• 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!

Judge: It's 'high time' to legalize pot

The basis for the illegalization of marijuana is not simply a cause that should interest only consumers of the product. Millions of people have been incarcerated in the publicly-funded penitentiary system for the possession and distribution of marijuana due to the failed "war on drugs".

3.7% of the United States population is behind bars, on probation or on parole, costing the US government about $60 billion annually. This isn't simply a "pothead issue" and it's high time that taxpayers in the US recognized that this "war on drugs" is a menace not only to justice but to their wallets as well.

EDIT: And I think cracking jokes about such a serious issue that affects (ruins) the lives of millions of people and is such a massive drain on the citizens of every country where this occurs (the US primarily) is a terrible way of minimizing the issue and is another reason why it isn't taken seriously by non-activists.
 
Last edited:
I'd say the only thing is if we're gonna legalize pot, there'd have to be some protectionism built in. Otherwise, we're gonna result in what we have with tobacco and all the lawsuits.
 
Ikari said:
I'd say the only thing is if we're gonna legalize pot, there'd have to be some protectionism built in. Otherwise, we're gonna result in what we have with tobacco and all the lawsuits.
Click to expand...

That part I can agree with. Because just like the fat asses who sue McDonalds, the idiots who sue because they tripped over their own shoe laces,the idiots who sued because they spilled coffee on themselves, and the other morons who sue for doing stupid **** we will have pot heads suing because pot made them lazy or caused them to get in a car accident or caused some sort of brain damage or some other possible things associated with long term pot use.
 
I'd say the only thing is if we're gonna legalize pot, there'd have to be some protectionism built in. Otherwise, we're gonna result in what we have with tobacco and all the lawsuits.
Click to expand...

If it was legalized it would probably be taxed in the same way that cigarettes are taxed. It would go from being a massive drain on governmental spending to a significant source of revenue.

That part I can agree with. Because just like the fat asses who sue McDonalds, the idiots who sue because they tripped over their own shoe laces,the idiots who sued because they spilled coffee on themselves, and the other morons who sue for doing stupid **** we will have pot heads suing because pot made them lazy or caused them to get in a car accident or caused some sort of brain damage or some other possible things associated with long term pot use.
Click to expand...

I always thought it would be much easier to solve this problem by forcing the people suing to pay for the defendants' expenses if they lose the case.
 
ahh so it holds the same amount of weight as you or i then.
Click to expand...

Pretty much; the only reason that this story was written was because it's apparently news to know that a judge supports the legalization of marijuana.:roll:
 
jamesrage said:
That part I can agree with. Because just like the fat asses who sue McDonalds, the idiots who sue because they tripped over their own shoe laces,the idiots who sued because they spilled coffee on themselves, and the other morons who sue for doing stupid **** we will have pot heads suing because pot made them lazy or caused them to get in a car accident or caused some sort of brain damage or some other possible things associated with long term pot use.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you don't do something, we'll repeat the mess we have with tobacco. Where it's being sued, but the government can't let it die because it gets too much money via taxation from it. So everything has to be upfront. These are the dangers, people should be discouraged from it, they should be made full aware that it's a personal choice and they are responsible for the consequences of it.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, if you don't do something, we'll repeat the mess we have with tobacco. Where it's being sued, but the government can't let it die because it gets too much money via taxation from it. So everything has to be upfront. These are the dangers, people should be discouraged from it, they should be made full aware that it's a personal choice and they are responsible for the consequences of it.
Click to expand...

I think you're right...the whole tobacco lawsuit issue wouldn't even be an issue if the tobacco companies had been forthcoming about the dangers and effects of tobacco use. Instead, they did the exact opposite.
 
the CSA allows the FDA and DEA, in a closed loop, determine the drug "schedule" (i.e. how "illegal" it is). it's done completely without any interaction with Congress. Congress, or any other elected body, does not decide drug legality in this country- an obscure body of appointed bureaucrats (many of whom were appointed decades ago) do.
 
new coup for you said:
the CSA allows the FDA and DEA, in a closed loop, determine the drug "schedule" (i.e. how "illegal" it is). it's done completely without any interaction with Congress.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the act give those agencies the power t do that? If Congress gave them the power, then how can you argue there was no interaction w/ congress?

Are you arguing that Congress doesnt have the power to give this power to a federal agency? If so, what do you base that on?
 
new coup for you said:
the CSA allows the FDA and DEA, in a closed loop, determine the drug "schedule" (i.e. how "illegal" it is). it's done completely without any interaction with Congress. Congress, or any other elected body, does not decide drug legality in this country- an obscure body of appointed bureaucrats (many of whom were appointed decades ago) do.
Click to expand...

There's also the Analog Act, which allows the DEA to determine that if drug A is "substantially similar" to illegal drug B, then drug A is de facto illegal. If you're wondering what "substantially similar" even means, then you understand why this gives the DEA a little more power than seems appropriate.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analog_Act[/ame]


It's really no different than saying that because what you're doing is substantially similar in my mind to a an illegal act that I know of, you can be arrested for it, even if the two acts are different. If the Analog Act was applied to the rest of the legal system, nobody would be outside of jail anymore.
 
Cardinal said:
There's also the Analog Act, which allows the DEA to determine that if drug A is "substantially similar" to illegal drug B, then drug A is de facto illegal. If you're wondering what "substantially similar" even means, then you understand why this gives the DEA a little more power than seems appropriate.

Federal Analog Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It's really no different than saying that because what you're doing is substantially similar in my mind to a an illegal act that I know of, you can be arrested for it, even if the two acts are different. If the Analog Act was applied to the rest of the legal system, nobody would be outside of jail anymore.
Click to expand...

If a tenth of the powers given to the DEA were used broadly, nobody would be outside jail anymore.

Of course, who's the biggest lobbyist for all these draconian laws? The prison-industrial complex. Wonder why?
 
new coup for you said:
Well what part of the constitution would authorize such an agency?
Click to expand...
Just so we're clear -- you're now arguing that the acts that created the agencies themselves are unconstitutional, rather than the agency/Congress interaction you mentioned, as Congress has no such poiwer to create such agencies.

The FDA and ATF were created under the Interstate Commerce Clause as agencies that regulate certain commercial activities.
 
Goobieman said:
Just so we're clear -- you're now arguing that the acts that created the agencies themselves are unconstitutional, rather than the agency/Congress interaction you mentioned, as Congress has no such poiwer to create such agencies.

The FDA and ATF were created under the Interstate Commerce Clause as agencies that regulate certain commercial activities.
Click to expand...

I think they're both dubious applications of the constitution. The concept of a regulatory agency is that it applies the regulation towards a agreed upon legal end- as in Congress would draft drug policy and then the FDA and DEA would apply that policy on the ground and in technical areas. As it is, Congress has absolutely no authority at all. The FDA and DEA are not regulatory agencies, they're policy creating agencies.
 
new coup for you said:
I think they're both dubious applications of the constitution. The concept of a regulatory agency is that it applies the regulation towards a agreed upon legal end- as in Congress would draft drug policy and then the FDA and DEA would apply that policy on the ground and in technical areas. As it is, Congress has absolutely no authority at all. The FDA and DEA are not regulatory agencies, they're policy creating agencies.
Click to expand...
Still not following you.
How does Congress have no authority here?
How does Congress giving the executive branch the power to create policy regarding acts of Congress violate the Constitution?
 
new coup for you said:
Because Congress has basically given away their powers to an unregulated, unelected entity.
Click to expand...
How is it unconstitutional for Congress to delegate to the executive branch some degree of power to determine how it will exectue the laws passed by Congress?

Would you also apply this argument to the EPA, which was given the power to determie what level of polutant is 'harmful'?

Remember that they are executing the laws passed by congress, not creating their own laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom