Legalize it

[jim777]

There is a very good reason, whether you agree with it or not. That reason is that the majority want it to be illegal for recreational use. That's a reason. Saying 'there is no reason' over and over again doesn't change what the majority want and got.

The 'majority' never voted it to be illegal. Only a handful of people decided that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/majority-of-americans-wan_n_198196.html

And I can't believe we're going through this again either. It will be legal in the US in our lifetimes, the momentum grows every day.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I never said you couldn't believe in anything you wanted. I even said you could believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy if you wanted.

What I said was that it was unethical, and violation of the basic concept of liberty, for anyone to shove their self-righteousnous down anothers throat. No harm comes to another from eating a cheesburger or smoking a J; therefore there should be no law inhibiting the partaking of either. It's simple logic. It don't get no simpler!

 

[Carol]

Everything on the planet contains some risk and causes harm...including sunlight.

(please don't take this too seriously)

Is sunlight illegal where you live? Its certainly not up here but with the cool summer we've been having it certainly feels like sunlight is illegal :lol2:

Are you sure it would result in an increase in consumption? Today, the drug of choice is pain-killers for young people. It gets them high without having to smoke...and they're free...right in mommy and daddy's medicine cabinet. Why pay for what you can get for free? Or at least what their insurance pays for...gee...wonder how that will be affected by Universal Health care?...hmmmmm...

Because its all about availability right? So when pot is more available, there will be more people that gravitate towards that.

In other parts of the world, legalizing marijuana has resulted in an increase in consumption. In Massachusetts, there have been several schools talking about what to do if they seen an increase in marijuana consumption among minors (due to a recent decriminalization vote).

I just don't see that there will be a net benefit. As Empty Hands pointed out, yes I can see the reduction of some issues, but I think they will come at a price of causing others.

 

[celtic_crippler]

(please don't take this too seriously)

Is sunlight illegal where you live? Its certainly not up here but with the cool summer we've been having it certainly feels like sunlight is illegal :lol2:

Exactly...silly isn't it?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have a feeling, like most folks, that your tune would change if it happened to be something you were in favor of...like ketchup.

No, it would not. There are a number of things that I think should be legal, and they are not. I vote my conscience and try to get them changed, but I refrain from doing them because they ARE illegal, and I support the right of the people to express their will through the ballot box, whether it is my ox being gored or not.

So...in Bill's world Justice wears contacts?

In Bill's world, which actually happens to be the real one, equal justice under the law is supposed to mean how the law is applied, not how one law compares to another in terms of harm done to individuals.

Let's take DUI laws. There is no objective test for how impaired you are. One guy could be very close to sober while still over the legal limit, whilst another is snot-slinging falling-down puking drunk and not over the legal limit. The law says the nearly sober guy gets busted and the puker gets a pass. Justice? Yes, because the standard is the standard - it is the percentage of alcohol in your bloodstream that is being tested, not how impaired you are. Is it fair? As fair as it can be, I suppose. But like it or not, it is the law.

That's a contradiction to your assertion. Are you not part of society?

Yes, but I'm not the majority vote. I can't make something illegal or legal. I can only vote.

Gay marriage shouldn't even be on the ballot, and neither should marijuana. It's nobody's business but the people involved. Again, it's not and never has been for the majority to force morality or beliefs on the minority. Just because you and others accept it, doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it's constitutional. It just means the beliefs and principles of the founders of this nation have been perverted to the point where an otherwise rational human being can't see the forrest through the trees.

It doesn't matter whether you're for it or not, the government has no business legislating anything having to do with it. At least the government established in 1776 thought so anyway...

I recognize the reality of the situation. We cannot argue about the game because you turn over the board and declare that the rules suck. Sorry, but they are what they are.

I am not entitled nor do I try to force my opinion on anyone. I try to sway and influence people with logic and reason. I present facts to back up my argument. People that try to force their opinions tend to build ovens to put the rest of us in.

Everyone who voted against gay marriage in California wants to put people in ovens? I'm going to take a SWAG and say that's probably not true.

Our system has been perverted over time. When I go to the polls I try to vote someone in who wishes to restore freedom and liberty to the US.

I believe we have freedom, liberty, and - most important - recourse to the law. You prove it by voting. If your guys win, then you get your way. Oh, by the way, that's imposing your will on others, in case you hadn't noticed.

Knowing people are flawed, the founders created the Electoral College. Though it didn't seem to help.

The Electoral College is a fine thing. It does not apply to state plebescites. Speaking of things that the Founders never intended, the federal government was never intended to tell the states how to run things. The states seem to like the idea of allowing the people to vote directly on ballot initatives and to take the results as law. You seem to have a problem with that - what a shame, it is what the founders intended that you're against.

Obviously! We had slavery for quite some time didn't we? Did it make it right? Was it ethical? Did it infringe on freedom and liberty? No..don't answer that question. Just think about it.

I don't have to think about it. Slavery was neither right nor ethical. It was, however, legal.

Studies are supported by facts.

No, studies are supported by collections of data, which are then interpreted.

And yes, you can believe in the Easter Bunny if you like. There's no law against that...yet.

But your version of freedom would put a stop to that, right?

Well...I definately hope you and the "majority" don't suddenly take up the opinion that all non-whites are worthless and should be exterminated.

Fortunately, the Bill of Rights overrides any such majority decision. As I said way back in the beginning, if the federal government (and by extention, the states) are not expressely prohibited from infringing on a given right, then they can and do, on a regular basis. There is indeed a prohibition against what you describe - so even a majority vote can't make it legal.

Marijuana is not covered in the Bill of Rights.

You don't have to. But ethically, you shouldn't condemn others for disagreeing with you. Especially when their position does you know harm.

I can and do. And I contend that people who illicitly smoke marijuana do indeed to me harm. My society is more dangerous, my taxes are higher, and my family is at risk because of illicit drug users. That's harm.

Did you poor some blood in a bowl of chicken bones and then spit in it to come up with that or do you actually have a legitimate source for your position this time?

I haven't insulted you.

I believe in liberty and freedom. What do you believe in?

Same as you, plus the will of the people as expressed in the rule of law.

Wow...you really have done absolutely no research at all on this have you? Your entire position is simply based on heresy and personal opinion.

Actually, I have done quite a bit of research on the history of hemp-growing. I wrote a couple papers supporting the legalization of hemp for commercial paper and cloth growing while I was in college. I still support the legalization of hemp for commercial products.

I even still have books published in the 1920's that detail the hemp crop yields in Missouri. I'd say I've done my research on hemp.

Don't forget alcohol and how well that worked.

That's an old argument that I reject utterly - that since we cannot enforce a law, it should not exist. We can't get people to stop cheating on their taxes, either, but that is not a good reason to making cheating on taxes legal.

What moral high-ground is that? Support of Liberty? Support of Freedom? Or support of oppressive government? Support of dictated morality?

Support of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. The same oath I swore in the military. The law that exists, not the law as I wish it was.

You do not support making tobacco and alcohol illegal, but support keeping marijuana illegal and that's not hypocritical?

Yes, and yes. I've said that and explained it.

Please elaborate on the flaws of my reasoning.

Because your basis is not my basis. I used the example of mustard and ketchup. I can be against one and for the other and not by hypocritical, even though both are condiments. Perhaps I'm against one because it contains lots of sugar, and the othere does not. Now, I would be hypocritical by one standard and not hypocritical by another. What matters is which basis I am using to make my judgment.

Likewise, my basis for supporting the legality of alcohol and tobacco and not marijuana is NOT the supposed health risks each possesses. Therefore, I am not a hypocrite.

It would indeed be hypocritical of one that recognizes a fetus as "life" to endorse capital punishment while being against abortion. What's that got to do with my point? If anything, it further proves it!

People are quite often pro-life and pro-capital punishment. In fact, it is a common 'conservative' opinion. Those people are not all hypocrites because they do not share 'life' as the basis of their opinions. Their basis is not your basis.

