I still don't understand marijuana legalization people.

VanceMack said:

Oh...and I dont purport there would be fewer marijuana smokers. I suspect there will be fewer alcoholics...and probably fewer meth-heads and crack addicts as well. But I think there will be MORE marijuana smokers. I just dont think thats a bad thing. I know of a LOT of people that used to smoke dope (myself included) that grew out of it. I think that would be more likely the case for the casual user.

Click to expand...

Well, I appreciate your honesty in recognizing that removing legal barriers from m/j would mean more people using m/j. Most of the drug legalization crowd do not want to admit that that's even a possibility. I guess it's just the part of your post that I bolded that is the sum and substance of our disagreement. To be honest, I don't believe the US govt will ever make it legal. It's political suicide to advocate such a position. Can you imagine though, if it was legal and you could just buy these in the grocery store?

X Factor said:

Well, except that this is not a knee jerk response from me. I've considered the arguments, I just remain unconvinced that legitimizing pot (and I do mean legitimize) will mean fewer pot smokers.

Click to expand...

Whoever said it would result in fewer users? I know I didn't. I have argued consistently that drug laws have no known effect on the rate of drug use (see below).

X Factor said:

The problem is there's no way to quantify if the war on drugs is successful or not. There's no way to know who doesn't do drugs, or who would have tried them were it not for it being illegal. One thing you cannot say is that it's a failure because people continue to do drugs unless you're prepared to say that all criminal laws are ineffective since all criminal laws continue to be broken.

Click to expand...

Yes there is a way to quantify if the war on drugs is successful or not. Whether or not you realize that is independent of this fact. Even the U.S. drug czar admits that the war on drugs is a failure.

X Factor said:

Well, I appreciate your honesty in recognizing that removing legal barriers from m/j would mean more people using m/j. Most of the drug legalization crowd do not want to admit that that's even a possibility. I guess it's just the part of your post that I bolded that is the sum and substance of our disagreement. To be honest, I don't believe the US govt will ever make it legal. It's political suicide to advocate such a position. Can you imagine though, if it was legal and you could just buy these in the grocery store?

Click to expand...

Drug laws have no known effect on the rate of drug use. Please read and learn.

X Factor said:

Can you imagine though, if it was legal and you could just buy these in the grocery store?

Click to expand...

So ****ing what? Are you afraid you would be tempted to buy it?

X Factor said:

Well, I appreciate your honesty in recognizing that removing legal barriers from m/j would mean more people using m/j. Most of the drug legalization crowd do not want to admit that that's even a possibility. I guess it's just the part of your post that I bolded that is the sum and substance of our disagreement. To be honest, I don't believe the US govt will ever make it legal. It's political suicide to advocate such a position. Can you imagine though, if it was legal and you could just buy these in the grocery store?

Click to expand...

thats a LITTLE bit of an overhype tho, right? If it were made legal it would receive the same treatment as alcohol. Abuses? Sure....the same as...well...with alcohol.

X Factor said:

The problem is there's no way to quantify if the war on drugs is successful or not.

Click to expand...

Except there is, because prohibition never works.

Take all the State's tax revenue we get from alcohol and tobacco, divide by two, add the tax revenue to the legal fees on court cases and prison-cells for non-violent minor drug offenses, and that is the sum of the money States could save each year if marijuana was legal. It's a huge amount of money, by the way, in any State.

Prohibition doesn't improve society, it empowers criminals. It's a fundamental failure.

Binary_Digit said:

Whoever said it would result in fewer users? I know I didn't. I have argued consistently that drug laws have no known effect on the rate of drug use (see below).

Click to expand...

Ok, I looked at your link. I noticed that in everyone of your quotes, there had to be qualifiers such as "no strong evidence", "no significant impact", etc. One even suggested that there's only a "preponderance of evidence". Do you know how weak a preponderance of evidence is?

Yes there is a way to quantify if the war on drugs is successful or not. Whether or not you realize that is independent of this fact. Even the U.S. drug czar admits that the war on drugs is a failure.

Click to expand...

Here's a question, you want to attribute every druggie as being evidence of failure of the war on drugs? Fine, but then I get to claim that every person who does not use drugs is evidence of it's success. Fair?

