Pot smokers

[billvon 3,116]

>How'd you miss Prohibition in this study?

He didn't. Legalizing alcohol didn't solve our problems instantly either.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

How'd you miss Prohibition in this study?

Like I have said previously and implied in the post you replied to, I do not believe that the two are have a direct corollary. I also said that there is not a simple answer to this very complex situation. Although I am glad that you believe that your simple answer will magically fix everything overnight, I disagree and believe that the solution and transition will take time.

Simply the implications of constitutional law in regards to the state's authority of law compared to federal law is a big one. The differences between the amendment that enacted prohibition compared to the evolution of state law and federal law that prohibits marijuana is drastic. That discussion is a long one with many facets, then again in your studies you obviously already know this. You would also recognize that not only is this a social problem but will have long reaching consequences for the relationship between federal and state law and the rights of individual state legislatures.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

He didn't. Legalizing alcohol didn't solve our problems instantly either.

The federal and local government worked very hard to fight all the gangsters and put them in prison. To shut down their illicit networks and trade. As history has shown, it didn't work over night and it is still a fight that is being fought. The mob is still active, but not as overtly violent as they had been.

So, now how would we accomplish the same with large Mexican Cartels? The same cartels that are more heavily armed then many nations. The same cartels that employ rogue Mexican and rogue US Special Forces. Watching the historical trend over the last 30 years, it would appear that the days of the Mexican government is numbered and that an out-right civil war is imminent.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

He didn't. Legalizing alcohol didn't solve our problems instantly either.

The federal and local government worked very hard to fight all the gangsters and put them in prison. To shut down their illicit networks and trade. As history has shown, it didn't work over night and it is still a fight that is being fought. The mob is still active, but not as overtly violent as they had been.

So, now how would we accomplish the same with large Mexican Cartels? The same cartels that are more heavily armed then many nations. The same cartels that employ rogue Mexican and rogue US Special Forces. Watching the historical trend over the last 30 years, it would appear that the days of the Mexican government is numbered and that an out-right civil war is imminent.

The first step still seems to be to attack profits. Legalization remains the most cost effective way to do it.

[jtnesbitt 0]

My thoughts on the subject have changed in the past year. I have never really cared if people smoked it, but i was never for legalizing it either. I just thought people needed to be smart with it. That way they would cause no harm to others or get caught. The ones that weren't smart would get caught and it would keep everything in check.

I never really believed the medical angle until recently. Too many people abuse it to the point to where the entire country knows that having a medical marijuana license is pretty much a joke. It is unfortunate this has happened because it makes the people who really do need it for medicinal purposes look bad. As I mentioned though, i didn't used to "believe" in that angle. I just figured someone could go through legal channels to deal with their ailment and that the medical weed route was a cop out and taking advantage of the system.

Recently however a friend of mine has changed my opinion. She is a premed student with Fibromyalgia and is always in pain. Before she started smoking pot it wasnt unusual for her to have to miss work and school because she was in so much pain. She sees a doctor for it monthly who gives her prescriptions for drugs but they dont work and since some of them are narcotics they could be habit forming and put her in a state of mind where she cannot function. These legal prescriptions were costing her almost $300 a month and were pretty much ineffective. She discovered that strong types of indica curb her pain. It works better than the drugs and a $100 of the indica will last her 3 months. Thats $33.33 dollars a month instead of almost $300.

It is a shame there isn't some way to regulate or allow marajuana. For some people it really is the best solution. Abuse is going to happen to matter what. Narcotics are legal yet people abuse them all the time.

"If this post needs to be moderated I would prefer it to be completly removed and not edited and butchered into a disney movie" - DorkZone Hero

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So, now how would we accomplish the same with large Mexican Cartels? The same cartels that are more heavily armed then many nations. The same cartels that employ rogue Mexican and rogue US Special Forces. Watching the historical trend over the last 30 years, it would appear that the days of the Mexican government is numbered and that an out-right civil war is imminent.

There will certainly be consequences in Mexico, some of which would spill over our way. But that's hardly a good reason to maintain a status quo that started on racist beliefs and is hurting our country. When pot is arguably less a concern than nicotine or alcohol, it shouldn't be classified along with cocaine. We shouldn't be dedicating large law enforcement efforts around it.

CA's joke of a system of 'medical' use is pretty much analogous to states that adopt liberal CCW permit systems. It doesn't appear to be hurting us.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

There will certainly be consequences in Mexico, some of which would spill over our way.

My concern isn't that the violence and consequences in Mexico *would* spill over our way. My concern that it already has and its far beyond what most people realize.

Quote

But that's hardly a good reason to maintain a status quo

Where have I suggested we maintain a status quo? I have simply stated that the problem will not quickly go away and that simply legalizing marijuana will not make the problems and dangers of the marijuana trade go away. That there will be serious problems that will be encountered, including a continued trade of illegal (non-taxed) marijuana coming from Mexico.

As with other social and political problems, there really isn't a single simple answer.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Where have I suggested we maintain a status quo? I have simply stated that the problem will not quickly go away and that simply legalizing marijuana will not make the problems and dangers of the marijuana trade go away. That there will be serious problems that will be encountered, including a continued trade of illegal (non-taxed) marijuana coming from Mexico.

As with other social and political problems, there really isn't a single simple answer.

Then stop attacking a strawman that legalization will magically solve all problems. I see it as a big step forward.

Mexico (or more likely Canada) can try to market itself as superior product, but again, if people can grow it at home for free, the volume and price points of imports can only go so high.

It'll be nice to eliminate the clandestine farms in the middle of BLM and national park lands too.

[normiss 895]

True.
But it's clearly NOT working now either.
It is a drain on our economy, our court system, and the jails and prisons. This should NOT be a legal issue for those that use it.
Classify it same as alocohol and be done with it.
Establish a REAL border between us an Mexico and enforce the damn thing already.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Then stop attacking a strawman that legalization will magically solve all problems.

Sure, if people would simply recognize that legalization won't magically solve their problems. That marijuana and prohibition do not correlate and that there are serious problems that will need to be faced.

If you look back at this thread, you'll see that those are the points that I have directly countered. I've never argued if the plant was good or bad or that consuming it was good or bad, just that there are serious issues outside of "gee, I wish I could legally smoke pot."

So if you wouldn't mind, go back and check before you accuse me of something.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

he didn't. Legalizing alcohol didn't solve our problems instantly either

Your right, but, your more likely to lose a good job over marijuana than alcohol... so, we might could begin with that problem first at least?

"As an aside, I wouldn't advise some people to be so open about admitting illegal drug use while online. A lot of prospective employers, etc. do quite a bit of online investigations of applicants' names."

"We didn't start the fire"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Sure, if people would simply recognize that legalization won't magically solve their problems.

Right. There is nothing magical about the way it will solve the problems. It is basic economics. Without the drug laws, the cost of distribution goes down significantly. The risk of production goes down to nearly zero (cannabis is an exceptionally hearty plant). The supply goes up drastically within one growing season, reducing the demand for any given existing supplier.

You're correct; there is nothing magical about the manner in which legalization will solve the problem of the violence associated with the drug laws.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Then stop attacking a strawman that legalization will magically solve all problems.

Sure, if people would simply recognize that legalization won't magically solve their problems. That marijuana and prohibition do not correlate and that there are serious problems that will need to be faced.

If you look back at this thread, you'll see that those are the points that I have directly countered. I've never argued if the plant was good or bad or that consuming it was good or bad, just that there are serious issues outside of "gee, I wish I could legally smoke pot."

So if you wouldn't mind, go back and check before you accuse me of something.

We all know there are no easy answers to these questions. In fact, easy answers such as "3 strikes", "just say no", "no child left behind", "cash for clunkers", etc. are why we're in the mess we are. We elect people and tell them to fix these issues but then crucify them when they actually do something that will impact someone.

Legalizing drugs would not be easy, would not be popular with certain groups but is do able. It'd be a paridigm shift for some as we'd actually hafta admit that there are things the gov't can't fix.

It's not an easy or a quick answer, but the best answers never are.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 3,116]

>Your right, but, your more likely to lose a good job over marijuana than alcohol...

Depends on the job. Where there is urine testing, agreed. Where there is no urine testing, you are far more likely to lose a job due to alcohol abuse and its results than through pot smoking (in my experience.)

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

...and that there are serious problems that will need to be faced.

Such as?

We are all engines of karma

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Such as?

Such as you can read the previous posts I wrote referencing the constitutional law questions raised through out all of this, the reference to stability of the Mexican government, the cartels, historical reference to the US mafia in the 20th century and so forth.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Simply the implications of constitutional law in regards to the state's authority of law compared to federal law is a big one. The differences between the amendment that enacted prohibition compared to the evolution of state law and federal law that prohibits marijuana is drastic. That discussion is a long one with many facets, then again in your studies you obviously already know this.

As you should well know, legalization covers all of this.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rynodigsmusic 0]

Quote

>Your right, but, your more likely to lose a good job over marijuana than alcohol...

Depends on the job. Where there is urine testing, agreed. Where there is no urine testing, you are far more likely to lose a job due to alcohol abuse and its results than through pot smoking (in my experience.)

Fair enough. But what about jail, a criminal (felony in some states) record, a ban on hiring, judgement, and list goes on... Alcohol problems seem to be casued more by the user, and not the alcohol. Marijuana problems seem to be caused more by the weed, not the user. I mean in reality, which one sounds like it affects the individual (and others) more?

The problem with having this conversation with people is that some have never seen nor understood to see weed in the same light... or even a lesser light, than alcohol, becasue of the legalities associated with them. Taking what you said, it would seem like alchohol is the more influencial drug... and we even have a driving limit for it. And the fact that you say your less likeley to lose a job over weed makes me feel even more that the "effects" of marijuana are typically more mellow than alchohol, and therefore may not cause you to lose a job as you can under the effects of alcohol.? ETA: If your high or drunk at work you can lose your job. I think you know what i mean.

But still, one is perfectly legal, packaged, marketed, accepted, and sold all over the world, and the other will give you a simialr or graver penalty than rape, or even murder in some states. That is assuming murder is a felony?? I dont know im not a lawyer. But still... in the words of Marvin Gaye, "whats goin on"

"We didn't start the fire"

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

, now how would we accomplish the same with large Mexican Cartels? The same cartels that are more heavily armed then many nations. The same cartels that employ rogue Mexican and rogue US Special Forces. Watching the historical trend over the last 30 years, it would appear that the days of the Mexican government is numbered and that an out-right civil war is imminent.

Are you suggesting that removing a major source of income for the Mexican cartels is going to further destabilize the Mexican government? I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning behind such an assertion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

As you should well know, legalization covers all of this.

Not really, not all of it and it doesn't solve what I brought up. I really don't want to go into a really long discussion of constitutional law and state rights, so feel free to research this on your own. It is really interesting, there is some interesting case law and some people might find it really dry reading.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Are you suggesting that removing a major source of income for the Mexican cartels is going to further destabilize the Mexican government? I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning behind such an assertion.

Feel free to read what I previously wrote about that subject, instead of simply cutting out something that you think fits your singular angle.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Legalization would have to come at the federal level to be effective. States could keep their own laws if they wanted to but would quickly find it untenable. The cost of trying to keep pot out of (say) Mississippi if it was legal in Tennessee would cripple the government. Add some tax dollars for the coffers of the legal states and it would be fait accompli.
Prohibition ended in Canada on a province by province basis and the domino effect was quick and unstoppable as soon as Quebec registered the country's only surplus budget when they led the way.

I do think the fall in revenue would further destabilize Mexico and British Columbia in the short run.

[normiss 895]

That's close to what we have now.
Federally they decided to go soft on enforcement, California has legal medicinal....while at the same time they are spending billions in state and federal funds to fight the drug in California....while still collecting taxes on the sale of the legal version!
They're chasing their own tails and wasting valuable resorces.

[billvon 3,116]

> Marijuana problems seem to be caused more by the weed, not the user.

?? I have never seen anyone forced to smoke pot. Problems with both alcohol and pot are caused by their users. To some people they are inherently dangerous due to addiction, predisposition etc but those people have to make the decision to use (or abuse) them.

> Taking what you said, it would seem like alchohol is the more influencial
>drug... and we even have a driving limit for it.

I think it is more dangerous and does more damage to society overall.

>And the fact that you say your less likeley to lose a job over weed makes me
>feel even more that the "effects" of marijuana are typically more mellow than
>alchohol

Well:

1) They are usually more mellow (doesn't make them more compatible with any given job, just makes it harder to detect)

2) More people drink alcohol than smoke pot, so the alcohol problem is more pervasive.

3) Alcohol seems easier to abuse. You can drink until you're dead or in the hospital; harder to do with pot.

4) Alcohol is more detectable in general (slurred speech etc)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Legalization would have to come at the federal level to be effective. States could keep their own laws if they wanted to but would quickly find it untenable.

I agree that it would have to be at the federal level; however, as things are evolving right now, we are going to face a constitutional show down. The federal government, Obama, has stated that he'll continue to let the states figure this one out on their own. The news of this sent the DEA in a tirade and the agency conducted a large scale amount of raids on state-legal medical dispensaries, to enforce federal law.

Who is right in that situation? Regardless of someone's stance on the re-decriminalization of marijuana in the US, the consequences of the above situation is interesting. Its also exciting to see how things will end up. If the states will continue to reassert their rights with the federal government or if the federal government will continue its growth of power over the states.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."