• 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?

marduc said:
Do not dismiss viable and realistic options when we know the position we have currently is a total failure.

If you have not, read the article I posted with an open mind, and think about it. anarchy, or control?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your premise that what we have now is anarchy. We have control. An imperfect form of control, no doubt. But it's illogical to dismiss law enforcement as anarchy. Even under 'regulated' legalization, law enforcement will be an integral component.
 
Grateful Heart said:
I don't agree with your premise that what we have now is anarchy. We have control. An imperfect form of control, no doubt. But it's illogical to dismiss law enforcement as anarchy. Even under 'regulated' legalization, law enforcement will be an integral component.
Click to expand...

You think we have "control" over the drug situation? Is that what you are saying? Because if it is, you are absolutely wrong. We have ZERO control over the drug situation. We react to it and nothing more. And the manner in which we react is archaic, inefficient, ineffective, and self-destructive to our nation.
 
Grateful Heart said:
I don't agree with your premise that what we have now is anarchy. We have control. An imperfect form of control, no doubt. But it's illogical to dismiss law enforcement as anarchy. Even under 'regulated' legalization, law enforcement will be an integral component.
Click to expand...

an·ar·chy

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
Click to expand...

Is the government really the authority when drug cartels count on a certain amount of drugs to get intercepted. Do we have any authority, or control over their lawlessness? They do as they please,m go ahead ask any drug smuggler how much authority our government has over them, ask the Farc, ask the afghans growing poppies in a country that we are occupying, ask the mexican drug cartels as they slaughter thousands both in the streets of mexico, and the streets right here in the U.S. at the same time they intimidate law enforcement to step down in fear.

Do we have any authority, or is there law in neighborhoods where 14 year old kids openly peddle drugs on the corner, and a drive by shooting witnessed by the entire neighborhood goes unsolved because no one will step forward and testify?

The drug trade is impervious to our so called "government authority", and does in fact operate in a system of complete lawlessness.

One drug dealer goes down, 5 step up to take his place. thanks to our "authority" we have a darwinian natural selection, we catch the inept drug dealers, while the cream of the crop continue to operate completely immune to this so called "authority" in a complete state of lawlessness.

There is no control over whether a child can get their hands on drugs, there is no control over distribution, there is no control over the violence, this is indeed anarchy.
 
Last edited:
Goldenboy219 said:
You are going to have to be more specific.
Click to expand...

Sure... if you were to examine marijuana usage by state in the U.S., for instance, would you conclude that the states with fewer pot smokers have better legal and enforcement approaches than the states with more pot smokers??

Fig2-1.gif


;)
 
Grateful Heart said:
Sure... if you were to examine marijuana usage by state in the U.S., for instance, would you conclude that the states with fewer pot smokers have better legal and enforcement approaches than the states with more pot smokers??;)
Click to expand...

I would say that's pretty irrelevant, considering our current "War on Drugs" is a catastrophic failure.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Sure... if you were to examine marijuana usage by state in the U.S., for instance, would you conclude that the states with fewer pot smokers have better legal and enforcement approaches than the states with more pot smokers??

Fig2-1.gif


;)
Click to expand...

I wouldn't conclude that at all. Before I would even think of applying any conclusion about the relative success or failure of law enforcement efforts in a specific region I would want to study their Uniform Criminal Reporting stats and take a look at how they trend from year to year. One of the problems plaguing the federal effort to track crime stats is inaccurate reporting or under reporting. UCR and NIBRS are very complex reporting processes and many agencies either lack the technology to do it properly or have the technology but fail to use it properly.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Sure... if you were to examine marijuana usage by state in the U.S., for instance, would you conclude that the states with fewer pot smokers have better legal and enforcement approaches than the states with more pot smokers??


;)
Click to expand...

I would conclude that there was insufficient data to draw a conclusion.

What date was this data from? how does it compare to data prior to the relaxation of drug laws. I would argue that the states with lenient laws had a higher percentage of users prior to enacting these laws. This in itself fostered a desire to amend the status quo both among the drug using minority, and the non using majority who were more aware of how unrealistic and ineffectual a tough stance really was.

I would also resurrect points that I brought up in post # 161 in this thread

Among those:

"Levels of use tended to be higher in the decriminalization states both before and after the changes in law. tates which moderated penalties after 1974 (essentially a group of decriminalization states) did indeed experience an increase in rates of marijuana use, among both adolescents (age 12-17) and adults (18 or older). However, the increase in marijuana use was even greater in other states and the largest proportionate increase occurred in those states with the most severe penalties."
- W. Saveland and D. Bray. 1980. American Trends in Cannabis Use Among States with Different Changing Legal Regimes. Bureau of Tobacco Control and Biometrics, Health and Welfare: Ottawa, as cited by E. Single in The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: an Update
Click to expand...


unfortunately there have been no recent studies to draw from, seems our government is not all that keen on funding them for some reason <shrug>
 
Last edited:
Lerxst said:
I wouldn't conclude that at all. Before I would even think of applying any conclusion about the relative success or failure of law enforcement efforts in a specific region I would want to study their Uniform Criminal Reporting stats and take a look at how they trend from year to year. One of the problems plaguing the federal effort to track crime stats is inaccurate reporting or under reporting. UCR and NIBRS are very complex reporting processes and many agencies either lack the technology to do it properly or have the technology but fail to use it properly.
Click to expand...

These are the same statistics used to demonstrate that the U.S. has twice the rate of marijuana usage as do the Dutch. Are you telling me they're not reliable?