So ****ing what? Are you afraid you would be tempted to buy it?

Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe. Well probably not now but yes, I probably would have tried it when I was younger if it had been legal. See, and this is the problem with trying to quantify the "success" of drug laws. People would need to admit that they would have tried m/j but for the law and who wants to admit that? For myself, I did the alcohol thing, and the cigarette thing, it's probably fair to assume that I would have tried pot too were it as readily available and didn't have the consequences attached to it that it did. As it stands now, I'm grateful I never even headed down that path since you never know where you could wind up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuNWCPDrJsM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

VanceMack said:

thats a LITTLE bit of an overhype tho, right? If it were made legal it would receive the same treatment as alcohol. Abuses? Sure....the same as...well...with alcohol.

Click to expand...

And yet there are folks who refuse to see even the potential for abuse and argue that legalizing m/j will cure current abuses despite the example set by alcohol.

joe six-pack said:

Except there is, because prohibition never works.

Take all the State's tax revenue we get from alcohol and tobacco, divide by two, add the tax revenue to the legal fees on court cases and prison-cells for non-violent minor drug offenses, and that is the sum of the money States could save each year if marijuana was legal. It's a huge amount of money, by the way, in any State.

Prohibition doesn't improve society, it empowers criminals. It's a fundamental failure.

Click to expand...

You're exaggerating a bit though. The vast majority of first time, non violent, minor drug offenders are not sent to occupy a prison cell. Maybe they should though. Maybe that might prevent some from deciding the risk is worth it.

X Factor said:

And yet there are folks who refuse to see even the potential for abuse and argue that legalizing m/j will cure current abuses despite the example set by alcohol.

Click to expand...

Oh no...I understand what you are saying...its the same mindset that has kept the libertarian party without representation since there has BEEN a libertarian party. Legalizing marijuana has its upsides and its downsides. But keeping it illegal IMO has far greater downside with no real recognizeable upside.

VanceMack said:

Oh no...I understand what you are saying...its the same mindset that has kept the libertarian party without representation since there has BEEN a libertarian party. Legalizing marijuana has its upsides and its downsides. But keeping it illegal IMO has far greater downside with no real recognizeable upside.

Click to expand...

In all honesty, I don't think a pro legalization candidate would ever gain broad support.

X Factor said:

Actually, you just don't get any more "regulated" than to be illegal.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Prohibited does not equal regulated. The market failures created by cannabis prohibition are vast, and the externalities from more harsh drugs are unbelievable. For example, consider the vast success of needle exchange programs.

Access to sterile needles and syringes is an important,
even vital, component of a comprehensive HIV prevention
program for IDUs. The data on needle exchange in the
United States are consistent with the conclusion that
these programs do not encourage drug use and that
needle exchanges can be effective in reducing HIV
incidence. Other data show that NEPs help people stop
drug use through referral to drug treatment programs.6
The studies outside of the United States are important for
reminding us that unintended consequences can occur.
While changes in needle prescription and possession laws
and regulations have shown promise, the identification
of organizational components that improve or hinder
effectiveness of needle exchange and pharmacy-based
access are needed.

Click to expand...

source

The stuff is illegal. Who cares what the incentives are? Anyone who puts themselves in that culture, whether as dealer or user deserves what they get.

Click to expand...

Yet absent such policy, would we have such massive drug gangs and international drug cartels? These groups form as a result of deficient competition.

I appreciate the appeal to my FisCon side, but law enforcement is a legit role of government. I have no trouble paying my taxes to support it.

Click to expand...

Of course it is legit. However, to ignore other policies that would be more effective in combating drug abuse is unacceptable. Consider the real life example:

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

Click to expand...

source

And the appeal to your fiscon side:

This report has estimated the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana and taxing
and regulating it like other goods. According to the calculations here, legalization would reduce
government expenditure by $5.3 billion at the state and local level and by $2.4 billion at the
federal level. In addition, marijuana legalization would generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion
annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were
taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

Click to expand...

source:

X Factor said:

In all honesty, I don't think a pro legalization candidate would ever gain broad support.

Click to expand...

