• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?

Firstly, when you make a qualifier as "generally" you weaken your argument, considerably. Secondly, my argument is around the legality, not whether there is a victim.

You will always find exceptions to everything. I have to say generally otherwise someone will say "nuh uh, so and so did this for that or some other thing."

I understand legality.

Laws are intended to prevent one person from doing something to another person or if a law was broken to have some sort of remedy for the person wronged.
 
You will always find exceptions to everything. I have to say generally otherwise someone will say "nuh uh, so and so did this for that or some other thing."

Always wise in debate. ;)

I understand legality.

Laws are intended to prevent one person from doing something to another person or if a law was broken to have some sort of remedy for the person wronged.

Correct. Hence, would you rather have anthrax sold at a convenience store or by a violent street gang? I understand the argument you were trying to make. All I'm saying is that it wasn't a great argument. If marijuana were illegal, I would not want it sold either place. If it were legal, I would want it sold in a convenience store. Same with anthrax.
 
With historical perspective in mind it was created to stop the states from raising tariffs on other states for protectionist reasons.

It was clearly designed to regulate commerce between the states.

Is that why when the supreme court delegated on whether medical marijuana can be legally distributed they pointed to the commerce clause in the 10th Amendment to showing why it can not be legally distributed in any state.

Gonzales V. Raich

Laws applied:

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, 18 (the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses); Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971 (2000); Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 (West Supp. 2005)

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce... among the several States," Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

If they can ban it for medical purposes, what will stop them from banning it for common sale?

Your argument is nil.
 
Always wise in debate. ;)

You know it. :2wave:

Correct. Hence, would you rather have anthrax sold at a convenience store or by a violent street gang? I understand the argument you were trying to make. All I'm saying is that it wasn't a great argument. If marijuana were illegal, I would not want it sold either place. If it were legal, I would want it sold in a convenience store. Same with anthrax.

Anthrax well you can actually find it in soil where farm animals are or have been.

It has a long dormant live span. :lol:

But seriously having violent gangs sell it is the worse of the two.
 
Is that why when the supreme court delegated on whether medical marijuana can be legally distributed they pointed to the commerce clause in the 10th Amendment to showing why it can not be legally distributed in any state.

Gonzales V. Raich

Laws applied:

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, 18 (the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses); Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971 (2000); Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 (West Supp. 2005)



If they can ban it for medical purposes, what will stop them from banning it for common sale?

Your argument is nil.

Yea I understand that the supreme court perverts the constitution all the time.

The original intention was to regulate commerce between the states.
They were having trade wars more or less under the Articles of Confederation.
 
Is that why when the supreme court delegated on whether medical marijuana can be legally distributed they pointed to the commerce clause in the 10th Amendment to showing why it can not be legally distributed in any state.

Gonzales V. Raich

Laws applied:

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, 18 (the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses); Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801-971 (2000); Compassionate Use Act of 1996, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 (West Supp. 2005)



If they can ban it for medical purposes, what will stop them from banning it for common sale?

Your argument is nil.

Gonzales V. Raich is the only thing holding this together too. As Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissention on the decision:

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers -- as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause -- have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

This is going to be challenged from another angle soon if and when AB 390 passes. I disagree with this ruling and Thomas summed it up well. This is in no way a matter of interstate commerce, Gonzales V. Reich unfortunately went by without any fanfare or notice; however it will soon be under the magnifying glass.
 
Last edited:
I had long been a supporter of not legalizing marijuana. This is one of the issues that folks at DP have changed my mind on. I do not smoke, nor do I have any intention of smoking. My reason for the legalization of marijuana is to end the stupid, money wasting war on drugs, and use the money towards something far more valuable: rehabilitation. Not every person who tries alcohol or marijuana becomes an addict, but some do. And with the out of control costs of mental healthcare/rehab services, many of these people will remain addicted...and continue to be unproductive members of society. With my plan, the war on drugs is abandoned. Marijuana is taxed. All monies spent on the war on drugs, and 25% of all taxes collected from marijuana (and alcohol, too) are placed in a fund for rehabilitation services. Those that want to get help for their addiction, but who cannot afford it, with be "scholarshiped" (based on a screening with specific criteria). Other services that these people can receive would be temporary subsidized housing and job training.

Our money would be far better spent attempting to rehabiliated those whose only crime is marijuana use than locking these people up in jails.

Disclaimer: This is the bare bones of my plan. If you want more details, please ask.