So you're saying that every time you buy a pair of jeans manufactured by child labor in a foreign country that you are personally responsible for the child's misery and possibly even thier death? Check your closet before you answer that one...

I said 'legal' and again, I was careful with my words. You suggested that the government is actually responsible for the deaths of people at the hands of drug smugglers and I said no, the pot-smokers are because they know what they are doing is illegal. Buying pants is legal. If there is misery and injury attached to the people who make those pants, as long as it is a legal product, the responsibility belongs to those who allow it to happen and remain legal. The difference is the one is legal and one is not.

Or better yet...every time you wipe your butt you're contributing to the death of a lovely tree!

If bogroll were illegal, yes. Since it isn't, no.

They didn't do much to help prevent it either. As a matter of fact they probably did more to perpetuate it than anything.

Again, pot smokers know what they are doing is illegal. They know that the murders and beheadings that happen in border areas like Mexico are due to the drug smuggling that goes on - to bring the drug they want to them. They bear direct, clear, very easy to understand responsibility. They are the demand that the suppliers are supplying. The government is not responsble for the choice they make to buy illegal drugs.

Freedom and Liberty have no real value to you?

Of course they do.

Our freedoms and liberty are enshrined in our system of laws. Respect for that law is respect for our freedom and our liberty. For those aspects of our society that I disagree with, I have recourse to the law - the recourse you claim I should be denied, the plebiscite vote.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What I said was that it was unethical, and violation of the basic concept of liberty, for anyone to shove their self-righteousnous down anothers throat.

It is only self-righteousness if you don't personally agree with it. If you want marijuana to be legal, and you vote for that and the vote wins, then you have shoved YOUR self-righteousness down my throat. But you won't see it that way, because naturally it is the result you wanted. Your point of view depends on whose ox is being gored.

No harm comes to another from eating a cheesburger or smoking a J;

I disagree.

therefore there should be no law inhibiting the partaking of either.

But there is. And furthermore, there should be, as long as the majority in this country support it.

It's simple logic. It don't get no simpler!

Simple, yes. Also wrong.

Your simple logic works like this:

Pot is harmless [therefore]
It should be legal

My response is that

Pot is not harmless [and regardless of that]
what should or should not be legal is up to the electorate to decide

My response is the response of freedom and liberty - free people get to vote on what the laws of the land should be, as long as they do not infringe on basic civil rights enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Your statement is flawed logic based on what you personally want (pot to be legal) based on how you feel the government should run (legal if it does no harm to anyone else). I disagree with the first part, and the second part is patently anti-freedom.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The 'majority' never voted it to be illegal. Only a handful of people decided that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/06/majority-of-americans-wan_n_198196.html

Every time a ballot measure has been introduced to make marijuana legal, it has been defeated at the polls by the electorate.

And I can't believe we're going through this again either. It will be legal in the US in our lifetimes, the momentum grows every day.

That is possible. I'll still be against it, but it will be the law of the land if it happens.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

by your rationale, slavery was okay so long as the majority supported it.

No. Slavery is a violation of the basic rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Smoking pot is not.

what you're describing is known as tyranny of the majority, & it is one of the major pitfalls of trying to maintain freedom in a democracy.

Pitfall or not, it is how laws are made at the ballot initiative level in most US states.

Lots of people tell me how wrong it is - but the fact is it that it is the law in most states. Wrong or right - it is the law. Don't tell me how you think it should work - I get that. Let's deal with how it does work. That's fact, not fantasy.

"the majority wants it" is not only not a good reason, it violates state's rights & individual liberties.

Wrong. The majority vote in a plebiscite is how states enforce their rights. Ballot referendums and initiatives are run AT THE STATE LEVEL. Don't any of you people take civics classes? Do you not know how your own state runs?

Plebiscites are the basic element of democracy in an otherwise representative republic of individual states. It is how the citizens of a state directly express their will, which overrides all other contradictory laws UNLESS it infringes on the rights protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the most individual power a citizen of a state ever expresses.

besides, i haven't seen any data indicating that the majority does in fact want pot to be illegal, although i didn't read the entire thread. instead i suspect that it is illegal due to lobbying & misinformation.

Every time a ballot initiative for the legalization of the recreational use of pot has come up, it has been defeated, in every state it has been tried. Medical marijuana has been advancing by the very same ballot initiative method, however.

Funny how people are for ballot initiatives if they are for something they want and against them if they are not. They love them a nice ballot initiative if it's for gay marriage. If it's against gay marriage, then ballot initiatives are wrong and bad. Hahahahaha.

 

[crushing]

Every time a ballot measure has been introduced to make marijuana legal, it has been defeated at the polls by the electorate.


That is possible. I'll still be against it, but it will be the law of the land if it happens.

The scare tactics and prohibition that have been used to keep the marijuana profits in the hands of the well connected drug lords are wearing thin. People are seeing through it little by little and you may see legalization (or decriminalization) in your lifetime.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/13/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5154848.shtml

Well, unless the profiteers are able scare up more opposition.

 

[Carol]

There is one aspect to the decriminalization in Mass. that I found interesting. If a minor child 17 years of age or younger is caught with an ounce or less of marijuana, then both the minor child and their parents have to go through a drug education program.

 

[blindsage]

Bill you say your desire to keep casual marijuana use illegal is not based it's health effects. It sounds to me that your concern is the trafficking in marijuana and the toll it takes on the community. Is this the case? And if so, why wouldn't you then want to make it legal, so the trafficking would then move into more legal and legitimate channels?

 

[celtic_crippler]

No, it would not. There are a number of things that I think should be legal, and they are not. I vote my conscience and try to get them changed, but I refrain from doing them because they ARE illegal, and I support the right of the people to express their will through the ballot box, whether it is my ox being gored or not.

Okay, so we agree that some things should be changed. That's a start I suppose.

In Bill's world, which actually happens to be the real one, equal justice under the law is supposed to mean how the law is applied, not how one law compares to another in terms of harm done to individuals.

The "real" world is subject to individual perception...is that too abstract a concept for you as well? LOL ...jk...

I get your point, but what's to be done when the law itself is unfair?

Let's take DUI laws. There is no objective test for how impaired you are. One guy could be very close to sober while still over the legal limit, whilst another is snot-slinging falling-down puking drunk and not over the legal limit. The law says the nearly sober guy gets busted and the puker gets a pass. Justice? Yes, because the standard is the standard - it is the percentage of alcohol in your bloodstream that is being tested, not how impaired you are. Is it fair? As fair as it can be, I suppose. But like it or not, it is the law.

Uh...no...your basic sobriety test takes place in most cases before the breathalyzer. That's a more objective test per individual to gauge how inebriated one is....anyway...what point are you trying to make here?

The law ain't fair?

Wow...two things we agree on...we are making some progress here!

Yes, but I'm not the majority vote. I can't make something illegal or legal. I can only vote.

But should things like this even be on a ballot? I say no, they shouldn't. As Jay777 pointed out...it was never on a ballot to made illegal in the first place. That's not very democratic is it? I hold that forcing one to adhere to a another's "righteous" opinion manifest in law isn't very democratic either.

I recognize the reality of the situation. We cannot argue about the game because you turn over the board and declare that the rules suck. Sorry, but they are what they are.

Aha! I, and other libertarian minded folks, liked the rules the way they were set up to begin with. The rules aren't the same any more, they've been perverted to the extent that they crap on the concept of liberty; personal choice and responsibility.

From our perspective, we're esentially playing with a bunch of cheaters only interested in pushing forth personal agendas with no regard for the freedom of others.

Everyone who voted against gay marriage in California wants to put people in ovens? I'm going to take a SWAG and say that's probably not true.

A little extreme, yes... but they obviously don't agree that gays should share the same rights. There are no doubt those that really hate gays for their lifestyle choice, yet gays harm nobody. Given the right opportunity do you doubt they wouldn't try and shove them in an oven?

People can be so narrow minded...it's evident all throughout history. Our founders attempted to establish a governmnet that would not repeat the same mistakes of the past.

