Reefer madness....

[DABearSoX]

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/9...en&psp=news

[Pauly8509CWS]

Man, the government could make a killing by legalizing it and taxing the hell out of it. My money says it doesn't happen though, it just can't.

[southsider2k5]

Man, the government could make a killing by legalizing it and taxing the hell out of it. My money says it doesn't happen though, it just can't.

 

Current federal law won't allow it to happen.

[DABearSoX]

Current federal law won't allow it to happen.

 

 

This statewide law change would be ineffected by the national ban. It would legalize possesion up to one ounce. Selling, growing, etc.... would still be illegal

[sayitaintso]

The US government won't legalize it because they aren't able to control the production of weed. I'm almost positive that if the government could control all of the production of weed that it would be legalized since they would make a huge profit off of it. Since they can't control who else grows it/sells it since it is not chemically created in lab related where only the drug companies know how to make it, i don't think that they will ever leaglize it.

[Texsox]

The US government won't legalize it because they aren't able to control the production of weed. I'm almost positive that if the government could control all of the production of weed that it would be legalized since they would make a huge profit off of it. Since they can't control who else grows it/sells it since it is not chemically created in lab related where only the drug companies know how to make it, i don't think that they will ever leaglize it.

 

They can't control who grows tobacco or who brews beer, yet we collect crazy taxes on the stuff. Yes, some people home brew beer (Hi Jim) and some may produce their own cigarettes, but the majority would prefer USDA approved marijuana. Available at the local liquor store and bars. Convienent to purchase. Brand loyalty will kick in and then who wants to smoke that crappy home grown stuff when you can smoke "Buzzards" the same brand that NFL running back Ricky Williams smokes?

[NorthSideSox72]

Let me just point this out. The PD's along the Urban Corridor, where most of Colorado's population live, don't even bother enforcing possession of marijuana. Not worth the hassle. Only time people get cited is if they have LARGE quantities (like a brick or more), or if they were otherwise acting like a jackass and the cops felt like throwing the book at them. So for all intents and purposes, if you are just a consumer of cannabis, you aren't really in much danger of being caught anyway.

[LosMediasBlancas]

Cheetos, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[whitesoxfan101]

The higher powers of this nation would be amazed to see how much usage would go down if it were legal. Legalizing it takes away all the fun.

 

(And no, I'm not a pothead.....I wish I had that excuse ).

[Balta1701]

They can't control who grows tobacco or who brews beer, yet we collect crazy taxes on the stuff. Yes, some people home brew beer (Hi Jim) and some may produce their own cigarettes, but the majority would prefer USDA approved marijuana. Available at the local liquor store and bars. Convienent to purchase. Brand loyalty will kick in and then who wants to smoke that crappy home grown stuff when you can smoke "Buzzards" the same brand that NFL running back Ricky Williams smokes?

Didn't Canada try that like a year ago, and wound up having people complaining that the government-approved stuff wasn't very good?

[Texsox]

Didn't Canada try that like a year ago, and wound up having people complaining that the government-approved stuff wasn't very good?

 

But that's Canada, we're the country that invented McDonalds, Sliders, Cheetos, we make everything mo' better.

[StrangeSox]

"Spent the last year

Rocky Mountain way

Couldn't get much higher"

[southsider2k5]

The higher powers of this nation would be amazed to see how much usage would go down if it were legal. Legalizing it takes away all the fun.

 

(And no, I'm not a pothead.....I wish I had that excuse ).

 

Not a chance... You want a great example, look at alcohol.

[samclemens]

Not a chance... You want a great example, look at alcohol.

 

i agree, i think there would be a huge spike in usage for quite some time

[LowerCaseRepublican]

i agree, i think there would be a huge spike in usage for quite some time

And then the levels decrease to lower levels than those nations who have criminalized it -- or so says the experminents of states who have decriminalized soft drugs and added in safeguards for those who use hard drugs (i.e. clean syringe exchanges etc.)

 

And really, if a person is not harming another person, what business is it of the government or anybody else what a person is putting into their body?

[Texsox]

And then the levels decrease to lower levels than those nations who have criminalized it -- or so says the experminents of states who have decriminalized soft drugs and added in safeguards for those who use hard drugs (i.e. clean syringe exchanges etc.)

 

And really, if a person is not harming another person, what business is it of the government or anybody else what a person is putting into their body?

 

One function we have given to the government is our collective economy and the financial impact we have on each other. If you're behavior is costing me money, then the government should mediate. Another point, the government is actually you and me and everyone else. We elect representatives as our proxies. It is their business to do whatever we ask of them. If we decide they should be involved in what each citizen puts in their body, then they have the power invested in them by the people who elected them.

[Soxbadger]

Texsox,

 

For the majority of our nations existence, people and the govt as well, did not believe that it had the power to control what an individual did with their own body.

 

Regardless, the economic cost of enforcing marijuana laws is very high and the gain to society is very low. Most laws that try and enforce morals are a waste of tax payers money.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

One function we have given to the government is our collective economy and the financial impact we have on each other. If you're behavior is costing me money, then the government should mediate. Another point, the government is actually you and me and everyone else. We elect representatives as our proxies. It is their business to do whatever we ask of them. If we decide they should be involved in what each citizen puts in their body, then they have the power invested in them by the people who elected them.

There's plenty of people addicted to legal "drugs" like alcohol and cigarettes yet there is no mass government crackdown on the "lack of productivity" caused by people having to take multiple smoke breaks during the day or those that show up to work hungover on Monday morning. If it is okay to put some known as dangerous materials into a person's body and have it be socially acceptable, why not other drugs -- especially if they are responsible with usage and can pull it off without hurting anybody else? After all, alcohol and cigarettes kill more people than crack, coke, heroin and pot combined each year.