Depends...try this on...Candidate X believes that the individual states should have the right to determine their laws concerning the legalization and use of marijuana.

Thats really all it would take and anything more would be beyond the scope of the fed. It doesnt have to be a pro-legalization stand. Just not a pro "were from the fed and we are going to dictate and punish you by withholding tax dollars if you dont legislate as we deem appropriate."

X Factor said:

You're exaggerating a bit though. The vast majority of first time, non violent, minor drug offenders are not sent to occupy a prison cell. Maybe they should though. Maybe that might prevent some from deciding the risk is worth it.

Click to expand...

I'm not exaggerating that legalization would save or made a lot of money for the State annually.

True Freemarket Conservatives should stand up for this issue and end the waste in Government caused by needless prohibition.

joe six-pack said:

I'm not exaggerating that legalization would save or made a lot of money for the State annually.

True Freemarket Conservatives should stand up for this issue and end the waste in Government caused by needless prohibition.

Click to expand...

And yet it seems to be the conservatives who are most adamant about not allowing the states to decide on the legalization issue. Why is that? I don't see anything in the Constitution about pot for some reason or other.

X Factor said:

Ok, I looked at your link. I noticed that in everyone of your quotes, there had to be qualifiers such as "no strong evidence", "no significant impact", etc. One even suggested that there's only a "preponderance of evidence". Do you know how weak a preponderance of evidence is?

Click to expand...

1. You need to look up the definition of "preponderance" before you make such statements and end up looking foolish.
2. Nobody can find a link between drug laws and the rate of drug use. You seem to be the only one privy to information that demonstrates a link. So why aren't you sharing?

X Factor said:

Here's a question, you want to attribute every druggie as being evidence of failure of the war on drugs? Fine, but then I get to claim that every person who does not use drugs is evidence of it's success. Fair?

Click to expand...

No because I don't measure success or failure based on the number of users, I measure success or failure based on how much harm is done to society. To judge whether the WoD is "working", we should measure how much harm is done to society under prohibition versus how much harm would be done to society if prohibition were repealed. Since drug laws don't affect the number of users, but they do hand a multi-billion dollar industry to thugs on the street, prohibiton causes more harm to society than non-prohibition. It's really that simple.

X Factor said:

I don't know, maybe. Well probably not now but yes, I probably would have tried it when I was younger if it had been legal. See, and this is the problem with trying to quantify the "success" of drug laws. People would need to admit that they would have tried m/j but for the law and who wants to admit that? For myself, I did the alcohol thing, and the cigarette thing, it's probably fair to assume that I would have tried pot too were it as readily available and didn't have the consequences attached to it that it did. As it stands now, I'm grateful I never even headed down that path since you never know where you could wind up.

Click to expand...

The part in bold is completely wrong. The rates of drug use were measured both before and after changes in the law, and no corresponding change in the rates of drug use have ever been found. They didn't go around asking people if they would start using drugs if legalized, that would be ridiculous. As for the rest of your post, this goes back to what I said earlier about legalization in a vaccuum. We can't just legalize and then laissez faire. The reasons why you wouldn't try MJ now even if legal, are reasons you should have had when you were younger - regarding MJ as well as tobacco and alcohol and any other drug. The reasons DARE gave you when you were younger were probably lies and exaggerations.

This is a lengthy discussion and I aint reading it all... so excuse if this stuff is redundant.

Legalization of MJ will probably continue to be a step by step process as it is playing out now on the state level. First off the feds need to back off and let each state do what the people want. Medical Marijuana should [and is] be allowed in all states that want it. What is it... 14-15 so far??

If a state wants to fully legalize it for personal use... so be it. Thats where california is heading and other states will follow. They still have a hill to climb though because the opposition isn't only the conservatives... it's also those who have the licenses to grow and sell med mj. They got plenty of money to protect with their monopoly won't go down without a major battle. they already proved that. The quickest way to pass a fully legal state law is in a state with no med MJ law already on the books.... or else with one so strict, noboby is getting rich from it. It's kinda like a catch 22. You have to desensitize the main opposition... with med mj law... but that creates more powerful libs with money and power... joining the cons to oppose.

Congress should leave the issue to the states discretion. Once a state fully legalizes it and the tax money flows in like alcohol and tobacco... as some claim it will.... then you can be sure congress will take a more serious look at it. This is something that is inevitable... One of the problems will be pardoning all those in prison. Then you will be laying off police, DEA, prision guards... etc. Will the jobs created make up for the losses. IMO... It's becoming more of an economic issue than anything else.

And it's kinda funny how cons and libs join together when it suits each ones personal interest on an issue. It's rare but still happens.

X Factor said:

And I still don't buy this. As I said earlier, on occasion there might be some pot at a parties I went to growing up, but there was always alcohol. Why? Because it was easier to get and less scary to get caught with.

Click to expand...

Perhaps your age is a disadvantage to your argument. You may grown up in the 60's or early 70's, when so many people were smoking pot just for the hell of it. Just because it was something tied to a political/social movement and people wanted to be rebellious. Kids now can be rebellious by either drinking alcohol under the legal age or by smoking pot. And I speak from experience when I say it is far more easy to find pot than alcohol. Again, I'll reiterate in large print: THERE ARE HIGH SCHOOL DRUG DEALERS SELLING MARIJUANA AND FORMING CARTELS TO PROTECT THEIR TRADE. There are literally zero alcohol dealers. Adults are usually more responsible than kids, and it is far more devastating to purchase alcohol for a minor (and even MORE incriminating to sell alcohol to a minor) than it is for a minor to be caught with marijuana. If a kid is caught with dope, he/she usually faces some drug rehab and community service, and then their record is wiped clean after turning 18. If an adult is caught purchasing alcohol for or selling alcohol to a minor, it could mean a permanent conviction record as well as possible jail time and untold amounts of court fines. In order for the kid in my generation to find alcohol, he/she must be willing to find the adult irresponsible and stupid enough to buy it for him/her. Of course, there are plenty of those adults and hence we see kids drinking underage. But in order to find marijuana, all the kid must do is to talk to his classmate that he/she sees on a regular basis.

Dittohead not! said:

And yet it seems to be the conservatives who are most adamant about not allowing the states to decide on the legalization issue. Why is that? I don't see anything in the Constitution about pot for some reason or other.

Click to expand...

It really should be a State issue, just like same-sex marriage--which is why DOMA, another Republican idea, is unconstitutional. I think they fear that if some states allow gay marriage or legalize drugs for recreational use, their narrative about America as a Christian Nation will appear false.

President John Adams declared:

US Treaty of Tripoli said:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Aaaaaand there goes the conversation right into the mindless partisan toilet. What a ****ing shocker...

joe six-pack said:

It really should be a State issue, just like same-sex marriage--which is why DOMA, another Republican idea, is unconstitutional. I think they fear that if some states allow gay marriage or legalize drugs for recreational use, their narrative about America as a Christian Nation will appear false.

President John Adams declared:

Click to expand...

That would make more sense.
What doesn't make sense is that the same people who decry the government doing things that are not in the Constitution want that same government to make laws about marriage and drugs. I suppose it could be an issue about trying to make the US appear to be a Christian nation, even though very little is said in the Bible about homosexuality, and nothing at all about pot. Trying to make a secular state appear to be a Christian nation must be difficult.

VanceMack said:

Depends...try this on...Candidate X believes that the individual states should have the right to determine their laws concerning the legalization and use of marijuana.

Thats really all it would take and anything more would be beyond the scope of the fed. It doesnt have to be a pro-legalization stand. Just not a pro "were from the fed and we are going to dictate and punish you by withholding tax dollars if you dont legislate as we deem appropriate."

Click to expand...

Well ok, I could probably get behind candidate X, if for no other reason than I like his name. :lol:

Im very borderline on this issue... The thing i try to stick to is that i believe in liberty, and people should have the liberty to do whatever they want as long as it's not harming anyone else( for the most part; it can get complicated on whats harming what and who and yourself). I propose the question, is it right for the government to protect you from yourself? is this something that should be LAW or a personal decision. I think if it is legalized it should be treated like tobacco in which it is restricted to smoke basically everywhere; because i don't want to have to breath it in when when i am at a restaurant, public place, and etc.