It is seriously late here (ironically as I look at the clock 4:20) or I would address this, and other points brought up in more detail.
real quickly however,

My thoughts on how legalization should work is very similar to what you outlined; however why limit it to marijuana? We can virtually eliminate drug cartels, gangs and drug related violence overnight by simply taking control of distribution out of their hands completely and put them out of business. Obviously there is much more behind the argument, and I am leaving myself wide open, but it is way late, and I am too tired to go into full detail.
 
Yea I understand that the supreme court perverts the constitution all the time.

The original intention was to regulate commerce between the states.
They were having trade wars more or less under the Articles of Confederation.

The fact being the law is in the book and the ruling has been made, until that ruling is changed, California legalization will not stand.

The original intention which, who was implemented by FDR, was to ban the sale/possession of foreign goods coming into the US. FDR passed this amendment inorder to boost US trade between states. What it caused was an inverse effect, it prolonged the depression 7 years and caused people to not be able to afford common goods to survive.

FDR was such a weasel that he knew originally it could not pass with the justices he had on the bench, so he waited tell one of them died, then appointed a liberal democrat from Alabama, Hugo Black a known affiliate to the KKK, which he knew would vote partisanly for him on this measure, allowing the commerce clause to be added to the 10th amendment against what the founders wanted.
Gonzales V. Reich is the only thing holding this together too. As Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissention on the decision:

This is going to be challenged from another angle soon if and when AB 390 passes. I disagree with this ruling and Thomas summed it up well. This is in no way a matter of interstate commerce, Gonzales V. Reich unfortunately went by without any fanfare or notice; however it will soon be under the magnifying glass.

It really is a travesty, the commerce clause clearly contradicts the 10th amendment itself, I don't see how the supreme court could passed such a measure in the first place.
 
The fact being the law is in the book and the ruling has been made, until that ruling is changed, California legalization will not stand.

The original intention which, who was implemented by FDR, was to ban the sale/possession of foreign goods coming into the US. FDR passed this amendment inorder to boost US trade between states. What it caused was an inverse effect, it prolonged the depression 7 years and caused people to not be able to afford common goods to survive.

FDR was such a weasel that he knew originally it could not pass with the justices he had on the bench, so he waited tell one of them died, then appointed a liberal democrat from Alabama, Hugo Black a known affiliate to the KKK, which he knew would vote partisanly for him on this measure, allowing the commerce clause to be added to the 10th amendment against what the founders wanted.

FDR was an incredible douche. If I had it my way he would of been yanked into the streets and hung by his tie.

Don't forget he also threatened the supreme court with adding more justices if they didn't vote his way.

It really is a travesty, the commerce clause clearly contradicts the 10th amendment itself, I don't see how the supreme court could passed such a measure in the first place.

I try to ignore laws that are unconstitutional. They are not valid under any circumstances.
 
FDR was an incredible douche. If I had it my way he would of been yanked into the streets and hung by his tie.

Don't forget he also threatened the supreme court with adding more justices if they didn't vote his way.

I try to ignore laws that are unconstitutional. They are not valid under any circumstances.

I totally agree the constitution is being over looked, but the supreme court can always rule in the federal governments favor with the 11th amendment.

It is the justices that determine how the constitution is read not us, so all we can do is prey they vote in our favor. I voted for Obama partly because when he appoints a justice which he most likely will, that will keep the conservative-liberal balance steady.

I am traditionally conservative, but balance is needed in the supreme court or you get things like what happened with FDR who did not have a balanced supreme court. We had a very liberal bias and it got us very conflicting laws to what was already put into place.
 
I totally agree the constitution is being over looked, but the supreme court can always rule in the federal governments favor with the 11th amendment.

It is the justices that determine how the constitution is read not us, so all we can do is prey they vote in our favor. I voted for Obama partly because when he appoints a justice which he most likely will, that will keep the conservative-liberal balance steady.

I am traditionally conservative, but balance is needed in the supreme court or you get things like what happened with FDR who did not have a balanced supreme court. We had a very liberal bias and it got us very conflicting laws to what was already put into place.

I'm not sure if I can conjure any personal hope.

It only took 1 election for me to participate in to see what a huge joke our political system is.

I voted once and then gave up after I saw how the process really works.
 
Sorry Rev....your words speak for themself. FAIL:doh




Show me where I said "every", come now, even though i think you are a lunatic fringe liberal,:2razz: :2razz: I know you are smarter than this.... :2wave::rofl
 
I don't think the article is speaking of prescription marijuana when it speaks of legalizing marijuana, seeing as prescription marijuana is already legal in California.

Legalizing marijuana to be bought and sold legally will be taxed. No different than cigarettes.




Interesting. If they fully legalize marijuana (not happening), don't you think it would force the Obama administration to rethink its position on those pot raids for political survivability?
 
You have to think about this though.

Would you rather have legal marijuana sold by convenience stores or violent gangs and cartels based on marijuana distributorship and sales?




OMG!!!!!


ATTENTION PEOPLES!

I am FOR the legalization of marijuana, please read my comments fully, and I suggest putting down the bong before doing this as this is the 4th time i had to say this! :rofl:rofl:mrgreen:
 
I think Steven Bladwin is a nice guy(at least from what I have seen on tv about him) but Ron Paul will deal complete pawnage on his ass.




Baldwin used to hang out at a porn shop up here in nyack, heckling people for thier "shame" taking plates down and what not.... this was several years ago.... :rofl
 
Please explain, how would legalizing marijuana create a state of unmotivated buffoons? A step-by-step analysis would be most welcome.


1. legalize marijuana
2. smoke it a lot everyday
3. get stupid, lazy




Look, granted my statment was hyperbole, however the point stands, this is not a way out of the recession for California.

And those who smoke weed to excess are no better than an alcholic. there lives revolve around a substance, often becoming the main focus of whatever activity they are doing.


How many really well off people smoke this much weed?
 
It appears that Weed is alreadly a substantial part of california's under the table and thus untaxed economy, but isn't the majority of it imported from Mexico?
Think of the impact to trade if Mexico and California both legalized it. Mexicans could stay home and grow it, govt agencies could control it in both places, and Californians could consume it.
Just like food crops are now....so all the appropriate infrastructure and agencies are already in place.
Legalize natural weed, increase the criminal penalties for "un-natural" or processed drugs...
 
That's not really a good argument. Replace marijuana with heroin. Or child porn. Or anthrax.

I think it is a very sound argument based on the fact that it is being applied to marijuana. You don't have to apply it to child porn or heroin because that is not what we are talking about.

In this case, decriminalizing it, dramatically reducing the violence associated with it's smuggling and sales, and generating revenue off of it make much more sense than continuing down the path we're on currently. There is no way we can win the war on drugs like this, especially against weed. It boggles the mind that weed is still illegal given the fact that alcohol is legal.

EDIT....lol....just read more of your arguments. So we can this is just a post for posts sake.
 
Last edited:
1. legalize marijuana
2. smoke it a lot everyday
3. get stupid, lazy




Look, granted my statment was hyperbole, however the point stands, this is not a way out of the recession for California.

And those who smoke weed to excess are no better than an alcholic. there lives revolve around a substance, often becoming the main focus of whatever activity they are doing.


How many really well off people smoke this much weed?

I can easily see weed becoming as popular as alcohol if not more. The social taboo about weed among certain socially conservative elements, the ones who have no problem with alcohol, would soon disappear and it would become a booming industry. Weed isn't physically addictive. People who spend their day stoned and non-productive do so because of who they already are, weed doesn't make them that way. They are pre-disposed to being lazy, irresponsible douche bags.

Would it "rescue California?" No, not by itself. Would it help? Absolutely.
 
OMG!!!!!


ATTENTION PEOPLES!

I am FOR the legalization of marijuana, please read my comments fully, and I suggest putting down the bong before doing this as this is the 4th time i had to say this! :rofl:rofl:mrgreen:

For what it's worth I see that you are for legalizing it, you are simply trying to stimulate conversation around the topic and dig into the negatives of legalization...not just the positives.
 
I had long been a supporter of not legalizing marijuana. This is one of the issues that folks at DP have changed my mind on. I do not smoke, nor do I have any intention of smoking. My reason for the legalization of marijuana is to end the stupid, money wasting war on drugs, and use the money towards something far more valuable: rehabilitation. Not every person who tries alcohol or marijuana becomes an addict, but some do. And with the out of control costs of mental healthcare/rehab services, many of these people will remain addicted...and continue to be unproductive members of society. With my plan, the war on drugs is abandoned. Marijuana is taxed. All monies spent on the war on drugs, and 25% of all taxes collected from marijuana (and alcohol, too) are placed in a fund for rehabilitation services. Those that want to get help for their addiction, but who cannot afford it, with be "scholarshiped" (based on a screening with specific criteria). Other services that these people can receive would be temporary subsidized housing and job training.

