Prop 19 revisited

[Tenacious D]

Oh believe me, I'm a big time advocate for legalization.

However, if we immediately legalized it, there would be a couple of issues.

-as I stated before, this would seriously piss off the cartel, and there would be some sort of consequence. Sure, we'd be able to handle it, and it would be a small price to pay for something that could have been prevented 80 years ago.

-what of all the court cases surrounding it? city courts would be turned upside down, court costs would be canceled, budgets would be muddled... it would be pretty chaotic to flip the off switch overnight.

-we wouldn't have a lot of time to instantly acclimate ourselves to a pro-pot country. Remember, over half the country detests the thought of this. It would just be another divisive entity for the people to deal with amongst themselves.

-reparations for recent marijuana offenders who were financially penetrated by the man? How would that work?

That's why I think we should decriminalize it tomorrow... legalize it in maybe... 5 years?

'til then, gents. Blaze with discretion.

Where are the nay sayers? This is boring

Well, municipalities will not simply allow the revenue (fines, court costs, etc.) from illegal marijuana use / possession to evaporate, that's for sure.

Most of the deficit will be recouped in the way of tax revenue (on the marijuana) - but there's a challenge, because if the taxes are too high, you'll simply perpetuate and empower the already well-entrenched black market.....which brings up another problem, insofar as supporters of the decriminalization movement often cite the eradication of the black market as a major selling point for its legalization.


Ultimately, if a budgetary shortfall did exist (even with the tax revenue coming in) they'd only need to make some other subtle changes, like raising sales and / or property taxes. Or, they could get rid of any realized deficits by simply cutting spending elsehwhere, most likely, on unnecessary social programs (head start, job training, etc.)

However, such is unlikely, because if the product becomes legal (everywhere, in all states) - and taxable - you can be certain that the governments only course of action to (then) stop the black market trade would be to enact the most draconian of laws / penalties for anyone found in possession of black market (untaxed) marijuana. Simply, while only a fractional amount of users would go to jail, those who did would go away for a long, long, long time, or otherwise face severely harsh penalties.

Anyway, it's 4:20 somewhere!:yes::blink:k::hi:lol::no:

 

[Tenacious D]

that's a stupid statement. they have their beliefs, just like you do. they think it should be illegal, you think it should. their no more pushing their puritan-esque views on you than you're pushing your crap on them.

Here's the difference, John Smith:

Their beliefs are wrong.

 

[utvolpj]

that's a stupid statement. they have their beliefs, just like you do. they think it should be illegal, you think it should. their no more pushing their puritan-esque views on you than you're pushing your crap on them.

how is it "pushing your crap on them" when all we want is for people to have the choice? I'm sorry if making a choice is that difficult for you

 

[joevol320]

how is it "pushing your crap on them" when all we want is for people to have the choice? I'm sorry if making a choice is that difficult for you

they had the choice on the ballot and they lost. If you want to legalize drug, then convince over 50% of the people to vote for it.

 

[utvolpj]

they had the choice on the ballot and they lost. If you want to legalize drug, then convince over 50% of the people to vote for it.

and you completely ignore my post. Can you explain how the people for legalization/decriminalization are pushing anything on you? If anything they are an advocate for your freedoms (but evidently you don't want them)

Why do you hate freedom joevol?

 

[zach0105]

Here's the difference, John Smith:

Their beliefs are wrong.

That's a valid argument..

The "puritan-esqu's" believe in keeping something that has been illegal for years illegal is wrong?

Now you sound just like the people who are opposing this proposition. "My view is right and that's all there is to it, so that's the way it should be".

Their are valid arguments on each side of this issue. That is why we voted on it and not just pushed upon everyone, like you are.

Let it be known, I could care less either way on this proposition. But I did vote yes on it. If the potheads want to waste their money and get high all day everyday, let them. Just don't push it on everyone else. And don't claim that the people that voted no just did so to oppress the potheads and stoners. They have their reasons just like you have yours.

 

[utvolpj]

The "puritan-esqu's" believe in keeping something that has been illegal for years illegal is wrong?

why is it illegal?

What are their reasons for wanting it to stay illegal (other than the all-knowing gov't says it should be)?

 

[Tenacious D]

That's a valid argument..

The "puritan-esqu's" believe in keeping something that has been illegal for years illegal is wrong?

Now you sound just like the people who are opposing this proposition. "My view is right and that's all there is to it, so that's the way it should be".

Their are valid arguments on each side of this issue. That is why we voted on it and not just pushed upon everyone, like you are.

Let it be known, I could care less either way on this proposition. But I did vote yes on it. If the potheads want to waste their money and get high all day everyday, let them. Just don't push it on everyone else. And don't claim that the people that voted no just did so to oppress the potheads and stoners. They have their reasons just like you have yours.

Exactly, perfectly stated - those who want to criminalize marijuana have no basis for such belief, other than to impose their morals on the rest of us.

Like PJ said, what's wrong with allowing people the option? No answer has been given to that, because there isn't one to be found. That's why.

 

[droski]

why is it illegal?

cotton lobby?

 

[Tenacious D]

cotton lobby?

Exactly - pharmaceutical companies, too.

 

[zach0105]

why is it illegal?

What are their reasons for wanting it to stay illegal (other than the all-knowing gov't says it should be)?

That's a good point.

But I just don't see it fair to claim that everyone who voted no on the proposition is just an ignorant sheep following the government and that they don't know any better. I'm sure the people who voted no have their reasons. Just like the people who voted yes have theirs.

 

[joevol320]

Where did I say I was worrying, Pontius?

And what am I betting on? That your parents were first cousins who were also poor at grammar? And spelling. And punctuation.

Well, you've got me there.

And you're positive that you don't smoke some weed? I ask, because you should.

how original. keep trying boy.

 

[zach0105]

Exactly, perfectly stated - those who want to criminalize marijuana have no basis for such belief, other than to impose their morals on the rest of us.

Like PJ said, what's wrong with allowing people the option? No answer has been given to that, because there isn't one to be found. That's why.

So should we allow people the option to smoke crack or do meth legally too?

Not saying these drugs are comparable, but that is the same theory.

You keep saying that people are pushing their morals on you, but have you ever considered you are pushing your morals on them.

Maybe some parents don't want their high-school student who just turned 18 going out to a convenience store and buy a carton of blunts? Some people just don't believe marijuana should be legal. Just like some people didn't believe alcohol should be legally produced and distributed back in the 20's. Luckily that was overturned and it is likely that marijuana will be legalized in the near future.

I do believe, however, their should be a decriminalization period before marijuana is distributed commercially to the likes of alcohol.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

So should we allow people the option to smoke crack or do meth legally too?

Why not? Think of it this way:

-It's not like something like crack would be sold in convenient stores... it would be a specialty item most likely purchased on the internet like other legal psychoactives. The people buying it would probably be the same ones who were smoking it before it was legalized.

-You'd really be putting a damper on street drug trade, which would obviously reduce violence. You know what the worst part about crack is? The dealers. This takes them out of the equation.

I really don't see anything wrong with legalizing drugs. Tons of people are on 'em anyway (legally and illegally).

When you make substances that do no harm to anyone other than the user illegal, you're pretty much saying people are too stupid to take care of themselves. Who's the government to tell me what I can put in my body when I'm not hurting anyone but myself?

 

[fl0at]

why is it illegal?

Gate way drug theory, in addition to at least one of the other reasons given; not sure about the "Big Pharma" conspiracy on it, but then again, I haven't read anything on that one, so...

Also, the fact that most people get hooked (and or casually use) on various drugs (I'm including alcohol and nicotine here, so chill out) in their teens and 20s, and continue to use through their 30s. Many regret such actions by their 50s. Some don't live to see their 70s.

If it is legalized, the major non-therapeutic users will be young people. Will they regret it later in life? If so, will they blame themselves? If they adult up and take responsibility for their actions, then I have no beef. If they shunt blame because they were "unaware" of the consequences they ignored, then no love.

That being said, I say legalize it. I don't think we would see such doom-day prophecies as "everyone will go to work stoned" actually come to fruition.

For those that want to go to work stoned, some already do. A few of my friends used to go to work stoned, some went to school stoned, others took exams stoned. One guy took the MCAT stoned.

Of that same group, none of them do any of those things drunk, although some do many of those things hung over... but much less frequently.

As far as the health risks, there may be some long term neurological risks. Whether studies done on that topic have been "influenced" or not is arguable. But, THC has a pharmacological signature like any drug, and therefore will produce some form of long term effect.

That being said, alcohol damages the liver and increases heart size (which has major physiologic consequences). Everyone is aware of the damage done by tobacco.

I say let people be adults and stop forcing morality.

 

[utvolpj]

You keep saying that people are pushing their morals on you, but have you ever considered you are pushing your morals on them.

but is giving people a choice really pushing anything on them? Sure it forces them to make a decision but is it really that hard to do? Taking away choices is definitely doing that but I just can't see it the other way

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Gate way drug theory, in addition to at least one of the other reasons given; not sure about the "Big Pharma" conspiracy on it, but then again, I haven't read anything on that one, so...

It's only a gateway because it's the most common illegal drug on the streets and it's also the cheapest.

If you could buy cocaine at 150 an ounce from any given pusher, IT would be the gateway drug.

 

[Gramps]

Why not? Think of it this way:

-It's not like something like crack would be sold in convenient stores... it would be a specialty item most likely purchased on the internet like other legal psychoactives. The people buying it would probably be the same ones who were smoking it before it was legalized.

-You'd really be putting a damper on street drug trade, which would obviously reduce violence. You know what the worst part about crack is? The dealers. This takes them out of the equation.

I really don't see anything wrong with legalizing drugs. Tons of people are on 'em anyway (legally and illegally).

When you make substances that do no harm to anyone other than the user illegal, you're pretty much saying people are too stupid to take care of themselves. Who's the government to tell me what I can put in my body when I'm not hurting anyone but myself?[/QUOTE]

That is about the most ridiculous statement I have ever saw posted on Vol Nation.
You must live in a fairy land if you think for one minute that drugs do not hurt anyone but the user.
You have a spouse, son, daughter or any grandchildren become addicted to drugs or alcohol, you will see who it hurts.

 

[zach0105]

When you make substances that do no harm to anyone other than the user illegal, you're pretty much saying people are too stupid to take care of themselves. Who's the government to tell me what I can put in my body when I'm not hurting anyone but myself?

Have you ever been related to or known anyone who abuses drugs? If so, you would know that it does not just affect the user. It's ok for the people who use the drugs in moderation. But what about the people who abuse drugs and then all of the sudden their drug of choice is more readily available and cheaper? They will be high more often and using up their supply of crack or meth more readily. And who is to say that this doesn't lead to these junkies performing more crimes under the influence of their drug or doing crimes to get more drugs?

I can see the argument that making pot available would reduce crime. Because individuals who use pot are not usually the violent type. But crack and meth junkies are a whole different animal. They will do anything and everything in their ability to just have another hit. Even if that drug was legal they would still go to the extreme for their drug.

but is giving people a choice really pushing anything on them? Sure it forces them to make a decision but is it really that hard to do? Taking away choices is definitely doing that but I just can't see it the other way

It's not. Just some people don't think that their 18 y.o. son or daughter should have marijuana readily available to them at their whim. We were all 18 once and we all know that at that age we didn't make decisions rationally.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

That is about the most ridiculous statement I have ever saw posted on Vol Nation.
You must live in a fairy land if you think for one minute that drugs do not hurt anyone but the user.
You have a spouse, son, daughter or any grandchildren become addicted to drugs or alcohol, you will see who it hurts.

Do you think legalizing it would raise those case numbers? You mentioned alcohol... you think that should be illegal? If you're going to play that card, obesity hurts loved ones. Let's outlaw candy and McDonald's!

