefer the alternative that is hammering down things you can't beat, or would you rather accept a few facts of life. I don't have to think on it all that long really.
AntonineWall
11-26-2012, 17:53
I would not. My biggest issue with the legalization is that it largely lifts the social stigma. I want the stigma to remain in place.
Social stigma is reliant on so much more than the law. Being a drunk is still a source of shame for many an individual and family, despite what is said about addiction being an illness, and the activity being entirely legal. Dont need to look far within UK and US society to see other examples of perfectly legal behaviour which carries a social stigma within particular communities.
Social stigma is reliant on so much more than the law...
The law is integral in maintaining it.
Montmorency
11-26-2012, 18:55
What do you see as the worth of the stigma? Why is that worth greater than the benefits of legalization?
Do you think society will experience catastrophic destabilization if weed becomes somewhat more acceptable in polite company?
What do you see as the worth of the stigma? Why is that worth greater than the benefits of legalization?
Do you think society will experience catastrophic destabilization if weed becomes somewhat more acceptable in polite company?
I just don't like it. Isn't that enough? I support things I like and oppose things I don't like. There's nothing else to it.
I just don't like it. Isn't that enough? I support things I like and oppose things I don't like. There's nothing else to it.
I'm curious as to what differences you see between marijuana and alcohol. What is it that makes the latter acceptable, while the former is worthy of being stigmatized?
I'm curious as to what differences you see between marijuana and alcohol. What is it that makes the latter acceptable, while the former is worthy of being stigmatized?
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, alcohol too deeply ingrained in our culture. It's also a junk food of sorts. Weed has never seen the levels of social acceptance that alcohol has.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, alcohol too deeply ingrained in our culture. It's also a junk food of sorts. Weed has never seen the levels of social acceptance that alcohol has.
Do you believe that, if alcohol were not so deeply ingrained, it would be better if it were illegal?
Do you believe that, if alcohol were not so deeply ingrained, it would be better if it were illegal?
Certainly.
Certainly.
Then I applaud you on your consistency and have no further questions; apologies for the cross-examination.
It's no trouble at all :)
So in your view, rvg, all my points about personal freedom, fiscal benefits, and so forth rate lower than your desire for a social stigma?
Yes. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not feel any moral obligation as far as decriminalizing weed.
I find that maddeningly illogical, and makes me worry about other people who refuse to see the big picture.
Perhaps you're looking for a complex explanation where a simple one would suffice: I do not like weed. Many people share that view. In fact, enough of them share that view that in most states weed is illegal. Those states who have allowed it, that's their prerogative. To me that's no more of a reason to legalize weed than it is to legalize prostitution just because Nevada has allowed it. If I were in minority, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as the anti-weed legislation would have been long since repealed.
It just seems intentionally obtuse, is all. I respect your opinion, but i don't understand the thought process that led you to believe it is the superior opinion.
I've met plenty of people who think that all drugs, including alcohol (and one blasphemer even includes caffeine) should be illegal. It's not an opinion I share, but I think it's an understandable one. Some people believe that substances which cause intoxication or which otherwise alter your mental state are bad for society as a whole. I'm actually fine with that argument, and I don't really fight that one. The people that bug me are those that justify the legality of one drug (usually one they use) but then oppose the legality of another drug (usually one they do not use). That's just ignorance and crazy talk. The general anti-drug stance I think is more of a moral and philosophical argument which is very difficult to debate with statistics and anecdotes.
HopAlongBunny
11-26-2012, 21:29
Overall that leaves us where we started; the prohibition issue has never let facts stand in the way of what some think all ought to think.
In Canada we have had a Senate recommendation for decriminalization (1972 Le Dain Comission) sit ignored for 40 years; the recent (2002) recommendation for legalization has been championed twice, to die on the order paper.
For some reason it's an emotive issue, not a rational issue.
Here's to another half century of wasted money, lives and effort :party2:
Fisherking
11-26-2012, 22:23
Actually rvg’s attitude as those of the people TinCow mentioned is why we have illegal substances.
Anything that might prove to be fun for some people must be bad. Everyone should be as miserable as they are.
These are the people who know best how you should live your life and never miss an opportunity to tell you so.
I know full well that there are people with addictive personalities who will go over the top with a good thing but I see no legitimate reason to tell them they have no right to live as they wish.
Anything that might prove to be fun for some people must be bad. Everyone should be as miserable as they are. These are the people who know best how you should live your life and never miss an opportunity to tell you so.
These miserable, buzzkilling rascals are also commonly known under another name: The Majority.
These miserable, buzzkilling rascals are also commonly known under another name: The Majority.
Not for long.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/10/19/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-1019-firstpot/fivethirtyeight-1019-firstpot-blog480.png
Fisherking
11-26-2012, 23:01
These miserable, buzzkilling rascals are also commonly known under another name: The Majority.
Call the miscreants anything you like. You obviously judge others not to be capable of making their own decisions and feel that liberty and freedoms should be given up and we should live the way we are told.
How enlightened you are.
a completely inoffensive name
11-26-2012, 23:34
The moral crusaders don't need a reason to tell people what to do. They know in their hearts their cause is right and that's all they need.
Call the miscreants anything you like. You obviously judge others not to be capable of making their own decisions and feel that liberty and freedoms should be given up and we should live the way we are told.
How enlightened you are.
Majority rules.
By that logic, everyone who has ever championed a good, but unpopular cause was wrong to try.
Oh, worthy causes are always worth trying. Though the definition of "worthy" varies from person to person.
Strike For The South
11-27-2012, 02:00
The most frightining thing in this thread is that Idaho has a job with a coroporation
Bloody patrician IMO
I really don't care about weed. I say we legalize it, so all you thirty somethings in this thread will finally stop complaining becuase you think its the one thing you do that still makes you "cool" and "hip"
This thread has been painful to read becuase of that
Seriously grow old with some dignity
So why is this cause unworthy to you? Why the apathy?
It's just not important to me. I understand that it is important to you, and yes, you do a good job of presenting your case, but I just don't like it. That's a perfectly good reason to vote against something; don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Haven't we presented enough evidence to warrant a better response than "i don't like it" ?
Sure you have, I do not dispute that. I'm not swayed by it, but it is a pretty good case. Thus you'll be better off trying to convince somebody other than myself.
a completely inoffensive name
11-27-2012, 05:01
The democratic process depends on people like you, RVG, to make educated decisions on things that only affect you indirectly. This is a prime example. I have given you multitudes of reasons why the legalization of marijuana would benefit the entire country, if not you personally. If you then cannot be depended upon to open your mind and make the logical choice--going instead with only a vague preconcieved prejudice of the issue-- then you are an example of the worst kind of voter. Be responsible and take interest in the big picture.
So what you are saying is that he needs to open his mind.....
Hey RVG give me your address, I want to send you some baked goods.
Majority rules.
You have heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority", right?
So what you are saying is that he needs to open his mind.....
Hey RVG give me your address, I want to send you some baked goods.
Send psilocybin instead.
Crazed Rabbit
11-27-2012, 07:27
These miserable, buzzkilling rascals are also commonly known under another name: The Majority.
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)
You have heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority", right?
An appropriate phrase. RVG and his fellow nanny state authoritarians would be tyrants, if we let them.
The price of freedom is constant vigilance.
CR
Fisherking
11-27-2012, 08:21
Majority rules.
Are you so smug and self assured that you forget the very purpose of a constitution and the way a Republic works.
You are talking about a direct democracy which we, thankfully, do not live under.
The rights of everyone are supposed to be protected, not just the majority. Otherwise the “Majority” might think that rvg shouldn’t have that kind of car or even that rvg should not live where he does. Why do you think we did away with the “Jim Crow Laws”?
Your views are far from the majority here, however.
I could really care less about weed from a personal standpoint. I don’t use it but I don’t want others deciding how I live or what I do.
This is just a chance to undo some of the past wrongs of government. Or have you not noticed that they tend to proscribe things and intrude into your life to make everything safer for you?
Your view is that you don’t like it, therefore it should not be allowed. That is not a view I can respect, regardless of what others say.
It is selfish, short sighted, and very narrow minded. By those rules there is nothing that could not be disallowed, to include you. It is a highly repressive point of view.
The rights of everyone are supposed to be protected, not just the majority. Otherwise the “Majority” might think that rvg shouldn’t have that kind of car or even that rvg should not live where he does. Why do you think we did away with the “Jim Crow Laws”?
I was waiting for this... I was waiting for someone to draw a comparison between the civil rights struggle and the legalization of weed. If you think smoking weed is a civil right, then, well... :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
You have heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority", right?
Sure. If disallowing weed is tyranny, then so be it.
I was waiting for this... I was waiting for someone to draw a comparison between the civil rights struggle and the legalization of weed. If you think smoking weed is a civil right, then, well... :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Sure. If disallowing weed is tyranny, then so be it.
The notion that disallowing weed is tyranny does, on the face of it, seem laughable.
But then when you see the numbers of people imprisoned or fired from their jobs, it seems less like hyperbole. The very fact that it seems silly and insignificant would suggest that judicial intervention was highly disproportionate.
My question to you now, is whether you think infidelity should be made illegal? After all, you have stated that laws should mirror societal dissaproval.
The notion that disallowing weed is tyranny does, on the face of it, seem laughable. But then when you see the numbers of people imprisoned or fired from their jobs, it seems less like hyperbole. The very fact that it seems silly and insignificant would suggest that judicial intervention was highly disproportionate.
I have said repeatedly that I do not have a problem with replacing jail sentences with fines in cases of pot users. Maintaining the social stigma is my main goal, and fines here would do just as well as jail.
My question to you now, is whether you think infidelity should be made illegal? After all, you have stated that laws should mirror societal dissaproval.Outlawing infidelity is like outlawing alcohol: impractical. Not a bad idea in theory, but only in theory.
Outlawing infidelity is like outlawing alcohol: impractical. Not a bad idea in theory, but only in theory.
Oh crikey, there really is no hope for you :laugh4:
I think the group pile-on with RVG is a little bit unseemly. He's admitted that he has no metric, logic, or large-scale reason to his position—he just doesn't like weed and wants it to stay illegal.
IMHO, that's enough said.
What do other posters expect, a change of heart and a mea culpa? That sort of turnaround is exceedingly rare, and requires a lot from the person being asked to admit error.
It's enough that we all lay out our positions and our reasoning. Nobody is required to say, "Crikey, you're right and I was wrong!"
What do other posters expect, a change of heart and a mea culpa? That sort of turnaround is exceedingly rare, and requires a lot from the person being asked to admit error.
It's enough that we all lay out our positions and our reasoning. Nobody is required to say, "Crikey, you're right and I was wrong!"
Duty calls. (http://xkcd.com/386/) ~D
And by the way, I'm highly disappointed you didn't post the stoned dog picture in this thread. :no:
Nobody is required to say, "Crikey, you're right and I was wrong!"
Especially when one does not believe to be wrong. I mean, someone can demand to be allowed to walk naked in public and be denied that as well. He can cry foul all he wants, but I doubt it'll make a difference. Laws are here to protect people's civil rights and reflect the will of the people. No matter what the will of the people might be, there would be someone who has a problem with it. We aren't obligated to accommodate anyone's personal whims in any way, shape or form.
Especially when one does not believe to be wrong.
Hey man, if you think you've laid out your case in favor of continued prohibition as clearly and convincingly as possible, enough said.
Have some cake. Relax.
https://i.imgur.com/ZwUmj.jpg
That's the stuff. Extra credit for getting it at the top of a page. :yes:
Major Robert Dump
11-28-2012, 03:34
Hey man, if you think you've laid out your case in favor of continued prohibition as clearly and convincingly as possible, enough said.
Have some cake. Relax.
https://i.imgur.com/ZwUmj.jpg
That photo was my screen saver on my afghanistan nipr computer. +1
Major Robert Dump
11-28-2012, 03:40
I would love to see a number on what percentage of those opposed to weed actually have their livelyhood depend on it. Drug agents, private prisons, UA labs, advocacy groups, counselors, religous leaders, sheriffs departments, paper barons, alcohol manufacturers, and of course the politicians all the aforementioned people donate to. Gosh, if we add all those people up I bet the numbers would be in the millions. Not the moral majority anymore.
Nightbringer
11-28-2012, 03:45
Interestingly, the higher ups of the police force were quite heavily in favor of legalization in Washington. One of the main foci of the campaign was how legalization will cut down expenses in law enforcement by reducing arrests, court cases, etc...
Major Robert Dump
11-28-2012, 04:32
Yes but I bet the Drug Task Force in that same department was not in favor, nor was the SWAT Team. If they cannot kick in doors to catch those evil weedsters then how will they become proficient with their military grade weapons.
Oh, and in my previous post I forgot to mention Drone Manufacturers and Thermal Imaging dealers. big business there, boys
I would love to see a number on what percentage of those opposed to weed actually have their livelyhood depend on it.
Banks. Big time.
My experience of the banking world was entirely through investment banking, which is the wrong end of the stick. Anybody have any real experience of merchant or (most relevant) private banking, care to comment on this article (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2012/12/banks-are-where-money-drug-war)? Is it legit or hype?
Imagine if you or I were pulled over by the cops while transporting in the trunk of our car even $10,000 in bills that traced back to individuals suspected of being involved in illegal activities, such as narco-trafficking. What are the odds that we would walk away with only a traffic ticket?
That’s essentially what is happening in these cases involving big banks, who, for all practical purposes, are allowing their money transportation systems to be rented, for a fee, by criminals, while the banks’ leadership pleads ignorance: “I didn’t know that money was in the trunk. I’ll have to look into that.”
Now, if you take that same $10,000, or even millions of dollars, and put it inside an armored car under contract to a big bank, suddenly the dirty money gains the presumption of legitimate commerce, and is likely to have a police escort as opposed to being subjected to a police inspection.
“All financial crime has a money laundering component,” says Charles A. Intriago, president of the Miami-based Association of Certified Financial Crime Specialists. “… If you’re an individual, and get caught, you get hammered.
“But if you’re a big bank, and you’re caught moving money for a terrorist or drug dealer, you don’t have to worry. You just fork over a monetary penalty, and then raise your fees to make up for it.
“Until we see bankers walking off in handcuffs to face charges in these cases, nothing is going to change,” Intriago adds. “These monetary penalties are just a cost of doing business to them, like paying for a new corporate jet.”-edit-
And lest I be accused of making a post that contains no silliness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye3ecDYxOkg
HopAlongBunny
12-04-2012, 05:35
No thread on drugs is complete:
http://youtu.be/qDO6HV6xTmI
Sasaki Kojiro
12-04-2012, 23:24
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_22106197/survey-one-7-states-nighttime-drivers-under-influence
Survey: One in 7 of state's nighttime drivers under the influence of drugs
Sometimes, they come through DUI checkpoints smoking a joint.
"They'll say, I've got a medical card," said Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy Sgt. Philip Brooks, of the drivers who get stopped.
"And we'll say, that doesn't matter. Smoke that at home and don't drive."
While they don't all come through checkpoints smoking marijuana, an increased number of motorists are getting caught driving drugged. It's happening at DUI checkpoints on curved roads through Malibu's canyons and it's happening across the state.
"Half of those caught are impaired due to drugs," said Brooks of the Malibu/Lost Hills Station.
"It's hard to say, but the biggest problem right now is medical marijuana," he added. "People seem to think it's a legal substance."
I mostly agree with rvg. The status quo of a stigma is a positive thing. There is some stigma with drinking as well, that's a positive thing too...alcohol can destroy a society. Our primary concern should be keeping a good cultural attitude toward these things...we need a very widespread understanding of how weed effects driving ability and the effect it has on brain development. It should be obvious from history and our present obesity problems that we are not good with this stuff.
Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare, not a worship of abstract principles of justice.
There is no reason you can't drink, smoke weed, and trip on acid and still see that these are things we should be cautious about. It would be very self centered or naive to take your experience as representative of everyones.
Slow legalization state by state seems like part of a completely workable solution to me--but the larger part is cultural.
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?
If you don't want to live somewhere where people actually care about their fellow citizens lives rather than their civil liberties then you can move to some floating libertarian utopia in international waters.
I really don't care about weed. I say we legalize it, so all you thirty somethings in this thread will finally stop complaining becuase you think its the one thing you do that still makes you "cool" and "hip"
This thread has been painful to read becuase of that
Seriously grow old with some dignity
:2thumbsup:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.