Legalized Marijuana

[Idaho]

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

[rvg]

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.

[Idaho]

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]

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]

Heavy drug usage by % of population has remained steady since the war on drugs started. All that money and time for nothing.

[Idaho]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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.

[Idaho]

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

[rvg]

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]

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.

[Idaho]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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?

[Idaho]

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.

[drone]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Idaho]

I don't drink alcohol, but smoke pot. Am I a social outcast?

Er.. Yes.

[drone]

Seattle Police Department "FAQ": Marijwhatnow.

[gaelic cowboy]

Bet there are whole van loads of hippies and college students heading for that Four Corners place right now

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[rvg]

Completely ignore the fact that Mr. Face-bitey was already a mental case.

Then there was this guy... These things add up.

[Montmorency]

Clearly, illegalizing the drugs did not prevent the incident.

[Lemur]

Then there was this guy... 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.

[rvg]

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]

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?