Legalized Marijuana

[HopAlongBunny]

It is hard to add much beyond Gelatinous Cube's excellent post

Changing terms of reference can be useful though: "rvg, why do you insist on a public subsidy to organized crime?"

[Fragony]

It is hard to add much beyond Gelatinous Cube's excellent post

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]

No argument really.

Legalization reduces violence, reduces the pain and "captures" lost economic activity.

[Fragony]

No argument really.

Legalization reduces violence, reduces the pain and "captures" lost economic activity.

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]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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]

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.

[Tuuvi]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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