It's an undeniable fact that pot would get more available when legalized; will it lose it's "Bad Kid"/ "underground" feel... yes. I am in college and yes it's super easy to get pot, but alcohol is like in every cabinet of every house in america; and is heavily advertised. People who are trying to argue this are trying way too hard to deny ANYTHING bad with legalizing pot.
Another point, the legalizing of pot will do nothing but increase the reign of the drug cartels in my opinion, because now what they are doing is no longer illegal! Therefore no police up thier Ass!! Especially if there is heavy taxes on it... whos going to buy pot at the gas station when you can buy it from this sketchy dude for 75% cheaper? And now the sketchy dude is no longer that sketchy because it's not illegal anymore.

In the end, i think i lean towards supporting the legalization because of liberty, and i don't think we get enough of that nowadays.
and btw ive never smoked pot in my life

To quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

An individual using marijuana for recreation (or medicine) does not hinder the liberty of other people, nor does it hurt them, nor does it deprive them of anything. But since the deficit and unemployment is high, it would actually provide jobs and tax-income to create a new Industry with legalization. If you think about it, it's a win-win.

It supports Liberty and the Free Market, plus it would help the economy.

joe six-pack said:

To quote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Click to expand...

Some people envision being struck in the nose by someone else's irresponsible drug use, so they want to ban drug use altogether instead of just irresponsible use. They think they have a vested interest in what other people do in their own homes, on their own couches, to their own bodies - because of what those people *might* do afterward.

But they'll never explain why texting at home shouldn't be banned for the same reason because nobody likes to admit they're a hypocrite.

celticwar17 said:

Im very borderline on this issue... The thing i try to stick to is that i believe in liberty, and people should have the liberty to do whatever they want as long as it's not harming anyone else( for the most part; it can get complicated on whats harming what and who and yourself). I propose the question, is it right for the government to protect you from yourself? is this something that should be LAW or a personal decision. I think if it is legalized it should be treated like tobacco in which it is restricted to smoke basically everywhere; because i don't want to have to breath it in when when i am at a restaurant, public place, and etc.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Legalization does not mean allowing people to smoke blunts in front of Toys R Us.

celticwar17 said:

It's an undeniable fact that pot would get more available when legalized; will it lose it's "Bad Kid"/ "underground" feel... yes. I am in college and yes it's super easy to get pot, but alcohol is like in every cabinet of every house in america; and is heavily advertised. People who are trying to argue this are trying way too hard to deny ANYTHING bad with legalizing pot.

Click to expand...

Legalization and lazzeis faire is not the answer. Legalization, regulation, and deglamorization is the answer. It's no longer "cool" to smoke cigarettes and it should not be "cool" to use any other drug either.

celticwar17 said:

Another point, the legalizing of pot will do nothing but increase the reign of the drug cartels in my opinion, because now what they are doing is no longer illegal! Therefore no police up thier Ass!!

Click to expand...

If they don't become a legitimate, law-abiding, tax-paying business then what they're doing would indeed be illegal.

celticwar17 said:

Especially if there is heavy taxes on it... whos going to buy pot at the gas station when you can buy it from this sketchy dude for 75% cheaper? And now the sketchy dude is no longer that sketchy because it's not illegal anymore.

Click to expand...

This is true to an extent. If the taxes are too high it would defeat the purpose of legalization because people would still go underground. NYC has this problem with black market cigarettes because of ridiculously high tobacco taxes. But if the taxes are reasonable, the vast majority of users would not go underground. Why would you buy moonshine that was made in some redneck's bathtub out in the woods, when you can pay a little more at the liquor store for a product that was manufactured in accordance with standards and regulations?

Binary_Digit said:

Some people envision being struck in the nose by someone else's irresponsible drug use, so they want to ban drug use altogether instead of just irresponsible use. They think they have a vested interest in what other people do in their own homes, on their own couches, to their own bodies - because of what those people *might* do afterward.

But they'll never explain why texting at home shouldn't be banned for the same reason because nobody likes to admit they're a hypocrite.

Click to expand...

Yes, and we all know about the dangerous after effects of "texting at home". :roll: