Marijuana Legislation

[NorthSideSox72]

Wow, total garbage response. Once again cementing your unwillingness to put aside your personal feelings to look at another viewpoint. Its pretty obvious that your lack of experience in the issue is clouding your judgement.

Wouldn't a lot of experience also cloud one's judgement?

 

[StrangeSox]

There is no reason on earth somebody shouldn't be allowed to get stoned and listen to Dinosaur Jr. albums all night to unwind. I dont smoke pot much at all, but sometimes I really need a night like that. If alcohol can be sold under the assumption that it will be consumed responsibly why cant weed?

 

I dont care much about this issue, but I find most of the arguments against legalization blown way out of proportion and (for lack of a better word) Reaganesque.

I prefer Pavement.

 

My view is that the government needs explicit, compelling reasons in order to ban or prohibit something, not that citizens need to prove something's worth to government in order to allow it.

Wouldn't a lot of experience also cloud one's judgement?

Edited January 15, 2009 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Why is that so funny? There are commericials telling people to play the lotto to support public education. The lottery is yet another vice that is only in place for financial reasons that you curious didn't notice. I guess once it's legal you don't really care what others do with their money. Perhaps youd feel the same way if pot was legal.

 

I have stated many times that the financial reason is the best reason to legalize pot and why I favor that action. And if legal, rock should be the smokesperson for pot. He's even stated it is safer than water. People have OD from water, but not pot. As he has pointed out, more people have died in water related deaths than pot. That kind of blind devotion and worship is a wondrous thing and should be rewarded.

 

But if I am understanding rock, and others here,

 

The increased tax revenue to fund schools and roads would be a good, perhaps noble thing.

The believe better schools and roads are important projects and a huge benefit to society.

They are willing to spend more in taxes to support those projects, but ONLY if the government allows them to get high.

So I wonder if they really believe in those projects or they just want legal pot. Come on, if those projects are that important and beneficial, why only pay the taxes if it comes with a joint?

 

Every so-called victimless crime opens up the same line of financial reasoning. We are against the crime until it contributes something positive to society. Usually that contribution is monetarily. People will pay for their vices. Eventually I see almost every victimless crime being legal, with pot perhaps being the next one to fall. Gambling, prostitution, etc will also eventually fall to the same line of reasoning. We'll have plenty of tax revenues when there are hookers and bookies in every neighborhood and every drug is legal. I'm not certain how that makes for a better society. But we will have some kickass roads and schools.

 

Kids learn of the faulty science, racism, and propaganda from almost one hundred years ago and believe that is why pot *remains* illegal today. There have been many bad laws that get dropped, overturned, forgotten, and changed. Pot *remains* illegal for much different reasons today.

• Alcohol lobby
• Easy, cheap, fast, reliable, testing for marijuana use
• The leaders of today grew up during the drug culture of the 60s and 70s and see the downside. They have made most chemically altering substances harder, not easier to use.
• Pot being caught in the "Just Say No" drug net. Thirty years of encouraging less time under the influence, not more.
• The appearance, and probably it is, of "selling out".
• Anti-smoking (anything) campaigns
• Questionable (trading a bigger vice for smaller) or no societal value beyond financial.

And the facts are correct that far worse substances like alcohol are legal, but beneficial substances, like antibiotics, are only available with a prescription. In many countries, like Mexico, those are over the counter. So our pharmacology is all over the map. It always will be.

 

I use to believe, at the minimum, it should be decriminalized, but rock mentioning the ties to terrorism makes me rethink that. It probably then needs to be all or nothing. Legal or illegal. I agree it should be legal, but do not agree that increased pot smoking will make this a better country. The population will not become healthier. Productivity will not increase. We will not see an increase in intellectual breakthroughs. The only benefits will be financial, and if those benefits where that important, people would have already voted the higher taxes necessary. So we really do not place that high a value. It's just an excuse to get high and watch the tube.

[lostfan]

As far as ties to terrorism that is more of an issue with cocaine and opium etc. than it is with marijuana.

 

edit: also, if you ask a cop they will probably tell you that it should be all or nothing, too. And if it's going to be illegal, then make real penalties for it so they don't waste their time (but nobody is going to do that because the tide isn't moving in that direction).

Edited January 15, 2009 by lostfan

[Texsox]

As far as ties to terrorism that is more of an issue with cocaine and opium etc. than it is with marijuana.

 

That's pretty much what I thought, but I believe rock is more of an expert in that area and find it easier to accept his statement than try to refute it.

 

It seems the point of origin is much closer with pot than other drugs.

