Skip to main content

Marijuana.

In California we practice popular democracy through Propositions on which we vote.

In November, Prop 19 will be decided by such a popular vote. If passed, Prop 19 will essentially legalize marijuana in California.

Preliminary polls show the "Yes" vote (to legalize) ahead 49% to 42%, and growing. At this point, it looks like California will legalize pot.

Politicians are against it, you can imagine the Fraternal Order of Police's opinion.

The people, however, are for it. I am for it, also, and will vote to legalize it.

The USA has more people in prison than any country. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04...prison.12253738.html

Many of our prisoners are in for drug, and specifically marijuana, convictions. This is madness.

Are we finally growing up?

Alabama has relatively harsh laws regarding grass. Poke around here to see: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516

You can actually get life in prison in Alabama for dealing weed. Alabama does get credit for one thing, the penalty for 1 gram or 999 grams is the same.

Do you think your college-age citizens really deserve the punishments they can get in Alabama?

Look at the carnage in Mexico. A failing country has been ravaged by narcotrafficantes. All they do is supply America with drugs, mostly marijuana.

Legalize it, grow your own legally, tax retail sales of pot. Imagine pot plantations to the horizon. Put the narcotrafficantes out of business.

Keep people out of prison for weed.

It's time, don't you think?

nsns

Make time for great justice.  Expect us.

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

On this I agree.

Contrary to all the screaming, no one can prove pot use leads to harder drugs.
No one gets into a fist fight and kills someone while stoned.
No one has anorexia while stoned.
No one shoots people while stoned.
No one gets lung cancer from marijuana.

Legalize it, tax it, and the government makes a few billions.

And the world is more peaceful.
Here's another good article that I read today on the matter:

Link

quote:
(CNN) -- It's as predictable as the sun rising and setting. Even though police made more than 850,000 marijuana arrests last year, a recent government report shows youth marijuana use increased by about 9 percent.

Supporters of the failed war on drugs will no doubt argue this increase means policymakers should spend more taxpayer money next year arresting and incarcerating a greater number of Americans. In other words, their solution to failure is to do more of the same. Fortunately, the "reform nothing" club is getting mighty lonely these days -- 76 percent of Americans recognize the drug war has failed; millions are demanding change.

In the almost 40 years since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, tens of millions of Americans have been arrested and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. Yet drugs are just as available now as they were then.

It is hard to find even an elected official who hasn't used marijuana or other illegal drugs. President Obama used drugs. Former President George W. Bush made taped comments that many interpreted as indicating he did too. Then there's Bill Clinton, who famously said he smoked pot but didn't inhale. Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin admit they used drugs.

Drug use is so widespread the FBI changed its policy of not hiring people with a history of illegal drug use because the policy disqualified so many people that it could not fill its law enforcement positions.

The war on drugs hasn't just failed; it's created problems of it own. Laws restricting the availability of sterile syringes have increased the spread of AIDS and hepatitis C.

Aggressive campaigns to arrest and incarcerate drug users have increased drug-related deaths by making drug users too afraid to call 911 when a friend is overdosing. The government's misleading and over-the-top anti-drug messages have made young people mistrust other anti-drug messages from parents and adults.

Mass incarceration of drug offenders has drained state and federal resources, distracted police from dealing with violent crime, and produced a generation of children with one or both parents behind bars instead of at home.

The racial disparities are appalling. As Michelle Alexander so eloquently shows in her new book, "The New Jim Crow," a drug conviction automatically makes a person a second-class citizen who can be legally discriminated against in housing and employment, denied school loans, and barred for life from serving on juries, accessing public benefits and even voting. While African Americans make up only about 13 percent of the U.S. population and about 15 percent of drug users, they make up about 38 percent of those arrested for drug law violations and a mind-boggling 59 percent of those convicted for drug law violations.

