• 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!

Calif. voters to decide whether to legalize pot

I believe that even if it were legalized in all 50 states we would still be fighting the war on weed and the cartels.

Legal weed will be taxed and probably at a rather high rate such as tobacco. So people will still be willing to purchase better quality/cheaper rates on the black market. So we will still be busting growers and buyers that try and avoid taxes.

I am curous. Since the most liberal states seem to push tobacco restrictions (can't smoke in public, around kids, ect.) will they make the same push for restricting pot?

I can tell you have never been to Texas.
 
It's going to take a lot of money in advertising to get it passed because a lot of money will be coming in to fight against legalization.

I predict CORPORATE INTERESTS will spend ridiculous amounts of money to stop legalization, not so much because of some moral stance but because it will open the door for Industrial Hemp cultivation and that will adversely affect many entrenched industries, which is the real reason for prohibition in the first place.

67110115d1269186381-miracle-marijuana-hempuses2.jpg
 
It's going to take a lot of money in advertising to get it passed because a lot of money will be coming in to fight against legalization.

I predict CORPORATE INTERESTS will spend ridiculous amounts of money to stop legalization, not so much because of some moral stance but because it will open the door for Industrial Hemp cultivation and that will adversely affect many entrenched industries, which is the real reason for prohibition in the first place.

67110115d1269186381-miracle-marijuana-hempuses2.jpg


Isn't there a difference between hemp and marijuana? Basically one has low amounts of thc in it and the other does? SO how would that apply to recreational use?
 
Last edited:
I would be willing to bet the cartels would be willing to pay taxes to the state for the right to sell their product.
 
That's an ounce. It's about 60 joints (according to the internets).

No, you don't quite get 60 joints out of an ounce unless they are little pin joints. Joints usually get rolled in one of three thicknesses...pencil, pinky, thumb. Even if you rolled them all pencil thickness, you wouldn't quite get 60 joints out of an ounce after you destemmed and, possibly if it's lower grade weed, pick through the seeds.

Ummm, err, according to the internets.
 
What's gonna happen is, when CA legalizes weed, they're gonna stop growing oranges and then my orange juice prices will skyrocket!

The price of a Screwdriver will double overnight. :rofl

You can always make a weed driver. That is a shot of vodka, followed by a shotgun. :mrgreen:
 
I agree, to a substantial degree. But still, money is power, prestige and influence. Take away most of their source of revenue: that will drastically reduce their power, prestige and influence. It should cut down at least some on gang-related and drug-related violence.

That would be if we legalized the production/supply chain, and regulated it and taxed it, but still kept it far cheaper than the black-market stuff.

And yeah, to have a really big impact it would have to be more than just mj... and that's where I'm not so sure how far we should go.
On the one hand I don't think weed is even AS bad as booze, but crack is a different matter and meth is a whole different ballgame. I have a hard time with the idea of legalizing something as toxic as meth.

On the one hand, if someone wants to destroy their body (quickly at that) with meth, that's their decision. OTOH, would making it legal and readily available increase the number of users? Is putting the stamp of legalistic approval on something so toxic the right thing to do?

Dunno.

G.

Think of it as evolution in action.
 
Its still against federal law. Big whoop.
 
Isn't there a difference between hemp and marijuana? Basically one has low amounts of thc in it and the other does? SO how would that apply to recreational use?

Hemp will give you a headache, Pot will get rid of the headache. :mrgreen:
 
Which will hopefully provoke a Constitutional crisis that will bring the 10th Amendment to the forefront of American political consciousness for the first time in a long while! :mrgreen:
This denotes a misunderstanding of thw 10th amendment.
What you really need to look at is the supremacy clause.
That is, though a state may not make it illegal, it can still be illegal under federal law.

Powers reserved to the states or to the people!
The federal government clearly has the power to regulate interstate commerce and intrastate commerce that affects interstane commerce. If that power applies to the wheat a farmer would like to keep for his own personal use (which it does) then it applies to intra-state pot.
 
Last edited:
You can always make a weed driver. That is a shot of vodka, followed by a shotgun. :mrgreen:

One of the more powerful anti-cannabis lobby's is the alcohol industry. Only a select few people(myself being one) can drink and smoke at the same time and function just as well as if they were doing only one. Legal cannabis will most likely cut the profit margins on cheaper alcohol while increasing the margins on all sorts of food consumption. :lol:
 
Ok, digsbe, let's keep the thread on topic.

Drugs are harmful to whom? How?
Drugs are harmful to the user both medically and emotionally/relationally. Not all drugs are equal, marijuana is not as bad as say heroine. Depending on the drug you will have different medical affects. There are lots of deaths related to illegal drug overdose, and my father used to run the rescue mission in my city so I have seen how a drug habit can destroy someone's family and career.
Drugs are dangerous to whom? How?
Drugs are dangerous to the user and to people close to the user. Many families have had financial struggles because of a drug habit. Many jobs have been lost because of a drug habit. And many relationship have failed because of a drug habit either by the user or someone close to the user. It's similar to how alcohol can destroy if one becomes an alcoholic. The issue though is that most drugs are more potent than a beer and aren't as damaging physically.
Give me the wise reasons for maintaining their criminal status.
I don't think all drugs need to be criminalized, each substance is an issue of it's own. As of now I don't really have an opinion of criminalizing or decriminalizing certain drugs. However I support less punishments for marijuana use and lighter sentences to drug addicts. However, drugs like crack, heroine, LCD, and others should remain illegal. They are unhealthy for the user, they are bad for society, and it's abusing a substance.
What is the morality of drug criminalization?
The morality of drug criminalization is preventing discord in society and from people destroying themselves through drug use. Is it good to have more crack addicts or heroine addicts? Should we have more deaths and addictions related to drug use? What about motor skills? Having drugs legalized on a large scale will increase usage, which will also increase vehicle wrecks due to substance abuse (like alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs).
Why is it better to criminalize drugs when the harm done from criminalizing them is greater than the harm done using them?[/QUOTE]
 
So how long until marijuana ads appear during the Super Bowl?
 
I'll split soft drugs and hard drugs.

reefedjib said:
Drugs are harmful to whom? How?
Drugs are harmful to the user both medically and emotionally/relationally. Not all drugs are equal, marijuana is not as bad as say heroine. Depending on the drug you will have different medical affects. There are lots of deaths related to illegal drug overdose, and my father used to run the rescue mission in my city so I have seen how a drug habit can destroy someone's family and career.

*Soft Drugs* Marijuana, and other low addictive drugs are not very harmful to the users. The other addictive drugs, like psilocyban, are taken orally. Marijuana is smoked and you would think there would be some damage caused by that. There are studies, however, that show no additional risk to lung cancer or other respiratory diseases from smoking Marijuana. I guess you only smoke 1 or 2 jays a day and it doesn't hurt you. Getting behind the wheel of a car can injure or kill someone while under the influence.

*Hard Drugs* We are talking coke, crack, meth and heroin - highly addictive substances. You can OD on these. Heavy users have weight problems and perhaps other problems I am unaware of. I believe they can be temporarily debilitating to your health. I don't think it is permanent. Driving under the influence can be deadly.

I don't know what you mean by drugs being harmful emotionally/relationally.

reefedjib said:
Drugs are dangerous to whom? How?
Drugs are dangerous to the user and to people close to the user. Many families have had financial struggles because of a drug habit. Many jobs have been lost because of a drug habit. And many relationship have failed because of a drug habit either by the user or someone close to the user. It's similar to how alcohol can destroy if one becomes an alcoholic. The issue though is that most drugs are more potent than a beer and aren't as damaging physically.

Part of the financial danger is due to them being illegal and priced on the black market. Legalization should ease prices. Also, that tends to be more of a problem with the *hard addicting drugs*. I will also point to your observation that alcohol, a legal substance, can also cause these problems. Therefore, these problems should not prevent legalization.

reefedjib said:
Give me the wise reasons for maintaining their criminal status.
I don't think all drugs need to be criminalized, each substance is an issue of it's own. As of now I don't really have an opinion of criminalizing or decriminalizing certain drugs. However I support less punishments for marijuana use and lighter sentences to drug addicts. However, drugs like crack, heroine, LCD, and others should remain illegal. They are unhealthy for the user, they are bad for society, and it's abusing a substance.

*Soft Drugs* We are talking legalization, not just decriminalization. However, on the criminalization angle, these soft drugs do not harm other people, only possibly the user. There is no way they should be criminal as a result of that observation. There is no crime committed by using. Furthermore, if they were legal there would be no crime associated with the production and distribution of these drugs. The harm caused by the criminalization is what the real issue is since the crime and criminal enterprises that creates is very harmful to society. The fact that they may be unhealthy for the user is no reason to prevent them being legal - see cigarettes. Whether they are criminal, decriminalized or legal makes no difference to the level of use within society, so the claim that they are bad for society does not apply. Abusing a substance, while problematic health-wise, is no reason to keep them illegal.

