• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Medical Marijauna, legal or not

ricksfolly

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
232
Location
Grand Junction, CO 81506
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Back in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that people who smoke marijuana because doctors recommended it to ease pain could be prosecuted for violating the Fed Drug laws, and now states are allowing thousands of people to grow and sell it in designated areas.

Are the states defying fed law, or has the Supreme Court reconsidered?

ricksfolly
 

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Back in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that people who smoke marijuana because doctors recommended it to ease pain could be prosecuted for violating the Fed Drug laws, and now states are allowing thousands of people to grow and sell it in designated areas.

Are the states defying fed law, or has the Supreme Court reconsidered?

ricksfolly
No, the dea makes too much money off of the persecution of pot heads.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,285
Reaction score
32,397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Medical marijuana dispensaries are technically in violation of federal drug laws, yes. It just goes (mostly) ignored.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Back in 2005 the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that people who smoke marijuana because doctors recommended it to ease pain could be prosecuted for violating the Fed Drug laws, and now states are allowing thousands of people to grow and sell it in designated areas.

Are the states defying fed law, or has the Supreme Court reconsidered?

ricksfolly
Technically, yes I think the States are defying federal law, but I also think there's an understanding between the Fed and the States that there are benefits to some people who can and do benefit from medical marijuana. The Fed sometimes cannot tell the difference between a sick person with a script and a person growing and selling. It's all a gray area and depending on the information available, some people who have a need are arrested. I think either government should own it (nationalize) and be the only provider (State by State) or it should be illegal. However, those who grow it for their own use and do not distribute - well big brother will never know about it if it's done properly. The amount of people who use it recreationally for themselves is probably far greater than anyone really knows.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,285
Reaction score
32,397
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Technically, yes I think the States are defying federal law, but I also think there's an understanding between the Fed and the States that there are benefits to some people who can and do benefit from medical marijuana. The Fed sometimes cannot tell the difference between a sick person with a script and a person growing and selling. It's all a gray area and depending on the information available, some people who have a need are arrested. I think either government should own it (nationalize) and be the only provider (State by State) or it should be illegal. However, those who grow it for their own use and do not distribute - well big brother will never know about it if it's done properly. The amount of people who use it recreationally for themselves is probably far greater than anyone really knows.
Wait. You want socialized marijuana? Maybe you should change that political slant tag, you freaking hippie! ;)
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Wait. You want socialized marijuana? Maybe you should change that political slant tag, you freaking hippie! ;)
I know... I know... but I have an alterior motive so hear me out. The government can sell and take the profits and actually use that money to reduce the tax burden or put it towards the deficit (long shot I know, but I can dream). A government agency that would actually CREATE revenue instead of taxing for it... the alternative would be to control it through the private sector, but that would then require a large bureacracy to control and oversee the private sector as well as a multitude of new laws, regulations, etc... which would probably COST more than the government could bring in with the sale of medical marijuana. That wouldn't be good.

Of course the alternative is to just legalize growing, posession and use up to a certain amount - say no more than 3 ounces / 2 plants per household --- and triple the fines / jail time for distribution. But I'm too cynical to think most people could handle such a responsibility. Portugal seems to be okay with it, but I'm not sure the U.S. would handle it as well.

So what do you think --- I need to change to Slightly Conservative given this view or am sick with full blown Liberalism? Tell me straight... I can take it!! :sick:
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Like many other areas of federal law, it's an example of something that is technically illegal but is rarely prosecuted. The Obama DoJ revised its policy on this issue to direct local agencies not to focus on law-abiding growers, though enforcement agencies outside the DoJ appear willing to ignore those suggestions from time to time.
 

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I know... I know... but I have an alterior motive so hear me out. The government can sell and take the profits and actually use that money to reduce the tax burden or put it towards the deficit (long shot I know, but I can dream). A government agency that would actually CREATE revenue instead of taxing for it... the alternative would be to control it through the private sector, but that would then require a large bureacracy to control and oversee the private sector as well as a multitude of new laws, regulations, etc... which would probably COST more than the government could bring in with the sale of medical marijuana. That wouldn't be good.

Of course the alternative is to just legalize growing, posession and use up to a certain amount - say no more than 3 ounces / 2 plants per household --- and triple the fines / jail time for distribution. But I'm too cynical to think most people could handle such a responsibility. Portugal seems to be okay with it, but I'm not sure the U.S. would handle it as well.

So what do you think --- I need to change to Slightly Conservative given this view or am sick with full blown Liberalism? Tell me straight... I can take it!! :sick:
They already are making a killing off of the most addictive drug there is, nicotine.
 

Ockham

Noblesse oblige
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
23,909
Reaction score
11,001
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
They already are making a killing off of the most addictive drug there is, nicotine.
Exactly - but the difference is, they're making a killing only off the tax.
 

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I blame the super hypocrite, Waxman, of California. His deeds in congress have done nothing but punish the poor with taxation without representation.

They should at least mandate that some of the tobacco tax go to the addicted users who want to quit but can not afford to. Nicotine addiction is harder to kick than most hard drugs.
 
Top Bottom