Our money would be far better spent attempting to rehabiliated those whose only crime is marijuana use than locking these people up in jails.

Disclaimer: This is the bare bones of my plan. If you want more details, please ask.

Prohibition doesn't work. We already know this. Decriminalize it, tax it, sell it. It's not nearly as volatile an intoxicant as alcohol, which is legal. As has already been pointed out, we spend a lot of money on combating this substance through enforcement and incarceration. It would be a major win economically. The amount of collateral crime associated with it would begin to subside, jail and prison populations would be slightly reduced and the costs associated with overcrowding would go down, medical costs to jails and prisons would go down, you could use the tax money to improve rehabilitative programs and put more enforcement resources on the street against truly destructive drugs like meth, heroin, and crack.

Legalize it now.

Well then, it is true...great minds really do think alike...sort of. Your statement talks about ending the "war on drugs." Which I agree with, it's a foolish enterprise the way it's currently being conducted. What I'm curious about it your stance on other more highly destructive drugs like heroin, crack, and meth. I believe we should continue to go after the distributors of these substances, but offer alternatives to incarceration for their abusers (relating to crimes of possession, purchase) such as in and out patient rehabilitation, vocational training, community service, etc. For other crimes where their addiction was determined to be a primary factor in their culpability, rehabilitation should obviously be a part of their sentence, but there should still be some traditional punishment (incarceration, restitution, probation, etc.).

:mrgreen:
 
Show me where I said "every", come now, even though i think you are a lunatic fringe liberal,:2razz: :2razz: I know you are smarter than this.... :2wave::rofl

Where did I ever say that you said "every". Why don't you go back and read the posts....I know you are smarter than this.

Your original argument was the pretty much all of the people that you know who smoke weed make weed about their life. That they become all absorbed in it.

I think that is FAR from the truth.
 
Weed isn't physically addictive.

Actually, weed can be physically addictive. Just like most substances. The thought that it is not is a misnomer.

Well then, it is true...great minds really do think alike...sort of. Your statement talks about ending the "war on drugs." Which I agree with, it's a foolish enterprise the way it's currently being conducted. What I'm curious about it your stance on other more highly destructive drugs like heroin, crack, and meth. I believe we should continue to go after the distributors of these substances, but offer alternatives to incarceration for their abusers (relating to crimes of possession, purchase) such as in and out patient rehabilitation, vocational training, community service, etc. For other crimes where their addiction was determined to be a primary factor in their culpability, rehabilitation should obviously be a part of their sentence, but there should still be some traditional punishment (incarceration, restitution, probation, etc.).

:mrgreen:

I saw your post on this, so I wanted to share my "plan", again. Been throwing this out there for about a year. Great minds do think alike. ;)

I haven't thought too much about other substances in my plan. I would think that if all of these drugs were legal, there would be far fewer illegal/violent distributors, and those that there were would be illegal black market sellers anyway, and subject for arrest on that matter. Heroin I would probably keep illegal, just because of the impact that the drug has on our opiate receptors and how absolutely simple it is for anyone to become addicted. Crack and meth I see as similar. I agree, though. One who is caught on with possession as their crime, should be offered rehab as an option, if they are deemed appropriate after a screening process. Even if they have committed a crime, along with their incarceration, rehab would only be an option if they were deemed appropriate after the screening. I would have no intention of wasting tax payers dollars to rehabilitate someone who has no intention of staying clean.
 
I haven't thought too much about other substances in my plan. I would think that if all of these drugs were legal, there would be far fewer illegal/violent distributors, and those that there were would be illegal black market sellers anyway, and subject for arrest on that matter. Heroin I would probably keep illegal, just because of the impact that the drug has on our opiate receptors and how absolutely simple it is for anyone to become addicted. Crack and meth I see as similar. I agree, though. One who is caught on with possession as their crime, should be offered rehab as an option, if they are deemed appropriate after a screening process. Even if they have committed a crime, along with their incarceration, rehab would only be an option if they were deemed appropriate after the screening. I would have no intention of wasting tax payers dollars to rehabilitate someone who has no intention of staying clean.


I just have to say this. I got this one friend that is a notorious crack head. She got busted shop lifting the other night. It has happened so many times the charges are being pushed up to a felony. Thank goodness she got busted because being in prison is the only thing that will save her life.
 
Back
Top Bottom