Legalize Marijuana Movement!

[Dr. Pyro]

the growers will be, or should be, against it.
Here, in CA, the price fell huge, once "anyone" could grow their own.

And you know that precisely how?

[ygmir]

the growers will be, or should be, against it.
Here, in CA, the price fell huge, once "anyone" could grow their own.

And you know that precisely how?

WSJ? commodities trade section?

[Elderberry]

It's tricky.
Complete legalization would make prices plummet. You'd have to put a tax on quantity rather than dollar amounts. And pot users are well practiced at evading laws. I doubt if it would raise enough money to help with California's economy.
But some form of legal pot would cripple much of the trade that makes Mexican drug cartels rich.

If you're looking to cripple drug cartels, all recreational drugs should be made legal. The "war on drugs" is such a farce. I think it's biggest purpose now is to help earn a profit for all of the private prisons now gaining popularity here in the good ole' USofA.

[ygmir]

It's tricky.
Complete legalization would make prices plummet. You'd have to put a tax on quantity rather than dollar amounts. And pot users are well practiced at evading laws. I doubt if it would raise enough money to help with California's economy.
But some form of legal pot would cripple much of the trade that makes Mexican drug cartels rich.

If you're looking to cripple drug cartels, all recreational drugs should be made legal. The "war on drugs" is such a farce. I think it's biggest purpose now is to help earn a profit for all of the private prisons now gaining popularity here in the good ole' USofA.

do you believe in helmet and seat belt laws?

[Elliot]

The "war on drugs" is such a farce.

What I don't understand is why this is not obvious to most average reasonably-intelligent Americans? Do they all snort cocaine on the sly (sort'a like the way so many "monogamous" couples sleep around)?

[ygmir]

The "war on drugs" is such a farce.

What I don't understand is why this is not obvious to most average reasonably-intelligent Americans? Do they all snort cocaine on the sly (sort'a like the way so many "monogamous" couples sleep around)?

with so many drugs..........do you mean "wide open"?
I mean, someone smokin a hooter, seems way different than smoking crack, or shootin meth.......

[unjonharley]

The "war on drugs" is such a farce.

What I don't understand is why this is not obvious to most average reasonably-intelligent Americans? Do they all snort cocaine on the sly (sort'a like the way so many "monogamous" couples sleep around)?

Not to worry...Newt will build that boarder fence if elected..

That will take care all of america's problems..

A vote for Newt, is a vote to get your shit packed..

[Elliot]

The "war on drugs" is such a farce.

What I don't understand is why this is not obvious to most average reasonably-intelligent Americans? Do they all snort cocaine on the sly (sort'a like the way so many "monogamous" couples sleep around)?

with so many drugs..........do you mean "wide open"?
I mean, someone smokin a hooter, seems way different than smoking crack, or shootin meth.......

My post was not at all clear, sorry. Failed to think it thru and express myself properly.

I consider cannabis to be a completely separate issue from crack and meth. I categorize cannabis along with alcohol -- belongs on grocery shelves with age restriction to purchase.

So, the "war on drugs" must be considered as two wars being fought at the same time in the same place by the same army. That is, the "war on drugs" is being fought for two different reasons. Fighting against cannabis is bad. Fighting against crack and meth is good. Does that make sense?

But since both aspects of the "war" are failures, it is all just a huge pile of tax-payers' money gone up in smoke.

[illy dilly]

So, the "war on drugs" must be considered as two wars being fought at the same time in the same place by the same army. That is, the "war on drugs" is being fought for two different reasons. Fighting against cannabis is bad. Fighting against crack and meth is good. Does that make sense?

But since both aspects of the "war" are failures, it is all just a huge pile of tax-payers' money gone up in smoke.

Elliot, I'm on the same page.
It might sound weird that I advocate the war on drugs, even though its no secret I like to *party and *enlighten my senses.

Though, why is that you say both aspects of the "war" on drugs are a failure?
Clearly the war on pot is a failure, shit, its practically legal in California and Colorado. I know in CO as long as you pay your $90 dollars a year, it is legal.
But why do you say that the war on Crack and Meth is a failure?

[ygmir]

the war on crack and meth, seem a failure, because they keep letting repeating criminals/addicts, out on the street.
with those drugs you don't "recover"........well, sure, a very small number do.
But, mostly, they just keep escalating, until they're dead or in prison for life.........
so, how about drowning them, at the third arrest for the substance abuse?
First arrest, if they're selling.

[Elliot]

But why do you say that the war on Crack and Meth is a failure?

In the town where I live, "meth faces" and "meth teeth" are a common sight, and openly referred to as such.

