It's been a long time coming. I suspect that once Cali passes it, Massachusetts won't be long or far behind it. In a few decades, it'll be uniformly decriminalized.
Legalized pot
Comments?
I've been in support of this for quite some time. Legalizing things like pot is a great way to bring in surplus for states. Plus, it brings us one step closer to ending this useless War on Drugs.
It should never have been criminalized in the first place.
I think we all agree on something... this has never happened before.
*Throws a big parade*
ABF hasn't made an appearance yet, though. He's certain to be a stick in the mud, as usual.
He can't be a stick in the mud if he can't get in!
*Sets up a perimeter road blockade, and well-garrisoned machine gun nests. 60 Goron G1 Tanks patrol the streets.*
(Smokes a cigar) I'd like to see him get through now.
Stop the presses! I agree with Darunia!
Industrialized hemp products would help California financially, Of course the legalization of Mary Jane could work.
Everyone that lights up a dubey in California will have a statue erected in their honor. Seriously: California's budget is in the shitter. Even our national debt is saying, "Damn! You people need to get on the stick!"
To be honest, I have a small amount of marijuana sitting in my cabinet for the day when I can smoke it again. I haven't been able to touch it in two months now, and can't allow myself to smoke it before I have a job where I'm sure I'm in the clear regarding a screen.
Once more states pick this up, it'll snowball. A lot of conservative states will still keep it illegal or decriminalized, but I'm sure you'll see plenty of northern states adopting a tax and regulate policy. The states that have medical marijuana legalized now will likely be the ones to legalize recreational usage first (California is obviously leading that front).
It will still be recognized as illegal under federal law for a long time, I'm sure, but eventually the priority of heavy trafficking busts, seizing and destroying crops, etc. will become low enough that it won't matter. I'm eager to see how Canadian policy towards the issue changes as well.
I'm also eager to see how states becoming more lax towards pot will clash with the agenda of the ONDCP. They'll still put out PSAs for keeping kids off pot (no reasonable person can argue that anyone under 18 or 21 should be using drugs), of course, but it'll be nice to see them back pedal or focus their attention on drugs that are worthy of being criminalized: crystal meth, crack cocaine, heroin...
I've never done weed myself, but from what I know, alcohol is way worse. I support legalizing it, taxing it, and putting the same regulations on it that are on alcohol (the age restriction, not driving while high, etc.)
Having done both, I can tell you that alcohol, when taken in a great amount, i.e. drunk, is worse. And, it rots your liver, unlike pot.
Alcohol is definitely more damaging to both personal health and public safety.
That said, both should be legal.
My opinions on this indeed haven't changed, saying "it's not much worse than tobacco" isn't exactly something to be proud of...
Quote:It will still be recognized as illegal under federal law for a long time, I'm sure,
That's bullshit. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to regulate pot.
A Black Falcon Wrote:My opinions on this indeed haven't changed, saying "it's not much worse than tobacco" isn't exactly something to be proud of...
It's not even true. Tobacco is considerably less healthy than marijuana thanks to the seven thousand or so additives. Natural, unadulterated pot is probably safer than most processed foods.
Marijuana safer? In some ways yes, in other ways no.
My stance on personal freedom basically makes the point moot. One person should be able to decide whether or not I indulge in a toke or two, and that one person is me. If you're not me, then it isn't your business.
Marijuana may affect the mind more than tobacco, but tobacco is certainly far more damaging to one's physical health. I've never heard of pot killing anyone. I've known potheads who've done harmful things to themselves, but even this is rare. Tobacco, on the other hand, while having little effect on a person's mental health, is very detrimental to one's physical health.
Geno Wrote:Marijuana may affect the mind more than tobacco, but tobacco is certainly far more damaging to one's physical health. I've never heard of pot killing anyone. I've known potheads who've done harmful things to themselves, but even this is rare. Tobacco, on the other hand, while having little effect on a person's mental health, is very detrimental to one's physical health.
I have a great aunt who had half her lung removed from cancer, She is still fucking smoking and no matter how many times she's tried to quit she always ends up relapsing back into it.
^I assume you mean she's smoking tobacco cigarettes? Yeah, they do that.
Geno Wrote:^I assume you mean she's smoking tobacco cigarettes? Yeah, they do that.
yep
Weltall Wrote:My stance on personal freedom basically makes the point moot. One person should be able to decide whether or not I indulge in a toke or two, and that one person is me. If you're not me, then it isn't your business.
No point in me saying anything more.
Unreadphilosophy Wrote:That's bullshit. The Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to regulate pot.
"Regulation" can also mean legalizing its recreational use in controlled conditions, but I digress. The Constitution doesn't have to outline what drugs should be illegal and when and why and how. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 already does it.
I'm not sure I even see your point. Drug policy doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution, unless you twist it into a context of free speech or the 4th amendment.
In any case, my point was more that this sort of thing has to happen at a state level before the executive or legislative branches will even acknowledge it. I mean, marijuana policy reform has been one of the top questions voted for in the online polls that Obama's administration has conducted, and they've always been laughed off or ignored. I'm not saying I'm surprised by the White House's reaction, nor am I saying that I consider marijuana policy to be anywhere near top priority; it's more that any change of course towards drug policy would be political suicide for any ambitious politician to seriously endorse (unless its a variation between treatment and rehabilitation vs. harsh jail sentences).
Alright, some congressmen have supported regulation and taxation, such as Barney Frank, but the topic is far too controversial to decide anything on the federal level at this point. Once, say, I don't know, more than 70% of states have marijuana either decriminalized or legal, there might be some talk, but that's a far way off. State policy is all we really have to look forward to in the near future.
ABF: What's the use in wasting law enforcement resources in targetting a drug that's not worse than either alcohol or tobacco? People will grow, sell, and smoke marijuana no matter what you do. You can either waste time and money arresting people and destroying crops, or you can put it into the control of the market. This takes the money out of the hands of criminals and organized crime and allows us to have some control over it, such as age restrictions, and more easily identifying and treating addicts.
Despite the fact that drug prohibition is a failure, I could see having an idealistic view that we should at least try to combat a drug problem. But why not save our energy for more destructive drugs? Why ignore the advantages of ending marijuana prohibition? I see your point that "just because weed might not be as bad as alcohol or tobacco, doesn't mean we should legalize it", but again, if prohibition is a failure already, what's the point?
Quote: "Regulation" can also mean legalizing its recreational use in controlled conditions, but I digress. The Constitution doesn't have to outline what drugs should be illegal and when and why and how. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 already does it.
I'm not sure I even see your point. Drug policy doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution, unless you twist it into a context of free speech or the 4th amendment.
The tenth amendment to the Constitution divides the powers between the government and states. All powers not governed to the government, and not restricted to the states, will be reserved to the states. Drug regulation is not a power deemed to the government by the Constitution. That power is reserved to the states. The government has tried to regulate drugs over the last few years. One only needs to look at what's happening in Mexico to see the results.
Source:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...70218.html
Giving states the power to regulate drugs is the best way to go. Make them legal, tax them, and get a profit for your state.