Phonetic Mnemonic ©
- Sep 3, 2011
- Reaction score
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Political Leaning
While the issue of marijuana legalization isn't particularly high on my list of political issues I'm not a big fan of outright legalization. The "medicinal" argument is nonsense and the tax argument is pie in the sky optimism. While I agree that it is more or less on a par with alcohol as far as effect goes I don't believe that justifies outright legalization.
While I doubt that there will ever be the political will to do so I would suggest that the best option would be to decriminalize possession of a given amount and to allow personal cultivation of a certain number of plants while putting severe penalties on distribution for profit. If you want to smoke the stuff then grow it yourself. Four or five plants should produce more than enough to keep a person entertained year round and if they want to give the extra away who am I to stop them. I figure that something like this will allow for penalties to be enforced at the local level for such things as distribution at schools or to minors, driving under the influence and acts of criminality involving the product.
The goal of any legislation regarding criminality should be to encourage "good" behavior while providing a mechanism for penalizing unacceptable behavior. I think of it much like firearms laws...punish the ones who abuse their rights and privileges while leaving the responsible folks alone.
One last thing....regarding the taxation issue, do we really want another government agency (probably 4 or 5 of them) involved in this stuff? Haven't we already seen the results of lobbying, loopholes, niches carved out for special interests, etc? If you believe that we won't get that crap by the truckload with government oversight of marijuana you're already too high.
And one would be led to believe that it would remove organized crime's profits. I'll bet that organized crime wouldn't want to see it legalized.Jeez Luther, what kind of Commie **** is this You don't want profits? Isn't profit the foundation of Capitalism?
And one would be led to believe that it would remove organized crime's profits. I'll bet that organized crime wouldn't want to see it legalized.
Jeez Luther, what kind of Commie **** is this You don't want profits? Isn't profit the foundation of Capitalism?
I've come to the conclusion that Capitalism works great in a pristine environment but when you get government involved too much it's no longer Capitalism. Besides, the way Capitalism works if I can manufacture my own product easily enough then why would I buy it from you? If I can grow five plants for $20 and get enough weed to last me a year than I have no good reason to buy your weed. The main reason we don't have that happening already is because government makes the penalty for growing it high enough that the risk isn't worth it for most people.
If people who wanted marijuana could grow their own without penalty that would put a dent in the current illegal trade. I figure that the cocaine, meth and heroin trade would be plenty to keep the cops busy but I also believe that fewer people would be into that stuff is they could use pot without significant penalty. One of the things that gets ignored with the whole "gateway" premise is the thought process that people have. They figure that if they're already breaking the law for this little thing then they may as well break the law for something else. Giving people a legal "out" should get some people to shift gears. Furthermore, if someone is dealing in weed and "at risk" then they are more prone to engage in other marginally higher risk activities to make the risk more worth it. It won't clear up all the stuff but I figure it would make a hefty dent. I really don't subscribe to the theory that someone who smoked dope will automatically gravitate to other drugs without a reason to. If penalties for other drugs are ramped up while penalties for pot are reduced that's an incentive NOT to get involved with higher risk stuff.
Many people enjoy crack, meth and junk and use it wisely.
Alcohol and pot are so different than the above. And alcohol is fairly dangerous. I have known more than one junkie (many more addicted to pain meds), a couple crack users, and live near some meth heads. They are all disasters. Those drugs are extremely destructive. Pot on the other hand is safer than alcohol.
I'd keep meth, cocaine, and heroin out of the legalization argument.
Pure speculation follows.
I never would grow my own anymore than I would manufacture my own clothing. I will buy it from someone else. If I could go to a licensed retail store, I would do that instead of buying from Craig's List. Then, possibly, taxes would be collected.
As for the other drugs, ramping up enforcement merely means that we'll replace the marijuana prisoners with a different sub-set. Why does it matter who takes what drugs? When you see a junkie lying on the street, or a meth-head shambling around in rags, you presume that is the consequence of the drugs. Well, forgive the anecdotal input, but that's simply not the case.