Like Prohibition did for alcohol, drug prohibition is also enriching organized crime. Instead of regulating marijuana to control who can access it, policymakers have ceded control of the $400-billion-a-year global drug market to crime syndicates and thugs.

In Mexico, where parts of the country are like Chicago under Al Capone on steroids, 28,000 people have died since President Calderón launched a war three years ago against well-armed, well-funded drug trafficking organizations. The U.S. government doesn't report its prohibition-related deaths, but law enforcement officers, drug offenders and civilians die every day in our country's war on drugs, too.

It is long past time to abandon the silly notion that America can be a drug-free nation. The inconvenient truth in drug policy is that Americans love drugs -- alcohol, caffeine, marijuana, cocaine, and prescription drugs for everything from anxiety to fatigue. Although some people develop problems with their drug use, most do not. This holds true for both legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and illegal drugs like marijuana and cocaine. Decades of evidence shows that the average user of any drug doesn't get addicted and doesn't create problems for anyone else. Obviously, some do.

We recognize these facts when it comes to legal drugs. It's why we don't arrest the tens of millions of Americans who drink responsibly, but do arrest people who drive while drunk or get belligerent and start fights. Yet we waste tens of billions of dollars every year arresting Americans for marijuana or other drugs, even when they're not harming anyone. Then we either jam them into overcrowded jails where they take up space that could hold someone who committed a violent offense, or jam them into a treatment program where they take up limited spaces for people who really need help.

What matters most is not how many people use marijuana, alcohol or other drugs, but what's the best way to reduce the problems associated with substance misuse without creating more harmful social problems. Drug use rates rise and fall almost independently of what politicians say and do, but criminalizing drug use makes the situation worse. Prohibition doesn't stop drug use; it makes drug use more dangerous while filling prisons with nonviolent offenders and making crime lords rich. With marijuana use among young people rising despite decades of punitive drug policies, policymakers should reform U.S. drug policy. Or maybe voters will reform it for them.

In November, California voters will vote on Proposition 19, which seeks to control marijuana like alcohol, redirect police resources toward violent criminals, and end California's embarrassingly racist marijuana enforcement once and for all. Polling shows support is about 50-50.

Even if Proposition 19 loses, it will only be temporary. Support for marijuana legalization is growing, and not just in California. Legalization will happen. It's just a question of how many lives and tax dollars will be wasted before it does. Some vested interests, of course, will fight change until the bitter end. Progress has never been accepted by everyone.



I agree with him. Even if Prop 19 doesn't pass, marijuana will be legal in the near future because people finally realize the "war on drugs" was a failure from the start.
quote:


I agree with him. Even if Prop 19 doesn't pass, marijuana will be legal in the near future because people finally realize the "war on drugs" was a failure from the start.


quote:
So legalize all drugs crack, heroin, meth etc?????


Yep. It is not my business what people decide to do in the privacy of their own homes. If they want to close the doors and shades and get high for days, that's fine with me - again, as long as they're not harming anyone else. (They're not going to stop doing it anyway.)

It's funny that the majority of the "don't legalize it" crowd consists of the same group that is anti-government and doesn't want government making decisions about their lives in other ways - i.e., healthcare.

But when it comes to drugs and privacy, you want government to pass laws making private acts illegal. Funny.
Yes, Hi.

Legalize it all. Let the addicts kill themselves, just make sure they don't knock me in the head for the cash in my pocket first.

Pot is not addictive. There is no overdose level. It's a start.

As for the other stuff, imagine if an addict could just show up at the pharmacy, get his weekly fix, and take the bus home?

The War on Drugs is a war on freedom, and is a failure in every facet except that one.

It's time. Let's grow up.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
Yes, Hi.

Legalize it all. Let the addicts kill themselves, just make sure they don't knock me in the head for the cash in my pocket first.

Pot is not addictive. There is no overdose level. It's a start.

As for the other stuff, imagine if an addict could just show up at the pharmacy, get his weekly fix, and take the bus home?

