As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Let's Talk About a New Approach [Marijuana Legalization]
Thanatos
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I really don't expect a typical marijuana legalization thread to get a ton of debate in this place; so, this isn't that thread, unless there is really anyone here who wants to have that debate (I strongly suspect that even the board "conservatives" are pro-pot legalization). So, that being said: this election is likely to be a banner year for marijuana. There are several legalization referenda on various ballots around the country, but I'd like to focus in on Washington.
President Obama is massively popular in Washington. We have a very young population, and even among Republicans, Ron Paul tends to poll a lot better here than in most other areas. So, that means that as far as legalization goes, we have something of a perfect storm, population-wise. We also have a fairly liberal medical marijuana law already, with dispensaries open all over the state (a shit-ton of them in Seattle; there are, like, four or five within two miles of my apartment). So, this election, we have what is probably the most serious pro-legalization push I've ever seen on a state level (and I was around for California's medicinal marijuana referendum): I-502. They've got the signatures, it's on the ballot, and they just started running ads this week. Awesome ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aScUZgzFlTI
So, who's pushing for this? The usual crowd of hippies and crazies? Nope. Former U.S. attorneys, current city of Seattle elected officials (Mayor McGinn, and the city attorney Pete Holmes), out-of-state billionaires (George Soros, among others), etc. NORML and the ACLU are also in on the act, unsurprisingly. So who all, exactly, is against this? Well, strangely, the usual crowd of hippies and crazies (The Stranger, possible NSFW ads). Medical marijuana advocates are, in my opinion, letting perfect be the enemy of better, and have decided to take up the fight against I-502. Which--to be perfectly honest--makes me that much more confident that it's going to pass.
Because I mean, honestly, can you think of anything that's going to get your grandmother to vote for legalization faster than hearing some dirty fucking hippie bitch about how "it's all the corporations trying to do it, man?" And we have some potentially-effective ads coming out of the pro- campaign here, as well.
And the anti- campaign's biggest complaint? The "this allows marijuana patients to be pulled over for a DUI?" Well, there's nothing stopping that now, so it's pretty much the stupidest fucking complaint. Not to mention the lack of a DUI provision was the main reason cited by people who would have otherwise supported the previous attempt at legalization for not voting for it. So, our choices are pretty much legalization with a DUI provision, or no legalization at all.
Finally, the last concern is a potential crackdown on Washington from the federal government. To which I say "bring it." Well, no, but I really don't think it's going to happen. And even if it does, that's just going to make Montana and New Hampshire legalize next. Plus, someone has to be first, and the first state to legalize is going to reap a metric fuckton of economic benefits if the feds don't crack down. Besides, someone has to step up to take California's place as the crazy liberal state, and we're just the crazy liberals to do it.
So, anyway, feel free to weigh in. Given the preponderance of opinion on these boards, I suspect that much of this thread will be taken up with meta-discussion regarding the pro- and anti-legalization campaigns, and that's just fine.
President Obama is massively popular in Washington. We have a very young population, and even among Republicans, Ron Paul tends to poll a lot better here than in most other areas. So, that means that as far as legalization goes, we have something of a perfect storm, population-wise. We also have a fairly liberal medical marijuana law already, with dispensaries open all over the state (a shit-ton of them in Seattle; there are, like, four or five within two miles of my apartment). So, this election, we have what is probably the most serious pro-legalization push I've ever seen on a state level (and I was around for California's medicinal marijuana referendum): I-502. They've got the signatures, it's on the ballot, and they just started running ads this week. Awesome ads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aScUZgzFlTISo, who's pushing for this? The usual crowd of hippies and crazies? Nope. Former U.S. attorneys, current city of Seattle elected officials (Mayor McGinn, and the city attorney Pete Holmes), out-of-state billionaires (George Soros, among others), etc. NORML and the ACLU are also in on the act, unsurprisingly. So who all, exactly, is against this? Well, strangely, the usual crowd of hippies and crazies (The Stranger, possible NSFW ads). Medical marijuana advocates are, in my opinion, letting perfect be the enemy of better, and have decided to take up the fight against I-502. Which--to be perfectly honest--makes me that much more confident that it's going to pass.
Because I mean, honestly, can you think of anything that's going to get your grandmother to vote for legalization faster than hearing some dirty fucking hippie bitch about how "it's all the corporations trying to do it, man?" And we have some potentially-effective ads coming out of the pro- campaign here, as well.