*Hard Drugs* I am going to argue that hard drugs should be legal. They don't harm other people, therefore they should not be criminal. Abuse of them harms other people but that is a separate issue. Keeping them criminal creates crime and criminal enterprises which is the real harm to society. We should legalize them in order to treat them as a health problem and not a criminal problem. By legalizing, we remove the criminal element from distribution.

reefedjib said:
What is the morality of drug criminalization?
The morality of drug criminalization is preventing discord in society and from people destroying themselves through drug use. Is it good to have more crack addicts or heroine addicts? Should we have more deaths and addictions related to drug use? What about motor skills? Having drugs legalized on a large scale will increase usage, which will also increase vehicle wrecks due to substance abuse (like alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs).

It is not our place to protect people from destroying themselves through drug use - see alcohol. Studies show that there is no increase in use when decriminalizing these substances. Treating these addictions as health problems, rather than treating use as a criminal problem, allows us to rehabilitate users of hard drugs. Drugs legalized on a large scale will not increase usage, therefore we will not see increased wrecks.

Why is it better to criminalize drugs when the harm done from criminalizing them is greater than the harm done using them?

I agree with what you are saying. Is it what you meant to say? When you include the harm done by crime and criminal enterprises due to drug criminalization, then the harm done criminalizing them IS greater than the harm done using them. We should legalize them to remove the criminal element and deal with drugs as a health problem. This applies to soft and hard drugs.
 
So how long until marijuana ads appear during the Super Bowl?
Never, if legislation is implemented properly. Legalize does not, and should not, mean glamorize.
 

Did you fail to notice he said "If legislation is implemented properly?"

If you want to use advertising to draw parallels:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86lYG1V2-n4"]YouTube- Old cigarette commercial[/ame]


Whats that you say? Cig ads are not on TV? hmmm interesting.. it seems smoking is looked on with disdain and is almost universally viewed as being not glamorous, why would that be diff just cause marijuana was legal?

which brings us right back to:

Never, if legislation is implemented properly. Legalize does not, and should not, mean glamorize.
 
Last edited:
This denotes a misunderstanding of thw 10th amendment.
What you really need to look at is the supremacy clause.
That is, though a state may not make it illegal, it can still be illegal under federal law.


The federal government clearly has the power to regulate interstate commerce and intrastate commerce that affects interstane commerce. If that power applies to the wheat a farmer would like to keep for his own personal use (which it does) then it applies to intra-state pot.

Have I lost my mind, or is GOOBIEMAN arguing in favor of federal power over state power? IN favor of an expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause rather than against it?

I must be smoking crack, that's the only explanation. :mrgreen:
 
Have I lost my mind, or is GOOBIEMAN arguing in favor of federal power over state power? IN favor of an expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause rather than against it?

I must be smoking crack, that's the only explanation. :mrgreen:

No the truth is that statist social cons only support the 10th when its for legislation they agree with. Nixing the drug war isnt popular among them. Got to think of the children and other crap.
 
Isn't there a difference between hemp and marijuana? Basically one has low amounts of thc in it and the other does? SO how would that apply to recreational use?
I'm not sure what you're asking?

Yes there is a difference between the THC levels of Industrial Hemp and recreational/medicinal Marijuana. You cannot smoke enough Hemp to get you high. This is a factor for outside Marijuana growers. The Hemp will pollinate Marijuana and ruin the harvest by diluting the THC level.

If the DEA was interested in stamping out the growing of POT in national parks and public lands, they would plant hemp and let it grow wild. But they would rather spend billions choppering in with a special forces type team to raid the grow sites. And we tax payers foot the bill. :doh
 
I would be willing to bet the cartels would be willing to pay taxes to the state for the right to sell their product.
I would assume that you would need a license to grow it and I doubt anyone with a felony or drug related charge would be granted a license.

Now, as an import from Mexico... yeah I can see our idiotic government allowing imported Marijuana, instead of protecting the, pardon the expression, home grown industry. the idiots. I mean we already import a lot of Hemp products. In 1997 an conservative estimate was $2.9 million trade deficit on Hemp product imports.
 
Last edited:
Never, if legislation is implemented properly. Legalize does not, and should not, mean glamorize.
Unless there is REGULATION.... Eeeeck the republican version of garlic to a vampire... that prevents it, if a buck can be made off it, there WILL be commercials.
 
A step in the right direction, but if the supply-chain isn't legalized and brought into the light of day, the effect on drug cartels will be minimal.

Make it legal to grow it your back garden. No supply chain necessary.
 
Make it legal to grow it your back garden. No supply chain necessary.
Not everyone can grow things, due to available time, space or just plain brown thumbs.

Besides, the government wouldn't be able to tax it. :doh
 
Whats that you say? Cig ads are not on TV? hmmm interesting.. it seems smoking is looked on with disdain and is almost universally viewed as being not glamorous, why would that be diff just cause marijuana was legal?

Cialis, viagra, godaddy.com

As long as they package the ad right, it'll eventually be there.
 
Back
Top Bottom