The War on Drugs is a war on freedom, and is a failure in every facet except that one.

It's time. Let's grow up.


Hey BJBG,

Want to come over to my house, get high and listen to some Pink Floyd? I've got chips, dip, marshmallows, Oreos, Pop-Tarts, ice cream, and even some fruit in the fridge - if you so desire. What do ya say? Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:


I agree with him. Even if Prop 19 doesn't pass, marijuana will be legal in the near future because people finally realize the "war on drugs" was a failure from the start.


quote:
So legalize all drugs crack, heroin, meth etc?????


Yep. It is not my business what people decide to do in the privacy of their own homes. If they want to close the doors and shades and get high for days, that's fine with me - again, as long as they're not harming anyone else. (They're not going to stop doing it anyway.)

It's funny that the majority of the "don't legalize it" crowd consists of the same group that is anti-government and doesn't want government making decisions about their lives in other ways - i.e., healthcare.

But when it comes to drugs and privacy, you want government to pass laws making private acts illegal. Funny.


Yea, I am funny about wanting to stop the crime that comes from druggies. It would be great having a neighbor who is a legal meth addict. Also, how is a heroin or meth addict going to buy the drugs? Let me guess the tax payer will provide it for free and since you are a addict we will just call you disabled and send you a disability check also.
quote:
Yea, I am funny about wanting to stop the crime that comes from druggies. It would be great having a neighbor who is a legal meth addict. Also, how is a heroin or meth addict going to buy the drugs? Let me guess the tax payer will provide it for free and since you are a addict we will just call you disabled and send you a disability check also.


Prohibition doesn't work. It creates more problems than it solves. If we could accept that, we could really begin to address some greater issues.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
Yea, I am funny about wanting to stop the crime that comes from druggies. It would be great having a neighbor who is a legal meth addict. Also, how is a heroin or meth addict going to buy the drugs? Let me guess the tax payer will provide it for free and since you are a addict we will just call you disabled and send you a disability check also.


Prohibition doesn't work. It creates more problems than it solves. If we could accept that, we could really begin to address some greater issues.


Then answer the question regarding who is going to pay for the heroin or meth addict to get their drugs? Also, will someone be able to claim disability?
I am fine with it if no one can in any way get a disability check for being addicted or get their drugs paid for by tax money.
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:


I agree with him. Even if Prop 19 doesn't pass, marijuana will be legal in the near future because people finally realize the "war on drugs" was a failure from the start.


quote:
So legalize all drugs crack, heroin, meth etc?????


Yep. It is not my business what people decide to do in the privacy of their own homes. If they want to close the doors and shades and get high for days, that's fine with me - again, as long as they're not harming anyone else. (They're not going to stop doing it anyway.)

It's funny that the majority of the "don't legalize it" crowd consists of the same group that is anti-government and doesn't want government making decisions about their lives in other ways - i.e., healthcare.

But when it comes to drugs and privacy, you want government to pass laws making private acts illegal. Funny.


Yea, I am funny about wanting to stop the crime that comes from druggies. It would be great having a neighbor who is a legal meth addict. Also, how is a heroin or meth addict going to buy the drugs? Let me guess the tax payer will provide it for free and since you are a addict we will just call you disabled and send you a disability check also.


Ummmm...Hello, McFly?!?! You live in North Alabama. Chances are excellent that you already have a neighbor who is a meth addict.

The so-called "illicit" drugs should be taxed and regulated. Mexican drug cartels will be shut down, or their power greatly reduced after "illicit" drugs are decriminalized.

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Mexico, a major drug producing and transit country, is the main foreign supplier of cannabis and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the United States.[12] Although Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin production, it supplies a large share of the heroin distributed in the United States.[12][16] Drug cartels in Mexico control approximately 70% of the foreign narcotics that flow into the United States.[17]

The US State Department estimates that 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico, with Colombia being the main cocaine producer[18]—and that wholesale of illicit drug sale earnings estimates range from $13.6 billion to $48.4 billion annually.[12][19] Mexican drug traffickers increasingly smuggle money back into Mexico in cars and trucks, likely due to the effectiveness of U.S. efforts at monitoring electronic money transfers.[20]



More than 22,000 people have been murdered by these thugs since 2006. So it's okay with you that they continue to do murder instead of the U.S. doing what makes sense?