I believe we have freedom, liberty, and - most important - recourse to the law. You prove it by voting. If your guys win, then you get your way. Oh, by the way, that's imposing your will on others, in case you hadn't noticed.

Your understanding of the process is disturbing... ever heard of the concept "majority rules with minority rights"?

The Electoral College is a fine thing. It does not apply to state plebescites. Speaking of things that the Founders never intended, the federal government was never intended to tell the states how to run things. The states seem to like the idea of allowing the people to vote directly on ballot initatives and to take the results as law. You seem to have a problem with that - what a shame, it is what the founders intended that you're against.

No..in regards to certain items..like interstate trade...they were. If you're not going to follow a link could you at least pick up a book or something?

I feel like I'm on a carousel...round and round... Laws were never intended to inhibit freedoms or liberties, they were intended to protect them.

I'm against ingnorace, prejudice, gun control, and generally government intervention into my life. I'd say that's pretty much in line with the founders intentions based on what I've read.

I don't have to think about it. Slavery was neither right nor ethical. It was, however, legal.

So...we take a time machine back and have this same discussion and we find you endorsing slavery? Because it's legal? ...wow...

No, studies are supported by collections of data, which are then interpreted.

I'd say if the data shows that when you jump off a cliff you splatter on the rocks below, that would support the fact that gravity exists. But hey... who am I to argue? I'm just an dumb redneck hick in Georgia. Yeppers!

But your version of freedom would put a stop to that, right?

It ain't my version and it ain't necessary. You can believe in the Easter Bunny with no fear of legal repercussion.

BTW, how many versions of freedom are they?

Fortunately, the Bill of Rights overrides any such majority decision. As I said way back in the beginning, if the federal government (and by extention, the states) are not expressely prohibited from infringing on a given right, then they can and do, on a regular basis. There is indeed a prohibition against what you describe - so even a majority vote can't make it legal.

Huh? I'm sure there are some folks of darker skin pigmentation that would disagree with you.

Marijuana is not covered in the Bill of Rights.

Neither is a lot of things...what's your point?

One thing is certain, they intended the people to be able to pursue happiness without the infringement of the government. Or are you gonna tell me that's bull again?

I can and do. And I contend that people who illicitly smoke marijuana do indeed to me harm. My society is more dangerous, my taxes are higher, and my family is at risk because of illicit drug users. That's harm.

If you hold that your society is more dangerous because increased crime related to the sell of marijuana, then you should be upset with the government for making it illegal and creating the black market for it.

You taxes are higher because your government enacted another prohibition, I'm sorry...WAR on drugs that is an absolute failure as proven by recorded data...determine what you think the "facts" are from that if you choose...I won't bother to post a link since you won't read it anyway.

Your family is at risk from illicit drug users? How? They trying to roll you for drug money in the alley? Your family is in danger from distracted drivers too... paranoid rhetoric that does not substantiate your position.

I haven't insulted you.

Never claimed you had? Do you feel I've insulted you? If so, I apologize. It's not intended. :asian:

Same as you, plus the will of the people as expressed in the rule of law.

Laws were intended to protect liberty and freedom of the people, not inhibit them. When a law inhibits a freedom...it is wrong and should be gotten rid of (like that slavery thing.)

Actually, I have done quite a bit of research on the history of hemp-growing. I wrote a couple papers supporting the legalization of hemp for commercial paper and cloth growing while I was in college. I still support the legalization of hemp for commercial products.

I even still have books published in the 1920's that detail the hemp crop yields in Missouri. I'd say I've done my research on hemp.

Groovy. So you do support it? Outstanding! Progress!

That's an old argument that I reject utterly - that since we cannot enforce a law, it should not exist. We can't get people to stop cheating on their taxes, either, but that is not a good reason to making cheating on taxes legal.

Old, but still applicable. You can reject the sky is blue too...doesn't change it to another color.

And no...we shouldn't make cheating on taxes legal...we should make certain taxes illegal. Oh wait...we tried that and they made a damn amendment...LOL

Support of the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. The same oath I swore in the military. The law that exists, not the law as I wish it was.

So when they raise the Chinese flag over DC and change to Communist Law you'll salute that flag?

I support the Constitution, I do not support unconstitutional laws.

Yes, and yes. I've said that and explained it.

Obviously not to my satisfaction. :moon:

If you endorse eating meat, but say that eating pork chops is wrong...that's hypocritcal.

Because your basis is not my basis. I used the example of mustard and ketchup. I can be against one and for the other and not by hypocritical, even though both are condiments. Perhaps I'm against one because it contains lots of sugar, and the othere does not. Now, I would be hypocritical by one standard and not hypocritical by another. What matters is which basis I am using to make my judgment.

It's not hypocritical to have an opinion or preference. It becomes hypocritical when you try to force others to use only ketchup because you want the mustard to be illegal just 'cause you don't like it. The mustard ain't hurting nobody... it didn't jump up and kill your dog. It's just mustard.

Likewise, my basis for supporting the legality of alcohol and tobacco and not marijuana is NOT the supposed health risks each possesses. Therefore, I am not a hypocrite.

What are those reasons again? Oh yeah...you just don't like it. Kinda' like mustard. That's a compelling argument...'cause you say so.

People are quite often pro-life and pro-capital punishment. In fact, it is a common 'conservative' opinion. Those people are not all hypocrites because they do not share 'life' as the basis of their opinions. Their basis is not your basis.

I'm obviously not a conservative and we aren't talking about capital punishment or abortion. And I believe I prefaced my "basis" with the words "...if you believe a fetus is a life" which did make it legitimate.



I

I said 'legal' and again, I was careful with my words. You suggested that the government is actually responsible for the deaths of people at the hands of drug smugglers and I said no, the pot-smokers are because they know what they are doing is illegal. Buying pants is legal. If there is misery and injury attached to the people who make those pants, as long as it is a legal product, the responsibility belongs to those who allow it to happen and remain legal. The difference is the one is legal and one is not.

They're just as responsible if not more so than your assertion that somebody sitting on their couch blazing is responsible. You don't think, especially after the fiasco that was the Prohibition, the government didn't forsee the repercussions of a War on Drugs? ...please...pull the other one.

So you look at it as a "legal" issue and I see it as an "ethical" one.

By the way, child labor is illegal in the US, but as long as the pants aren't made here you don't have a problem with it, eh? What about pot that's grown in Mexico? LOL

If bogroll were illegal, yes. Since it isn't, no.

ROFLMAO

Again, pot smokers know what they are doing is illegal. They know that the murders and beheadings that happen in border areas like Mexico are due to the drug smuggling that goes on - to bring the drug they want to them. They bear direct, clear, very easy to understand responsibility. They are the demand that the suppliers are supplying. The government is not responsble for the choice they make to buy illegal drugs.

The majority of marijuana sold and used in the US is actually grown right here. I thought you did your research?

And again, if the government had not infringed on personal liberty none of this would be relevant...except in Mexico...and to the Mexicans. You do know that Latinos use marijuana heavily, right? It's a cultrual thing. That whole "top 7 reasons" thing I posted a while back? Oh...damn..you don't research links provided do you...sigh.

The demand is there, regardless of whether it's legal or not. The government is responsible for whether that demand is met on an open market or a black market. All the data over the years points to the fact that it's more beneficial to society to have it met on an open market, whether you choose to accept that or not is irrelevent.

Of course they do.

Hey...that's 3 things we have in common now!

Our freedoms and liberty are enshrined in our system of laws. Respect for that law is respect for our freedom and our liberty. For those aspects of our society that I disagree with, I have recourse to the law - the recourse you claim I should be denied, the plebiscite vote.

Our laws are meant to protect our freedom and liberties, especially from the likes of a tyranical government. I can not respect a law contrary to that basic ideology.

I deny no one their rights, but you have expressed that you do. I do deny others any "right" to attempt to unjustly force me to live in accordance with what they view as a righteous way to live. Live your life, and I'll live mine. Leave me alone, and I'll leave you alone.

It's that Golden Rule thing again.

Also, I notice that while I address every comment you make you choose only to address specific remarks of mine. Why is that? Do you feel uncomfortable with some of the points I make? Just curious.

