Legalized Marijuana

[Major Robert Dump]

Exactly.

Look, Broseph. I don't care if you are older, or puritanical, or totally unhip, because I a friendly man k? You me friends, ya?

I just want you to know that, should you pass through my state, or when the momentum of the Weed Movement finally overtakes your state and I happen to be passing through to visit some of my bitches, that I will totally share my weed with you. It will be good times.

[rvg]

Look, Broseph. I don't care if you are older, or puritanical, or totally unhip, because I a friendly man k? You me friends, ya?

I just want you to know that, should you pass through my state, or when the momentum of the Weed Movement finally overtakes your state and I happen to be passing through to visit some of my bitches, that I will totally share my weed with you. It will be good times.

Appreciated.

[Montmorency]

I am struggling to see how concern about the measurable local, state, and national expense (and tangible personal damage) created by incarcerating tens of thousands of non-violent drug users is "abstract." Feel free to explain. By way of comparison, jaywalking is illegal and dangerous. No argument from anyone about that. However, if we were to treat jaywalking as a serious crime, and fill our jails and prisons with jaywalkers, spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year feeding, clothing, guarding and medicating this class of criminals, would you find concern about this madness "worship of abstract principles of justice"? When something is clearly, obviously, broken, and somebody points this out, how on earth is it "abstract"?

How long until the police state has images on file of all of us jaywalking, so that they have the casus tyrannus to sequester us away once they think we're out of step with their fascist ideologies!?!?!?

I would leverage it, at least.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I am struggling to see how concern about the measurable local, state, and national expense (and tangible personal damage) created by incarcerating tens of thousands of non-violent drug users is "abstract."

Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare--for example, the people smoking while driving are also arrested, or the may crash and hurt themselves or others, or perhaps the smoke a lot as a young teen and become stupid. But some people focus entirely on libertarian types of arguments "nanny state authoritarians" etc--for them there are sacred principles involved that they care about more deeply than the actual welfare of the people. It shouldn't be "abstract" but for them it is, passionately so.

edit:

I found these two articles interesting

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...-the-drug-war/


http://www.the-american-interest.com...cfm?piece=1316

[Montmorency]

Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare

This is just as abstract, and just as much of a principle.

[Major Robert Dump]

Yeah but I think you guys are forgetting about weed, and how awesome it is, and how high people are going to get, andhow much Top40 music will improve, and how The Cartels will have to diversify their portfolios and start invesing in Dollar General, and how good pot brownies taste, and how much more gooder movies will become with the legalization.

[Montmorency]

I heard cocaine is mad blessed.

It's maximum-best.

It has overtaken weed, at God's behest,

In the Wild-Mild West.

[rory_20_uk]

Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare--for example, the people smoking while driving are also arrested, or the may crash and hurt themselves or others, or perhaps the smoke a lot as a young teen and become stupid. But some people focus entirely on libertarian types of arguments "nanny state authoritarians" etc--for them there are sacred principles involved that they care about more deeply than the actual welfare of the people. It shouldn't be "abstract" but for them it is, passionately so.

In the UK, using a phone is illegal whilst driving as is driving without due care and attention - so it is already covered.
The age was 18+, so most teens smoking was as illegal as it is now.

Any others? Users will beel compelled to smoke crack after 6 months of week is another concern I imagine...

[Idaho]

The only plausible opposition can be that long term, problematic use will increase. If this doesn't happen then I can't see how the destructive effects of criminal sanctions can be justified.

[HopAlongBunny]

The good news is you have two test tubes. If they neither implode into navel gazing wastes of space, nor explode in orgies of excess:

[Lemur]

But some people focus entirely on libertarian types of arguments "nanny state authoritarians" etc--for them there are sacred principles involved that they care about more deeply than the actual welfare of the people. It shouldn't be "abstract" but for them it is, passionately so.

I haven't been making any sort of "abstract" libertarian argument in these pages; quite the opposite. I've thrown down more hard numbers and legit links than anyone arguing in favor of continued prohibition. Hell, I even did my own debunking of my own sources, since prohibition proponents such as you and RVG can't be bothered, resting your arguments instead on the "stigma" concept.

Here are the criteria given for a Schedule 1 prohibited substance, per the Controlled Substances Act:

• The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
• The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
• There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Marijuana fails on all three counts. In fact, you would have a hard time arguing that marijuana qualifies as a Schedule II substance:

• The drug or other substances have a high potential for abuse
• The drug or other substances have currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions
• Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

The best case anyone could make, based on what we know about cannabis, would be that it might fall under Schedule IV or V: "limited physical dependence or psychological dependence".

• The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV
• The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States
• Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

[Major Robert Dump]

Legalizing marijuana would give a huge boost to the PC and console gaming industries. Jobs will be created.

[rvg]

Jobs will be created.

And lost.