And what about your neighbor who abuses prescription drugs? How is abusing prescription drugs any different than abusing "illicit" drugs in the privacy of one's home?
quote:
Then answer the question regarding who is going to pay for the heroin or meth addict to get their drugs? Also, will someone be able to claim disability?
I am fine with it if no one can in any way get a disability check for being addicted or get their drugs paid for by tax money.


Look, I'm not a lawyer. Currently, we don't accept addiction as a disability as far whatever law allows someone to draw a disability check. Alcoholics can't draw it, and drug addicts couldn't either. I think the Americans with Disabilities Act (or some law) prevents employers from firing an addict (be it to legal or illegal substances) who wants to get treatment, but that law is already on the books.
You remember that little "dust up" out there in Arizona, where Obama and Eric Holder took tax payer's money to sue the tax payers of Arizona, claiming that stopping those illegal Mexican invaders was governed by Federal Law....Well, California can't legalize weed and I am sure Obama/Holder will bring suit to declare Prop 19 illegal, unconstitutional...uh....uh...unless,of course we determine a methodology to implement and collect an import duty (tax) on all that POT coming across the Mexican border...then we would have to de-criminalize canabis at the Federal level....this is just not a state function to over ride Federal law...(channeling Obama here).
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:
Originally posted by HIFLYER:
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:


I agree with him. Even if Prop 19 doesn't pass, marijuana will be legal in the near future because people finally realize the "war on drugs" was a failure from the start.


quote:
So legalize all drugs crack, heroin, meth etc?????


Yep. It is not my business what people decide to do in the privacy of their own homes. If they want to close the doors and shades and get high for days, that's fine with me - again, as long as they're not harming anyone else. (They're not going to stop doing it anyway.)

It's funny that the majority of the "don't legalize it" crowd consists of the same group that is anti-government and doesn't want government making decisions about their lives in other ways - i.e., healthcare.

But when it comes to drugs and privacy, you want government to pass laws making private acts illegal. Funny.


Yea, I am funny about wanting to stop the crime that comes from druggies. It would be great having a neighbor who is a legal meth addict. Also, how is a heroin or meth addict going to buy the drugs? Let me guess the tax payer will provide it for free and since you are a addict we will just call you disabled and send you a disability check also.


Ummmm...Hello, McFly?!?! You live in North Alabama. Chances are excellent that you already have a neighbor who is a meth addict.

The so-called "illicit" drugs should be taxed and regulated. Mexican drug cartels will be shut down, or their power greatly reduced after "illicit" drugs are decriminalized.

From Wikipedia:

quote:
Mexico, a major drug producing and transit country, is the main foreign supplier of cannabis and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the United States.[12] Although Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin production, it supplies a large share of the heroin distributed in the United States.[12][16] Drug cartels in Mexico control approximately 70% of the foreign narcotics that flow into the United States.[17]

The US State Department estimates that 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico, with Colombia being the main cocaine producer[18]—and that wholesale of illicit drug sale earnings estimates range from $13.6 billion to $48.4 billion annually.[12][19] Mexican drug traffickers increasingly smuggle money back into Mexico in cars and trucks, likely due to the effectiveness of U.S. efforts at monitoring electronic money transfers.[20]



More than 22,000 people have been murdered by these thugs since 2006. So it's okay with you that they continue to do murder instead of the U.S. doing what makes sense?

And what about your neighbor who abuses prescription drugs? How is abusing prescription drugs any different than abusing "illicit" drugs in the privacy of one's home?


