Legalized Marijuana

[rvg]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[drone]

That's the stuff. Extra credit for getting it at the top of a page.

[Major Robert Dump]

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.

That photo was my screen saver on my afghanistan nipr computer. +1

[Major Robert Dump]

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]

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]

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

[Lemur]

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? 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:

[HopAlongBunny]

No thread on drugs is complete:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci...nder-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

[Montmorency]

If alcohol were illegal, and you thought it should be made legal, wouldn't you want to make sure people were aware of its effect on driving, aware of fetal alcohol syndrome, aware of alcoholism and the downsides in general?

Sure. Perhaps mass-legalization could coincide with a steep rise in the severity of penalties for operating heavy machinery under the influence of any psychotropic. That would catch attention.

Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare, not a worship of abstract principles of justice.

It's counterproductive and a waste of resources. A different approach is needed, though certainly not a totally hands-off "libertarian utopia".

[Strike For The South]

But, but, people should be able to do what they want short of rape and murder

TYRRANY TYRRANY TYYRRRRRRANNNNNNY

[Lemur]

Concern about those imprisoned should be part of a larger concern for human welfare, not a worship of abstract principles of justice.

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

Meanwhile, an interesting article that argues the Mexican Cartels won't feel the pinch of legalization until Southern states decriminalize.

[T]alk to entrepreneurs familiar with the existing marijuana industry in Washington and Colorado—and to law enforcement agents who deal with gang crime—and there is reason for skepticism. Not only have the cartels diversified their portfolios (to borrow language applied to other multinational, multibillion dollar operations); the Mexican suppliers have already been edged out of the local markets in the two new green states. [...]

The only way cartels will be seriously affected by the new pot laws, according to the Mexican Center for Competitiveness, is if Washington and Colorado's legal weed spreads to parts of the country more reliant on Mexican grass. These states include the more conservative ones that are unlikely to legalize marijuana anytime soon.

[Major Robert Dump]

Weed weed weed weed weed weed weed weed cant wait to smoke some weed weed weed weed and blow it in a fascists face
weed weed weed weed weed weed weed weed smoke your cigarettes and drink and drive and eat yourself into obesity meanwhile i will smoke some weed weed weed weed
weed weed weed weed weed weed oh i love me some weed weed and hate me some fascists weed weed weed
weed weed gonna make your daughter wet gonna make her giggle she gonna listen to pink floyd with me and then we do the nasty on some weed weed weed weed
weed weed gonna marry me some weed weed

[rvg]

Exactly.

[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.

[Lemur]

From the Seattle PD's spokesman, who completely rocks: "The police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a Lord of the Rings marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to."

[drone]

From the Seattle PD's spokesman, who completely rocks: "The police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a Lord of the Rings marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to."

"The Dude abides, take it inside".