 

And in the idealist world the government does represent the people. However, the government represents their own power-hungry interests, the interests of those who can influence peddle with donations and the such instead of truth, logic and reason. Look at the criminalization of marijuana in 1937 for some real easy proof.

[Texsox]

Texsox,

 

For the majority of our nations existence, people and the govt as well, did not believe that it had the power to control what an individual did with their own body.

 

Regardless, the economic cost of enforcing marijuana laws is very high and the gain to society is very low. Most laws that try and enforce morals are a waste of tax payers money.

 

And my response is pretty much the same. The government is involved because *we* allow it. Sometimes it makes sense and is correct, sometimes we are wrong. But we should never forget that we are the government. We can change it by electing people who share that vision. I happen to believe that marijuana laws are outdated and the time has come to make changes. I prefer to remove marijuana from the hands of dealers and into the hands of liquor stores and taverns. This coming from someone who has never smoked anything in my life except meat.

 

 

There's plenty of people addicted to legal "drugs" like alcohol and cigarettes yet there is no mass government crackdown on the "lack of productivity" caused by people having to take multiple smoke breaks during the day or those that show up to work hungover on Monday morning. If it is okay to put some known as dangerous materials into a person's body and have it be socially acceptable, why not other drugs -- especially if they are responsible with usage and can pull it off without hurting anybody else? After all, alcohol and cigarettes kill more people than crack, coke, heroin and pot combined each year.

 

And in the idealist world the government does represent the people. However, the government represents their own power-hungry interests, the interests of those who can influence peddle with donations and the such instead of truth, logic and reason. Look at the criminalization of marijuana in 1937 for some real easy proof.

 

Are you debating why the government is involved or that marijuana should be legal? Two vastly different debates. I agree marijuana laws are outdated and should be changed. At the minimum to reflect the current enforcement norms.

 

I believe we are the government. We have done a poor job of oversight and electing representatives and the problems you outlined have crept into the system. But bottom line, we are allowing it.

[Pauly8509CWS]

And really, if a person is not harming another person, what business is it of the government or anybody else what a person is putting into their body?

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Texsox,

 

And we allow it because we have been conditioned to accept our freedoms slowly being eroded.

 

Just because it is allowed, does not mean that it is right or it is what should be. The reason that people allow drugs to be illegal, is because of the scare tactics of the 20th century. The govt is allowed to use any advertisement any propaganda it wants in the "drug war", because they have been doing it so long that people accept it.

 

I mean the commercial where they show if you buy drugs you support terrorists, or the one where they show the kid not being picked up, etc. None of the commercials prove any facts, and the only commission done on the subject of marijuana by the gov. of NY Laguardia, came up with the result that the govt. was exaggerating the effects of marijuana.

 

This is a classic example of how if a govt says something enough times, people just stop having the will to fight it.

 

And of course the voters can change things, if marijuana became a hot topic, which I think it will in the next 20 or so years, people running in elections will latch on to it. People in the govt dont have ideals anymore, all they care about is how will they get elected for the next term. Its why you see the constant hypocrisy and dog chasing its tail in congress.

[Texsox]

I'm not saying the government's actions are right. The original question was what right the government has in telling people what they can not put into their bodies. My reply is we gave the government that right, which is exactly how our system of government is designed to work.

 

Anyone claiming that the government does not have the right and how would you go about changing what rights or actions the government can take? I seems to me that establishing a system of laws becomes the primary responsibility of any government. Our Constitution established how and what the government should be involved in. Should it then take an amendment to change that, not individual laws?

[DABearSoX]

Let me just point this out. The PD's along the Urban Corridor, where most of Colorado's population live, don't even bother enforcing possession of marijuana. Not worth the hassle. Only time people get cited is if they have LARGE quantities (like a brick or more), or if they were otherwise acting like a jackass and the cops felt like throwing the book at them. So for all intents and purposes, if you are just a consumer of cannabis, you aren't really in much danger of being caught anyway.

 

 

This is true, but i believe if this can pass with as much authority as the Denver law last year it would be a huge step in the way this nation looks at marijuana. Yea people get worried because its a "gateway drug" which i believe is a bunch of hogwash unless you let your mind open up the gateway. I've done my share, and I don't want to go shoot up or do some blow......

 

i agree, i think there would be a huge spike in usage for quite some time

 

I was told by a business professor that consumption of alcohol of 21-35 year olds has gone down since the 70s....he would always point out how his generation was a lot more fun then ours...he was a riot, gotta love the liberal CU professors...

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not a chance... You want a great example, look at alcohol.

You really can't put much stock in the numbers they take.

 

How many people are actually willing to admit they smoke pot?

How many teenagers f*** around on drug surveys saying they smoke crack at least 3 times a day?

 

How many people do you think would actual admit to drinking alcohol back during the prohibition?

...and how exactly did that prohibition thing work out? Taxes from alcohol are a huge source for tax money, less people are going blind or risking health concerns by drinking beverages approved by the Government, and the mob isn't making money by sneaking in hooch because it is readily available.

 

 

 

QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you're behavior is costing me money, then the government should mediate.

In this case you are assuming that LCR would be buying drugs from an illegal source or growing his own stuff and smoking it.

 

If your local power company informs you they are drastically raising their rates because some rich assholes are consuming too much energy (but they are paying their bills) and they feel by raising the rates these particular consumer will cut back in their consumption, should the Government step in and tell these rich people to stop because other customers like yourself are paying the price for a high demand?

Wouldn't that be a case of one's behavior costing others their money?

[Texsox]

Again, we are looking at specific situations involving marijuana. Not every situation should involve government stepping in, but many do. Will your business or residence hurt my real estate values? The government steps in. Why should they care that you park four abandoned cars on your lawn and paint your house like the Partridge Family bus?