They can be arrested for it, I do not have to just live with it forever. Using your logic bank robbery should be legalized.
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Well, California can't legalize weed and I am sure Obama/Holder will bring suit to declare Prop 19 illegal, unconstitutional


Well if we're going to be constitutional...the situation would be exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.

What California is doing is essentially the same thing as states who say they will not uphold the requirement to buy insurance in the new healthcare bill...Nullification.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of drug legalization, but as a strict constructionist, it is clearly not a federal enumerated power to ban a substance...that would be an undelegated power left to the states and the people.

What gave the power to the Feds to ban alcohol? The Constitution? Not until it was amended. So, strictly speaking it is the same for other substances...it's a state by state isssue. If you want the feds involved...to be constitutional you'd need an amendment giving them that power.
quote:
Originally posted by Buttercup:
quote:


I agree with him. Even if Prop 19 doesn't pass, marijuana will be legal in the near future because people finally realize the "war on drugs" was a failure from the start.


quote:
So legalize all drugs crack, heroin, meth etc?????


Yep. It is not my business what people decide to do in the privacy of their own homes. If they want to close the doors and shades and get high for days, that's fine with me - again, as long as they're not harming anyone else. (They're not going to stop doing it anyway.)

It's funny that the majority of the "don't legalize it" crowd consists of the same group that is anti-government and doesn't want government making decisions about their lives in other ways - i.e., healthcare.

But when it comes to drugs and privacy, you want government to pass laws making private acts illegal. Funny.


So who is going to provide healthcare for all these drugged out zombies? If (and it's not even possible) a person could do drugs in his own home without affecting anyone else I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's not a private act.
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:

So who is going to provide healthcare for all these drugged out zombies? If (and it's not even possible) a person could do drugs in his own home without affecting anyone else I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's not a private act.


Let's keep in mind the issue at hand isn't whether to legalize drugs...but CA voting on legalizing pot.

It doesn't matter if you agree with that or not...It's CA not AL...and THAT to me is the BIG issue.

Federalism...a constitutionally limited federal government.

If you support a return to constitutional government...a central government that stays out of healthcare, gun rights, etc...for consistency...you have to support CA "right" to vote on an issue that affects CA.

You don't have to like what they chose...but support their right to decide issues...whatever they may be...for themselves.
quote:
Originally posted by dolemitejb:
quote:
If (and it's not even possible) a person could do drugs in his own home without affecting anyone else I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's not a private act.


It is a private act and it is possible to use drugs without affecting others.


Have you ever visited a drug rehab center? I have and your statement is not true.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:

So who is going to provide healthcare for all these drugged out zombies? If (and it's not even possible) a person could do drugs in his own home without affecting anyone else I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's not a private act.


Let's keep in mind the issue at hand isn't whether to legalize drugs...but CA voting on legalizing pot.

It doesn't matter if you agree with that or not...It's CA not AL...and THAT to me is the BIG issue.

Federalism...a constitutionally limited federal government.

If you support a return to constitutional government...a central government that stays out of healthcare, gun rights, etc...for consistency...you have to support CA "right" to vote on an issue that affects CA.

You don't have to like what they chose...but support their right to decide issues...whatever they may be...for themselves.


You are absolutely correct and I agree with you.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Well, California can't legalize weed and I am sure Obama/Holder will bring suit to declare Prop 19 illegal, unconstitutional


Well if we're going to be constitutional...the situation would be exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.

What California is doing is essentially the same thing as states who say they will not uphold the requirement to buy insurance in the new healthcare bill...Nullification.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of drug legalization, but as a strict constructionist, it is clearly not a federal enumerated power to ban a substance...that would be an undelegated power left to the states and the people.

What gave the power to the Feds to ban alcohol? The Constitution? Not until it was amended. So, strictly speaking it is the same for other substances...it's a state by state isssue. If you want the feds involved...to be constitutional you'd need an amendment giving them that power.


Nope...it was all over television news today, Supremacy Act or Clause, says Federal law making pot illegal is not trumped by California voters. They indicated, as I did earlier, that it is the same situation as Arizona. Eric Holder says they will "keep an eye on it...".
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Well, California can't legalize weed and I am sure Obama/Holder will bring suit to declare Prop 19 illegal, unconstitutional


Well if we're going to be constitutional...the situation would be exactly the opposite of what you are suggesting.

What California is doing is essentially the same thing as states who say they will not uphold the requirement to buy insurance in the new healthcare bill...Nullification.

I'm not necessarily a big fan of drug legalization, but as a strict constructionist, it is clearly not a federal enumerated power to ban a substance...that would be an undelegated power left to the states and the people.

What gave the power to the Feds to ban alcohol? The Constitution? Not until it was amended. So, strictly speaking it is the same for other substances...it's a state by state isssue. If you want the feds involved...to be constitutional you'd need an amendment giving them that power.


Nope...it was all over television news today, Supremacy Act or Clause, says Federal law making pot illegal is not trumped by California voters. They indicated, as I did earlier, that it is the same situation as Arizona. Eric Holder says they will "keep an eye on it...".


I'm sure "they" (the feds) do say that...doesn't make them (including SCOTUS) right.

That's the whole point of this idea of getting back to the Jeffersonian (and correct) veiw of the nature of the union...The Feds do not have an exclusive in being the final authority of the Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Ren,

I sort of agree with you, the Feds do not have a monopoly on interpretations of the Constitution.

However, given the Supremacy Clause, it would take a Constitutional Convention to rectify the issue of states' rights.

I'm all for one, especially if it includes a Balanced Budget clause with penalties for intractable congresspeople.

nsns


Much could be said of the so-called "supremacy clause"...But briefly, no constitutional convention needed. Notice "in pursuance there of"...if federal law is not "in pursuant" of the enumerated powers it is not constitutional...let alone "supreme".

In a historical context, the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government...not give them unlimited power.
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Ren,

I sort of agree with you, the Feds do not have a monopoly on interpretations of the Constitution.

However, given the Supremacy Clause, it would take a Constitutional Convention to rectify the issue of states' rights.

I'm all for one, especially if it includes a Balanced Budget clause with penalties for intractable congresspeople.

nsns


Much could be said of the so-called "supremacy clause"...But briefly, no constitutional convention needed. Notice "in pursuance there of"...if federal law is not "in pursuant" of the enumerated powers it is not constitutional...let alone "supreme".

In a historical context, the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government...not give them unlimited power.


Ren,

When I was a kid, and we were at Cold War with the Soviet Union, we were taught that our Constitution allowed everything not forbidden, and theirs forbade everything not allowed.

Perhaps we've caught up.


nsns
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Nation:
quote:
Originally posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:
Ren,

I sort of agree with you, the Feds do not have a monopoly on interpretations of the Constitution.

However, given the Supremacy Clause, it would take a Constitutional Convention to rectify the issue of states' rights.

I'm all for one, especially if it includes a Balanced Budget clause with penalties for intractable congresspeople.

nsns


Much could be said of the so-called "supremacy clause"...But briefly, no constitutional convention needed. Notice "in pursuance there of"...if federal law is not "in pursuant" of the enumerated powers it is not constitutional...let alone "supreme".

In a historical context, the Constitution is supposed to limit the powers of the federal government...not give them unlimited power.


Ren,

When I was a kid, and we were at Cold War with the Soviet Union, we were taught that our Constitution allowed everything not forbidden, and theirs forbade everything not allowed.

Perhaps we've caught up.


nsns


OK, I guess I'm not sure what you're saying here...Are you agreeing with my above quote or disagreeing?

"we were taught that our Constitution allowed everything not forbidden"

"allowed everything" to the people or the central government?

If you are saying our Constitution has been turned on it's head to give unlimited authority to a central power...Then yes I whole heartedly agree.

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×