You're missing the point.

EDIT: Another thing... when I say harm others, I meant physically endanger someone's life... you know, like alcohol does to thousands of people every day? You drink more than 5 beers, you become the most hazardous thing on the road. It's not the government's job to play Dr. Phil and hold our families together. Lack of moderation comes down to the individual, not Uncle Sam dammit.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Have you ever been related to or known anyone who abuses drugs? If so, you would know that it does not just affect the user. It's ok for the people who use the drugs in moderation. But what about the people who abuse drugs and then all of the sudden their drug of choice is more readily available and cheaper? They will be high more often and using up their supply of crack or meth more readily. And who is to say that this doesn't lead to these junkies performing more crimes under the influence of their drug or doing crimes to get more drugs?

I can see the argument that making pot available would reduce crime. Because individuals who use pot are not usually the violent type. But crack and meth junkies are a whole different animal. They will do anything and everything in their ability to just have another hit. Even if that drug was legal they would still go to the extreme for their drug.

You seriously think they would be cheaper if legalized? Apparently, you don't understand capitalism.

All I'm seeing are empty predictions. You don't know if they would be cheaper, you don't know if someone would binge more often, and I'm starting to think you've never been around addicts very much. If you're being this ardent about crack addicts, then you need to petition for alcohol and cigarettes to be controlled.

See my previous post about hurting loved ones and all that jazz. Legalization wouldn't change a damn thing about addicts.

Do you really think the government needs to hold our hand?

 

[fl0at]

It's only a gateway because it's the most common illegal drug on the streets and it's also the cheapest.

If you could buy cocaine at 150 an ounce from any given pusher, IT would be the gateway drug.

Not disagreeing. But imagine if the price of weed was drastically reduced due to open competition, increased availability and increased prevalence.

If, and this is an IF, it is a gateway drug (in my experience, it is...), then how does legalization make any of the above less true?

It wouldn't, but it might make it "more" true. So, that is one of the biggest arguments against legalization. Because it will lead to other drugs.

That being said, even though everyone I have ever met went from weed to something stronger at least once, I think it is more on the individual than the fact that smoking a little pot will instantly make you want to go out and do a line.

My gateway drug was alcohol. Nobody ban alcohol... again.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Not disagreeing. But imagine if the price of weed was drastically reduced due to open competition, increased availability and increased prevalence.

If, and this is an IF, it is a gateway drug (in my experience, it is...), then how does legalization make any of the above less true?

It wouldn't, but it might make it "more" true. So, that is one of the biggest arguments against legalization. Because it will lead to other drugs.

That being said, even though everyone I have ever met went from weed to something stronger at least once, I think it is more on the individual than the fact that smoking a little pot will instantly make you want to go out and do a line.

My gateway drug was alcohol. Nobody ban alcohol... again.

I dunno, I've met a few people who tried marijuana before anything, but most of them smoke cigarettes and drank before trying marijuana.

I really think, more importantly than the price, the availability of marijuana is what makes it the gateway. You have to find coke dealers, but marijuana dealers are a dime a dozen.

And FTR, my DoC and 'gateway' wasn't marijuana. I have a lot of friends who were the same way.

 

[utvolpj]

It's not. Just some people don't think that their 18 y.o. son or daughter should have marijuana readily available to them at their whim. We were all 18 once and we all know that at that age we didn't make decisions rationally.

why not make it 21 just like alcohol?

and I will say that in HS it was much easier to get pot than it was alcohol. I honestly never did it but could have gotten a hold of it any day I wanted.

 

[Gramps]

Do you think legalizing it would raise those case numbers? You mentioned alcohol... you think that should be illegal? If you're going to play that card, obesity hurts loved ones. Let's outlaw candy and McDonald's!

You're missing the point.

No sir... you are missing the point.
You need to pray to God (The one you do not believe in) several times a day that no one you love ever becomes addicted to drugs or alcohol.

It shows your lack of knowledge when you say it only hurts the person using.