And the anti- campaign's biggest complaint? The "this allows marijuana patients to be pulled over for a DUI?" Well, there's nothing stopping that now, so it's pretty much the stupidest fucking complaint. Not to mention the lack of a DUI provision was the main reason cited by people who would have otherwise supported the previous attempt at legalization for not voting for it. So, our choices are pretty much legalization with a DUI provision, or no legalization at all.
Finally, the last concern is a potential crackdown on Washington from the federal government. To which I say "bring it." Well, no, but I really don't think it's going to happen. And even if it does, that's just going to make Montana and New Hampshire legalize next. Plus, someone has to be first, and the first state to legalize is going to reap a metric fuckton of economic benefits if the feds don't crack down. Besides, someone has to step up to take California's place as the crazy liberal state, and we're just the crazy liberals to do it.
So, anyway, feel free to weigh in. Given the preponderance of opinion on these boards, I suspect that much of this thread will be taken up with meta-discussion regarding the pro- and anti-legalization campaigns, and that's just fine.
Thanatos on
0
Posts
Regardless, I'm opposed unless the DUI provision is really strict and more traffic cops are on the street pulling people over. I also would oppose any law that didn't restrict smoking and other use to your home, and make it illegal to smoke in a home with a miner.
Also, you should be ready for the Feds to unleash hell.
Do you feel the same way about public drinking? Folks high on weed are much less of a danger to the public. What is you reason for feeling this way?
Well, I oppose smoking in public for the nuisance factor. I also oppose smoking tobacco in public, and would hate to have more smoke on the street because of legalization. Nonsmoking use of pot is so easy to hide that we can't effectively police it like public alcohol consumption, but I would still want these uses to be illegal to avoid people walking around eating pot brownies. We generally don't look favorably on intoxicated people in public, and I don't see why we should make it easy for their to be more of them.
Just to say it, if alcohol had never been legal we would never legalize it now, so I think drawing parallels to alcohol is an incredibly weak argument.
I'm kind of forced to agree with this point. If we're gonna legalize pot we should argue the case based on the merits, endlessly seeing people go "well it isn't as bad as alcohol" is tiresome and pretty irrelevant.
Can you expand on why you think expanded traffic stops are justified or necessary?
Ehh... unless 'we' includes the you and the mouse in your pocket, society really doesn't have much problem with the consumption of alcohol at every single professional sporting event, music performance, bar, night club, or pretty much anywhere you have more than 100+ people gathered for any reason.
Now, all that stuff happens on private property or in public spaces with a government issued permit, but that is a heck of a lot larger than 'only in one's home'.
Why is it tiresome and irrelevant? You have a socially accepted non-medical drug (alcohol) with more dangerous side effects and a higher risk to public. You have another socially accepted non-medical drug (tobacco) with much more debilitating long term use risks. Both have been highly regulated if used in public, and their use is restricted to specific areas and/or away from other specific public works (such as hospitals, schools, etc). I don't see why you can't draw parallels for MJ use along the same lines.
because you seem to be acting as though it makes people significantly more dangerous, a la alcohol
It seems sensible to me that an increase in legal intoxicants would justify an increase in enforcement activity. Also, since to my knowledge there is no field test for marijuana equivalent to the breathalyzer, stopping people for suspected marijuana use will involve bringing them into the station for blood testing, which takes the police off the streets.
Consumption and intoxication are different though. The reason to restrict pot consumption is the smoke stinks and other people are forced to smell it. We are moving towards banning smoking tobacco at sports events and have alredy done so in bars, clubs and restaurants, so I see no reason why we should introduce a new form of smoke to these places.
On intoxication, we generally don't allow people to be intoxicated in public (it is usually a disorderly persons offense) and bar tenders and other alcohol servers are supposed to cut people off when they are visibly drunk. If we permit bars to sell pot brownies we may b able to control things, but I wouldn't want people walkin around on the street eating pot brownies, just like we don't let you walk around drinking a beer on the street.
The bottom line is that it is impossible for the government to moderate marijuana like tobacco (tax on land, crops, soil, etc) when anyone and everyone can create his own crops singlehandedly without the gov. If there's not enough monetary gain in it, it's not gonna get legalized, bottom line.
it would just be shit loads of marijuana related edibles, which is better anyway because no cancer risk init
And before anyone throws a fit, that was voted on by the people of washington state, and studies have shown it increased bar attendance not declined it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Man just because they might have the black lung doesn't mean they shouldn't have a chance to green those black lungs up.
Plus how else am I supposed to deal with all the Stratego bombs my smoking buddies plant?
Just because they can grow it doesn't mean they will. You don't often see folks that grow and blend their own tobaccos. Similarly, home brew is a big hobbyist endeavor, but still just a hobbyist thing. And even among home brewers, people that grow their own hops are a rarity. Hops, like marijuana, are gendered plants that aren't a huge pain to grow, it's just that many people, even those that make their own beer, can't be bothered to.
Besides, the largest savings are in terms of reduced need for police forces and jail cells. I think this has more to do with why we wouldn't see legalization / decriminalization more than anything else. Prisons are a big business, and legalization threatens that income in a very real way.
Your argument is literally "we made two mistakes, why not make a third?"
That is not a problem with brewing beer or wine. Growing weed worth smoking is actually kinda hard, time consuming and not really all that cheap. Were weed legal and commercially available, there would not be much motivation to grow it yourself.
Of course, real commercial viability kinda requires investors knowing the federal government isn't going to come in and arrest everyone if it gets too big and well known, soo... this ends up somewhere in the middle and a fair amount of people would grow their own.
In practice, I'm free to get toasted at a bar and walk down the block to the next bar. "Public intoxication" laws are pretty much used to give cops a legal justification for "this guy was being a dick and causing problems, so we arrested him". I'm alright with that.
Additional resources directed to cessation of drivers being under the influence of marijuana should be commensurate with the actual risk to the public. I'm not alright with random traffic stops or with the presence of THC metabolites being de facto evidence of criminally impaired driving.
Hey I really could care less if this thing gets passed or not, I'm just presenting the most common argument Washington is gonna come against when trying to get this pushed through the door. I remember earlier this year when Mary-j was passed in T.O. Go a short while before every political authority in Canada rushed in to crush that ruling like a grape.
Between this and the whole gay-rights thing the republicans are gonna feel like their whole world is falling apart. If they can't (an wont be able to) stop gay-rights then they'll be damn sure to take it out on this bill.
It frames things in the wrong light. Instead of saying "here are the benefits to legalisation", you're saying "it's bad but it isn't as bad as things we already have". Yeah we should fully have similar regulations for weed use as we do to booze but endlessly saying "weed isn't as bad as alcohol and we allow that" is exactly as lame an argument as it sounds.
Personally,as a non user who has no real stake in it either way using that as an argument just sounds to me like you wanna make one bad thing legal because another is.
Well done, sir. Best use of an inscrutable iphone autocorrect ever.
Edit: Won't the paranoia from the pot just leave you afraid everyone might be the spy anyway?
It isn't in Washington currently. They need evidence enough to drag you down to a lab, have your blood drawn, and then actually tested for THC. This bill doesn't change that, but it does establish a limit of 5ng/L for people over 21 is included in the bill, and 0ng/L for anyone under 21(even with a medical marijuana prescription).
Prohibition was a drastic change that ran contrary to historical practice. Do you not see the difference between having something be legal and deeply entwined with society suddenly made illegal and keeping something which has always been illegal for as long as we've had drug laws illegal?
Way too much money and jobs wrapped up in the War on Drugs for it to be legalized anytime soon. Military Industrial complex, police, prison systems, etc.
Of course, more people are hurt, killed, or otherwise had their life completely ruined than if it were legal, but the government doesn't care about that.
While hops are easy to grow, they're similar to grapes in that they have a strong terroir that makes growing them outside of certain areas less than ideal.
My area has public consumption laws on alcohol.
It's always funny how pro-nullification north-westerners become the second the question applies to pot. Similarly, the switch from mocking Rush Limbaugh for his use of prescription pain killers to talking about their use of the "medical" marijuana market.
Unless it's in a paper bag or something, in which case it's usually overlooked (like if your legal herbs were concealed in a brownie, perhaps?) or at certain sanctioned outdoor festivals and such.
The idea is that if enough States outright legalize it then the Feds will be either stretched too thin to do anything about it or forced to give up their crusade against it lest they look militant, overbearing, wasteful, and authoritarian.
Putting more Cops in hiding along roads with the instruction to use their best judgement and ramp up the harassment isn't a viable solution.
Here's a good history of how this strategy has worked in the past, and how successfully.
Yes.
That paper bag represents selective enforcement of the law, not the legalization of drinking alcohol in public. The difficulty of distinguishing edible pot from normal baked goods is actually an argument against legalization, unless you intend to repeal public intoxication laws.
what do you mean "ramp up the harassment"? Are you opposed to having traffic laws or enforcing them? I would love to have much better enforcement of traffic laws like DUI and reckless driving. Think of all the lives that could be saved.
How does that work? If the cops find you with weed it's cool but if the FBI decide to bust you you're fucked?