Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

legalize it! ALL OF IT, apparently.

123457

Posts

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    geckahn wrote: »
    I would never seriously think that a president would say yes to that question.

    Legalization is going to be a state issue for a long time before it can be seriously discussed federally.

    I am still rather disappointed that it can't be discussed. They aren't even willing to talk about it.

    For... what reason? It's too dangerous, politically?

    yup, it's a democracy. Making legalizing weed a major issue doesnt exactly strike me as a smart move for a president at this point. Once some states fully legalize it? sure.

    geckahn on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    geckahn wrote: »
    geckahn wrote: »
    I would never seriously think that a president would say yes to that question.

    Legalization is going to be a state issue for a long time before it can be seriously discussed federally.

    I am still rather disappointed that it can't be discussed. They aren't even willing to talk about it.

    For... what reason? It's too dangerous, politically?

    yup, it's a democracy. Making legalizing weed a major issue doesnt exactly strike me as a smart move for a president at this point. Once some states fully legalize it? sure.

    rabble rabble not change we voted for rabble rabble.


    I understand, to a degree. But one idea that bothers me is that "they have better things to do."
    1. Legalizing, relaxing the laws or decriminalizing marijuana is about much more than letting some college kids get high. The actual arrests and records that exist for possession alone, completely non-violent crimes are extremely disproportionate to the harm by the drug itself. And then the violent crime that only exists as part of the black market required to market the drug... Plus the money spent on incarcerating and maintain prisoners for crimes like possession or trafficking only. Saving some rising college kid a jail record because he got high on the weekends? I happen to think that's pretty goddamn important. But even more so are the people whose lives are ruined even more because of busts or arrests.

    Not even taking into account the extremely influential and important people in our history who could have gotten arrested and prevented from ever doing the good they have simply and only because they enjoyed getting high. Like Carl Sagan, or Obama.



    2. Congress wastes a lot of time. I'm not arguing that, "Well, then they can waste some time on my pet project." I mean to put into perspective the idea that, "Well, they have a war and the economy to take care of!"

    I'm not retarded. I know that war and major economic collapse still trumps the near million pot only arrests a year, and the lives of the people it affects. But that issue is still much fucking larger than, well...

    20090306.jpg

    JamesKeenan on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    And NORML I believed estimated the tax revenue from marijuana to be potentially close to a billion dollars, and I don't think that was actually counting the money saved from not jailing and maintaining prisoners simply in prison for possession of a lot of pot, having done no violent crime whatsoever.

    NORML is not an unbiased source, I realize, but isn't marijuana California's #1 cash crop? I bet the government wishes they were getting that money instead of spending money to try and kill it.


    Of all the things the government wastes their time on, this is not a small-time issue.

    JamesKeenan on
  • jerice50jerice50 Registered User
    edited March 2009
    i think its very well proven that people don't always take the most rational action in any given circumstance.

    But why should the government police EVERYone's actions for the fault of the few who are weak?
    Most people do not over-drink - I submit that most people would not over-indulge.

    jerice50 on
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Easily one of the most irritating things about the issue is the level of triviality those in power treat it with when addressed with an opposing view, but how seriously they treat it when continuing on with taking bullshit action against it.

    Guy A: *Reasonable, well sourced argument showing both significance of the issue and why it would be a positive course of action*.
    Guy B: "*Patronizing tone while ignoring the argument completely".
    Guy A: "..."

    TubularLuggage on
  • archonwarparchonwarp Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Easily one of the most irritating things about the issue is the level of triviality those in power treat it with when addressed with an opposing view, but how seriously they treat it when continuing on with taking bullshit action against it.

    Guy A: *Reasonable, well sourced argument showing both significance of the issue and why it would be a positive course of action*.
    Guy B: "*Patronizing tone while ignoring the argument completely".
    Guy A: "..."

    It's pretty much a big circle-jerk spawned out of racism and classist bullshit.

    archonwarp on
    873342-1.png
  • DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    It's not that he doesn't have time to deal with the issue, it's that he would get absolutely fucked in an election were he to even hint at legalizing it.

    There is no way for him to even suggest legalization without pissing off a very, very large amount of voters.

    It's a political reality. Not everyone is as liberal as you, and Obama needs those votes, a lot of which he would immediately alienate by talking about legalization.

    So while you can argue that legalization isn't unimportant, you could say that there are more important things for Obama to spend political capital on. And he would spend a lot of it just mentioning legalization.

    Also deep down I think he knows how annoying all the "of course the first black president was the one to legalize weed" jokes on late night shows would be. He's doing us a favour, really.

    Duki on
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I'd like to think, as a constitutional lawyer, Obama would be fairly well-read and, even if fairly conservative, understand the benefits of legalization for the economy...and also understand that those benefits would be long-term, and I'm guessing require a pretty large initial investment and arduous planning process. So from an economic standpoint, it's not something to be considered given the debt the US is already in.

    That, and it's too toxic to support among a large segment of the population who are just generally shocked by the idea of narcotics, never mind allowing use into the realm of acceptable behaviour.

    Anyway, I will optimistically blame PR coaching for today's belittling response to a reasonable question.:lol:

    edit: beat'd by Duki, and I like how he said it better.

    Torso Boy on
    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    I think the whole "DEA won't be used to override states' decisions on the matter" thing used up as much political capitol as fit into the budget for weed.

    ViolentChemistry on
    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I think the whole "DEA won't be used to override states' decisions on the matter" thing used up as much political capitol as fit into the budget for weed.

    Well he already went back on that promise.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BA5B16N9LR.DTL

    I guess after 7 days he'd figure the potheads would forget?

    KevinNash on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    I think the whole "DEA won't be used to override states' decisions on the matter" thing used up as much political capitol as fit into the budget for weed.

    Well he already went back on that promise.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BA5B16N9LR.DTL

    I guess after 7 days he'd figure the potheads would forget?

    Except the article indicates that this was done because of some kind of tax related issue, not the marijuana.

    YodaTuna on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    I think the whole "DEA won't be used to override states' decisions on the matter" thing used up as much political capitol as fit into the budget for weed.

    Well he already went back on that promise.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BA5B16N9LR.DTL

    I guess after 7 days he'd figure the potheads would forget?

    Except the article indicates that this was done because of some kind of tax related issue, not the marijuana.

    Which is ridiculous. If that's the case just bust them for tax evasion. You don't need the DEA to raid the whole operation to do that.

    KevinNash on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    I think the whole "DEA won't be used to override states' decisions on the matter" thing used up as much political capitol as fit into the budget for weed.

    Well he already went back on that promise.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BA5B16N9LR.DTL

    I guess after 7 days he'd figure the potheads would forget?

    Except the article indicates that this was done because of some kind of tax related issue, not the marijuana.

    Which is ridiculous. If that's the case just bust them for tax evasion. You don't need the DEA to raid the whole operation to do that.

    I'm not going to say it's not a cover for getting at the marijuana. But on the chance there are shenanigans going down at this place, tax evasion or illegal distribution or something, the DEA is probably the law enforcement agency who best equiped to deal with the situation. Wait for the trial, see what the charges are and if they are not legit and it's a federal charge and then Eric Holder does nothing, then when I think we can reasonably say Obama broke his promise.

    YodaTuna on
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    KevinNash wrote: »
    I think the whole "DEA won't be used to override states' decisions on the matter" thing used up as much political capitol as fit into the budget for weed.

    Well he already went back on that promise.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BA5B16N9LR.DTL

    I guess after 7 days he'd figure the potheads would forget?

    Except the article indicates that this was done because of some kind of tax related issue, not the marijuana.

    Which is ridiculous. If that's the case just bust them for tax evasion. You don't need the DEA to raid the whole operation to do that.

    I'm not going to say it's not a cover for getting at the marijuana. But on the chance there are shenanigans going down at this place, tax evasion or illegal distribution or something, the DEA is probably the law enforcement agency who best equiped to deal with the situation. Wait for the trial, see what the charges are and if they are not legit and it's a federal charge and then Eric Holder does nothing, then when I think we can reasonably say Obama broke his promise.

    I don't doubt these guys aren't breaking other rules, but sending the DEA is heavy handed. Practical? Surely. Not exactly honorable.

    If people are evading paying their taxes then send the IRS, don't go raid the place with the DEA after you said you wouldn't.

    Of course the law as written let's him do whatever the fuck he wants. But he won't change that either which is another part of the problem.

    KevinNash on
  • FeralFeral That's what I do. I drink, and I know things. Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I seriously doubt any medical marijuana dispensary is keeping adequate tax records.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Duki wrote: »
    It's not that he doesn't have time to deal with the issue, it's that he would get absolutely fucked in an election were he to even hint at legalizing it.

    There is no way for him to even suggest legalization without pissing off a very, very large amount of voters.

    It's a political reality. Not everyone is as liberal as you, and Obama needs those votes, a lot of which he would immediately alienate by talking about legalization.

    So while you can argue that legalization isn't unimportant, you could say that there are more important things for Obama to spend political capital on. And he would spend a lot of it just mentioning legalization.

    Yes, yes... this is true.


    Duki wrote: »
    Also deep down I think he knows how annoying all the "of course the first black president was the one to legalize weed" jokes on late night shows would be.

    Shit... you're right. Oh god, we'd never hear the end of it. EVER.


    Feral wrote: »
    I seriously doubt any medical marijuana dispensary is keeping adequate tax records.

    Al Capwned.







    I see a future for "Creative Director" positions at the DEA. Because, y'know, we'll need some really good reasons to continue operations as norml.

    JamesKeenan on
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Further reinforcement that Obama is not in support of a plan to legalize and tax marijuana.

    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/03/27/obama_town_hall/
    Salon wrote:
    March 27, 2009 | WASHINGTON -- As President Obama walked to the East Room of the White House Thursday morning for what was billed as an "experimental" online town hall meeting, aides passed him a message. The 3.6 million votes cast on the 104,000 questions people had submitted on the government's site had yielded a bit of a surprise: The most popular questions in several categories (including "financial stability" and, predictably enough, "green jobs") asked not about the economic collapse or about healthcare, but about legalizing marijuana. But don't worry, the president was told, the event's moderator, administration economist Jared Bernstein, wouldn't be asking any of them.

    That apparently didn't strike Obama as being quite as wise as it did the aides in charge of selecting the otherwise on-message questions he took at the event. So midway through, he ventured off the script. "I have to say that there was one question that was voted on that ranked fairly high and that was whether legalizing marijuana would improve the economy and job creation," Obama said, as Bernstein laughed over in the corner of the room. "And I don't know what this says about the online audience, but I just want -- I don't want people to think that -- this was a fairly popular question; we want to make sure that it was answered. The answer is, no, I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy." Blowing the question off with a joke probably irritated legalization activists more than ignoring their organized campaign would have, but it did mean the town hall was assured of at least one groundbreaking moment: For the first time ever, the president of the United States called his own supporters a bunch of stoners.

    The rest of the morning may have sounded familiar to anyone who watched Obama's mostly news-free news conference Tuesday night or, indeed, to anyone who's watched any of his public appearances since taking office. (Or, for that matter, before then.) Questions touched on education, the economy, the fate of small businesses, healthcare and aid for homeowners. The president explained, early on, why he wanted to try the online format: "Here in Washington, politics all too often is treated like a game. There's a lot of point scoring, a lot of talk about who's up and who's down, a lot of time and energy spent on whether the president is winning or losing on this particular day or this particular hour," he said. "But this isn't about me. It's about you." The town hall -- like the press conference -- was a chance for Obama to talk directly to the public, without the cable news scorekeepers. And it was also an attempt to duplicate the success his campaign found last year by making people feel like they were part of a movement. White House aides said 67,000 people watched the video stream they set up, which isn't bad for the middle of a workday, and nearly 29,000 people had submitted questions as of two hours before the town hall, when aides cut off questions.

    On the whole, it was a clever piece of stagecraft by the White House. Aides surrounded Obama with people in the East Room, mostly nurses and teachers from the D.C. area, and turned the question-and-answer session over to the live audience toward the end of the event, which made for better TV than just sticking the president in a room with a laptop. By opening up the questions to the public, aides could claim to be delivering on the transparency Obama promised; by selecting the questions themselves, the administration could ensure that Obama stayed on message. Naturally, the White House emphasized the openness. "In the campaign, you did sort of tend to attract supporters, and here, now that we've opened it up really to anyone to participate, we're seeing some challenging perspectives," Macon Phillips, the White House new media director, told Salon in an interview.

    That was true -- up to a point. GOP online strategist Patrick Ruffini had combed through the questions Wednesday, trying to organize Republicans to vote for the ones that might put Obama on the spot. (His effort was unable to dislodge the marijuana questions from the top ranks, which may be the worst sign yet for Republican hopes of a comeback in 2010.) But the questions aides actually selected for Bernstein to read, or to introduce video clips of voters asking on their own, weren't exactly aggressive. "Thank you so much for all your hard work," a video question from a Georgia woman ended. "God bless you."

    Obama was clearly in his element throughout the event. The president's style at town halls means they frequently seem to bring him back to his days as a law professor, unpacking complex issues in long, detailed answers. He delved into his policies with enough specificity that he had time for only 12 questions -- or 13, counting the pot one he asked himself -- during the hour-plus event. Obama likes to say, in pitching his proposals, that the problems facing America will take complicated, long-term, interconnected solutions. If you didn't already believe he truly felt that way, you might have changed your mind after hearing him take a question on outsourced jobs and, in the course of answering it, give a mini-discourse on the virtues of a solar-powered energy grid. Or explaining, after starting to say he didn't want to go into it, the World War II-era origins of the employer-provided healthcare system he's now trying to fix. His answers showed a savvy about politics, as well as about policy. A question on healthcare, asking why the U.S. didn't move to a European nationalized insurance system, let Obama position his call for universal care as the centrist alternative to some more elaborate Canada-inspired option -- even though there's no chance of passing a reform that sweeping.
    Quantcast

    And the notion of a virtual town hall must have appealed to the former community organizer in him. "It will take all of us talking with one another, all of us sharing ideas, all of us working together to see our country through this difficult time and bring about that better day," Obama said. He closed with an exhortation to stay involved. "Thanks for paying attention," he told viewers. "And we need you guys to keep paying attention in the months and years to come."