[Elderberry]

It's tricky.
Complete legalization would make prices plummet. You'd have to put a tax on quantity rather than dollar amounts. And pot users are well practiced at evading laws. I doubt if it would raise enough money to help with California's economy.
But some form of legal pot would cripple much of the trade that makes Mexican drug cartels rich.

If you're looking to cripple drug cartels, all recreational drugs should be made legal. The "war on drugs" is such a farce. I think it's biggest purpose now is to help earn a profit for all of the private prisons now gaining popularity here in the good ole' USofA.

do you believe in helmet and seat belt laws?

Not the way they are written today. I think wearing seat belts or helmets should be optional. However, if you opt to not use them you would acknowledge that unless you had your own health insurance you would not be treated for injuries incurred in an accident.

However, if we had public insurance where everyone was covered, I think I would feel that the laws inforcing their use would be not only OK, but necessary to help keep medical costs down.

[ygmir]

do you believe in helmet and seat belt laws?

Not the way they are written today. I think wearing seat belts or helmets should be optional. However, if you opt to not use them you would acknowledge that unless you had your own health insurance you would not be treated for injuries incurred in an accident.

However, if we had public insurance where everyone was covered, I think I would feel that the laws inforcing their use would be not only OK, but necessary to help keep medical costs down.

We're on the same page, there, exactly. I remember discussing that with you some time ago.
well, I asked, because, that's how I feel about legalizing drugs......and include alcohol and tobacco.

sure, do what you want, but, you get strung out? tough

can't work? starve, and lose your kids if they're with you.
hurt your self (as a consequence of use)? fix it yourself
Hurt someone else? prison or drowning.
crimes associated, or exacerbated but using: see above.

[Elderberry]

We're on the same page, there, exactly. I remember discussing that with you some time ago.
well, I asked, because, that's how I feel about legalizing drugs......and include alcohol and tobacco.
sure, do what you want, but, you get strung out? tough

can't work? starve, and lose your kids if they're with you.
hurt your self (as a consequence of use)? fix it yourself
Hurt someone else? prison or drowning.
crimes associated, or exacerbated but using: see above.

I agree on most of the above, but I think I would treat addiction more as a medical problem, rather than taking quite as hard a line as you do. Fortunately, I'm one of those lucky people that have a high tolerance from addiction. I can drink and use drugs on occasion and not feel the need to do them again. I also am smart enough to know which drugs to take and which ones not to mess with too. But there are some people that get trapped, and unfortunately you don't know that you're an alcoholic or coke addict until you've tried drinking or doing coke...at which point, for those people it's too late.

But other than that, for things like crimes committed while under the influence, selling to minors, and most of the other things in your list, I think the penalties should be severe.

[unjonharley]

sure, do what you want, but, you get strung out? tough

can't work? starve, and lose your kids if they're with you.
hurt your self (as a consequence of use)? fix it yourself
Hurt someone else? prison or drowning.
crimes associated, or exacerbated but using: see above.

This happens with RX drugs more than you would want to believe..

[wh..sh]

We're on the same page, there, exactly. I remember discussing that with you some time ago.
well, I asked, because, that's how I feel about legalizing drugs......and include alcohol and tobacco.

sure, do what you want, but, you get strung out? tough

can't work? starve, and lose your kids if they're with you.
hurt your self (as a consequence of use)? fix it yourself
Hurt someone else? prison or drowning.
crimes associated, or exacerbated but using: see above.

There is considerable cost involved in accident scene investigation, clean up, trail, feed in prison. I wouldn't want to pay taxes for those expenses when it could be easily eliminated.

[Elderberry]

We're on the same page, there, exactly. I remember discussing that with you some time ago.
well, I asked, because, that's how I feel about legalizing drugs......and include alcohol and tobacco.

sure, do what you want, but, you get strung out? tough

can't work? starve, and lose your kids if they're with you.
hurt your self (as a consequence of use)? fix it yourself
Hurt someone else? prison or drowning.
crimes associated, or exacerbated but using: see above.

There is considerable cost involved in accident scene investigation, clean up, trail, feed in prison. I wouldn't want to pay taxes for those expenses when it could be easily eliminated.

Huh? Eliminated how?

[wh..sh]

There is considerable cost involved in accident scene investigation, clean up, trail, feed in prison. I wouldn't want to pay taxes for those expenses when it could be easily eliminated.

Huh? Eliminated how?

By imposing simple laws like wearing helmet, seat belts and so on.

