Do you support federal marijuana legalization?

I hate pot, it stinks and the users are typically idiots. but it should be a state issue, abolish the Federal Law.

ttwtt78640 said:

Legalization at the federal level does leave it to the states, just as the repeal of alcohol prohibition did.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly where the decision should be made. Where does the Constitution give the feds the right to outlaw pot? At least, when they attempted to outlaw alcohol, they amended the Constitution first. With pot, they just ignored that document and went right ahead as if it didn't exist.

I don't know the answer to that and neither IMHO do you.

I personally know several (women) who diet carefully and still gain weight. In one case, I believe it is thyroid conditions. I'm not qualified to make this judgement in general.

In any case, I don't think it is at all appropriate to make this judgement since it condemns the innocent and the guilty alike. It is not comparable to any of the other options under discussion. There is not one person in the world that has no options in addictions. There are certainly some people for whom weight is not under their control. You must buy drugs. You don't "buy" weight.

I might support an insurance company decision to add a fee IF the MD has determined that the weight problem is entirely voluntary.

zstep18 said:

Do you think the majority of people who are obese are living healthy lifestyles, eating healthy, exercising regularly, etc? Or do you think the number of people who are obese due to genetic factors is a slim minority? I would have to go with the latter. Obesity has been on an exponential increase in the United States. There's a reason for that, and its not genetic.

Click to expand...

Dittohead not! said:

Which is exactly where the decision should be made. Where does the Constitution give the feds the right to outlaw pot? At least, when they attempted to outlaw alcohol, they amended the Constitution first. With pot, they just ignored that document and went right ahead as if it didn't exist.

Click to expand...

Yep. I agree 100% that there is not any difference, Constitutionally, between the recreational drug alcohol and marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, ecstasy or LSD. The SCOTUS does not seem to care to deal with it. It is very odd that the states may freely violate federal drug laws, gun laws and immigration laws, but mess with voter ID and the feds swoop down on them immediatley. Some things just cannot be explained.

Yes. Absoultely. Legalize marijuana and regulate it like alcohol. Decriminalize "hard drugs" and control them. End the Idiotic War on (some) Drugs.

digsbe said:

I think it should remain illegal because it is bad for public health and we don't need another substance like that as an OTC substance.

What I am saying though is that using marijuana shouldn't get someone thrown in jail, instead they should be fined.

Click to expand...

How is it any worse for public health than alcohol or tobacco? If we were to model a federal law off the ones passed by Washington and Colorado, we could confine legal use to the home, thus making it an issue only for the user and residents. If someone is caught riding around with eyes as red as Tommy Chong's with a car reeking of skunks, they would be treated in a manner similar to a drunk driver. Rather than put criminal charges on someone's record for sitting at home, watching Half-Baked, and ordering a pizza, couldn't we just tax the sale and accomplish the same thing? Except the revenue would be gained through legal means rather than profitting from others' misfortune.

Besides, keeping it illegal ensures that it remains a tool in the arsenal of drug cartels and street gangs. Instituting $1,000 fines won't do anything more to curb use than sending people to jail. For instance, here in Oklahoma, it is a $1,000 fine for possession of hashish, but does that mean people don't try to get hash oils? No. If I had a mind to, I could make a call and probably acquire it within the next 30 minutes. It's also a $1,000 fine for being caught with paraphernalia...I assure you, that has done nothing to limit the use of smoking devices for marijuana. It's also a possible year in prison for your first possession of any amount of marijuana; if people are willing to risk a year in prison and thousands of dollars in legal fees to smoke this plant, why would a fine stop them?

And I leave you with one more bit of wisdom, courtesy of the late Bill Hicks.

"Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally on our planet, serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying that God made a mistake. Like on the seventh day God looked down, "There it is. My Creation, perfect and holy in all ways. Now I can rest. [Gives shocked expression] Oh my Me! I left ****in' pot everywhere. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Hehe, that was the day I created the possum. Still gives me a chuckle. But if I leave pot everywhere, that's gonna give people the impression they're supposed to … use it! sighs Now I have to create Republicans." " … and God wept", I believe is the next part of that story."

Navy Pride said:

Not no but hell no....Its bad enough we have a bunch of drunks out there killing innocent people...We should never legalize grass and just add more spaced out people to the equation.

Click to expand...

Regardless of whether or not your characterization and narrative is accurate, it is fantastically unseemly to say that because NavyPride thinks that people getting high and 'spacing out' is wrong that the force of the state should be utilized to crash down on these offenders heads. Because it makes you uncomfortable. It's insane, and it is extremely un-American.

Per the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no business whatsoever allowing, regulating, or prohibiting the use of marijuana and other harmful drugs. This is a matter that belongs entirely to the states. If one state wants to legalize drug abuse, then that is that state's right, and the federal government has no business interfering. If another state wants to completely criminalize drug abuse, then this is that state's right, and again, the federal government has no business interfering.

If we want there to be a national policy regarding drug abuse, then the only legitimate way to establish such a policy is to amend the Constitution to explicitly grant the federal government the authority to establish such a policy.

I do not personally favor legalization of drug abuse, but I much less favor having the federal government sticking its nose where it has no business sticking it.

Yes, it was silly to ban it in the first place. And the only reason they banned it in the first place was because of racism, and protecting the lumber industry.

Absolutely it should be legal. Alcohol is even more dangerous than weed.

Cyrylek said:

Yes. Absoultely. Legalize marijuana and regulate it like alcohol. Decriminalize "hard drugs" and control them. End the Idiotic War on (some) Drugs.

Click to expand...

This. Above. Perfect.

digsbe said:

No, and I don't have to since you are trying to make a straw man argument.

I'll say it again. Non-violent drug offenses should receive fines, not jail time. I don't support legalizing drugs and especially to the level of OTC status, but I also don't think the recreational pot user needs to go to jail for breaking the law.

Click to expand...

Don't you love how some think believing in one thing on a specific issue means you HAVE to believe that way on all similar issues? Gotta love guys like that.

Navy Pride said:

Not no but hell no....Its bad enough we have a bunch of drunks out there killing innocent people...We should never legalize grass and just add more spaced out people to the equation.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that a nanny state is the answer to that problem, my left wing friend?

Tucker Case said:

Why do you think that a nanny state is the answer to that problem, my left wing friend?

Click to expand...

Actually, you could make the argument that all criminal laws are the states acting as a "nanny". Should we really rely on the government to protect us from drunk drivers, for example? Believing that there is a legitimate, though limited role for government isn't the same as believing in a nanny state.

X Factor said:

Actually, you could make the argument that all criminal laws are the states acting as a "nanny". Should we really rely on the government to protect us from drunk drivers, for example? Believing that there is a legitimate, though limited role for government isn't the same as believing in a nanny state.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy, drunk driving harms others, while a person smoking pot in their own home does not.

Cardinal said:

I think I must be misunderstanding you. Are you saying we should keep something illegal just so we can fine it to fund other projects? Because that's what it sounds like.

Click to expand...

Actually, since he says he'd do it to spend the money on the War on Drugs and for government provided rehab...it would seem he's wanting to keep it illegal, but change the penalty to one that helps support the financial burdens of keeping it legal while removing the incarceration chance for violation of said laws.

Cardinal said:

Why shouldn't a principle that you apply to one thing not be applied elsewhere?

Click to expand...

specklebang said:

I think the point that Cardinal is making is why not do the same for tobacco and alcohol. Make them illegal but limit punishment to fines. Certainly those 2 aren't helping public health much.

Click to expand...

One argument could be that applying that standard to something that is already illegal and thus relatively uncommon in the public space (in comparison to legal substances that are bad for public health) would cause little public disruption and produce fewer unexpected draw backs...where as trying to institute it on things such as fried food, alcohol, etc would cause a significant public disruption to day to day life of a large percentage of the population and is likely to have a plethora of unexpected draw backs impacting our society and economy. Speckle spoke of "rationality" that al things should be classified together....I disagree that's the only "rational" option. That's just simply deeming ones own option as the only rational choice. I believe that a very rational argument can be made that the different substances have significant differences due to their history of legality and illegality which makes carte blanche grouping of them together in terms of future actoin potentially irrational.

Your Star said:

False dichotomy, drunk driving harms others, while a person smoking pot in their own home does not.

Click to expand...

Actually many people who drive drunk make it home ok so the mere act of driving drunk doesn't harm others. I wasn't presenting a dichotomy at all, it was more of an equivilancy. All criminal laws could be criticized as being from the nanny state.

Legalize it and regulate/enforce/tax it in a way that is a hybrid of current alcohol and cigerette laws. Allow individual states to determine the laws and methods in which they desire to enforce and regulate the sale, use, etc.

X Factor said:

Actually many people who drive drunk make it home ok so the mere act of driving drunk doesn't harm others. I wasn't presenting a dichotomy at all, it was more of an equivilancy. All criminal laws could be criticized as being from the nanny state.

Click to expand...

And my whole point was that laws that do not prevent others from harming others(which drunk driving laws do) should not be considered a function of a "nanny state", but things like making weed illegal, laws against SSM, where there is no harm to another persons rights would be considered a function of a "nanny state".

I've smoked enough weed to fill a large building it has not did me any good. That said, though I was once against it I think it's time to legalize, tax and regulate the stuff. Marinol, which is THC and a cannabis extract is medically prescribed as an appetite stimulant and anti nausea med already exists. But recreational use should be allowed on a state to state basis. I also believe people shouldn't smoke on the job, drive or operate dangerous machinery over a certain level. Believe it or not I've seen people (myself) drive 25mph on a 70mph freeway before, so it's not that safe in every circumstance, especially surgery, programming nuclear launch codes, skyscraper construction, etc.

X Factor said:

Actually many people who drive drunk make it home ok so the mere act of driving drunk doesn't harm others. I wasn't presenting a dichotomy at all, it was more of an equivilancy. All criminal laws could be criticized as being from the nanny state.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? Many people don't crash when texting, shaving, reading or doing any number of things that impare their ability to pay full time and attention to their driving. They, none the less, are endangering others by their actions. Obviously officers are not going to pull over every driver simply to test them for DUI, they tend to pull over drivers after observing unsafe driving behavior and may thus discover the cause of that impairment. Many folks are also of the opinion that they are qualified to operate their vehicles at speeds well above the posted limits but that too will get you noticed.

Zyphlin said:

One argument could be that applying that standard to something that is already illegal and thus relatively uncommon in the public space (in comparison to legal substances that are bad for public health) would cause little public disruption and produce fewer unexpected draw backs...where as trying to institute it on things such as fried food, alcohol, etc would cause a significant public disruption to day to day life of a large percentage of the population and is likely to have a plethora of unexpected draw backs impacting our society and economy. Speckle spoke of "rationality" that al things should be classified together....I disagree that's the only "rational" option. That's just simply deeming ones own option as the only rational choice. I believe that a very rational argument can be made that the different substances have significant differences due to their history of legality and illegality which makes carte blanche grouping of them together in terms of future actoin potentially irrational.

Click to expand...

That's a different discussion altogether. If he wants to argue that changing the law would "cause disruption" that's one thing (though I still think that's a bad argument for a very glaringly obvious reason), but his rationale is that marijuana is bad for public health, and one he needs to actually spend time defending. Because if he doesn't believe that obvious culprits like fatty foods, alcohol and cigarettes should be fined, then "public health" obviously isn't a driving concern of his.

Zyphlin said:

Actually, since he says he'd do it to spend the money on the War on Drugs and for government provided rehab...it would seem he's wanting to keep it illegal, but change the penalty to one that helps support the financial burdens of keeping it legal while removing the incarceration chance for violation of said laws.

Click to expand...

It saddens me to think what my reputation on this forum must be if that statement, that Digsbe supports fines over imprisonment, must be repeated infinite times.

However, again, the rationale he specifically used was that those fines would be applied toward the war on drugs and rehabilitation. This is at best a circular argument (keeping marijuana illegal to keep marijuana illegal), at worst a cynical argument to pay for other things. It's like saying that fines should be imposed on driving in a certain manner, not because it's dangerous, but because a new civic center down the street needs to be built. Or if you prefer a more 1:1 example, it's like saying that fines should be imposed on driving over 55MPH not because it's dangerous, but so that police can continue to issue fines on driving over 55MPH.

I believe we should adopt the Portuguese model for drugs. They legalized all drugs and started taxing them. They treated addicts in hospitals instead of prisons. Addiction became a medical issue rather than a criminal one.

I certainly think our current model is a complete failure. Prohibition funds the dealers, distributors, and cartels. Our government spends billions annually fighting a war that can never be won. It is a waste of money that could instantly turn into revenue by taxing it. If we end prohibition then we will sever the money supply to these dangerous cartels and will see a decrease in violence.