    Expect the online town hall to return in the near future. Getting the technical end of things up to speed may be the main impediment. "We have a host of new challenges around deploying technology like this," said Phillips, acknowledging that the government's computer systems aren't anywhere near the standards the campaign got used to last year. "I don't think you're going to see the next [new] thing every two weeks." But very few presidents could resist the chance to beam themselves, and their message, directly to voters, in a way that makes the public feel like a part of the governing process. It may be high-tech, but in the end, online town halls are just a new twist on old-fashioned politics.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I was scared for a second that there was another article on the issue. But no, same one as before.

    JamesKeenan on
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Oh blah, the article was published today. Thought I was safe having not read previous pages.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Oh blah, the article was published today. Thought I was safe having not read previous pages.

    Not really a big deal.

    I'm mostly just irritated at the issue.

    JamesKeenan on
  • CoinageCoinage Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I think his response was appropriate. It was the #2 question under "Health Care Reform", the #1 and #2 questions under "Green Jobs and Energy", the #1 - #4 questions under "Financial Stability", the #1 and #3 questions under "Jobs", and #1 - #7 under "Budget". How does that not merit a laugh? Do these people sincerely believe legalization is the most important issue regarding the budget, jobs, financial stability, and green jobs/energy?

    Coinage on
    Ut7pHab.jpg
  • TL DRTL DR On this, reasonable people can disagreeRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Coinage wrote: »
    I think his response was appropriate. It was the #2 question under "Health Care Reform", the #1 and #2 questions under "Green Jobs and Energy", the #1 - #4 questions under "Financial Stability", the #1 and #3 questions under "Jobs", and #1 - #7 under "Budget". How does that not merit a laugh? Do these people sincerely believe legalization is the most important issue regarding the budget, jobs, financial stability, and green jobs/energy?

    It is sort of an elephant in the room. Cutting back on the cognitive dissonance would be a good thing in all categories.

    TL DR on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I would argue that marijuana is absolutely relevant to all those areas. That marijuana-related solutions are applicable.

    I mean, christ, of course it may not the best solution to any single one of them, but it's definitely one. And the very rational reason for those questions to make it to the top is the fact of the laws.

    No one with half a wit thinks marijuana is the most important issue. Fewer, however, I think, really consider how important it is. It is so much more important than college kids being able to get stoned. Not more important than the economy, war, poverty. But certainly more important than just Joe Blow's ability to get high legally.

    Marijuana's illegality is so goddamn irrational, it should come as absolutely no surprise whatsoever than in any political discussion where the population at large are allowed in, the importance of the issue will be exacerbated. Marijuana absolutely has applications to all those areas, and it should be illegal in the first place, and its illegality is causing far more harm than the drug itself could at all.



    So I am not surprised or amused at all by the prevalence of the topic of marijuana in the user-submitted questions, or by the government's response to the issue, respectively.

    JamesKeenan on
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Coinage wrote: »
    I think his response was appropriate. It was the #2 question under "Health Care Reform", the #1 and #2 questions under "Green Jobs and Energy", the #1 - #4 questions under "Financial Stability", the #1 and #3 questions under "Jobs", and #1 - #7 under "Budget". How does that not merit a laugh? Do these people sincerely believe legalization is the most important issue regarding the budget, jobs, financial stability, and green jobs/energy?

    I think it's a bit unnerving that the reaction is basically "Oh, those silly citizens who elected me. Their concerns are so stupid".

    Not to mention, even if it isn't the absolute most important issue, it IS a pretty important one, and would have a positive impact on many things. Also, fun fact; the government can work on more than one thing at once.

    TubularLuggage on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Also, fun fact; the government can work on more than one thing at once.

    You lie, sir!

    Pistols at dawn!

    JamesKeenan on
  • CristoCristo Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Without having read the past 11 or so pages of this thread, I'm going to go right ahead and dive in and give my 2 cents worth so if any of my arguements are ones that have been made and torn apart you have my advanced apologies.

    I'm all for this. It's a great idea. Why? Because this way the Government earns money of it, rather than seedy immigrant gangs. Legalising it would mean that the Government would be able to tax the establishments that handle it. Preferably the, erm, so called "grow houses" would have to be run by the government as well hiring professional botanists to oversee the growth which would then mean that the weed and heroin and coke and whatnot wouldn't be laced with rat poison and fibre glass shards and whatever they put in it these days.
    Not only would the government be earning money off it, they'd be putting gangsters out of business and a bonus would be that the end product would be slightly "better" (I used the word loosely) for the consumer. Obviously there would have to be laws put into place like they have in The Netherlands where you're only allowed to smoke pot in Coffee Houses or your private property and not in public, which is fair enough. The prices would have be set relatively low as well to out-compete the gangs, but that's a small price to pay.

    A lot of people talk about the moral issues and whatnot, but I think that's a crock of shit. Just because Heroin, Cocaine and Weed is legalised doesn't mean I'm going to say "SHIT! IT'S LEGAL NOW? WELL NOW I HAVE TO DO IT!". I don't do any of those drugs in the first place, so just because it's all of a sudden legalised doesn't mean I'm going to go out and become a junkie. It's like with cigarettes.
    Sensible people aren't going to magically turn into junkies just because of the legal status of the drug. Although I'd argue against the legalisation of cocaine since that generally just makes people really violent and could lead to adverse affects on other people, like a bashed in head. Weed doesn't really do that, or heroin.
    Plus it would help cut down drug related crime, if the Government set the prices low enough smack addicts etc wouldn't have to go around attacking people or breaking into houses and so on.

    I can honeslty only see the benefits of it.

    The same goes for the legalisation of prostitution. Legalising it, like in the netherlands, would give the prostitutes status as labourers and therefore give the government the ability to tax them and the brothels. And at the same time, they could implement laws (like in NL) where the prostitutes have to go in for a monthly health check-up to ensure they don't have any STDs which means a better quality of life for the prostitute and a safer general public. Again, legalising it won't make much difference in how many visits they get. A guy is going to go to a hooker legal or not, so again like the drugs it wouldn't degrade the moral of society that much more than it already is.

    Edit: N.B.: In Switzerland doctors are able to prescribe heroin to heroin addicts fyi. Oh and in Denmark (specifically Copenhagen) we're working on a new project called "Fixer Rooms" - basically small rooms dotted throughout the city run by capable medical personnel that provide a safe, clean, comfortable environment in which addicts are able to shoot up and get their fix. Clean needles are provided but I'm quite sure that the addicts have to bring their own smack.

    Cristo on
    Unlucky wrote: »
    So, after having read all of his stuff, Pony's officially my hero now. I wish I could be that callous towards humanity.
  • TalleyrandTalleyrand Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Cristo wrote: »
    The same goes for the legalisation of prostitution. Legalising it, like in the netherlands, would give the prostitutes status as labourers and therefore give the government the ability to tax them and the brothels. And at the same time, they could implement laws (like in NL) where the prostitutes have to go in for a monthly health check-up to ensure they don't have any STDs which means a better quality of life for the prostitute and a safer general public. Again, legalising it won't make much difference in how many visits they get. A guy is going to go to a hooker legal or not, so again like the drugs it wouldn't degrade the moral of society that much more than it already is.

    You forgot to mention that they would also no longer be a favorite target for serial killers considering they would now get police protection as just more law abiding citizens.

    Unfortunately that would probably mean that homeless people would just take their place....yeah, none of this is really relevant.

    Anyways, the Swedish Heroine Experiment that someone posted a few pages back really seemed like the final conclusion to this argument. Of course I googled it and came up with nothing but people ripping on it, and not always because "drugs r bad durrrr" but because of how unscientific it was. Apparently they spent 5 times as much money on social programs for the subjects than usual. In the end the study could just be proving the effectiveness of said social programs rather than the one that specifically gives them dope.

    Talleyrand on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    I kinda wonder what this would do to Mexico, Columbia, Afganistan, et al. The various drug cartels hold a lot of political power and they aren't really great people. Is the idea that they will somehow go legitimate and sunlight will take care of the rest. Weed could be produced domestically, but coca plants and opium poppies are a little more particular. I don't think we can produce thee stuff entirely synthetically. I don't think foreign companies competing with drug cartels and tribal warlords who just lost all of their income are going to receive a terribly warm welcome(well, unless you count firebombs as terribly warm).

    Surely there would be some sort of restriction on from whom the drugs can come, but if we are going to be forced to deal with these countries, that might get a little murky. If that's not an issue, and if the taxes are low enough to avoid creating too much of a black market, then there are some pretty serious positive externalities for going ahead with it.

    There's a lot of arguments that could convince the members of the right that this is in everyone's best interest. The lawlessness in Mexico is due in large part to our drug policies, and definitely has implications for economic development and emigration. A more stable and successful Mexico will do more to address border security and illegal immigration than a million miles of chain link fence. Drugs fund terrorism; less money for terrorists and great for global security. It will take money out of the Taliban's pocket and help stabilize afganistan, which will save the lives of american service men and dollars of american tax payers.



    The Swedish Heroine Experiment has some very encouraging numbers, but a lot of flaws. Something larger, more controlled, and actually taking place in american society would be nice to see. It's not likely of course, because we are retarded, but it would be nice.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
  • FeralFeral That's what I do. I drink, and I know things. Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Coinage wrote: »
    I think his response was appropriate. It was the #2 question under "Health Care Reform", the #1 and #2 questions under "Green Jobs and Energy", the #1 - #4 questions under "Financial Stability", the #1 and #3 questions under "Jobs", and #1 - #7 under "Budget". How does that not merit a laugh? Do these people sincerely believe legalization is the most important issue regarding the budget, jobs, financial stability, and green jobs/energy?

    I think it's a bit unnerving that the reaction is basically "Oh, those silly citizens who elected me. Their concerns are so stupid".

    I think that's what bothers me most.

    I far more appropriate response would have been "I understand why marijuana legalization is so important to people, but now is not the right time" or "we do not believe that the positive effects outweigh the negative" or something like that.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • TalleyrandTalleyrand Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Obama seems to be the guy who's willing to talk about all sides of any issue like a mature and honest adult. He acts like he wants to solve the problem and not just win the argument. Which makes it a hundred times more annoying when his response to legalization is continuously and simply "No."

    It stings with that old "cause I'm in charge and I said so" kind of authority. An explanation for why he feels that way would be nice.

    Talleyrand on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • archonwarparchonwarp Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Talleyrand wrote: »
    Obama seems to be the guy who's willing to talk about all sides of any issue like a mature and honest adult. He acts like he wants to solve the problem and not just win the argument. Which makes it a hundred times more annoying when his response to legalization is continuously and simply "No."

    It stings with that old "cause I'm in charge and I said so" kind of authority. An explanation for why he feels that way would be nice.

    I think that's a pretty good way to put it. I'm chiming in with the general belief of nothing serious about it until his second term (it's political suicide in some senses), especially because of the "lol black president legalizes weed how stereotypical and we should joke about it for fifteen years on talk shows!" thing.

    archonwarp on
    873342-1.png
  • KevinNashKevinNash Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    archonwarp wrote: »
    Talleyrand wrote: »
    Obama seems to be the guy who's willing to talk about all sides of any issue like a mature and honest adult. He acts like he wants to solve the problem and not just win the argument. Which makes it a hundred times more annoying when his response to legalization is continuously and simply "No."

    It stings with that old "cause I'm in charge and I said so" kind of authority. An explanation for why he feels that way would be nice.

    I think that's a pretty good way to put it. I'm chiming in with the general belief of nothing serious about it until his second term (it's political suicide in some senses), especially because of the "lol black president legalizes weed how stereotypical and we should joke about it for fifteen years on talk shows!" thing.

    I like to blast Obama for being just another puppet of the status quo on this issue and others; escalating in Afghanistan, not significantly changing our foreign policy in any way, continuing the Wall Street bailouts, or raids on medical marijuana clinics, or escalating the drug war in general.

    Despite all that I do concede that coming out and saying he wants to legalize pot is political suicide.

    If however the does make a second term I will consider it a major disappointment if he doesn't seriously reform our federal drug laws, at least in regards to pot. This modern prohibition is a farce and it's a much bigger issue than just letting college students get high. It's about saving an enormous amount of money and resources and it's about not ruining people's lives with a record before they even get into the workforce.

    KevinNash on
  • TL DRTL DR On this, reasonable people can disagreeRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    KevinNash wrote: »
    archonwarp wrote: »
    Talleyrand wrote: »
    Obama seems to be the guy who's willing to talk about all sides of any issue like a mature and honest adult. He acts like he wants to solve the problem and not just win the argument. Which makes it a hundred times more annoying when his response to legalization is continuously and simply "No."

    It stings with that old "cause I'm in charge and I said so" kind of authority. An explanation for why he feels that way would be nice.

    I think that's a pretty good way to put it. I'm chiming in with the general belief of nothing serious about it until his second term (it's political suicide in some senses), especially because of the "lol black president legalizes weed how stereotypical and we should joke about it for fifteen years on talk shows!" thing.

    I like to blast Obama for being just another puppet of the status quo on this issue and others; escalating in Afghanistan, not significantly changing our foreign policy in any way, continuing the Wall Street bailouts, or raids on medical marijuana clinics, or escalating the drug war in general.

    Despite all that I do concede that coming out and saying he wants to legalize pot is political suicide.

    If however the does make a second term I will consider it a major disappointment if he doesn't seriously reform our federal drug laws, at least in regards to pot. This modern prohibition is a farce and it's a much bigger issue than just letting college students get high. It's about saving an enormous amount of money and resources and it's about not ruining people's lives with a record before they even get into the workforce.

    I think that Afghanistan needed more military action, and Obama never said that he would do anything but that. There is a video on Youtube of him saying that the drug war has been a total failure, and that he is in favor of decriminalization but not legalization of pot. The people who have pointed out that the first black president legalizing weed would be a spectacle were correct.

    I would be satisfied if they
    -Legalized weed. It could be subject to the same restrictions as alcohol, still considered as aggravating circumstances in other crimes, etc etc.
    -Automatically seal all nonviolent, non-dishonest offenses from non-governmental background checks. Someone who got caught with a bag of cocaine when he was in college should not be discriminated against after graduating if he has stayed out of trouble. If he's an addict, he can still get treatment and work after passing a drug test or whatever other hiring process. If he's stealing to support the addiction, then it becomes relevant to the employer.

    TL DR on
  • FeralFeral That's what I do. I drink, and I know things. Registered User regular
    edited March 2009
    California's Prop 36 and DEJ (I think that stands for Deferred Entry of Justice but don't take my word for it) programs have the right idea.

    If you are caught in a nonviolent crime and you have drugs on your person or in your system, you can go through a very intense, court-mandated, long-term addiction recovery program. As long as you are complying with the program to your judge's satisfaction, and once you successfully complete the program, your criminal record related to the offense are sealed. Only law enforcement can access them - they do not show up on pre-employment background checks.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    California's Prop 36 and DEJ (I think that stands for Deferred Entry of Justice but don't take my word for it) programs have the right idea.

    If you are caught in a nonviolent crime and you have drugs on your person or in your system, you can go through a very intense, court-mandated, long-term addiction recovery program. As long as you are complying with the program to your judge's satisfaction, and once you successfully complete the program, your criminal record related to the offense are sealed. Only law enforcement can access them - they do not show up on pre-employment background checks.

    Does this include dealing?

    Res on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • TL DRTL DR On this, reasonable people can disagreeRegistered User regular
    edited March 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    California's Prop 36 and DEJ (I think that stands for Deferred Entry of Justice but don't take my word for it) programs have the right idea.

    If you are caught in a nonviolent crime and you have drugs on your person or in your system, you can go through a very intense, court-mandated, long-term addiction recovery program. As long as you are complying with the program to your judge's satisfaction, and once you successfully complete the program, your criminal record related to the offense are sealed. Only law enforcement can access them - they do not show up on pre-employment background checks.

    I assume it's up to the judge whether to grant such an option? For instance, I doubt it would be available on a trafficking charge, right?

    edit: god dammit Res

    TL DR on
  • ResRes __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2009
    That is just the kind of thing a court would do irt drug offenses, though.

    You were caught selling your ritalin. I am hereby ordering you to seek treatment for your addiction to this dangerous narcotic.

    Res on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • TommattTommatt Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Res wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    California's Prop 36 and DEJ (I think that stands for Deferred Entry of Justice but don't take my word for it) programs have the right idea.

    If you are caught in a nonviolent crime and you have drugs on your person or in your system, you can go through a very intense, court-mandated, long-term addiction recovery program. As long as you are complying with the program to your judge's satisfaction, and once you successfully complete the program, your criminal record related to the offense are sealed. Only law enforcement can access them - they do not show up on pre-employment background checks.

    Does this include dealing?

    The only problem with all of this, and all the laws that are getting more and more laxed, are they do nothing for a persons employer. Even if your state has decriminalized marijuana, your are still subject to random piss tests, piss tests to accept employment, and if you get hurt at work or fuck up, guess what, piss tests! (I like commas) This would be perfectly acceptable to me if it detected if you were high. Instead you went camping 3 weeks ago with some old highschool buddies and smoked a join. OH NOZ! You were high when when you got hurt at work. But the guy whos still high on meth passes his piss test (I know, an exageration, but it stays in your body for so long and the tests are bullshit)

    Especially in the times we live in, marijuana should be legalized. It was made illegal due to racist propaganda. When it was first illegal, you could still purchase it legally at places white people went to, because it had a different name. Marijuana makes white women want to fuck blacks and mexicans, this is why it was made illegal.

    Instead we push precription medications down peoples throats, prescribe them for everything. Highly addictive, highly abusable, easy to mix something that can be fatal, or we find out it was dangerous from the get go 5 years later. I hate prescription drugs, vicadon, oxycodin, this is what kids are getting hooked on. My brother was addicted to painkillers and anti depressants for years. He passed away recently of an adverse reaction with alcahol and an overdose. Lungs shut down. He had survived so much shit from his addiction. Mother fucker was basically in a coma in a hospital, and somehow put another 20 pills in him. Even after rehab, doctors would still prescribe him shit, stronger shit, tell him it was non narcotic. Fuckers had him convinced methodone was safe. Doctors don't care, their invested in the stock. Yet marijuana is illegal. Which would bring tax revunue in, help unbankrupt california, and increase tourism.

    Yet its totally ok to take 5 different types of pills a day to "get high", wait, I mean, deal with shit. Its legal, a doctor prescribed. Oh, and try to stop taking it see how you like the withdraws. The whole world is fucking retarded sometimes.

    *edit* I just kinda rambled here. My brother passed less than 2 months ago, and my mind just wandered. We all thought he was finally clean and happy too. He was bored when he wasn't high. Weed gave him anxiety attacks and he used his pills. And doctors kept prescribing them to him, knowing he was an addict some of the times. I suffer from migraine headaches, get about one a week or so. I've been prescribed vidocin, imitrex, and some daily shit. I have lower back pain occasionaly, my brother and my mom have both had surgery, and have been prescribed pain killers for that too. I will not touch the fucking things. If I get a headache, I smoke a little weed. Gone. Back pain? Gone. No addiction, besides me wanting to get high. Sometimes its boredom, sometimes its to have an altered state of mind during things like funny movies, other times I self medicate. The fucked up thing? I could go to work, with a migraine, and pop pills and nobody would say a thing. But if I get piss tested for smoking for a migraine I had 2 weeks ago, well, there goes my life. I rambled again. Sorry.

    Tommatt on
    My Bands FB Page
    111813113553.png
    Xbox GT Tommatt
  • cherv1cherv1 Registered User
    edited April 2009
    All these reasons given which focus on the history of marijuana in America and why it is illegal, i.e. racism against mexicans or some thing about hemp threatening someone's cotton monopoly never seem to pick up on the fact that these only apply to America and yet weed is illegal around the world.

    cherv1 on
  • TommattTommatt Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    cherv1 wrote: »
    All these reasons given which focus on the history of marijuana in America and why it is illegal, i.e. racism against mexicans or some thing about hemp threatening someone's cotton monopoly never seem to pick up on the fact that these only apply to America and yet weed is illegal around the world.

    Yet how many things that america does does other countries follow? We are a very impacting nation on the rest of the world. Hell, look at the worlds economy. America is in a recession/depression/whatever, and at the same time, the rest of the world takes a similar economic turn. We have influence around the world. And even in other countries where its illegal, its not looked at the same. The biggest difference I can think of, is how strict they enforce their anti drug laws, and piss tests for employment. If America legalized marijuana, I'm sure a number of other countries follow. Hell, most states in the US hate calfornia, because we pass a law, and other states follow. There really is no reason for it to be illegal. If you've ever used it, I'm sure you would agree. If you havn't, good for you, and most people I know that havvn't used it, still think its stupid its illegal.

    Well, not so much illegal, but the fact that doing it can cost you your life. Zero tolerance n high schools. Get caught using, no financial aid for college. Smoke out after work or on weekend to relax, no job for you. But you can be a functional alcaholic, and still be accepted by society. Alcahol makes people more agressive, more likel to get in a fight, do aggressive things. But weed is taboo. And to relax after a hard days work by smoking a joint? You are a failure to society.

    I dunno, the fact that elementry school kids are using heroin, err I mean cheese, and high school kids are having all these pill parties, where they pop whatever. Who cares about drug interaction, and the fact alot of pills mixed with alcahol shut down your respitory system, theres so many dangerous things out there that nobody cares about. They're not taboo. Yet weed? I know when I have kids, I will be happy to hear that he got into trouble for smoking weed. Much better than finding out hes taking vicadon, oxycodine, cheese, whatever. And I know these pills are supposed to be controlled, but how many of you have them in your medicince cabinent? All the times you've been prescirbed painkilers, did you really need them? I know I"ve been prescribed alot of painkillers, with refills, and really, t wasn't necesary.

    Tommatt on
    My Bands FB Page
    111813113553.png
    Xbox GT Tommatt
Sign In or Register to comment.