 

[jarrod]

No. Slavery is a violation of the basic rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Smoking pot is not.

liberty & the pursuit of happiness my man.

Pitfall or not, it is how laws are made at the ballot initiative level in most US states.

which doesn't make it infallible or right.

Lots of people tell me how wrong it is - but the fact is it that it is the law in most states. Wrong or right - it is the law. Don't tell me how you think it should work - I get that. Let's deal with how it does work. That's fact, not fantasy.

how it does work is it needlessly creates more crime by being illegal. if you outlawed kittens, the kitten trade would be connected to murder, theft, smuggling, etc. more crimes exist because marijuana is illegal, than exist because it is used.

Wrong. The majority vote in a plebiscite is how states enforce their rights. Ballot referendums and initiatives are run AT THE STATE LEVEL. Don't any of you people take civics classes? Do you not know how your own state runs?

Plebiscites are the basic element of democracy in an otherwise representative republic of individual states. It is how the citizens of a state directly express their will, which overrides all other contradictory laws UNLESS it infringes on the rights protected under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It is the most individual power a citizen of a state ever expresses.

civics class was a while ago, i'm sure you have me there. all i know is that pot has been decriminalized at the local level in certain areas & the users in those areas are still under threat of federal prosecution. & it is a substance that should be completely beneath federal notice.

Every time a ballot initiative for the legalization of the recreational use of pot has come up, it has been defeated, in every state it has been tried. Medical marijuana has been advancing by the very same ballot initiative method, however.

i'm very glad of that last part. used in moderation, marijuana has so many potential benefits it should be considered an herbal supplement rather than a medicine.

Funny how people are for ballot initiatives if they are for something they want and against them if they are not. They love them a nice ballot initiative if it's for gay marriage. If it's against gay marriage, then ballot initiatives are wrong and bad. Hahahahaha.

i'm guessing this is a general comment, since i wasn't speaking about ballot initiatives in particular.

all the best,

jf

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Your family is at risk from illicit drug users? How? They trying to roll you for drug money in the alley? Your family is in danger from distracted drivers too... paranoid rhetoric that does not substantiate your position.

I'm going to cut this short for two reasons. One, I've stated this before, and I thought you had read it. Two, I was asked to stop talking about such 'personal things' by a mod.

So let's keep it brief. Has my family been in danger from illicit drug users? Yes. A relative who became a crack whore and her daughter, raped at age two by a drug addict in the crack house where she left her while she got high. How does that work for you? Enough damage, or do you want more?

I'm not looking for pity or sympathy. But you ask my why I have a personal opinion unsupported by 'facts' and this is it. You have 'facts' that say pot smoking is not dangerous and does not lead to harder drugs, etc. I have a family that went to hell and I got to go with them. I've been there and I've seen it. I've pulled my family member out of crack houses and had to fight my way through coked up, crack headed, smoke filled buildings filled with idiots, morons, criminals, and the broken, perverted, and dangerous. I've been attacked with needles and broken bottles and knives. I've been threatened and had my house broken into - all for trying to rescue a family member who didn't particularly want to be rescued and her four children who had no say in the matter. You say it's not dangerous, and I say you're wrong.

The majority of marijuana sold and used in the US is actually grown right here. I thought you did your research?

That is not a true statement, because the actual percentage is unknown.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/drug_avail/chpt4.pdf

The quantity of domestically produced marijuana that was available in the United States in 2001 is unknown. While the group did develop a methodology for determining such availability in the future, the uncertainty in the required data, some of which do not currently exist, is magnified by the model, and prevents the derivation of a credible estimate at this time. However, by making reasonable assumptions regarding the number of cannabis plants eradicated and the amount of marijuana potentially produced per cannabis plant, and applying a set of hypothetical values for the cannabis eradication rate, the model yields an estimate for the availability of domestic marijuana ranging between 5,577 and 16,731 metric tons.

No one knows if the 'majority' of marijuana sold in the USA is produced here. The DEA claims that the higher potency pot comes from Mexico, with lower-potency coming from the US, but they say that is changing, with higher quality beginning to come from the USA and Canada.

And where is domestic pot grown? In forests and parks, under the cover of trees and in farmer's fields of legitimate crops if they can get away with it. Guarded by booby-traps, tripwires, seismic detectors, and transported by criminal and outlaws MC gangs. I don't see that as particularly more savory than the people cutting off heads in Mexico currently.

Also, I notice that while I address every comment you make you choose only to address specific remarks of mine. Why is that? Do you feel uncomfortable with some of the points I make? Just curious.

I am trying to skip the repeats. I say yes, you say no, now what? You say yes again, I say no again. How long do we do that? I guess until one of us gets bored enough to just drop it. I think I just hit that point.

 

[Omar B]

It's a shame that happened to your family, but it's not everyone who smokes pot is gonna end up in a crack house, just like not everyone who drinks beer is gonna end up drinking them self to death like Bonn Scott. Generalizing using your experience is great for you, but it blanks out other people's personal choice, people who may not have addictive personalities.

 

[geezer]

Generalizing using your experience is great for you, but it blanks out other people's personal choice, people who may not have addictive personalities.

True enough, yet in the final analysis I think we all end up basing our opinions more on our experiences than on somebody else's "damn statistics". My personal experiences include far more lives messed up or snuffed out from alcohol addiction than from marijuana. And philosophically, I favor people allowing people to make their own choices on such matters. That's just me... I guess...

But back to one thing Bill referred to-- that since as the majority felt that marijuana should be illegal, well, then it should be.

Now I'm not all that keen on always going along with the majority, especially when it often overlooks the rights of minorities, but for the sake of argument, let's go along with that for the moment. Even so, does the majority still really feel that way? It sure doesn't look like it from what I see posted here. I mean from liberal to conservative to libertarian... across the board, most of you guys seem to favor some form of legalization or decriminalization of pot. Or do I read you wrong?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/19561/who-supports-marijuana-legalization.aspx

 

[Omar B]

Another proof showing the majority making choices for the minority, we've seen such many times. Fact of the matter is, what a person does in the privacy of their own home that's not causing anyone physical or financial harm should not be the business of anyone else, especially the government.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Another proof showing the majority making choices for the minority, we've seen such many times.

Yep, nothing wrong with it. That's how our government works, unless someone's civil liberties are being infringed upon.

Fact of the matter is, what a person does in the privacy of their own home that's not causing anyone physical or financial harm should not be the business of anyone else, especially the government.

It is not a 'fact' in any court in the land. It's an opinion, not a fact.

The 'fact' of the matter is that what a person does in the privacy of their own home is very much the business of the government's, depending on what that is. Making counterfeit money? Producing kiddie porn? Cutting up coke on the coffee table? All the business of the government.

Whilst I do not support unlawful government intrusion into people's homes (unlawful search and seizure, the 4th Amendment), I also do not think people are legally free to do as they wish as long as they do it in their own homes.

In the end, the 'fact' of the matter is that the courts have never yet recognized a civil liberty to smoke marijuana. You can try to argue that you have that right in court, if you wish. Good luck with it.

 

[Omar B]

Yep, nothing wrong with it. That's how our government works, unless someone's civil liberties are being infringed upon.



It is not a 'fact' in any court in the land. It's an opinion, not a fact.

The 'fact' of the matter is that what a person does in the privacy of their own home is very much the business of the government's, depending on what that is. Making counterfeit money? Producing kiddie porn? Cutting up coke on the coffee table? All the business of the government.

Whilst I do not support unlawful government intrusion into people's homes (unlawful search and seizure, the 4th Amendment), I also do not think people are legally free to do as they wish as long as they do it in their own homes.

In the end, the 'fact' of the matter is that the courts have never yet recognized a civil liberty to smoke marijuana. You can try to argue that you have that right in court, if you wish. Good luck with it.

So you didn't read what I said then? Counterfeit money does cause financial harm, and kiddie porn does cause physical. Coke doesn't do crap to anyone but the person taking it so that's nobody's business.