Most drug users are completely responsible people who are attracted to the disconnect or sense of well-being that drugs of all types provide. Just as many people drink alcohol but don't wander around covered in puke, many people enjoy crack, meth and junk and use it wisely.
A user of illegal drugs is, by definition, irresponsible.
If you chose not to buy your own weed perhaps you could find someone to had over their excess. Assuming that you wanted to smoke weed and your choices were to grow your own or get it from someone else (can't go to the store and buy it) your idea of picking it up at the local Terrible Herbst isn't an option so no sense in speculating about it.
So, by your reasoning, a user/abuser of LEGAL drugs is responsible?
That's what I do right now. I have other people sell me their excess. In 4 more months, I'll be able to go to a store in CO or WA and buy it across the counter. Will that make me MORE responsible than if I buy it from Rasta Jim on Craig's List?
I'm hoping NV will jump on the bandwagon and legalize it in the next few years.
Use of illegal drugs is irresponsible. Abuse of legal drugs is also irresponsible. If you head to Colorado and decide to get high I can't necessarily say that's irresponsible but if you do so in lieu of taking care of your other responsibilities then you are, again, acting irresponsibly.
Since you live in Las Vegas I figure you can relate this to gambling. If you head over to Sunset Station and gamble away some amount that you can afford that's fine. If you're gambling away your mortgage money then you're being irresponsible. Furthermore, if you set up an unregulated game at your house and start taking a rake you are acting illegally and irresponsibly.
Apparently we don't use the same definition of the term irresponsible. Using your example, if I set up a poker game at my house and take a rake, how exactly is that "irresponsible"? Let's not confuse illegal and irresponsible.
If I have a stash of pot, tar, meth and crack - obviously that would be illegal under our present arcane and foolish laws. But in what way would that be irresponsibility unless I get ****ed up and drive around running people over.
And I apologize for topic crossover but if and when they make your guns illegal, will you keep them or turn them in? I may be wrong but I think I know the answer that is in your mind (must be gypsy heritage) and would that be "irresponsible" or merely illegal?
If you are putting your welfare as well as that of your family at risk by engaging in illegal activities for purely hedonistic reasons that's acting irresponsibly.
I like the question about guns. I would consider keeping the guns as both illegal and responsible. The reason for the difference between guns and pot is that guns are useful (and occasionally necessary) for defense of ones self, ones family and others. Because of the utility of firearms their possession can't really be considered solely hedonistic even if that happens to be the primary rationale one might use for owning them.
Gee, he has an opinion© and wants you to buy his book so he can profit from his opinion©
Somehow, I'm not impressed.
All drugs are as, or more useful, than guns. Opiates provide pain relief and make people more productive. To a lesser degree, the same applies to marijuana which provides a calming effect to alleviate stress and an appetite stimulant to those underweight. Speed is a fantastic work drug - you can do a line and work non-stop for the next 16 hours. Psychedelics (such as LSD and mushrooms) stimulate the imagination and result in books, music and films.
Indeed, except for cocaine which is already "out of fashion", I can justify any drug the same way you justify retaining your weapons. People using drugs need to make sure they are using them in a sensible way. People possessing firearms need to keep them secured as appropriate.
Imho, the costs of keeping it illegal are not justified by the benefits of keeping it illegal. To me it's just that.While the issue of marijuana legalization isn't particularly high on my list of political issues I'm not a big fan of outright legalization. The "medicinal" argument is nonsense and the tax argument is pie in the sky optimism. While I agree that it is more or less on a par with alcohol as far as effect goes I don't believe that justifies outright legalization.
A gun on your person does not "stimulate your imiagination resulting in books, music and films" while you should be concentrating on driving that work truck or whatever else your boss is paying you to do.
A writer is a writer and that is their job etc. and not everyone has a boss.A gun on your person does not "stimulate your imiagination resulting in books, music and films" while you should be concentrating on driving that work truck or whatever else your boss is paying you to do.