[lostfan]

That's pretty much what I thought, but I believe rock is more of an expert in that area and find it easier to accept his statement than try to refute it.

 

It seems the point of origin is much closer with pot than other drugs.

You're right, it is, marijuana is grown in places like Kentucky or California for example. There are shady ties (criminal, but not necessarily terrorist, at least not directly or to a large extent) but this is mostly because it's illegal. If it was legal there would be nothing to hide, and the likelihood of someone growing and directly using the money to support terrorism here in this country is pretty low because it would be stupid.

 

With other drugs those are imported from overseas. So you have places like Colombia which is the most notorious, and Afghanistan which needs no explanation.

[Texsox]

You're right, it is, marijuana is grown in places like Kentucky or California for example. There are shady ties (criminal, but not necessarily terrorist, at least not directly or to a large extent) but this is mostly because it's illegal. If it was legal there would be nothing to hide, and the likelihood of someone growing and directly using the money to support terrorism here in this country is pretty low because it would be stupid.

 

With other drugs those are imported from overseas. So you have places like Colombia which is the most notorious, and Afghanistan which needs no explanation.

 

For a while I thought the tobacco lobby had a chance to legalize marijuana. They had the cash to compete with the alcohol lobby, were losing jobs, crippling regions. But they have become such outcasts that they do not have the political might anymore.

 

It also becomes how you define terrorism. For most, we think of international terrorists. If you take it to a local level, and include gangs and such, which is a stretch, perhaps the comment holds more validity.

[lostfan]

Gangs aren't terrorists, that's a ridiculously wide brush to paint with that will leave your canvas messy. Their motivation isn't political, it's money.

[Texsox]

Gangs aren't terrorists, that's a ridiculously wide brush to paint with that will leave your canvas messy. Their motivation isn't political, it's money.

 

As I said, it is admittedly a stretch. Just trying to help Rock out with his pot dealers support terrorism comment. They do share some characteristics such as the use fear, intimidation, threats of violence, etc. The difference is they provide services to the neighborhoods.

• The orderly distribution of drugs.
• The organization of gambling.
• The management of prostitution.

[RockRaines]

Thank you for mocking my very valid arguments and the personal insults in this thread so far. I am of the opinion that Mods should hold themselves to a higher standard than regular posters and should lead by example, its clear you do not feel that way. Ill try to refrain from posting in threads like this, because once again you have taken it competely of the beaten path by using circular logic, putting words in people's mouths and finally insulting someone and their viewpoint.

 

 

The population will not become healthier. Productivity will not increase. We will not see an increase in intellectual breakthroughs. The only benefits will be financial, and if those benefits where that important, people would have already voted the higher taxes necessary. So we really do not place that high a value. It's just an excuse to get high and watch the tube.

My last point is this:

 

Based on your "checklist" above for what criteria we should look for in establising a product or service for the benefit of the country, what actually DOES satisfy you? Does even your Boy Scouts satisfy those points? How about any other drugs or procedures that have been legalized? Vigra, Botox, Propecia, breast enhancements? I guess then they all are worthless to society.

 

Financial benefits are societal benefits IMO. You say that intellectual breakthroughs would not be aided by marijuana. Well lets take your county for example. If 40 million dollars is injected into your governement without increased taxation and only 10 percent is alocated for schools, do you think that the level of education may improve? They may build a better computer center, they may be able to fund a better library, these are all residual benefits of the financial windfall of legalization of this substance. People wouldnt have to vote to increase taxes because the governement wouldnt need as much cash influx as they do today. Its really basic math. I do appreciate the not so subtle insult that we just want to get high and watch the tube, but there is a clear benefit to the decriminalization, regulation (which takes revenue from both illegal orgs like gangs and possible outside countries that grow such as mexico and central american entities), and medicinal useage of the drug. These are all supported by clear economic and scientific studies that have taken place over the course of the last 5 years. For example, if Marijuana useage could equal the tax revenue of Cigarettes, we would see an influx of cash into our governement almost to 12 BILLION dollars, thats a pretty hefty piece of change. Also when talking about the dangers of MJ-related deaths, its true that impairment may have caused some number of unrecorded deaths in the last year, but it is such a small number that reasons such as satellite radio, cell phone useage, and mechanical failures have dwarfed the number to the point of obscurity.

 

I really hope you step out of your box and look at the ACTUAL use of the drug by individuals that use it for both medicinal and recreation uses and compare the dangers to substances we already have legalized and taxed today. I understand the stereotypes that you have inaccurately placed on the user community and I bet you understand the ones placed on the BSOA that are not entirely true either. The best approach is to back away, take a look at the pro's and cons and make an informed decision with empirical support.

 

Have a good one.

[Texsox]

I've stated why I believe marijuana should be legal. You want that plus wanting marijuana called a miracle drug that will be the savior of our society. Sorry. I do not believe it. But seriously, when it is made legal, Please get a job promoting pot, I have never met anyone so devoted to a product. If you find that mocking I am sorry. And the get "high and watch the tube" was a Steve Miller band song. Popular during a time when drugs were not looked down upon by society. You see, I've lived through times when drugs were socially acceptable and when they were not. That gives me a different perspective on why pot remains illegal. Not some textbook fallacy about 100 year old faulty research that people think of when they are high.

 

If society truly valued those benefits, they would just raise taxes to pay for them. But as you have explained, you need the incentive of legal marijuana. Basically, if pot is legal, stoners will then send money. Works for me. All the benefits are financial. You seem willing to trade higher taxes if you personally have legal pot to smoke.

 

But once again, you believe that nothing bad ever happens because of pot. And I find that laughable.

[Texsox]

Another point Rock, remember I favor legalizing marijuana, the difference is I do not put a bow tie and tails on a pig and sell him as the Prom King.

 

You mention other drugs that are legal. Great point.

 

Alcohol. I believe far more dangerous than pot. What are we doing about alcohol?

• Raised the drinking age
• Lowered the threshold to be considered drunk
• taxed the crap out of it
• restricted advertising

Cigarettes, again, arguably worse than pot

• Restricted adverting
• sued the crap out of them
• made them fund anti-smoking campaigns
• taxed the hell out of them
• restricted where people can smoke

I see this and believe society is becoming more restrictive and moving away from anything goes. Since the trend is towards more and more restrictions with alcohol and cigarettes and a lower and lower image for those activities, why would you think society would be less and less restrictive on pot? It just is not logical.

 

And the financial picture, the #1 benefit of legalization is also too idyllic. Once pot is legal, manufacturing costs will increase. Manufacturers will have to carry product liability insurance, workers will be paid wages, benefits to employees, advertising, FDA inspections, etc, will all be included. Then you are going to add a tax on top of that.

 

You are suggesting that users will gladly pay double or triple for a legal product. I agree, some will. But unlike alcohol, where there is a huge difference between home brews and professional brewing, a very good product can be grown at home and smoked. Law enforcement will shift from criminal to tax violations and we try to collect those taxes on the home grown stuff. I see that reality and still believe the benefit outweigh the cost. You'll argue there are no costs.

 

And perhaps I am out of touch with today's pot smoker. I certainly did not mean to insult pot smokers by insinuating they would get high and watch TV. I recall pot smokers watching TV. Fire up the bong and watch SNL. Perhaps lighting a joint, turning on Dark Side of the Moon and syching it with Wizard of Oz. So tell me, what are pot smokers doing today that is so valuable and worthwhile?

[BigSqwert]

Pretty disappointed in Obama's McCain-like answer to the marijuana legalization question earlier this week. His dismissive answer to the #1 question being asked on whitehouse.gov shows that he isn't the progressive leader on this topic that I thought he'd be.

 

And that he had to laugh off the people who asked this shows he is out of touch with many Americans. Hey knucklehead, it was the #1 asked question online...by thousands of Americans.

[bmags]

Pretty disappointed in Obama's McCain-like answer to the marijuana legalization question earlier this week. His dismissive answer to the #1 question being asked on whitehouse.gov shows that he isn't the progressive leader on this topic that I thought he'd be.

 

And that he had to laugh off the people who asked this shows he is out of touch with many Americans. Hey knucklehead, it was the #1 asked question online...by thousands of Americans.

 

Yeah, it's a shame it's such political suicide but the REALITY and HOPE of the situation for those advocating the legalization or, at most, decriminalization of it. This is likely something that will work bottom-up. Most college towns i've been to have decriminalized marijuana under certain levels. For Columbia, it's two grams. That's local. If enough municipalities or municipalities that are large enough continue to decriminalize it with no harm (in Columbia, it's been like this for 4 years, people still show up for work, are active citizens, etc) then you can see the states begin to do it without political harm. This will move to states.

 

And frankly, that's probably how it should work. I think it would be odd to put out a federal decree to all states that they should legalize marijuana, though it was federally criminalized, I admit. But I imagine you'd get some states pissed off.

 

And in a political perspective, this isn't something Obama should take on. With the perception being pushed that he's too liberal, you don't make a fight out of "make marijuana legal". States are our laboratories, and slowly we'll realize the continued financial implications of the criminalization of marijuana are not worth the ... moral perception it pushes on the drug.

