- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I believe that even if it were legalized in all 50 states we would still be fighting the war on weed and the cartels.
Legal weed will be taxed and probably at a rather high rate such as tobacco. So people will still be willing to purchase better quality/cheaper rates on the black market. So we will still be busting growers and buyers that try and avoid taxes.
I am curous. Since the most liberal states seem to push tobacco restrictions (can't smoke in public, around kids, ect.) will they make the same push for restricting pot?
It's going to take a lot of money in advertising to get it passed because a lot of money will be coming in to fight against legalization.
I predict CORPORATE INTERESTS will spend ridiculous amounts of money to stop legalization, not so much because of some moral stance but because it will open the door for Industrial Hemp cultivation and that will adversely affect many entrenched industries, which is the real reason for prohibition in the first place.
That's an ounce. It's about 60 joints (according to the internets).
What's gonna happen is, when CA legalizes weed, they're gonna stop growing oranges and then my orange juice prices will skyrocket!
The price of a Screwdriver will double overnight. :rofl
I agree, to a substantial degree. But still, money is power, prestige and influence. Take away most of their source of revenue: that will drastically reduce their power, prestige and influence. It should cut down at least some on gang-related and drug-related violence.
That would be if we legalized the production/supply chain, and regulated it and taxed it, but still kept it far cheaper than the black-market stuff.
And yeah, to have a really big impact it would have to be more than just mj... and that's where I'm not so sure how far we should go.
On the one hand I don't think weed is even AS bad as booze, but crack is a different matter and meth is a whole different ballgame. I have a hard time with the idea of legalizing something as toxic as meth.
On the one hand, if someone wants to destroy their body (quickly at that) with meth, that's their decision. OTOH, would making it legal and readily available increase the number of users? Is putting the stamp of legalistic approval on something so toxic the right thing to do?
Dunno.
G.
Isn't there a difference between hemp and marijuana? Basically one has low amounts of thc in it and the other does? SO how would that apply to recreational use?
This denotes a misunderstanding of thw 10th amendment.Which will hopefully provoke a Constitutional crisis that will bring the 10th Amendment to the forefront of American political consciousness for the first time in a long while! :mrgreen:
The federal government clearly has the power to regulate interstate commerce and intrastate commerce that affects interstane commerce. If that power applies to the wheat a farmer would like to keep for his own personal use (which it does) then it applies to intra-state pot.Powers reserved to the states or to the people!
You can always make a weed driver. That is a shot of vodka, followed by a shotgun. :mrgreen:
Drugs are harmful to the user both medically and emotionally/relationally. Not all drugs are equal, marijuana is not as bad as say heroine. Depending on the drug you will have different medical affects. There are lots of deaths related to illegal drug overdose, and my father used to run the rescue mission in my city so I have seen how a drug habit can destroy someone's family and career.Ok, digsbe, let's keep the thread on topic.
Drugs are harmful to whom? How?
Drugs are dangerous to the user and to people close to the user. Many families have had financial struggles because of a drug habit. Many jobs have been lost because of a drug habit. And many relationship have failed because of a drug habit either by the user or someone close to the user. It's similar to how alcohol can destroy if one becomes an alcoholic. The issue though is that most drugs are more potent than a beer and aren't as damaging physically.Drugs are dangerous to whom? How?
I don't think all drugs need to be criminalized, each substance is an issue of it's own. As of now I don't really have an opinion of criminalizing or decriminalizing certain drugs. However I support less punishments for marijuana use and lighter sentences to drug addicts. However, drugs like crack, heroine, LCD, and others should remain illegal. They are unhealthy for the user, they are bad for society, and it's abusing a substance.Give me the wise reasons for maintaining their criminal status.
The morality of drug criminalization is preventing discord in society and from people destroying themselves through drug use. Is it good to have more crack addicts or heroine addicts? Should we have more deaths and addictions related to drug use? What about motor skills? Having drugs legalized on a large scale will increase usage, which will also increase vehicle wrecks due to substance abuse (like alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs).What is the morality of drug criminalization?
Drugs are harmful to the user both medically and emotionally/relationally. Not all drugs are equal, marijuana is not as bad as say heroine. Depending on the drug you will have different medical affects. There are lots of deaths related to illegal drug overdose, and my father used to run the rescue mission in my city so I have seen how a drug habit can destroy someone's family and career.reefedjib said:Drugs are harmful to whom? How?
Drugs are dangerous to the user and to people close to the user. Many families have had financial struggles because of a drug habit. Many jobs have been lost because of a drug habit. And many relationship have failed because of a drug habit either by the user or someone close to the user. It's similar to how alcohol can destroy if one becomes an alcoholic. The issue though is that most drugs are more potent than a beer and aren't as damaging physically.reefedjib said:Drugs are dangerous to whom? How?
I don't think all drugs need to be criminalized, each substance is an issue of it's own. As of now I don't really have an opinion of criminalizing or decriminalizing certain drugs. However I support less punishments for marijuana use and lighter sentences to drug addicts. However, drugs like crack, heroine, LCD, and others should remain illegal. They are unhealthy for the user, they are bad for society, and it's abusing a substance.reefedjib said:Give me the wise reasons for maintaining their criminal status.
The morality of drug criminalization is preventing discord in society and from people destroying themselves through drug use. Is it good to have more crack addicts or heroine addicts? Should we have more deaths and addictions related to drug use? What about motor skills? Having drugs legalized on a large scale will increase usage, which will also increase vehicle wrecks due to substance abuse (like alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs).reefedjib said:What is the morality of drug criminalization?
Why is it better to criminalize drugs when the harm done from criminalizing them is greater than the harm done using them?
Never, if legislation is implemented properly. Legalize does not, and should not, mean glamorize.So how long until marijuana ads appear during the Super Bowl?
Never, if legislation is implemented properly. Legalize does not, and should not, mean glamorize.
Never, if legislation is implemented properly. Legalize does not, and should not, mean glamorize.
This denotes a misunderstanding of thw 10th amendment.
What you really need to look at is the supremacy clause.
That is, though a state may not make it illegal, it can still be illegal under federal law.
The federal government clearly has the power to regulate interstate commerce and intrastate commerce that affects interstane commerce. If that power applies to the wheat a farmer would like to keep for his own personal use (which it does) then it applies to intra-state pot.
Have I lost my mind, or is GOOBIEMAN arguing in favor of federal power over state power? IN favor of an expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause rather than against it?
I must be smoking crack, that's the only explanation. :mrgreen:
I'm not sure what you're asking?Isn't there a difference between hemp and marijuana? Basically one has low amounts of thc in it and the other does? SO how would that apply to recreational use?
I would assume that you would need a license to grow it and I doubt anyone with a felony or drug related charge would be granted a license.I would be willing to bet the cartels would be willing to pay taxes to the state for the right to sell their product.
Unless there is REGULATION.... Eeeeck the republican version of garlic to a vampire... that prevents it, if a buck can be made off it, there WILL be commercials.Never, if legislation is implemented properly. Legalize does not, and should not, mean glamorize.
A step in the right direction, but if the supply-chain isn't legalized and brought into the light of day, the effect on drug cartels will be minimal.
Not everyone can grow things, due to available time, space or just plain brown thumbs.Make it legal to grow it your back garden. No supply chain necessary.
Whats that you say? Cig ads are not on TV? hmmm interesting.. it seems smoking is looked on with disdain and is almost universally viewed as being not glamorous, why would that be diff just cause marijuana was legal?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?