[lucky420]

I live for the day that marijuana is completely legalized, I was also hoping someone would discover the fountain of youth before I die...pipe dreams...sigh

[Elliot]

A sudden thought: To what extent does the federal cannabis prohibition apply to the "sovereign nations" of Native American Reservations? Could cannabis be allowed there the way casinos are?

[BBadger]

A sudden thought: To what extent does the federal cannabis prohibition apply to the "sovereign nations" of Native American Reservations? Could cannabis be allowed there the way casinos are?

They're not sovereign nations. They're more like domestic dependent nations. More to the point, Indian reservations are like "states with more rights" where the rights are granted to them as a convenient trade for not having to provide certain social services. So while the tribes can own casinos and not be taxed, they can't, for example, sell their land to foreign powers, declare war, etc. They are also under federal jurisdiction with regards to laws and enforcement -- which would include growing hemp.

[Ugly Dougly]

It's tricky.
Complete legalization would make prices plummet. You'd have to put a tax on quantity rather than dollar amounts. And pot users are well practiced at evading laws. I doubt if it would raise enough money to help with California's economy.
But some form of legal pot would cripple much of the trade that makes Mexican drug cartels rich.

If you're looking to cripple drug cartels, all recreational drugs should be made legal. The "war on drugs" is such a farce. I think it's biggest purpose now is to help earn a profit for all of the private prisons now gaining popularity here in the good ole' USofA.

The hard drugs are better off treated as the health problem, the disease that they are.

[Elderberry]

There is considerable cost involved in accident scene investigation, clean up, trail, feed in prison. I wouldn't want to pay taxes for those expenses when it could be easily eliminated.

Huh? Eliminated how?

By imposing simple laws like wearing helmet, seat belts and so on.

Since wearing a helmet or seatbelt won't prevent accidents it's effect on the majority of things you mention is negligible at best.

[lemur]

LEGALIZE MEDICINAL ASSAULT!!!

[wh..sh]

Since wearing a helmet or seatbelt won't prevent accidents it's effect on the majority of things you mention is negligible at best.

The impact of the accidents has relatively proportional social cost increase such as medical, insurance, legal expenses. Social cost theory is one of the reasons I support these laws are necessary to cut unnecessary expenditure. As far as the bigger issue of individual freedom is concerned, every decision we make as individual entails risk, even walking out of that door. As a society, individual decisions and risks imposes passive burden on others and as inherent psychopaths that we all are, it makes sense to eliminate risks than share it. Free society is an oxymoron and a myth.

[Elderberry]

Since wearing a helmet or seatbelt won't prevent accidents it's effect on the majority of things you mention is negligible at best.

The impact of the accidents has relatively proportional social cost increase such as medical, insurance, legal expenses. Social cost theory is one of the reasons I support these laws are necessary to cut unnecessary expenditure. As far as the bigger issue of individual freedom is concerned, every decision we make as individual entails risk, even walking out of that door. As a society, individual decisions and risks imposes passive burden on others and as inherent psychopaths that we all are, it makes sense to eliminate risks than share it. Free society is an oxymoron and a myth.

Then logically it would follow that if a pregnant woman drank or smoked, she could be placed in protective custody as an unfit mother and charged additionally with child abuse.

[wh..sh]

Since wearing a helmet or seatbelt won't prevent accidents it's effect on the majority of things you mention is negligible at best.

The impact of the accidents has relatively proportional social cost increase such as medical, insurance, legal expenses. Social cost theory is one of the reasons I support these laws are necessary to cut unnecessary expenditure. As far as the bigger issue of individual freedom is concerned, every decision we make as individual entails risk, even walking out of that door. As a society, individual decisions and risks imposes passive burden on others and as inherent psychopaths that we all are, it makes sense to eliminate risks than share it. Free society is an oxymoron and a myth.

Then logically it would follow that if a pregnant woman drank or smoked, she could be placed in protective custody as an unfit mother and charged additionally with child abuse.

If it can be supported with facts and numbers that such actions add to the social cost significantly higher than the cost of custody and subsequent charges, I would support it. Ultimately, every society has their reasons for their laws. I come from a country where seatbelts are for weak-hearted. And that kind of law seems to work for that society. Highly regulated, standardized, partically social society such as this would find it hard to back track.

[ygmir]

it also demands a more "self reliant" society, like the one you come from.........whatever you do, win or lose, the consequences are all yours.

much of our society, here, wants to be "taken care of" "womb to the tomb".

[Elderberry]

it also demands a more "self reliant" society, like the one you come from.........whatever you do, win or lose, the consequences are all yours.

much of our society, here, wants to be "taken care of" "womb to the tomb".

Sounds like a Republican talking point to me.

[Dr. Pyro]

And you sound like an asshat to me.