Are you also telling me you're comfortable with the Dutch statistics and that they're not subject to errors in reporting?


;)
 
Grateful Heart said:
These are the same statistics used to demonstrate that the U.S. has twice the rate of marijuana usage as do the Dutch. Are you telling me they're not reliable?

Are you also telling me you're comfortable with the Dutch statistics and that they're not subject to errors in reporting?


;)
Click to expand...
It really doesn't matter. I would like your opinion on the "War on Drugs", if that's not too much to ask.
 
EgoffTib said:
It really doesn't matter. I would like your opinion on the "War on Drugs", if that's not too much to ask.
Click to expand...

It's a horrible phrase. Drugs are a problem that needs to be managed. It's not a war than can ever be one or lost.

The question under debate in this thread is whether it's more cost-effective and/or preferable to society to 'manage' drugs by emphasizing law enforcement or de-emphasizing law enforcement.

There will never be any drug policy that does not involve law enforcement.
 
Grateful Heart said:
It's a horrible phrase. Drugs are a problem that needs to be managed. It's not a war than can ever be one or lost.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not a war. I agree that it is a horrible phrase which needs to be purged. I disagree that drugs are a problem, that's purely subjective.

The question under debate in this thread is whether it's more cost-effective and/or preferable to society to 'manage' drugs by emphasizing law enforcement or de-emphasizing law enforcement.
Click to expand...
It's more cost-effective, for the people and law enforcement alike, if there were no drug laws. That way, non-violent drug offenders can have their lives back and we can stop this ridiculous charade.

There will never be any drug policy that does not involve law enforcement.
Click to expand...
I hope you are wrong.
 
Grateful Heart said:
It's a horrible phrase. Drugs are a problem that needs to be managed. It's not a war than can ever be one or lost.

The question under debate in this thread is whether it's more cost-effective and/or preferable to society to 'manage' drugs by emphasizing law enforcement or de-emphasizing law enforcement.

There will never be any drug policy that does not involve law enforcement.
Click to expand...


Yes there will always be law enforcement, just as there is with alcohol and tobacco, the question is how do we direct that enforcement, inefficiently and tragically as we currently do, or with some modicum of effectiveness control, and realism such as the ATF does.
 
Grateful Heart said:
It's a horrible phrase. Drugs are a problem that needs to be managed. It's not a war than can ever be one or lost.

The question under debate in this thread is whether it's more cost-effective and/or preferable to society to 'manage' drugs by emphasizing law enforcement or de-emphasizing law enforcement.

There will never be any drug policy that does not involve law enforcement.
Click to expand...

This does beg the question, If it is a no win situation, what then should be done about it?
 
All drug users or just illegal drug users?

Tylenol users?

This could solve a hell of a lot more issues than just drugs then, I think you are onto something here!
 
marduc said:
All drug users or just illegal drug users?

Tylenol users?

This could solve a hell of a lot more issues than just drugs then, I think you are onto something here!
Click to expand...
All drug users. If you use a stool softener... BAM! DEAD! If you use morphine to deal with terminal illness... YOU'RE DEAD SOON ANYWAY!

I think this might work. I'll grab my .32.
 
EgoffTib said:
All drug users. If you use a stool softener... BAM! DEAD! If you use morphine to deal with terminal illness... YOU'RE DEAD SOON ANYWAY!

I think this might work. I'll grab my .32.
Click to expand...

Make sure you take care of the children, elderly and the disabled before yourself.
 
Grateful Heart said:
These are the same statistics used to demonstrate that the U.S. has twice the rate of marijuana usage as do the Dutch. Are you telling me they're not reliable?

Are you also telling me you're comfortable with the Dutch statistics and that they're not subject to errors in reporting?


;)
Click to expand...

Our crime statistics are not reliable. We severely under report. And I have no idea about the accuracy of Dutch statistical reporting so I'll reserve any comment on it.
 
Lerxst said:
Our crime statistics are not reliable. We severely under report. And I have no idea about the accuracy of Dutch statistical reporting so I'll reserve any comment on it.
Click to expand...

If the validity of both U.S. and Dutch statistics about marijuana use are suspect, then how do we know that decriminalization does indeed reduce use?

:confused:
 
Grateful Heart said:
If the validity of both U.S. and Dutch statistics about marijuana use are suspect, then how do we know that decriminalization does indeed reduce use?

:confused:
Click to expand...

The occurrence of error is logically lower with a population of 15 million than 300 million plus spread throughout 50 states bordering two major oceans.

I can tell you this. Cannabis prices in states like Indiana greatly exceed those of California or even cities like Chicago (to a certain degree).
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The occurrence of error is logically lower with a population of 15 million than 300 million plus spread throughout 50 states bordering two major oceans.

I can tell you this. Cannabis prices in states like Indiana greatly exceed those of California or even cities like Chicago (to a certain degree).
Click to expand...

California has a great climate for cultivation.
 
Grateful Heart said:
If the validity of both U.S. and Dutch statistics about marijuana use are suspect, then how do we know that decriminalization does indeed reduce use?

:confused:
Click to expand...

I never made that case at all. I don't think it will decrease use. I think it will increase use, and I don't care about that. I'm not in the business of regulating personal responsibility with regard to over indulgence in vices. That is a personal issue. Society already has mechanisms in place to deal with people who abuse to the point of actual criminality.

This is about a failed drug war that is creating an environment of incredible violence, overcrowded prisons, and massive economic burden. Legalization can only result in a plus factor across the board.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom