• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

[Illinois] Pritzker wants to legalize recreational marijuana 'nearly right away' in Illinois

Great...just what this state needs: stoned drivers. Drunk ones are bad enough.
 
Roadvirus said:
Great...just what this state needs: stoned drivers. Drunk ones are bad enough.
Click to expand...

I don't know much about Illinois, but you think Chicago could get much worse?

In theory, this will help crime in a couple ways, as it decriminalizes, freeing up those police\court resources currently wasted on marijuana, generates new tax revenue, AND provides a new industry boom, and provide work for some people who might otherwise turn to crime. In fact ex-criminals would have a leg up at first, being that all production\distribution is presently illegal.

And yes, if it's anything like CA, you'll be lucky to go a day without smelling it out in public.
 
Well I think it's the right thing to do - quit criminalizing personal moralistic behaviour.

Check out the results of Portugal's decriminalizing of all drugs in 2001, then compare it with the damages and ravages of the U.S. prosecution of the War on Drugs, which really is the government's war upon its citizens.
 
WillyPete said:
I don't know much about Illinois, but you think Chicago could get much worse?

In theory, this will help crime in a couple ways, as it decriminalizes, freeing up those police\court resources currently wasted on marijuana, generates new tax revenue, AND provides a new industry boom, and provide work for some people who might otherwise turn to crime. In fact ex-criminals would have a leg up at first, being that all production\distribution is presently illegal.

And yes, if it's anything like CA, you'll be lucky to go a day without smelling it out in public.
Click to expand...
I'm all for the decriminalization, but I definitely don't want public consumption due to it being airborne. I must admit that is going to be problematic. I have and demand every right to freely breath drug-free, whilst in my public spaces.
 
Roadvirus said:
Great...just what this state needs: stoned drivers. Drunk ones are bad enough.
Click to expand...
Meh. The criminal act is the driving, not the drinking. Don't infringe upon the rights of the lawful drinker or toker, because of the scant minority that commits a criminal act.
 
Chomsky said:
[/B]I'm all for the decriminalization, but I definitely don't want public consumption due to it being airborne. I must admit that is going to be problematic. I have and demand every right to freely breath drug-free, whilst in my public spaces.
Click to expand...

I think we agree in general on this, but enforcing that sort of rule has the same problems as enforcing the drug laws to start with. It's not worth the resources it would demand, and it is impossible to actually control.

I suppose we could create an incentive by having reduced taxation for non-smelly marijuana options like edibles and vaping, but that's only going to nibble around the edges.
 
Chomsky said:
Meh. The criminal act is the driving, not the drinking. Don't take away the rights of the legal drinker or toker, because of the scant minority that commits a criminal act.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I hate the way we seem to think we need a new law for every possible distraction on the road. If driving erratically is against the rules, then WHY you're driving erratically is less important than getting them off the road.

But living in California has been eye-opening on that score, too. Things that would get your license pulled back home earn an eye roll out here.
 
WillyPete said:
I think we agree in general on this, but enforcing that sort of rule has the same problems as enforcing the drug laws to start with. It's not worth the resources it would demand, and it is impossible to actually control.

I suppose we could create an incentive by having reduced taxation for non-smelly marijuana options like edibles and vaping, but that's only going to nibble around the edges.
Click to expand...
Well - public drinking is illegal (where I live), and reasonably well enforced. No reason not to do the same with pot.

I really, really, don't want to breathe-in anyone's drugs while I'm in a public space. I'm dead adamant about it, to be honest!
 
Chomsky said:
Well - public drinking is illegal (where I live), and reasonably well enforced. No reason not to do the same with pot.

I really, really, don't want to breathe-in anyone's drugs while I'm in a public space. I'm dead adamant about it, to be honest!
Click to expand...

I'm not opposed. It just won't work everywhere. I work across the street from LAX near a bunch of hotels and it's in the air every day here and on the drive home, but then we're only going 35 mph most of the time (if we're lucky.)

California seems to actively promote scofflaws, and they always point at funding as their excuse, but the tax levels and population are huge, so they could absolutely afford to do a good job of it, they just have other priorities (don't get me started.)
 
Rexedgar said:
To be way hay, tow them away.........from Wilmont to Gary........ One of my favorite tunes :thumbs:




EDIT: I read where Joliet is closed, just doesn’t post the same.....
Click to expand...
"Wilmette" to Gary. ;)

Wilmot is skiing in WI ...
 
WillyPete said:
I'm not opposed. It just won't work everywhere. I work across the street from LAX near a bunch of hotels and it's in the air every day here and on the drive home, but then we're only going 35 mph most of the time (if we're lucky.)

California seems to actively promote scofflaws, and they always point at funding as their excuse, but the tax levels and population are huge, so they could absolutely afford to do a good job of it, they just have other priorities (don't get me started.)
Click to expand...
Despite my sometimes relatively liberal political views, I lead a pretty conservative personal life. I don't drink or do drugs. I'm already getting teed-off when I'm occasionally breathing-in pot smoke when I'm in the city, and if it gets worse I'm really going to be teed. I see no reason not to treat this like public drinking. Hell, I'd make a complaint if it keeps my public-space air drug-free. I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable.
 
Chomsky said:
"Wilmette" to Gary. ;)

Wilmot is skiing in WI ...
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was using sound.........many moons back “Eight Days a Week” was “A Jay the We Jay.” :3oops:
 
Rexedgar said:
Thanks, I was using sound.........many moons back “Eight Days a Week” was “A Jay the We Jay.” :3oops:
Click to expand...
It took me quite a few years to finally get, "burning out his fuse up here alone", from Elton John's "Rocket Man".
 
Roadvirus said:
Great...just what this state needs: stoned drivers. Drunk ones are bad enough.
Click to expand...

Pot doesn't kill people on the freeways. The stoned drivers do.

Just like guns don't kill people. Bad people with guns do.

Can you see the correlation?

Would you outlaw guns just because some people hurt other people with them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom