Something I believe we all can agree on.

I am in favor of marijuana legalization.

So why leave marijuana laws to the states, but not other matters like education or healthcare?

I'd like to think the Feds would respect these laws. I'm skeptical. In fact, enforcement has been dialed up in the past 3-4 years.

This is a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

We have to define the relationship for rights and where they will reside and we can't conveniently ignore it and throw a tantrum when we don't get what we want. Right now privacy at the federal level keeps abortion from the states but also keeps marijuana from the states.

It can't be federalize one right but not the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

This is a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

We have to define the relationship for rights and where they will reside and we can't conveniently ignore it and throw a tantrum when we don't get what we want. Right now privacy at the federal level keeps abortion from the states but also keeps marijuana from the states.

 

It can't be federalize one right but not the other.

Yes...and you either have the right to ingest what you want  because the government doesn't have the right to tell you what you can do with your body, or the state gets to do things like ban salt or large sodas or approve what pharmaceutical products you're allowed to have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


So we all agree that states should be allowed to decriminalize marijuana? Good then.
Perhaps the states rights issue belongs in another thread.

But these issues are all connected.

If you want to create false separations that suit your own personal authoritarian streak where you imagine federal power as better for some things, that's your problem. Well, actually, it's all of our problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Aside from the states rights issue, do you support decriminalization in your own state?

Absolutely. I actually support full legalization rather than the more limited decriminalization.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I do. There is no evidence that marijuana, if legal, is a "gateway drug" that leads to abuse of other drugs. You don't find many heroin, meth and cocaine abusers in places where marijuananis legal.
Marijuana is a far less dangerous drug itself than alcohol is. It's even less harmful to the body than tobacco.

Agreed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

The commercial potential of legal, regulated marijuana trade and trade in other hemp products is huge. Tax revenue potential is huge. Marijuana tax is potentially profitable enough to pay for health care, housing, and education.

So you want tax revenue from it?  Geez. Is there anything you guys don't want to tax?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Put this question to another thread and I'll respond.

It's alright. We know where you stand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


So we all agree that states should be allowed to decriminalize marijuana? Good then.
Perhaps the states rights issue belongs in another thread.

 

But these issues are all connected.

 

If you want to create false separations that suit your own personal authoritarian streak where you imagine federal power as better for some things, that's your problem. Well, actually, it's all of our problem.

Exactly. We can't say back off on marijuana but not marriage or affirmative action, or soft drink size, or number of calories in a school lunch or.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Aside from the states rights issue, do you support decriminalization in your own state?

I do. There is no evidence that marijuana, if legal, is a "gateway drug" that leads to abuse of other drugs. You don't find many heroin, meth and cocaine abusers in places where marijuananis legal.

Marijuana is a far less dangerous drug itself than alcohol is. It's even less harmful to the body than tobacco.

The commercial potential of legal, regulated marijuana trade and trade in other hemp products is huge. Tax revenue potential is huge. Marijuana tax is potentially profitable enough to pay for health care, housing, and education.

Anyone here oppose it in their state? If so, why?

I have no issues with marijuana. As you'll recall though, I had no issues with gay marriage as an example but did have a very large problem with federal judges declaring California couldn't amend their own Constitution.

Words have to mean something and so do levels of law and government. You can't pick and choose depending upon your issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


Another thread. Can't you guys even have a normal conversation without starting an argument you see as related? I won't respond to your questions here, bless they are about marina a laws. Start a fckng state vs. federal thread. And learn the difference between a state granted right and a state imposed restriction.

You believe our rights come from government?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Apparently you're not interested in why or logically how.

Not really, no. I don't presume much logic. And why, when you want to impose your values on others, matters little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Anything that doesn't involve commerce.

Why do you draw the line there? Seems fairly arbitrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


Another thread. Can't you guys even have a normal conversation without starting an argument you see as related? I won't respond to your questions here, bless they are about marina a laws. Start a fckng state vs. federal thread. And learn the difference between a state granted right and a state imposed restriction.

Actually, it is deeper that "state vs. federal" it is about the state vs. the individual. It is directly about individual rights. Marijuana is about individual rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Another thread. Can't you guys even have a normal conversation without starting an argument you see as related? I won't respond to your questions here, bless they are about marina a laws. Start a fckng state vs. federal thread. And learn the difference between a state granted right and a state imposed restriction.

Your question was, will the feds back off. When you say back off, you mean will they leave it to the states to determine for themselves.

You want to believe it is about people being uptight about marijuana. Collectively myself and the other posters have showed that it is much more about federal encroachment into all matters large and small. You don't want to address that though because you are happy with the federal government encroaching on the matters you want federalized. The point is you can't have your cake and eat it too. You're getting screwed over here by the very monster you are helping to feed and create. I'd suggest getting used to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

As we may have expected, Barney and Ron urge Obama to leave marijuana laws to the states.

http://frank.house.gov/press-release/representatives-paul-and-frank-send-letter-president-obama-urging-respect-state

Will the Feds back off, unlike their approach in California?

It's only a matter of time now before it's legal on the westcoast. After that it'll snowball. I give it 4 years max. Too much money to be made and most states need money.

Why are you in favor of a drug inducing poison that can ruin your health and mind? Regulate POT!
 

This is how alcohol prohibition was eventually defeated wasn't it?  

One state at a time legalized it and all the rest eventually fell like dominoes.

If we were to decriminalize rec' drugs we may very well go from police that look like this ...

to ones that look like this ...

Police unions make so much money on the war on drugs they will fight decriminalization tooth and nail. Little chance this will happen while Obama is in office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

As we may have expected, Barney and Ron urge Obama to leave marijuana laws to the states.
http://frank.house.gov/press-release/representatives-paul-and-frank-send-letter-president-obama-urging-respect-state
Will the Feds back off, unlike their approach in California?

We agree on the issue.  There is no reason pot should be illegal...not at the federal or state level.  Or any level.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I am in favor of marijuana legalization.

 

So why leave marijuana laws to the states, but not other matters like education or healthcare?

Uh...oh.  <makes popcorn>  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I'm in favor of regulation, Marv. Without regulation it can be poison because it can be cut with other chemicals or even poisonous herbs. The marijuana plant itself is far, far safer than alcohol, and we saw what happened when they prohibited alcohol.

How would you propose we regulate it?  Should we have government inspectors and pot safety standards?  

<continues consuming popcorn> 

Exactly.  He has no interest in addressing federal intervention in general, because he knows his position is completely inconsistent.  When it comes to gay marriage, he wants a national policy.  When it comes to abortion, he wants a national policy.  But marijuana?  That's a states' rights issue.  Or something.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

If we were to decriminalize rec' drugs we may very well go from police that look like this ...

 

 

Its not so much

 

to ones that look like this ...

 

 

 

Police unions make so much money on the war on drugs they will fight decriminalization tooth and nail. Little chance this will happen while Obama is in office.

It's hardly an issue of police unions, and regular cops' pay...thats chump change compared to the real money makers in the war on drugs. Think private corporations in the prison-security-industrial complex (CCA etc etc), for which the throughput of drug offenders is a huge $income stream.... all originating from the taxpayers. 

As I've said before here, we can discuss the decriminalization of marijuana when there's a cheap and effective roadside test available that quickly allows police to arrest and charge those driving under the influence.

Until then, you are knowingly advocating a policy that will kill innocent people indiscriminately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

Until then, you are knowingly advocating a policy that will kill innocent people indiscriminately.

Like drone warfare?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FloorJack 

If we were to decriminalize rec' drugs we may very well go from police that look like this ...

 

 

 

to ones that look like this ...

 

 

 

Police unions make so much money on the war on drugs they will fight decriminalization tooth and nail. Little chance this will happen while Obama is in office.

Actually I think just the opposite. I think as long as he's in office it's more likely than it would be under a far right conservative president..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

As I've said before here, we can discuss the decriminalization of marijuana when there's a cheap and effective roadside test available that quickly allows police to arrest and charge those driving under the influence.

 

Until then, you are knowingly advocating a policy that will kill innocent people indiscriminately.

Does the existence of a cheap and effective alcohol test prevent DUI?  Of course not.  The only thing that stops people is public awareness and big penalties.  It would be the same for pot.  And yes, police could still do a field sobriety test for pot...just not with on-the-spot chemical analysis.  Last, do you believe driving stoned is as bad as driving drunk?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Like drone warfare?

Ouch.  <more popcorn>

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Actually I think just the opposite. I think as long as he's in office it's more likely than it would be under a far right conservative president..

I think you're dreaming.  Neither candidate (jn this past election) would have taken the right course on this issue. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Actually I think just the opposite. I think as long as he's in office it's more likely than it would be under a far right conservative president..

You think that marijuana legalization is more likely under Obama even though Obama has actually increased crackdowns on marijuana?

BTW, today I heard that this was basically how the end of alcohol prohibition began...at the state level...ultimately about 20 states before the amendment was overturned. The states basically left it to the Feds to enforce and the Feds don't actually have the resources to do it.

It's actually kinda sad and silly the things the Feds are spending resources on given its serious budget woes. I heard a story recently where the Feds basically raided a thrift store and force them to throw out or destroy perfectly good corded mini-blinds, hair dryers and child car seats. In addition to wasting resources on these things, its becoming clear how much they hate poor people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Like drone warfare?

This might be relevant if I had ever once defended the practice of drone warfare on this board.

Or if the drones are being operated by people using marijuana.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Does the existence of a cheap and effective alcohol test prevent DUI?  Of course not.  The only thing that stops people is public awareness and big penalties.  It would be the same for pot.  And yes, police could still do a field sobriety test for pot...just not with on-the-spot chemical analysis.  Last, do you believe driving stoned is as bad as driving drunk?

No, it doesn't prevent it. Yes, it does contain the damage that human idiocy can do.

'Raising public awareness' doesn't stop anyone from doing anything in our society. The problem has never been that people don't know the harm their actions are causing. Recently, there was a news report here showing that a significant number of people are driving to work on Friday morning while still under the influence of alcohol. Idiots abound in our society, and a large number of them are chemically dependent in one way or another.

And without a positive chemical test, it would be hard to convict anyone of DUI with marijuana in modern courts. Lastly, if you're brain isn't clear and alert, you don't belong on the roads. Period. That doesn't matter whether you are driving too fast, too slow, think the traffic lights look pretty or the lamp posts look like grey trees. All kinds of factors contribute to vehicular accidents and speed is only one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank777 

 

This might be relevant if I had ever once defended the practice of drone warfare on this board.

Or if the drones are being operated by people using marijuana.

 

 

No, it doesn't prevent it. Yes, it does contain the damage that human idiocy can do.

 

'Raising public awareness' doesn't stop anyone from doing anything in our society. The problem has never been that people don't know the harm their actions are causing. Recently, there was a news report here showing that a significant number of people are driving to work on Friday morning while still under the influence of alcohol. Idiots abound in our society, and a large number of them are chemically dependent in one way or another.

 

And without a positive chemical test, it would be hard to convict anyone of DUI with marijuana in modern courts. Lastly, if you're brain isn't clear and alert, you don't belong on the roads. Period. That doesn't matter whether you are driving too fast, too slow, think the traffic lights look pretty or the lamp posts look like grey trees. All kinds of factors contribute to vehicular accidents and speed is only one of them.

Raising awareness and handing out harsh penalties are the only things that change society.  DUI deaths haven't decreased because we have fancy new BAC meters.  They've decreased because of stiff fines, jail time, and a massive PR campaign including pictures of people's dead families.  

I agree about driving impaired.  The thing is, that's not what I asked you.  I asked if driving stoned was as bad as driving drunk.  I'm not sure I agree with the legal point you make, either.  It seems to me that a police officer could gather enough evidence for a conviction, even if it's video evidence.