Milton Friedman: Legalize It!

[trumptman]

Milton sez governments should gain from vice (http://www.forbes.com/services/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html)

Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year.

A 14 billion dollar turn around from legalizing marijuana, but the trade off is we let government validate another vice in the name and pursuit of the all might dollar.

We've seen states legalize lotteries or even gambling because it seems like it is fine to tax people if it is a vice.

Two questions, one should the goverment continue to legalize vices in an attempt to increase revenue.

Second, should the government consider private vices acceptable only when are considered sources of revenue?

Many times the first argument for pot legalization is that cigarettes and alcohol are already legal. The same argument is now often being made for gambling as a second step from lotteries. Should vices really only be considered acceptable based off what revenue they might generate? Doesn't goverment have a responsibility to look at a problem in a manner that goes beyond the financial numbers?

Nick

[e1618978]

Should vices really only be considered acceptable based off what revenue they might generate?

I don't care what justification they use, they should legalise it ASAP.

It makes me mad that the jails are full of marajuana smokers, resulting in early release of murdurers and child molestors.

1.6% of the jail population is incarcerated for marajuana only (not counting the people who have multiple charges, like marajuana + assault). There are 2,000,000 prisioners in the US, so we have 32,000 people in jail for smoking pot.

This is for a substance that is less addictive than cigerettes, and less debilitating than alchohol.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by trumptman
Milton sez governments should gain from vice (http://www.forbes.com/services/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html)



A 14 billion dollar turn around from legalizing marijuana, but the trade off is we let government validate another vice in the name and pursuit of the all might dollar.

We've seen states legalize lotteries or even gambling because it seems like it is fine to tax people if it is a vice.

Two questions, one should the goverment continue to legalize vices in an attempt to increase revenue.

Second, should the government consider private vices acceptable only when are considered sources of revenue?

Many times the first argument for pot legalization is that cigarettes and alcohol are already legal. The same argument is now often being made for gambling as a second step from lotteries. Should vices really only be considered acceptable based off what revenue they might generate? Doesn't goverment have a responsibility to look at a problem in a manner that goes beyond the financial numbers?

Nick

You live in California hence a certain "lifestyle" and drive a leaky old Jeep hence you are not entitled to open this thread.

Besides some drugs are legal so they all should be legal to be consistent.

Can't judge which drugs are legal and not right ole Dumpet?

Otherwise you are just another judge and jury imposing your crap onto others because you are a fascist.

Fellows

[running with scissors]

wow.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
It makes me mad that the jails are full of marajuana smokers, resulting in early release of murdurers and child molestors. So we legalize pot, so that these people that are not smart enough to stay out of jail, will now be on the streets to kill innocent drivers because of DUI, or to break into our houses to support their new "legal" habit.

Brilliant! Genius!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So we legalize pot, so that these people that are not smart enough to stay out of jail, will now be on the streets to kill innocent drivers because of DUI, or to break into our houses to support their new "legal" habit.

Brilliant! Genius!

Legalising drugs dramatically lowers the price, so the reason that they are breaking into our houses to support their habit is that the war on drugs raises the price.

I hope your kids go to jail for marajuana - it is basically random, so you have a 1.6% chance (since most teens smoke pot).

[THT]

They should legalize it so Ricky Williams can play football again!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So we legalize pot, so that these people that are not smart enough to stay out of jail, will now be on the streets to kill innocent drivers because of DUI, or to break into our houses to support their new "legal" habit.

Brilliant! Genius!

PS - by your logic, also, people should go to jail for talking on cell phones in cars.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
PS - by your logic, also, people should go to jail for talking on cell phones in cars. Right, that's exactly what I said.

If is against the law, I don't see amy reason why not.

[New]

Legalising drugs dramatically lowers the price, thereby increasing the use (& abuse) enormously.

Punishment is more the issue I think. You people (americans) should really do something about your penal system. It produces criminals.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
Legalising drugs dramatically lowers the price, so the reason that they are breaking into our houses to support their habit is that the war on drugs raises the price.

I hope your kids go to jail for marajuana - it is basically random, so you have a 1.6% chance (since most teens smoke pot). My kids are already aware of pot and it's effects. So, I will be surprised if that happens.

However, if it does I will stand by the states decision to jail them. You know what they say...

"Don't do the crime..."

[e1618978]

Legalising drugs dramatically lowers the price, thereby increasing the use (& abuse) enormously.

This is not true, and we know it is not true because we kept track of these things during alchohol prohibition.

Usage decreases when you legalise a drug.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
My kids are already aware of pot and it's effects. So, I will be surprised if that happens.

However, if it does I will stand by the states decision to jail them. You know what they say...

"Don't do the crime..."

But why should it be illegal in the first place? I have already refuted your only two points.

It will not cause more auto accidents because usage will go down. It will not cause more break ins because the price will be low.

[New]

Originally posted by e1618978
This is not true, and we know it is not true because we kept track of these things during alchohol prohibition.

Usage decreases when you legalise a drug.

Study the alcohol restrictions in Norway and Sweden. Especially the restrictions on how heavy alcoholic beverages are only allowed sold at state owned monopolies. There are some great statistics on how this works in modern times.

I wouldn't trust experiences from the gangster ridden 30's as a credible source for modern regulation.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
But why should it be illegal in the first place? I have already refuted your only two points.

It will not cause more auto accidents because usage will go down. It will not cause more break ins because the price will be low. You hope. You contend. You extrapolate.

If a person cannot control hem/herself enough to stay out of jail/prison. What makes you think that some pothead is going to control himself enough to hold down a job, or even pass a chance to make some easy money? I have personally known many a pothead, so you will have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.

Besides if the government get free reign to tax Mary Jane, the price is sure to go up. Who would oppose taxing Pot?

[e1618978]

Originally posted by New
Study the alcohol restrictions in Norway and Sweden. Especially the restrictions on how heavy alcoholic beverages are only allowed sold at state owned monopolies. There are some great statistics on how this works in modern times.

I wouldn't trust experiences from the gangster ridden 30's as a credible source for modern regulation.

The gangster ridden 30s are a good model for the current US drug situation - which is another reason for legalisation (each extra $1 we spend on the war on drugs results in an extra $4 in profit for organised crime).

I found some links on Norway/Sweden alchohol laws, but not what you were suggesting.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You hope. You contend. You extrapolate.

If a person cannot control hem/herself enough to stay out of jail/prison. What makes you think that some pothead is going to control himself enough to hold down a job, or even pass a chance to make some easy money? I have personally known many a pothead, so you will have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.

Besides if the government get free reign to tax Mary Jane, the price is sure to go up. Who would oppose taxing Pot?

I think that you should be more worried about alchoholics, they cause much more damage to society than pot heads.

And it is better for the government to get the money instead of the crime lords.

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
If a person cannot control hem/herself enough to stay out of jail/prison. What makes you think that some pothead is going to control himself enough to hold down a job, or even pass a chance to make some easy money? I have personally known many a pothead, so you will have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.
What bass ackwards reasoning.

Let's make pointy knives illegal (in reference to the other thread), and then we can say that those who "can't control themselves" well enough to stay away from pointy knives automatically demonstrate themselves to be dangerous, because if they "can't control themselves"... Well, who knows how wildly out of control these characters might get with those knives, madly stabbing about in their out-of-control frenzy?

Should the government be in the business of making arbitrary laws stressing arbitrarily emphasized dangers, just so that it can use compliance with those laws as some kind of test of who is or isn't a trustworthy citizen?

[jamac]

Absolutely.

The perversion here is that people can't even grow Hemp in the US. Mr. Hearst was able to convince congress to change the laws so he could make more money on his forest investments. He wanted to avoid that paper was being made from Hemp instead of trees. This would be cheaper and far easier on the environment. Again the greed of one individual has changed US laws. In this case it has costed the taxpayer trillions over the years and a few pot growers made and still make fortunes.

At the turn of the 20 century pot was sold in cigarette packs all over the world. There is no evidence of rampant abuse. In many Muslim nation it is part of the day like coffee. The average Maroccan man carries pot in the left sock and hash in the right sock, the cafes there team with tea drinking stoners. The only reason why the world has not been taken over by Islamic militants is pot. Anybody who has tried it will know that you just don't feel like killing when you got good weed.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by e1618978
Usage decreases when you legalise a drug. I sincerely doubt it. Currently, illegal drugs are hardly a problem in terms of usage and health effects compared to the ones that are legal. Tobacco use is the number one cause of death in the US, ferchrissakes. Alcohol is number three. Illegal drugs are barely on the radar, at around 5% of the number of deaths caused by legal drugs.

I would decriminalize some drugs, but I wouldn't tax the sales. I'd keep the sales illegal.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by NaplesX
My kids are already aware of pot and it's effects. So, I will be surprised if that happens.
Like your children, I too was aware of pot and its effects.

Now look at me.

(Actually I've practically given up because it was making me useless, but I couldn't resist the joke.)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
I think that you should be more worried about alchoholics, they cause much more damage to society than pot heads.

And it is better for the government to get the money instead of the crime lords. I think you are wrong. People that drive drunk are the very same people that would drive high. I will contend that they are often doing both.

Most people that i know that smoke pot use alcohol at the same time. A puf and a beer chaser. Let's deal in the real world, please.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
If a person cannot control hem/herself enough to stay out of jail/prison. What makes you think that some pothead is going to control himself enough to hold down a job, or even pass a chance to make some easy money? I have personally known many a pothead, so you will have a difficult time convincing me otherwise.
Well, you'd probably be extremely surprised at how common marijuana is around successful, ambitious and productive people. Of course, I seems to me that marijuana effects different people different ways, making the lazy lazier while simply relaxing those who are driven. In fact, some of the most productive people I've known are potheads (though not obviously at all), many saying it helps them focus when they need to work hard. Go figure. I suspect the fact that you are aquainted with so many failures reflects something less to do with marijuana and more to do with the type of people you gravitate toward or perhaps the fact that you live in the giant COPS set we graciously call florida.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Well, you'd probably be extremely surprised at how common marijuana is around successful, ambitious and productive people. Of course, I seems to me that marijuana effects different people different ways, making the lazy lazier while simply relaxing those who are driven. In fact, some of the most productive people I've known are potheads (though not obviously at all), many saying it helps them focus when they need to work hard. Go figure. I suspect the fact that you are aquainted with so many failures reflects something less to do with marijuana and more to do with the type of people you gravitate toward or perhaps the fact that you live in the giant COPS set we graciously call florida. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Man are you wrong.

That is an excuse for getting high. Figures you would post some garbage like that.

I am productive and talented and consistently successful at my endeavors. I do not rely on a substance for success nor do I blame one for my failures. Get real.

I am a musician and come into contact with many musicians. As you might imagine, I meet all types. I have family that have drug issues. They do not live here in Florida.

I love your assumptions, keep 'em coming.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am a musician and come into contact with many musicians.
:lol:

Pothead musicians? That explains where you opinion about it comes from, then.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
:lol:

That explains where you opinion about it comes from, then. Not really.

[giant]

Incidentally, I know someone who just divorced a cellist from the Naples Philharmonic Orchestra in part for being too much of a stoner.

[groverat]

A 14 billion dollar turn around from legalizing marijuana, but the trade off is we let government validate another vice in the name and pursuit of the all might dollar.


Difficult to categorize it as a "vice" in the same way one would call alcohol, gambling, hard drugs "vices".

Further, it seems to me more like it's the pursuit of all mighty freedom.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
Incidentally, I know someone who just divorced a cellist from the Naples Philharmonic Orchestra in part for being too much of a stoner. That's just peachy. Thanks.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
Difficult to categorize it as a "vice" in the same way one would call alcohol, gambling, hard drugs "vices".

Further, it seems to me more like it's the pursuit of all mighty freedom.

Well I probably didn't put it across as well as I would have liked but the point I wanted to ask was, is freedom really only granted when the government can make money from it?

It seems like certain activities were previously prohibited because the government deemed them harmful to the general welfare. Now it appears they have decided they are not harmful and to grant more freedom in these areas, but only because they will make more money.

Should our freedoms really be given a dollar amount and be judged or granted using a government cost analysis table? To me it isn't what is granted there but why it is granted. The reasoning seems sort of dangerous. If the government decides freedom of speech is too expensive, could they begin reasoning that they should take it away for example. These reasoning seems most evident with gambling, alcohol, drugs and cigarettes and increasingly it is proposed for food as well.

Nick

[NaplesX]

I think that the government should do what the majority of the governed think is right.

I know it's a novel idea and I am stretching here, but hey call me a rebel.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I think that the government should do what the majority of the governed think is right. I'm not sure what this has to do with the drugs issue, but do you really mean this? What if the majority wanted to do away with the Bill of Rights?

How's this: I think the government should do what the majority want, as long as what the majority wants doesn't violate the Constitution's prohibition on what the government can do.

[giant]

Not to mention how much of politics is about getting the majority to agree to the policy rather than the policy to agree with the majority.

[Placebo]

The difference between marajuana and alcohol is that marajuana regularly achieves a very severe high, while alcohol must be consomed in excess to yield similar results (the way I understand it).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
I'm not sure what this has to do with the drugs issue, but do you really mean this? What if the majority wanted to do away with the Bill of Rights?

How's this: I think the government should do what the majority want, as long as what the majority wants doesn't violate the Constitution's prohibition on what the government can do.

He's probably been reading that nasty Declaration of Independence again.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It's a terrible document. It allows you to even abolish things of those being governed feel they have not consented to what is happening.

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I think that the government should do what the majority of the governed think is right.

I know it's a novel idea and I am stretching here, but hey call me a rebel.
That kind of thinking, carried too far, would indeed make you a rebel -- and not in any glorious romantic sense of "rebel" either.

There are limits to what even a majority can and should be able to do. The majority shouldn't be able to limit the free speech of a minority, for instance.

Although not specifically written into the US Constitution, the history of jurisprudence often supports the concept that no law, regardless of whether or not a majority supports that law, should limit what citizens can do without a legitimate and significant overriding public good at stake. If what you're trying to say is that the simple fact that a majority desires to make a drug illegal is all the excuse the government needs to make that drug illegal -- no obligation whatsoever required to justify the law beyond "what the majority wants, the majority gets" -- and that you support throwing people in jail merely for not automatically bending to will of that (very hypocritical) majority, what you offer is hardly a very promising or enlightened view of how to create a free society.

[shetline]

Originally posted by giant
Not to mention how much of politics is about getting the majority to agree to the policy rather than the policy to agree with the majority.
Now there's a nicely turned phrase. I may need to borrow this one from time to time. :)

[pfflam]

Originally posted by trumptman
Milton sez governments should gain from vice (http://www.forbes.com/services/2005/06/02/cz_qh_0602pot.html)



A 14 billion dollar turn around from legalizing marijuana, but the trade off is we let government validate another vice in the name and pursuit of the all might dollar.

We've seen states legalize lotteries or even gambling because it seems like it is fine to tax people if it is a vice.

Two questions, one should the goverment continue to legalize vices in an attempt to increase revenue.

Second, should the government consider private vices acceptable only when are considered sources of revenue?

Many times the first argument for pot legalization is that cigarettes and alcohol are already legal. The same argument is now often being made for gambling as a second step from lotteries. Should vices really only be considered acceptable based off what revenue they might generate? Doesn't goverment have a responsibility to look at a problem in a manner that goes beyond the financial numbers?

Nick You think of it as a vice . . . I thnk of it as a smoke and a pleasure . . . though I haven't smoked proper pot in years . . .

Is having a beer still a vice in your eyes?

I think the qestion should be: what worse forms of crime result from criminalizing a relatively harmless one?

Who is making money?
Seems to me that many big-time dealers that make huge amounts of money are very unsavory characcters . . . and not just in a 'vice' sort of way

Take away their source of cash and you take away their source of power: and you minimize their negative impact on the rest of us.

esides, the WODrugs simply does not work, peole who smoke pot will smoke pot . . . unless they live in the hinterlands of Wisconsin and don't know anybody who they can get it from without potentially embarassing themselves asking ;)

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
My kids are already aware of pot and it's effects. So, I will be surprised if that happens.

However, if it does I will stand by the states decision to jail them. You know what they say...

"Don't do the crime..." Boyoboy . . . the Stalinist analogy is fitting like a shirt today: it is well known that the 'triumph' of Stalinist Totalitarianism was that it managed to get Parents to turn in their kids, and kids to turn n their parents as 'enemies of the state'

hmmm?!?!

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I think that the government should do what the majority of the governed think is right.


Yeah, like not start stupid wars. Bravo.

[Aurora]

The Police State doesnt want it legal, They want more Laws and more things illegal so they can get into our lives and make money off us. The system thrives on this because we have to pay for all those Judges,Cops,Jail Houses,Paper pushers,the Buildings,cooks,jailers etc. They want more things illegal so they can grow Their system and we the tax payer get to pay for these foolish laws.

By Keeping Pot illegal they are looking out for Big Tobacco,Beer Companies,Alcohol, Drug Dealers,Judges, cops,lawyers etc.

By making Pot Legal we can keep it away from kids, we can tax it , we can educate and we the tax payers can save money. The System will have non of that.

Govt is a Force onto itself growing and consuming our tax dollars for senseless law.

Reminds me of idiots in S.C who decided to pay thousands of dollars to give birth control to Deer rather then the bullet because of over population. They love to waste money and the Weed laws are no different. Its about Money ,Power and control.

[pfflam]

Its not a left right thing either . . . . William F Buckley and I hold the same idea


But it is interesting to take the tired Right critique of the Left in light of this and see the criminalization of Pot as a sort of Big Mother Society: we need to keep it illegal because someone might get hurt!!!

Need to have big mommy Government watch out for us at all times hunh?
Keep us from hurtin our wittle selves with bad-bad-drug . . . or maybe gettin in a car . .

Guess what . . . . life is hazard, you can't have government laws keep us absolutely safe from everything, attempting to do so risks totalitarianism . . . . just because it in the name of the Law rather than in the name of 'the Collective' does not make it any less potentialy so . . .

Nice way to look at it hunh Naples?

[e1618978]

But it is interesting to take the tired Right critique of the Left in light of this and see the criminalization of Pot as a sort of Big Mother Society: we need to keep it illegal because someone might get hurt!!!

Really the "war on drugs" Republicans are a bunch of hypocrits. They want big government looking over our shoulder when it matches their sense of morality, and complain about it when it doesn't.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by NaplesX
My kids are already aware of pot and it's effects. Obviously not, if you are telling them that people get high and crash cars like they do when they are drunk, and that people who smoke pot will break in to your house and steal stuff to support their ravaging addiction.

Why don't you just rent Reefer Madness and make them watch that?

As usual, you don't have a clue what you are talking about, but are cocksure that you are completely right.

[Aurora]

People mellow out with weed not the otherway around like Loose Sloppy Alcohol. Lets not Mix alcohol and weed because the two are very different. Weed is much more safer. Alcohol kills many, weed does not.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by THT
They should legalize it so Ricky Williams can play football again! I agree, Stupidist thing Miami ever did was getting rid of the best runner they had in 20 years. They figure out they need a running game after 2 decades of Marino and no superBowl and what do they do? Loose a great runner over something stupid like weed. What they should do is have a bowl ready for ricky:smokey:

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
He's probably been reading that nasty Declaration of Independence again.



It's a terrible document. It allows you to even abolish things of those being governed feel they have not consented to what is happening.

Nick We did consent to the Constitution, its emphasis on individual liberties, and its limitations on the power of governments and majorities. And we can change the Constitution if we want to, though it takes a lot more than a majority of public opinion to do so.

There's also a legal process through which we enact laws, and that takes more than just a majority of public opinion, too. On a federal level, it has to pass two houses of Congress, be signed by a president, and survive any challenges in the courts.

But I'm not sure where this discussion is going. What are you and Naples trying to say?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by e1618978
Usage decreases when you legalise a drug.

That, or it does not increase - thats what the studies and evidence show.
"The available evidence suggests that removal of the prohibition against possession itself (decriminalization) does not increase cannabis use. ... This prohibition inflicts harms directly and is costly. Unless it can be shown that the removal of criminal penalties will increase use of other harmful drugs, ... it is difficult to see what society gains."
- Evaluating alternative cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry. February 2001.
Link (http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/abstract/178/2/123)

[MarcUK]

Why do people do this shit anyway?

The last thing I want is to be stoned out. I want a drug that makes me think 1000 times faster!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Why do people do this shit anyway?

The last thing I want is to be stoned out. I want a drug that makes me think 1000 times faster!

You could alternate - 1000x faster, then stoned, then 1000x faster, then stoned 8)

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by shetline
That kind of thinking, carried too far, would indeed make you a rebel -- and not in any glorious romantic sense of "rebel" either.

There are limits to what even a majority can and should be able to do. The majority shouldn't be able to limit the free speech of a minority, for instance.

Although not specifically written into the US Constitution, the history of jurisprudence often supports the concept that no law, regardless of whether or not a majority supports that law, should limit what citizens can do without a legitimate and significant overriding public good at stake. If what you're trying to say is that the simple fact that a majority desires to make a drug illegal is all the excuse the government needs to make that drug illegal -- no obligation whatsoever required to justify the law beyond "what the majority wants, the majority gets" -- and that you support throwing people in jail merely for not automatically bending to will of that (very hypocritical) majority, what you offer is hardly a very promising or enlightened view of how to create a free society. It's called a constitutional republic, this America thing we have here.

I think the society is pretty free here already. Um, if smoking pot is socially unacceptable here, there are other places in the world that it is. People have the freedom to go there. No-one is stopping them.

As a matter of fact, everyone has the right to smoke pot in their own house. They are free to smoke pot anywhere as long as they are willing to accept responsibility and consequences to their action.

I don't see the problem.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
We did consent to the Constitution, its emphasis on individual liberties, and its limitations on the power of governments and majorities. And we can change the Constitution if we want to, though it takes a lot more than a majority of public opinion to do so.

There's also a legal process through which we enact laws, and that takes more than just a majority of public opinion, too. On a federal level, it has to pass two houses of Congress, be signed by a president, and survive any challenges in the courts.

But I'm not sure where this discussion is going. What are you and Naples trying to say? Every thing in the US government is about majority rule. You elect representative by it, presidents that appoint judges by it, and thus laws and changes in laws by it.

Democracy is majority rule:

"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law

Man, I learned this stuff back in 6th grade, perhaps earlier.

Or are we rewriting the dictionary for you "progressives"?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It's called a constitutional republic, this America thing we have here.

I think the society is pretty free here already. Um, if smoking pot is socially unacceptable here, there are other places in the world that it is. People have the freedom to go there. No-one is stopping them.

As a matter of fact, everyone has the right to smoke pot in their own house. They are free to smoke pot anywhere as long as they are willing to accept responsibility and consequences to their action.

I don't see the problem. You become more knuckle-dragging by each post: America, Love it er leave it ya pinkos!!

every hear about caring about your country enough to want to make it act like it should?

Civic responsibility demands that if you don't like what your country is doing that you speak up, not turn tail and leave our beloved in the hands of reactionary neolithicatives!!

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It's called a constitutional republic, this America thing we have here.
Yes. You should dig into what that means a bit more one of these days.
I think the society is pretty free here already.
Ah, so once a certain level of freedom is reached, it's okay to arbitrarily limit that freedom, since we've got enough of that freedom stuff as it is? Are you worried this freedom this is getting a bit out of hand?
Um, if smoking pot is socially unacceptable here, there are other places in the world that it is. People have the freedom to go there. No-one is stopping them.
That's your notion of a free society? That something is merely "socially unacceptable" is high enough a bar for passing laws that limit other people's freedom, and being so kind as to "permit" anyone who doesn't like the laws to leave their homes and families and careers behind to find another country makes passing any majority-backed law okay?
As a matter of fact, everyone has the right to smoke pot in their own house. They are free to smoke pot anywhere as long as they are willing to accept responsibility and consequences to their action.
That's the most ludicrous notion of "freedom" that I've ever heard. It approaches the level of Orwellian Newspeak. By this "logic" people were "free" to criticize Stalin in the old USSR as long as they were willing to risk being sent off to a gulag and/or shot for exercising their "freedom".
I don't see the problem.
And that, Mr. NaplesX, is the problem.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Every thing in the US government is about majority rule. So presidents are elected by a majority vote of the people? The constitution is amended by a majority vote of the people? The constitutionality of a law is decided by majority vote of the people? There are no constraints on government action, as long as you can get a simple majority?

Republicans used to be the ones to always point out that the US is a republic rather than a pure democracy. What happened?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by pfflam
Civic responsibility demands that if you don't like what your country is doing that you speak up, not turn tail and leave our beloved in the hands of reactionary neolithicatives!! Exactly.
Here's a shocking fact that NaplesX has probably not even considered - not everyone in favor of decriminalizing pot is in favor of it so that they can go get stoned in public without worrying about getting arrested.

Some people are disturbed by the tens of billions of dollars wasted every year on the War Against Drugs, and on the incarceration of people whose only crime was smoking something that wasn't tobacco, and the fact that we have to release violent offenders early because the jails are full.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by shetline
Ah, so once a certain level of freedom is reached, it's okay to arbitrarily limit that freedom, since we've got enough of that freedom stuff as it is? Are you worried this freedom this is getting a bit out of hand? Nope. It is about majority rule. Always has been. You can twist it to be about oppression or whatever. Democracy means majority rule.

Originally posted by shetline
That's your notion of a free society? That something is merely "socially unacceptable" is high enough a bar for passing laws that limit other people's freedom, and being so kind as to "permit" anyone who doesn't like the laws to leave their homes and families and careers behind to find another country makes passing any majority-backed law okay? Well, you see that's what you "progressives" want to do, isn't it? In your circle it's socially acceptable, so therefor you wish to impose your "social values" on everyone else, despite being in the national minority on this issue.

Originally posted by shetline
That's the most ludicrous notion of "freedom" that I've ever heard. It approaches the level of Orwellian Newspeak. By this "logic" people were "free" to criticize Stalin in the old USSR as long as they were willing to risk being sent off to a gulag and/or shot for exercising their "freedom".Not really. No-one is forcing you to leave. It happens to be an option afforded to you. You can stay, just don't sell pot to minors or smoke it in public. That's all.

I like the "progressives" are using the word Gulag when talking about America. Brilliant perspective. Going to jail for possession of a controlled substance is now comparable to a Stalin era gulag where millions died of starvation.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Exactly.
Here's a shocking fact that NaplesX has probably not even considered - not everyone in favor of decriminalizing pot is in favor of it so that they can go get stoned in public without worrying about getting arrested.

Some people are disturbed by the tens of billions of dollars wasted every year on the War Against Drugs, and on the incarceration of people whose only crime was smoking something that wasn't tobacco, and the fact that we have to release violent offenders early because the jails are full. It's about values.

[e1618978]

therefor you wish to impose your "social values" on everyone else, despite being in the national minority on this issue.

Not really. No-one is forcing you to leave. It happens to be an option afforded to you. You can stay, just don't sell pot to minors or smoke it in public. That's all.

1. It is the government that is forcing *your* moral values on everyone else - not the other way around.

2. Current laws make it illegal to smoke pot in your own home. If all the laws made illegal was selling to minors and smoking in public, then I would be happy - but the laws are not written that way.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It's about values.

Those values are hurting the country.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
So presidents are elected by a majority vote of the people? The constitution is amended by a majority vote of the people? The constitutionality of a law is decided by majority vote of the people? There are no constraints on government action, as long as you can get a simple majority?

Republicans used to be the ones to always point out that the US is a republic rather than a pure democracy. What happened? Once again, I'm not a republican and yes everything is by simple majority rule, either directly or indirectly. That's the way it is supposed to be. One man, one vote.

What a concept!

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, I'm not a republican and yes everything is my simple majority rule, either directly or indirectly. That's the way it is supposed to be. One man, one vote.

What a concept!

You tell people to leave the country that nothing is stopping them.

You also say that you are not a republican.

What are you if you are not a republican?

Fellows

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
1. It is the government that is forcing *your* moral values on everyone else - not the other way around.

2. Current laws make it illegal to smoke pot in your own home. If all the laws made illegal was selling to minors and smoking in public, then I would be happy - but the laws are not written that way. The "government" IS THE PEOPLE by way of majority rule.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Fellowship
You tell people to leave the country that nothing is stopping them.

You also say that you are not a republican.

What are you if you are not a republican?

Fellows A human-American

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
2. Current laws make it illegal to smoke pot in your own home. If all the laws made illegal was selling to minors and smoking in public, then I would be happy - but the laws are not written that way. Look if you just can't stop yourself, and you need a hit, go in your bathroom and hit it. You get high, no-one sees you. You're really happy, I'm happy. No-one is effected by your preferences, unless you operate equipment, drive a car, try to post on AO...

Are you telling me you don't realize these things?

:rolleyes:

[trumptman]

Originally posted by BRussell
We did consent to the Constitution, its emphasis on individual liberties, and its limitations on the power of governments and majorities. And we can change the Constitution if we want to, though it takes a lot more than a majority of public opinion to do so.

There's also a legal process through which we enact laws, and that takes more than just a majority of public opinion, too. On a federal level, it has to pass two houses of Congress, be signed by a president, and survive any challenges in the courts.

But I'm not sure where this discussion is going. What are you and Naples trying to say?

Oh I was just having fun with a little sidebar. The reality is that our government is still run with the consent of the majority. If we didn't have that be true, then Civil War is possible and we already have the proof.

On the discussion topic, I was hoping for more people looking at the whole goverment granting rights not because they are proper, inalienable, etc. but because there is money to be made or costs that are not incurred. I'm not much of a slippery-slope guy but I do see more and more instances in our society where people are claiming rights can be withdrawn because of their cost or granted to save money. To me, it is a troubling trend. Our human rights should be more than a math problem that we hope adds up correctly.

So marijuana isn't right because it does no harm, or wrong because it does cause harm it is right or wrong because it costs or saves X dollars.

Nick

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Look if you just can't stop yourself, and you need a hit, go in your bathroom and hit it. You get high, no-one sees you. You're really happy, I'm happy. No-one is effected by your preferences, unless you operate equipment, drive a car, try to post on AO...

Are you telling me you don't realize these things?

:rolleyes:

Are you telling me that you think that cops have not broken into people's homes to find marajuana, or arrested people for smoking pot in their homes?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
Are you telling me that you think that cops have not broken into people's homes to find marajuana, or arrested people for smoking pot in their homes? I am sure it happens, but if no-one knows, haw can that happen?

And really, this is what you are worried about at this juncture?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by trumptman
On the discussion topic, I was hoping for more people looking at the whole goverment granting rights not because they are proper, inalienable, etc. but because there is money to be made or costs that are not incurred. I'm not much of a slippery-slope guy but I do see more and more instances in our society where people are claiming rights can be withdrawn because of their cost or granted to save money. To me, it is a troubling trend. Our human rights should be more than a math problem that we hope adds up correctly.

So marijuana isn't right because it does no harm, or wrong because it does cause harm it is right or wrong because it costs or saves X dollars.

Nick Nick, you realize that depending on how the "progressives" respond to the issue you raised, it may change other arguments.

If they agree with you, they lose the "get out of Iraq, because it's too expensive" argument. They are one step closer to admitting that going into Iraq for human rights issues was the right thing to do.

If they disagree with you, then the whole entitlements mindset has to be reevaluated.

A catch 22, I suppose.

It's not so easy for progressives.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I am sure it happens, but if no-one knows, haw can that happen?

And really, this is what you are worried about at this juncture?

You get turned in by your neighbors, or your ex-friends. Or they catch you when you are buying it.

Your "freedom to smoke pot" is the same as your "freedom to make moonshine" - a freedom that is only present when nobody notices is not a real freedom.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
You get turned in by your neighbors, or your ex-friends. Or they catch you when you are buying it.

Your "freedom to smoke pot" is the same as your "freedom to make moonshine" - a freedom that is only present when nobody notices is not a real freedom. Right.

Freedom means freedom to be stupid and make mistakes. Pot is illegal, what do you want?

Accept it. Drink beer. That's legal.

Come on you are smarter that what you are posting... I hope.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Right.

Freedom means freedom to be stupid and make mistakes. Pot is illegal, what do you want?

Accept it. Drink beer. That's legal.

Come on you are smarter that what you are posting... I hope.

When it takes me 10 posts to finally get you to admit you were wrong, maybe you are right - I am stupid to be spending time trying to convince you.

Pot is illegal, there is no good reason that it is illegal. You want it to stay illegal because you want the government to force your morality on everyone else. You are a facist, in other words.

[NaplesX]

e,

this is a dumb argument:

1. no-one is restricting your fundamental rights

2. you are free to go to where pot smoking is legal and return as much as you want.

3. you are free to take chances on being caught with illegal substances, no-one is monitoring you in your home.

4. You can function without Pot.

5. Did I mention that no-one is restricting your fundamental freedoms?

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
It's about values. Then you lie when you say that you value freedom as a civic right and responsibility.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, I'm not a republican and yes everything is by simple majority rule, either directly or indirectly. That's the way it is supposed to be. One man, one vote.

What a concept! If this were the case George W Bush would not be President of the United States.

Did you forget the fact that we are a Representative Democracy?!

and that we rightly have a System of Checks And Balances against the tyrany of Majority rule?

You seem to have skipped out on some very fundamental aspects of Government class . . .

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Nick, you realize that depending on how the "progressives" respond to the issue you raised, it may change other arguments.

If they agree with you, they lose the "get out of Iraq, because it's too expensive" argument. They are one step closer to admitting that going into Iraq for human rights issues was the right thing to do.

If they disagree with you, then the whole entitlements mindset has to be reevaluated.

A catch 22, I suppose.

It's not so easy for progressives. What insipid idiocy . . . . I do happen to gree with Trumptman that it is fishy to base the idea of rights on the 'bottom-line'

and I also object to the War in Iraq on entirely different lines than dollars . . . but you show consistently that you are incapable of thinking beyond your little reactionary idea about us 'progressives' . . . . and just the fact that a great number of VERY CONSERVATIVE people, high profile eloquent spokespeople for the Conservative movement, why I meantioned William F Buckley (but obviously you don't even know who he is . . . after all he isn't Star Trek) shows that decriminalization is NOT a Left/Right issue!!

and you didn't even comment on the fact that the issue is actually most susceptible to a old-school-Conservative's perspective: get Big-Governmenet-Mommy-Protections off of my back!!

Get it!!!?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
Then you lie when you say that you value freedom as a civic right and responsibility. I don't recall saying that. Are we back to making things up again?

Come on, even if I made that claim, I'm lying because you want to smoke pot?

I want to masturbate profusely outside the local 7/11. Why can't I do that? It doesn't hurt anyone and it's fun. JOIN ME TO FIGHT MASTURBATION DISCRIMINATION!

What a crock!

[e1618978]

I want to masturbate profusely outside the local 7/11. Why can't I do that? It doesn't hurt anyone and it's fun. JOIN ME TO FIGHT MASTURBATION DISCRIMINATION!

Bad analogy. Nobody is asking for the right to smoke pot in public, and masterbating in public would be infringing on the rights of others.

Masterbating at home is legal, as should be smoking pot.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I don't recall saying that. Are we back to making things up again?

Come on, even if I made that claim, I'm lying because you want to smoke pot?

I want to masturbate profusely outside the local 7/11. Why can't I do that? It doesn't hurt anyone and it's fun. JOIN ME TO FIGHT MASTURBATION DISCRIMINATION!

What a crock! So you don't value freedom?

[pfflam]

and BTW: terrible analogy, because public masturbation is not smoking pot and is potentialy very harmful to others in a direct manner . . . and if you can't understand that then I don't know what to say.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by pfflam
What insipid idiocy . . . . I do happen to gree with Trumptman that it is fishy to base the idea of rights on the 'bottom-line'

and I also object to the War in Iraq on entirely different lines than dollars . . . but you show consistently that you are incapable of thinking beyond your little reactionary idea about us 'progressives' . . . . and just the fact that a great number of VERY CONSERVATIVE people, high profile eloquent spokespeople for the Conservative movement, why I meantioned William F Buckley (but obviously you don't even know who he is . . . after all he isn't Star Trek) shows that decriminalization is NOT a Left/Right issue!!

and you didn't even comment on the fact that the issue is actually most susceptible to a old-school-Conservative's perspective: get Big-Governmenet-Mommy-Protections off of my back!!

Get it!!!? I do get it. If laws are changed to make MJ legal, I will accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all. I may even raise a torch to try change it. I can't say i blame a pothead for wanting pot to be legal. But wanting and getting are two different things.

The problem with this whole argument is people want to say the current law is stupid simply because they don't like it. Of course anyone that disagrees with you is also stupid, according to your latest post. Not a very effective way of getting a majority to help you change current laws, ya think? Your tactic shows why this will never be a law here in the US. Condescension is just part of being "progressive", I suppose.

By the way, I do know who William F Buckley is. What I don't know is, how what he thinks is supposed to influence me.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by pfflam
and BTW: terrible analogy, because public masturbation is not smoking pot and is potentialy very harmful to others in a direct manner . . . and if you can't understand that then I don't know what to say.

Wait a minute - I think I remember how the republicans do this kind of thing:

"You don't want to legalise marajuana? WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH?!?!"

[e1618978]

The problem with this whole argument is people want to say the current law is stupid simply because they don't like it.

No, it is illegal because a small segment of the population used propaganda to instill fear in the population, and inertia is too big to get the law reversed.

It would be a good thing for the country if marajuana was legal - I don't think that you can dispute that with any good reason. Because it would be good for the country to remove the law, the law is a bad law.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
No, it is illegal because a small segment of the population used propaganda to instill fear in the population, and inertia is too big to get the law reversed.

It would be a good thing for the country if marajuana was legal - I don't think that you can dispute that with any good reason. Because it would be good for the country to remove the law, the law is a bad law. According to you.

I think it's good law.

Oh wait, I forgot, I'm stupid I don't count. Save me from myself. Please.

Make me smoke pot.

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Nope. It is about majority rule. Always has been. You can twist it to be about oppression or whatever. Democracy means majority rule.
One sense of the word "democracy" means pure-and-simple majority rule, but that sense is best expressed by the word "majoritarianism". In common modern usage, "democracy" generally refers to constitutional democracy, and constitutional democracy is certainly not majoritarianism. Constitutional democracies (ideally) ultimately derive their power and authority from majority support, but filter raw majority impulses in a number of important ways.

One of those ways simple majoritarianism is filtered is by getting the majority to agree on broad principles such as freedom of speech. The social bargain we make for freedom of speech goes something like this: "I know I'm likely to be in a majority in some of my opinions, and in a minority in other opinions. I wish to express as broad a range of my own opinions as I can, without concern that the majority, acting through the government, will suppress or limit my expression. In order to have this freedom myself, I understand that I must grant everyone else the same freedom, and may have to endure exposure to expressions of views that I find objectionable or even repugnant as part of the deal."
Well, you see that's what you "progressives" want to do, isn't it? In your circle it's socially acceptable, so therefor you wish to impose your "social values" on everyone else, despite being in the national minority on this issue.
I don't find drug use "socially acceptable". I don't use drugs myself apart from alcohol, and even that is something I indulge in rarely and typically in small quantities -- a beer or two every few months.

I, however, feel no need to impose my views concerning drugs on others. Why? Because until others interfere with my freedom or threaten my safety by what they do, it's none of my business what substances they inhale, ingest, or inject.
Not really. No-one is forcing you to leave. It happens to be an option afforded to you. You can stay, just don't sell pot to minors or smoke it in public. That's all.
So, in addition to your bizarre idea of "freedom" which includes freedom to be jailed for doing what you like, you'd like to now extend that to include "freedom" to attempt to evade law enforcement?
I like the "progressives" are using the word Gulag when talking about America. Brilliant perspective.
The only "brilliancy" on display here is a brilliantly gratuitous example of missing the point.
Going to jail for possession of a controlled substance is now comparable to a Stalin era gulag where millions died of starvation.
No such equivalence was stated at all. I'm not sure if it's kinder to imagine that you're incapable of seeing that, or to imagine that you see it plainly but are willing to twist things dishonestly for rhetorical effect.

The point is that words like "free" and "freedom" become uselessly devoid of meaning if you include things which are against the law among those things you are "free" to do -- if only you accept punishment, evade law enforcement, or leave your own country.

[Edit: fixed some bad vB code]

[e1618978]

Oh wait, I forgot, I'm stupid I don't count. Save me from myself. Please.

That makes no sense - it is you that is trying to save people from themselves by wanting pot to be illegal.

You are the one that wants the nanny state, not me.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by trumptman
On the discussion topic, I was hoping for more people looking at the whole goverment granting rights not because they are proper, inalienable, etc. but because there is money to be made or costs that are not incurred. I'm not much of a slippery-slope guy but I do see more and more instances in our society where people are claiming rights can be withdrawn because of their cost or granted to save money. To me, it is a troubling trend. Our human rights should be more than a math problem that we hope adds up correctly.

So marijuana isn't right because it does no harm, or wrong because it does cause harm it is right or wrong because it costs or saves X dollars. I agree, and the idea that we ought to legalize drugs because we'd make money off it seems immoral to me.

I don't have a problem with sin taxes, like taxes on tobacco, as a means of collecting revenue and discouraging behavior that's clearly destructive. But I don't like making "sins" legal for the sole purpose of taxing them, which is what I think has happened in some cases like state lotteries.

I personally think it would be fine to decriminalize drug use for libertarian principles, but I don't think selling should be legal.

[giant]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I do get it. If laws are changed to make MJ legal, I will accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all.
So if the laws changed to make murdering jews or slavery legal, you would accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all.

[e1618978]

But I don't like making "sins" legal for the sole purpose of taxing them, which is what I think has happened in some cases like state lotteries.

In the case of MJ, I don't think that it is the sole case for legalisation - but it may be the thing that pushes it over the edge.

In fact, that is the last point made in the article that started this thread. There are many reasons to legalise drugs, but the thing that will make it happen is the chance for congress to spend some extra money.

[shetline]

Originally posted by giant
So if the laws changed to make murder of jews or slavery legal, you would accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all.
I believe this is the place for NaplesX to totally (and deliberately?) miss your obvious point by saying something like "You think sending drug users to jail is as bad as killing jews and slavery!?" :D

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by giant
So if the laws changed to make murdering jews or slavery legal, you would accept it as law, despite disagreeing with it. Majority rule and all. Of course not. I would fight it or move.

What makes you think that would ever happen?

[Gilsch]

Legalize pot already. The plant is great for the environment. So many things can be made out of the plant including paper, etc. It grows quickly. It has medicinal properties.

Anyone seen the ads they had to encourage people to grow hemp during World War II?

I haven't smoked it in years but I would support National Hemp Day. It would be great for the economy/food industry. :smokey:

[New]

Here's a question for you liberal legalization dudes... Why is the tobacco industry lobbying for legalization?

[shetline]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Of course not. I would fight [laws making murdering jews or slavery legal] or move.
The beauty of a good constitutional system is that you shouldn't have to do either. The courts should step in and invalidate such laws regardless of whether these laws are supported by a majority or not.
What makes you think that would ever happen?
Are you really, truly that out of touch with the illustriative value of deliberately extreme examples?

You keep confusing the use of such examples with the idea that someone is either (A) stating an equivalence between the extreme example and some other action/law/condition/policy/whatever, or (B) is terribly worried that the extreme example is a pending danger.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by New
Here's a question for you liberal legalixation dudes... Why is the tobacco industry lobbying for legalization? Now you've gone and confused them.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by New
Here's a question for you liberal legalization dudes... Why is the tobacco industry lobbying for legalization? Question One:
Who's going to tell William F. Buckley that he's a liberal?

Question Two:
Are you sure about the tobacco industry and legalization, or is that just an Urban Myth, like Philip Morris holding a patent on "Panama Red" and "Aculpulco Gold"?


Edit:
Read and Learn (http://www.jackherer.com/chapter06.html) Eli Lilly, Pfizer and others stand to lose at least a third of their entire, highly profitable, patent monopoly on such drugs as Darvon, Tuinal, Seconal, and Prozac (as well as other patented medications ranging from muscle ointments to burn ointments, to thousands of other products) because of a plant anyone can grow: cannabis hemp. Isn't it curious that American drug companies and pharmacist groups* supply almost half the funding for the 4,000 "Families Against Marijuana" type organizations in America? The other half is supplied by Action (a federal VISA agency) and by tobacco companies like Philip Morris, and by liquor and beer makers like Anheuser Busch, Coors, etc., or as a "public service" by the ad agencies who represent them.

* Pharmacists Against Drug Abuse, etc. See appendices.

[New]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Question One:
Who's going to tell William F. Buckley that he's a liberal?

Question Two:
Are you sure about the tobacco industry and legalization, or is that just an Urban Myth, like Philip Morris holding a patent on "Panama Red" and "Aculpulco Gold"?

first, I don't know shit about Buckley, since I'm not from the States.
Second, Having worked with a lot of liberitarian and radical groups myself, being a radical, liberal minded person, I've only sofar met one organization that is not remotly democratically organized, and recives funding from foreign "unkown" sources. That group is Normal, the "unofficial" norwegian branch of NORML.

Drugs is a complex issue. Firstly it is all very culturally-dependent. Legalization in the US might be a different case than in Europe. Different drugs have different roles in different cultures. But some facts are quite universial, any statician will tell you. Accessability and price is the main factor in consumption and the following abuse and damage of drugs.

I have enough stoner friends to say that I don't believe it would help a single one of them if their drug of choice was legal. Even though they think so themselves. Pot or hash won't kill you, I smoke occasionally myself, and I absolutely think it's absurd that I might be jailed for it, but that is a question of law and penalty, not legalization.

To be more precise, if you look at alcohol consumption, alcoholism and alcohol related illnesses in Europe, It is all to obvious that price and other restrictions are the clearly most important factors.

Edit: Wow, how is it that the only time it's okay to use propaganda sites as source is in the legalization debate? I mean we laugh whenever someone uses a right-wing blog or christian site as source, but this is ok?
Try using some real material, not second hand gathered stuff off a campagin-site.

[e1618978]

that is a question of law and penalty, not legalization.

Huh?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by New
Edit: Wow, how is it that the only time it's okay to use propaganda sites as source is in the legalization debate? I mean we laugh whenever someone uses a right-wing blog or christian site as source, but this is ok?
Try using some real material, not second hand gathered stuff off a campagin-site.
:rolleyes:
There are many sources reporting that Philip Morris donated money to the PDFA. Take your pick.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22Philip+Morris%22+%22Drug+Free+America%22&spell=1

[e1618978]

Originally posted by New
Here's a question for you liberal legalization dudes... Why is the tobacco industry lobbying for legalization?

1. What does that have to do with anything?

2. What evidence do you have to support your claim?

3. Answer (if actually true): because they will profit from selling pot. This is a reasonable thing - not everything that the tobacco companies do is evil. You would not begrudge a cheese company from thinking about profiting on crackers, why worry about tobacco companies thinking about pot?

[e1618978]

I have enough stoner friends to say that I don't believe it would help a single one of them if their drug of choice was legal.

It would not hurt them either, because they all have access to pot already. It would, in fact, help them - they would no longer be at risk of jail time.

[New]

Originally posted by e1618978
Huh?

I know you americans like to put people in jail, and the concept of other sanctional methods might be a bit hard to grasp. But my point is that Legalization and decriminalization are to very different things.

I don't think people should go to jail for smoking pot, but I think introducing Canabis as a commercial product is a recipie for disaster. I mean, sefishly, I sounds very tempting. But having a kid is a good cure for much of that kind of selfishness.

[New]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
:rolleyes:
There are many sources reporting that Philip Morris donated money to the PDFA. Take your pick.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22Philip+Morris%22+%22Drug+Free+America%22&spell=1

They also made a commercial saying smoking is bad...

[e1618978]

Originally posted by New
I know you americans like to put people in jail, and the concept of other sanctional methods might be a bit hard to grasp. But my point is that Legalization and decriminalization are to very different things.

I don't think people should go to jail for smoking pot, but I think introducing Canabis as a commercial product is a recipie for disaster. I mean, sefishly, I sounds very tempting. But having a kid is a good cure for much of that kind of selfishness.

Ah. Do you think that people should be put in jail for buying and selling pot? Because buying and selling are a nessessary condition for using.

Once you allow buying and selling - I take it you believe that it should only be individuals that buy and sell - not corporations.

Seems fairly arbitrary to me, and I don't see the problem with corporations selling pot - in fact you get much better quality control from corporations.

[New]

Originally posted by e1618978
It would not hurt them either, because they all have access to pot already. It would, in fact, help them - they would no longer be at risk of jail time.

They would smoke more and end up even more fu*ked up than they already are.

[New]

Originally posted by e1618978
Ah. Do you think that people should be put in jail for buying and selling pot? Because buying and selling are a nessessary condition for using.

not really, pick up an alternative book on mushrooms and go for a trip in the forest. But for the sake of the arguement, ok. I Believe in penalizing the sellers and the distributors, not the user.




Seems fairly arbitrary to me, and I don't see the problem with corporations selling pot - in fact you get much better quality control from corporations.

What a crazy notion... Since when did IKEA make a better closet than a carpenter?

[New]

Sorry for my terrible spelling tonight. It's 2 at night here so I'm of to bed.

[BRussell]

I agree completely with New. It would be a disaster to get corporations into marketing even more harmful drugs than they do today. If people want to use it, they can grow it themselves or among their friends. Continue to punish the sellers, but stop putting users in prison.

[e1618978]

What a crazy notion... Since when did IKEA make a better closet than a carpenter?

IKEA makes more consistant product. When LSD was made by chemical companies it was perfectly safe - it was only when it was made illegal that it became dangerous.

You don't know if you are getting a "master carpenter" or a "lousy hack" when you buy a baggie on the street.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by BRussell
I agree completely with New. It would be a disaster to get corporations into marketing even more harmful drugs than they do today. If people want to use it, they can grow it themselves or among their friends. Continue to punish the sellers, but stop putting users in prison. Now you guys are talking sense. Change the law to be more equitable. I am not opposed to that.

I do believe New has injected some common sense here.

Great job.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Now you guys are talking sense. Change the law to be more equitable. I am not opposed to that.

I do believe New has injected some common sense here.

Great job.

Now we just need to convince Mr. Bush and company.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by BRussell
I agree completely with New. It would be a disaster to get corporations into marketing even more harmful drugs than they do today. If people want to use it, they can grow it themselves or among their friends. Continue to punish the sellers, but stop putting users in prison. Yes, I am in agreement too . . .
Yet there should be commercialization and yet strict regulated areas of acceptable usage: at home, no TV, Billboards or children-youth ta=rgeted adds.
The point is is that my daughter will most assuredly be exposed to drugs at a far younger age than I want her to even know that they exist . . . to force the world into some fantasy Thomas Kincaid painting idea is simply unrealistic and is not pragmatic.

Stop the jail times and allow for strictly regulated usage and distribution for adults.

[FormerLurker]

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=28

New legislation currently making its way through the House of Representatives poses a grave threat. If passed, H.R. 1528 will force Americans to inform on their friends, family members, or neighbors within 24 hours of acquiring any knowledge about their involvement in drug-related activity, including marijuana
Congressman Sensenbrenner's (R-Wis.) draconian mandatory minimum sentencing bill will have serious consequences for our democracy, requiring you to spy on all your neighbors, including going undercover and wearing a wire if needed. Refusing to become a spy for the government would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence.

As is often the case with new federal violations of civil liberties, this bill is constructed to appear as though it is designed to protect children from drugs, but its implications are far more sinister. Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to the police within 24 hours:

* You see someone you know pass a joint to a 20-year old college student.

* Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college friends.

* You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.

* Your substance-abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.

* Observe one student passing a joint to another, and you could fall under this law. You would be required to report the incident to authorities within 24 hours or risk prosecution and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison.

* If a neighbor under 21 mentions buying some marijuana for a party, you would be required to report him or her to the government or risk jail time yourself.

* If your brothers or sisters have children and mention to you that they and their spouses sometimes smoke marijuana in their bedroom after their kids are asleep, you would be required to immediately inform on them or face prison time. Click the link above to sign a petition against this police state, thought-crime legislation.

[rageous]

Originally posted by NaplesX
I think you are wrong. People that drive drunk are the very same people that would drive high. I will contend that they are often doing both.

Most people that i know that smoke pot use alcohol at the same time. A puf and a beer chaser. Let's deal in the real world, please.

So then these people you know really wouldn't be any more or less dangerous if a law changed because they are already dumbasses, correct?

[rageous]

And I as well am pretty much in line with New.

Decriminalization of something like pot is probably a reasonable idea. I'm not sure about outright legalization.

But marijuana laws in the US are just a farce. A few years ago my best freind was coming back from a concert with another friend. The driver had been drinking, my friend had pot but hadn't smoked it (yet). Driver makes a U-Turn, cop pulls them over. They both get arrested. The driver gets 3 days in jail (for his 3rd DUI offense, only had to serve one day of the 3 day sentence) and was given restrictions on his trval for 6 months (work, church, etc.). My friend was given 30 days in jail (suspended, but he gets an automatic year if caught again within 5 years of his sentencing), had his license revoked for one year, and was denied limited travel.

That's just horseshit. A guy who isn't stoned, is a passenger in a car, willingly informs the officer he is in possession instead of trying to get away with it, and only now hit up on his first ever offense for possession, gets a far stiffer penalty than a guy arrested on his 3rd DUI?

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by rageous
So then these people you know really wouldn't be any more or less dangerous if a law changed because they are already dumbasses, correct? They would be more dangerous. The amazing amount of time and effort that goes into obtaining pot, keeps them busy. The somewhat prohibitive price and the effort it takes to obtain keeps their use down compared to if it was affordable and convenient, IMO.

[Protostar]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New legislation currently making its way through the House of Representatives poses a grave threat. If passed, H.R. 1528 will force Americans to inform on their friends, family members, or neighbors within 24 hours of acquiring any knowledge about their involvement in drug-related activity, including marijuana
Congressman Sensenbrenner's (R-Wis.) draconian mandatory minimum sentencing bill will have serious consequences for our democracy, requiring you to spy on all your neighbors, including going undercover and wearing a wire if needed. Refusing to become a spy for the government would be punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of at least two years.

If you "witness" certain drug offenses taking place or "learn" that they took place you would have to report the offense to law enforcement within 24 hours and provide "full assistance" in the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of the people involved. Failure to do so would be a crime punishable by a mandatory two year prison sentence.

As is often the case with new federal violations of civil liberties, this bill is constructed to appear as though it is designed to protect children from drugs, but its implications are far more sinister. Here are some examples of offenses you would have to report to the police within 24 hours:

* You see someone you know pass a joint to a 20-year old college student.

* Your cousin mentions that he bought Ecstasy for some of his college friends.

* You find out that your brother, who has kids, recently bought a small amount of marijuana to share with his wife.

* Your substance-abusing daughter recently begged her boyfriend to find her some drugs even though they're both in drug treatment.

* Observe one student passing a joint to another, and you could fall under this law. You would be required to report the incident to authorities within 24 hours or risk prosecution and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison.

* If a neighbor under 21 mentions buying some marijuana for a party, you would be required to report him or her to the government or risk jail time yourself.

* If your brothers or sisters have children and mention to you that they and their spouses sometimes smoke marijuana in their bedroom after their kids are asleep, you would be required to immediately inform on them or face prison time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Do you get paid? Because if you get paid, then I'm all for it. I know tons of potheads, and could make a shitload of money turning them in. Holy shit, I'd be rich!!! Even if you don't get paid, I'd have a grand ol' time turning mad people in. WooH, I'd have so much fun.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by Protostar
Do you get paid? Because if you get paid, then I'm all for it. I know tons of potheads, and could make a shitload of money turning them in. Holy shit, I'd be rich!!! Even if you don't get paid, I'd have a grand ol' time turning mad people in. WooH, I'd have so much fun.

Flash back to Germany, 1938...

[rageous]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Look if you just can't stop yourself, and you need a hit, go in your bathroom and hit it. You get high, no-one sees you. You're really happy, I'm happy. No-one is effected by your preferences, unless you operate equipment, drive a car, try to post on AO...

Are you telling me you don't realize these things?

:rolleyes:


Well, according to you: "do the crime..."

So no, hitting it in your bathroom isn't okay and you should be subjected to criminal prosecution under current applicable laws. Again, according to you.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
Flash back to Germany, 1938... Right. Minus the death camp and mass starvation. But, yeah exactly the same.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Right. Minus the death camp and mass starvation. But, yeah exactly the same.

They started off small with the "inform on your neighbors" stuff too... I don't think that the death camps came until later (1942?)

[rageous]

Originally posted by NaplesX
They would be more dangerous. The amazing amount of time and effort that goes into obtaining pot, keeps them busy. The somewhat prohibitive price and the effort it takes to obtain keeps their use down compared to if it was affordable and convenient, IMO.

But since these clowns are already driving drunk, as you stated, their pursuit of the elusive green makes them more of a threat every second they are out trying to pursue it.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by e1618978
Flash back to Germany, 1938... Another brain dead idea from the Far Right Republican party bent on building the police state.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by rageous
But since these clowns are already driving drunk, as you stated, their pursuit of the elusive green makes them more of a threat every second they are out trying to pursue it. Agreed.

So, you think if they can buy it at the local 7/11 for cheap that they will just go home and munch on old stale Doritos?
\
I say they will put more gas in their tanks and drive even more.

[rageous]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Agreed.

So, you think if they can buy it at the local 7/11 for cheap that they will just go home and munch on old stale Doritos?
\
I say they will put more gas in their tanks and drive even more.

Why do you say they'll drive more? What studies suggest smoking legal marijuana induces people to drive more than they normally would smoking illegal marijuana?

[rageous]

Originally posted by Aurora
I agree, Stupidist thing Miami ever did was getting rid of the best runner they had in 20 years. They figure out they need a running game after 2 decades of Marino and no superBowl and what do they do? Loose a great runner over something stupid like weed. What they should do is have a bowl ready for ricky:smokey:

um, Ricky "retired"

[Protostar]

Another brain dead idea from the Far Right Republican party bent on building the police state.

I don't understand what the problem is with this proposed law. If you aren't doing the drugs then you have nothing to be concerned about riiiiiiiight? This is also a far faster way to get these people of the streets and broken of their habit. Hell, I'd have no problem turning my brother in, I don't like him that much anyway.

Right. Minus the death camp and mass starvation. But, yeah exactly the same.

Quit the fearmongering. Noone is sending anyone to death camps and nooone is advocating mass starvation.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by rageous
Why do you say they'll drive more? What studies suggest smoking legal marijuana induces people to drive more than they normally would smoking illegal marijuana? My study. the NaplesX study that says more money in pocket means freedom to drive more.

Come on. I am speculating just as you and all the other pot legalization people are.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Protostar
I don't understand what the problem is with this proposed law. If you aren't doing the drugs then you have nothing to be concerned about riiiiiiiight? This is also a far faster way to get these people of the streets and broken of their habit. Hell, I'd have no problem turning my brother in, I don't like him that much anyway.



Quit the fearmongering. Noone is sending anyone to death camps and nooone is advocating mass starvation. I was being sarcastic.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Protostar
I don't understand what the problem is with this proposed law. If you aren't doing the drugs then you have nothing to be concerned about riiiiiiiight? This is also a far faster way to get these people of the streets and broken of their habit. Hell, I'd have no problem turning my brother in, I don't like him that much anyway. Maybe when people like you get lynched after narking out everyone they know, someone might realize that this law is a bad idea.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by Protostar
I don't understand what the problem is with this proposed law. If you aren't doing the drugs then you have nothing to be concerned about riiiiiiiight? This is also a far faster way to get these people of the streets and broken of their habit. Hell, I'd have no problem turning my brother in, I don't like him that much anyway.



Quit the fearmongering. Noone is sending anyone to death camps and nooone is advocating mass starvation. Yeah its just a start , 5 years for a joint? Clearly another example of the time doesnt fit the crime. Marijuana shouldnt even be illegal.Federal Govt did a major study on weed during Nixon and found it not the blown scare Govt would like you to think so Nixon threw the study away. Forcing 5 years sentence on what amounts to No crime is Fricking Nuts when we dont have room for Murderers,Rapist,etc. Then who gets the bill for this awful legislation? we the tax payer plus its another step to creating the Police State. What happened to Freedom? The Politicians are destroying all freedoms. Didnt these Neocons learn anything from prohibition? its all about power and control and interfering with people.

Hr 1528 causes way more problems then it fixes.

[Protostar]

Maybe when people like you get lynched after narking out everyone they know, someone might realize that this law is a bad idea.

Not everyone I know. Just the people I know are doing it and dont know really well (i.e. don't care about) and the people I know that are doing it and just don't like.

I was being sarcastic.

Sorry. Sometimes I have a hard time picking up on sarcasm.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by Protostar
Not everyone I know. Just the people I know are doing it and dont know really well (i.e. don't care about) and the people I know that are doing it and just don't like. even better - if you dislike them enough, you can just make shit up about hearing them talk about smoking pot, and then giggle like you're high when you see the cops come and arrest them

don't forget to tell your government how much you appreciate the opportunity for retribution against those you don't like.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
even better - if you dislike them enough, you can just make shit up about hearing them talk about smoking pot, and then giggle like you're high when you see the cops come and arrest them

don't forget to tell your government how much you appreciate the opportunity for retribution against those you don't like. You forget the bill of rights. Everyone has the right to face their accuser.

I am positive that helps with wrongful prosecution.

The only positive I see from legalizing pot, is it may help cut the flow of money to terrorists who get a lot of cash-flow from drug sales.

[rageous]

Originally posted by NaplesX
My study. the NaplesX study that says more money in pocket means freedom to drive more.

Come on. I am speculating just as you and all the other pot legalization people are.

I'm not speculating at all, actually. People are going to do irresponsible shit with their vehicles no matter what, and they should all be punished accordingly. You can drink, but you can't drink and drive.

You're arguing a silly point that everyone is going to agree with, and somehow spinning it into some absolute underpinning for why pot should not be legalized under any circumstances. There are countless risks associated with motor vehicle operation, and drugs aren't near the top of that list. It's ridiculous to make people's driving habits a cornerstone issue for reinforcing current drug laws. There's a reason trafic laws often differ from pedestrian laws.

Now, what do we do about those people who AREN'T retarded enough to drive under the influence? What do we do about Joe American having his house raided because an anonymous tip informs the cops he has pot in his house? What do we do about the huge burden we've put on our society with overflowing jails since the inception of the war on drugs? If mandatory drug sentencing were a good idea, shouldn't we be seeing positive results at this point?

[Protostar]

Yeah its just a start , 5 years for a joint? Clearly another example of the time doesnt fit the crime. Marijuana shouldnt even be illegal.Federal Govt did a major study on weed during Nixon and found it not the blown scare Govt would like you to think so Nixon threw the study away. Forcing 5 years sentence on what amounts to No crime is Fricking Nuts when we dont have room for Murderers,Rapist,etc. Then who gets the bill for this awful legislation? we the tax payer plus its another step to creating the Police State. What happened to Freedom? The Politicians are destroying all freedoms. Didnt these Neocons learn anything from prohibition? its all about power and control and interfering with people.

Hr 1528 causes way more problems then it fixes.

In your eyes it causes more problems. That is just your opinion. If we had all of the prisoners out digging ditches where they belong we wouldn't be having as many prison problems as we are. But because of the left wing libs crying crocodile tears about "prisoner rights" we have these people sitting in prison when they could be out doing something. As far as legalising weed I'm against it because it is a gateway drug. Many crack users are former weed users. They just didn't start out on crack jump street, they transitioned there from marijuana. Also I don't want a bunch of pot users on my street. It brings the property value down. Because slowly but surely "Pot Street" will transform into "Crack Street" b/c of the aforementioned reason. Also noone has mentioned the effect pot would have on workers. Not just productivity but the company image. No client is going to deal with a business where half its employees are high on marijuana for the same reason they wouldn't deal with them if everyone was walking around barefoot: it's just not professional. As for the law I think it would deter more people b/c if a person feels as though more people are watching/monitoring them they are less likely to do something illegal.

[giant]

Originally posted by Protostar
it is a gateway drug.
Actually, it's not. RAND did a big study a couple of years ago on it
Instead, the associations can result from known differences in the ages at which youths have opportunities to use marijuana and hard drugs, and known variations in individuals' willingness to try any drugs, researchers found...

"The people who are predisposed to use drugs and have the opportunity to use drugs are more likely than others to use both marijuana and harder drugs," Morral said. "Marijuana typically comes first because it is more available. Once we incorporated these facts into our mathematical model of adolescent drug use, we could explain all of the drug use associations that have been cited as evidence of marijuana's gateway effect."

[Aurora]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You forget the bill of rights. Everyone has the right to face their accuser.

I am positive that helps with wrongful prosecution.

The only positive I see from legalizing pot, is it may help cut the flow of money to terrorists who get a lot of cash-flow from drug sales. You miss the point, at the moment we keep drug dealers in business with it illegal and this makes it easy for kids to get. By legalization we get help for cancer patients,we free up courts & jails for real criminals, we still have it for the users( 50 years of drugwars have done little to stop the pot smoker)we tax it so the govt gets its money and we can use that money for education,rehab,roads etc. And the big one we the tax payer save billions. But it doesnt Grow the Police State and we all know Govt wants to grow the police state.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by Aurora
You miss the point, at the moment we keep drug dealers in business with it illegal and this makes it easy for kids to get. By legalization we get help for cancer patients,we free up courts & jails for real criminals, we still have it for the users( 50 years of drugwars have done little to stop the pot smoker)we tax it so the govt gets its money and we can use that money for education,rehab,roads etc. And the big one we the tax payer save billions. But it doesnt Grow the Police State and we all know Govt wants to grow the police state. Police state?

Is this the new buzzword?

Everyone talk like legalizing drugs will free up resources in the government. But in the very argument you suggest tight regulation. This requires a giant bureaucracy. You admit that people that smoke pot are generally retards to one extent or another. They don't obey the law as it is. I am unconvinced they would do so after this legalization is passed. I would also venture to say that typically people going to jail/prison are continuos offenders, often on other charges than just drugs.

I don't see any savings in cost. Typically government doesn't work that way. It will be just another entitlement gone wild.

[NaplesX]

Just to emphasize the problem with this kind of thing look at how convicted sex offenders are getting prescriptions for viagra.

Bureaucracies can't control anything, they will just exacerbate the problem.

I can see see criminal economies being created by legalizing drugs:

EDIT: I mean inside the welfare and entitlement offerings rather than outside.

[e1618978]

It will be just another entitlement gone wild.

No - it is not an entitlement gone wild. An entitlement is when they give you wellfare or something. If they take away your rights, it is not an entitlement if they give them back again.

If ice cream was made illegal, it would not be an entitlement when they made it legal again.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by e1618978
No - it is not an entitlement gone wild. An entitlement is when they give you wellfare or something. If they take away your rights, it is not an entitlement if they give them back again.

If ice cream was made illegal, it would not be an entitlement when they made it legal again. So lets legalize cocaine, opium, speed, extacy, rush, and all other drugs? Many of those were legal at one time or other.

Let's here a reason why not.

[rageous]

Originally posted by NaplesX
You admit that people that smoke pot are generally retards to one extent or another. They don't obey the law as it is. I am unconvinced they would do so after this legalization is passed. I would also venture to say that typically people going to jail/prison are continuos offenders, often on other charges than just drugs.

You would venture wrong actually. It's obvious you are not intimately aware of the realities of the drug situation. Being from Detroit, I have seen the ridiulousness of what passes as drug enforcement. Judges are all too willing to throw young black males (I specify blacks because they constitute a huge majority of those arrested for drugs in Detroit) in jail so that they appear to be tough on crime, and drug possession gives them an opportunity to do so. As in many urban areas, the sad myth is that young black male + drugs = career criminal out to rape white women and rob your home. So few of the more elite politicians and white suburbanites care because it's not a bad thing to toss away burglarapers.

And that's the doorway. We allow and encourage creation of these bullshit laws based on false prejudices that we think are going to make us safer (hell they're just going after those black folks downtown, not John the white guy across the street) and start locking up huge numbers of first time offenders.

But then we see that these halfassed laws not only fail to do what they are supposed to be doing (lower drug use, lower crime) they are being totally misued and end up creating a worse situation than existed before. You have people of every race getting thrown in for lengthy mandatory sentences and those convicted of violent felonies getting parolled to make room for the incoming hippies.

More later. My lady just offered to make me a PB&J sandwich, and I'd be a fool to refuse such an offer.

[e1618978]

Originally posted by NaplesX
So lets legalize cocaine, opium, speed, extacy, rush, and all other drugs? Many of those were legal at one time or other.

Let's here a reason why not.

There is no reason. We should legalise all those drugs, but I think we have to take them one at a time.

We should also make all perscription drugs OTC.

[NaplesX]

Originally posted by rageous
You would venture wrong actually. It's obvious you are not intimately aware of the realities of the drug situation. Being from Detroit, I have seen the ridiulousness of what passes as drug enforcement. Judges are all too willing to throw young black males (I specify blacks because they constitute a huge majority of those arrested for drugs in Detroit) in jail so that they appear to be tough on crime, and drug possession gives them an opportunity to do so. As in many urban areas, the sad myth is that young black male + drugs = career criminal out to rape white women and rob your home. So few of the more elite politicians and white suburbanites care because it's not a bad thing to toss away burglarapers.

And that's the doorway. We allow and encourage creation of these bullshit laws based on false prejudices that we think are going to make us safer (hell they're just going after those black folks downtown, not John the white guy across the street) and start locking up huge numbers of first time offenders.

But then we see that these halfassed laws not only fail to do what they are supposed to be doing (lower drug use, lower crime) they are being totally misued and end up creating a worse situation than existed before. You have people of every race getting thrown in for lengthy mandatory sentences and those convicted of violent felonies getting parolled to make room for the incoming hippies.

More later. My lady just offered to make me a PB&J sandwich, and I'd be a fool to refuse such an offer. I am all for changing penalties for drug use. Just not legalization of the drug entirely. Unlike truptman I am a slippery slope person on this issue. You will just be asking for more problems, IMO

[shetline]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=28
One can't fully appreciate the doublespeak of HR 1528 without knowing the title of the bill:

"Defending America's Most Vulnerable: Safe Access to Drug Treatment and Child Protection Act of 2005"

You can easily imagine the campaign ads against anyone who doesn't vote for this bill now... sinister sounding music... bad, squinty-looking pictures of the guy who wouldn't vote for this assinine bill... "My opponent voted to put the interests of drug dealers ahead of protecting our children." Sininster music shifts into happy Morning-in-America lilting string music, happy photos of the "I'm tough on crime!" candidate posing with his happy family slide by... "Unlike my opponent, I believe our children need to be protected against the most vicious members of our society..." Yadda yadda.

Ah, the joys of democracy in America.

[giant]

Originally posted by rageous
Judges are all too willing to throw young black males (I specify blacks because they constitute a huge majority of those arrested for drugs in Detroit) in jail so that they appear to be tough on crime, and drug possession gives them an opportunity to do so.
This is a really important point. Imprisonment of african americans and targeting through racial profiling is one of the biggest problems with current drug laws and enforcement. It's really the primary issue in anydiscussion of the real-world effects of the war on drugs.

[Aurora]

Originally posted by NaplesX
Police state?

Is this the new buzzword?

Everyone talk like legalizing drugs will free up resources in the government. But in the very argument you suggest tight regulation. This requires a giant bureaucracy. You admit that people that smoke pot are generally retards to one extent or another. They don't obey the law as it is. I am unconvinced they would do so after this legalization is passed. I would also venture to say that typically people going to jail/prison are continuos offenders, often on other charges than just drugs.

I don't see any savings in cost. Typically government doesn't work that way. It will be just another entitlement gone wild. Lets see all those courts cases, all those judges, all those cops,all those that are in jail for weed at the moment and there is no cost savings??? Sounds like you are higher then a Kite.The Police state wants to grow we all know