[BigSqwert]

pretty good commentary: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper...t_b_180378.html

[lostfan]

I was disappointed too, but frankly, I don't think that kind of legislation should come from the feds, that's a matter for the states to decide for themselves. De-prioritizing it is enough for me for the time being, if some headway is made, changing the federal laws themselves would be the next step. But in the meantime, there needs to be some action at the lower levels.

[BigSqwert]

Needless to say he didn't have to give an answer my grandfather would have given.

[santo=dorf]

In California, the hearing for AB390 has been postponed from Tuesday

http://www.canorml.org/news/ammianobill.html

"This bill is a winning proposition for California's taxpayers," says California NORML coordinator Dale Gieringer, a sponsor of the bill. "In this time of economic crisis, it makes no sense for California to be wasting money on marijuana prohibition, when we could be reaping tax benefits from a legal, regulated market instead."

 

The bill would provide for licensed producers and distributors, who could sell to adults over 21. Producers would pay an excise tax of $50 per ounce, or about $1 per joint. Sales taxes would generate additional revenues, bringing total tax revenues to $1 billion. Additional economic benefits would be generated in the form of employment, business and payroll taxes and spin-off industries, like the wine industry, amounting to some $12 - $18 billion.

 

Last but not least, the bill would save the state $170 million in costs for arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of marijuana offenders. The result would be to eliminate such prohibition-related problems as black market dealers and smugglers, grow houses, and pirate gardeners on public lands.

[Texsox]

In California, the hearing for AB390 has been postponed from Tuesday

http://www.canorml.org/news/ammianobill.html

 

What they save in criminal prosecution will then be spent enforcing the tax laws. $1 a joint extra? When it can be home grown and a very usable product cultivated for much less? Unlike liquor, marijuana is far easier to produce a good product. And will younger users be more likely to pull a hey mister, or continue buying from the black market?

 

I'm not saying it is a bad idea, but they are smoking some of the product to think they are going to save that much on law enforcement.

[StrangeSox]

How about on imprisoning non-violent drug offenders thanks to mandatory sentencing laws? Violent criminals end up getting released early to make room for mandatory druggies.

[Balta1701]

How about on imprisoning non-violent drug offenders thanks to mandatory sentencing laws? Violent criminals end up getting released early to make room for mandatory druggies.

Prison reform is perhaps the least talked about, most-needed set of changes this country needs. Pay attention to Jim Webb's work on this issue. He'll need help getting something positive done on it.

[santo=dorf]

What they save in criminal prosecution will then be spent enforcing the tax laws. $1 a joint extra? When it can be home grown and a very usable product cultivated for much less? Unlike liquor, marijuana is far easier to produce a good product. And will younger users be more likely to pull a hey mister, or continue buying from the black market?

 

I'm not saying it is a bad idea, but they are smoking some of the product to think they are going to save that much on law enforcement.

Doubt it. They won't go after the individual users and I don't see what the difference is between someone growing their own pot to smoke versus something growing their own tomatoes or even brewing their own beer. They'll go after the big shots and give them the Al Capone treatment.

 

For minors, look at Alaska's or other decriminalized states' laws. They don't mess around with selling to minors. Felony, mandatory prison time. I could see the same laws going into effect for unauthorized vendors, which would really make people think twice about hooking kids up in the parking lot.

[iWiN4PreP]

Of course mary jane should be legal its not even a argument...

[Balta1701]

Figured this was the right thread for this article...

 

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox joins a couple of other former South American leaders in calling for an end to the ban on Marijuana. Seems he believes it would give his country a major assist in its current drug war.

Fox, who was Mexico's president from 2000 to 2006, said the current policy is clearly not working.

 

"I believe it's time to open the debate over legalizing drugs," he told CNN on Tuesday. "It must be done in conjunction with the United States, but it is time to open the debate."

 

He pointed to how the end of Prohibition in the United States in 1933 lessened organized crime violence.

 

"It can't be that the only way is for the state to use force," he said.

 

Fox was mirroring a position adopted earlier this year by his predecessor as president of Mexico, Ernesto Zedillo, and the former heads of Colombia and Brazil. The three former chief executives are members of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy.

 

At a February meeting in Brazil, the commission called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in tactics in the war on drugs.

 

"The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results," former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria said at a news conference in which the 17-member commission's recommendations were presented.

[santo=dorf]

Fox is a good man

 

That's a tiny picture of him wearing a Sox hat and shaking hands with Esteban Loaiza in 2003.