[HoosierDaddy]

That's the good thing about living in a non-dictatorial government... they can't MAKE us not do what we want to do. I smoked for 9 years. I got the message that it was bad for me. So what? I wanted to smoke so I did.

It is perfectly fine to smoke. It's not against the law, and if marijuana was legalized it would be perfectly fine to smoke too.

[Shinrei]

Good, I'm glad we've got that cleared up. This non-dictatorial government also can't make me pay for socialized medicine then, right?

Oh....wait.

[HoosierDaddy]

Are you talking about Medicare/Medicaid or a future entirely socialized health care system?

[Shinrei]

Ok, I realize I should be completely clear on my positon.

I don't care if they legalize pot. I don't smoke, but I really don't care if someone else does. I only begin to care if they are smoking in my vicinity in a restaurant or some similarly enclosed space. Secondhand smoke impacts me, so I support the smoking ban in such places.

However, if the universal health care supporters get their way, we'll have legalized marijuana causing the health problems associated with smoking, making for another expesive cost for taxpayers.

I am not against smokers if its on their own dime. Live, and let live. I'm the personal freedoms supporter, remember?!

But if the government says anyone can smoke, and you (the non-smoker) can pay for their health problems - that's where I have a problem. Because then, the smoking impacts my livelihood.

[HoosierDaddy]

I see your viewpoint, Shin, and I can understand why a person would feel that way. But, where do you draw the line on behavior that someone else takes part in that has obvious unhealthy effects and what you'll put up with? Lots of people get heart-disease and heart-attacks because of their unhealthy appetites and if I remember correctly, heart disease was the #1 bad guy on the medical front. Would you be satisfied if there was a priority massive tax on items like cigarettes or marijuana (if it was legalized) to null the impact on non-partaker's taxes?

This post has been edited by Inigo Montoya: 06 March 2009 - 02:31 AM

[Shinrei]

Obviously we should encourage healthful eating, but since food is a necessity (only food keeps mankind from starvation!) there isn't much we can do to 'legislate' healthful eating.

Tobacco, being unnecessary, can incur a tax that won't affect other people. Same could hold for marijuana taxation.

However, the problem is that the government is pretty much incapable of saving that tax revenue to offset health costs of those smokers later in life. They'll blow the tax dollars on some new sports stadium or on a subsidy for underwater basket-weaving (UWBW). New revenue usually equals new spending, rather than fully funding the carp they're already paying for now.

[Malaclypse]

Fezzik, on Mar 6 2009, 02:46 AM, said:

Obviously we should encourage healthful eating, but since food is a necessity (only food keeps mankind from starvation!) there isn't much we can do to 'legislate' healthful eating.

Tobacco, being unnecessary, can incur a tax that won't affect other people. Same could hold for marijuana taxation.

However, the problem is that the government is pretty much incapable of saving that tax revenue to offset health costs of those smokers later in life. They'll blow the tax dollars on some new sports stadium or on a subsidy for underwater basket-weaving (UWBW). New revenue usually equals new spending, rather than fully funding the carp they're already paying for now.

now THAT is proper cynicism. I am impressed.

[RodeoRanch]

I wonder what the prices and quality of legalized and regulated Mary-Jane would be.

[Darkwatch]

The problem here is that this is a State Law, not Federal. And as the medicinal legal pot problem has shown that the Feds will crash anything should they decide makes this law kind of silly.
Federal law supercedes state law and that's why a lot of medicinal users (even the ones you are genuine patients) get arrested even though Cali allows it.

[HoosierDaddy]

Yes, the supremacy clause would ultimately subvert and override state law, however, it would probably be a priority constitutional law case as it involves the state as a party. So it would be a good way to get things started.

[amphibian]

RodeoRanch, on Mar 5 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

I wonder what the prices and quality of legalized and regulated Mary-Jane would be.

Ideally as cheap as it is in those third world countries where they have garbage bags full of the stuff and three feet tall little old grannies hawking it.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Fezzik, on Mar 6 2009, 02:35 AM, said:

The message being

SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOU.


....but we're going to go ahead and legalize a whole other form of it!

You don't necessarily need to smoke it...just make brownies!

[Anomander]

RodeoRanch, on Mar 6 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

I wonder what the prices and quality of legalized and regulated Mary-Jane would be.

Street value would go down, although that isn't saying much because I hear pot is far more expensive in the States anyways. I would like to hope the quality improves, because with legalization more people would experiment with different strains in the hopes of getting more customers.

[amphibian]

Darkwatch, on Mar 5 2009, 11:57 PM, said:

The problem here is that this is a State Law, not Federal. And as the medicinal legal pot problem has shown that the Feds will crash anything should they decide makes this law kind of silly.
Federal law supercedes state law and that's why a lot of medicinal users (even the ones you are genuine patients) get arrested even though Cali allows it.

If you look back at my first post in this thread, Attorney General Holder is on record saying that the federal government will no longer do those "crashes". I'll believe it when I see it, but it is a potential sign of changing governmental attitudes.

[Cold Iron]

Firstly I'd like to say that this will not happen. No way, no how. Not in any of our lifetimes.

Why? Because there exists a social stigma attached to marijuana. People who speak out against it risk being seen as conservative sure, but people who speak out for it risk being seen as society's scum. There will always be more people prepared to get outraged at the prospect of legalising it than those who will support it.

Personally I'm in favour of not legalising it, but it isn't really high on my list of political priorities, if the party with the best environmental policy also supported legalising it I would still vote for them. The reason I don't support it is that it took a bunch of people I thought were my friends and turned them into blood sucking vampires and brain eating zombies and it almost turned me into the same. Now you can argue that people make their own choices and you'd be right, but I've been an addict and you'll never get me to say that it's ok. Any mother or father that wants to get outraged at this has my support.

On a rational level however, it's clear with alcohol and cigarettes that legalisation does not mean effective management and as long as any form of black market trade is illegal, you will never rid the streets of violent gangs.

[amphibian]

Cold Iron, on Mar 8 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

Firstly I'd like to say that this will not happen. No way, no how. Not in any of our lifetimes.

Why? Because there exists a social stigma attached to marijuana. People who speak out against it risk being seen as conservative sure, but people who speak out for it risk being seen as society's scum. There will always be more people prepared to get outraged at the prospect of legalising it than those who will support it.

I believe that stigma to be lessening considerably. The Rockefeller laws are being reformed here in New York and several states are looking into means of significantly reducing the prison populations (changing drug laws). California has been ordered by a three judge federal panel to reduce that population by something like a third of its current number. That verdict's on appeal, but it'll likely stand.

I also believe that those most opposed to it are mostly the same people who oppose abortion, support greatly reduced immigration and other positions I consider in general to be wacko, hypocritical and downright detrimental to society.

Quote

Personally I'm in favour of not legalising it, but it isn't really high on my list of political priorities, if the party with the best environmental policy also supported legalising it I would still vote for them. The reason I don't support it is that it took a bunch of people I thought were my friends and turned them into blood sucking vampires and brain eating zombies and it almost turned me into the same. Now you can argue that people make their own choices and you'd be right, but I've been an addict and you'll never get me to say that it's ok. Any mother or father that wants to get outraged at this has my support.

Or it's possible that your once-friends were blood sucking vampires and brain eating zombies all along.

I think you've let your emotions and personal experience get in the way of expressing a coherent opinion. I'm certainly willing to listen to it. Weirdly enough, The Economist (usually seen as a pretty conservative organization) is now calling for legalization of certain drugs.

Quote

On a rational level however, it's clear with alcohol and cigarettes that legalisation does not mean effective management and as long as any form of black market trade is illegal, you will never rid the streets of violent gangs.

Stephenson aside, it's hard to get violent street gangs to traffick in Freon. The ease with which drugs can be produced, distributed and sold is what fuels a great majority of street gang violence. If that source was removed from their control, I would bet a considerable amount of my money that the violence would drop markedly and stay down indefinitely.

[Cold Iron]

amphibian, on Mar 9 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

Or it's possible that your once-friends were blood sucking vampires and brain eating zombies all along.

Or destined to become so regardless of what drugs they were or weren't on yes, sure but mine is not an isolated case, marijuana has a hand in a lot of people's decline and whether they would have or not anyway is mere conjecture, facts are facts.

amphibian, on Mar 9 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

I think you've let your emotions and personal experience get in the way of expressing a coherent opinion. I'm certainly willing to listen to it. Weirdly enough, The Economist (usually seen as a pretty conservative organization) is now calling for legalization of certain drugs.

My opinion is this. Every kid that chooses not to touch pot cos they think it is wrong is a kid that doesn't have to go through what I went through. If even one more kid suffers because of the decision of a government then it is not worth doing. Legalising it will dramatically raise the % of users in society and thus the % of addicts. End of debate.

amphibian, on Mar 9 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

Stephenson aside, it's hard to get violent street gangs to traffick in Freon. The ease with which drugs can be produced, distributed and sold is what fuels a great majority of street gang violence. If that source was removed from their control, I would bet a considerable amount of my money that the violence would drop markedly and stay down indefinitely.

Unless you're talking about legalising all drugs you're not gunna acheive anything. And even then there will be violent crimes associated with black market prostitution, gambling, counterfeit designer products, stolen goods, illegal immigrant smuggling etc. etc.

[amphibian]

Cold Iron, on Mar 8 2009, 08:00 PM, said:

My opinion is this. Every kid that chooses not to touch pot cos they think it is wrong is a kid that doesn't have to go through what I went through. If even one more kid suffers because of the decision of a government then it is not worth doing. Legalising it will dramatically raise the % of users in society and thus the % of addicts. End of debate.

From the Economist piece:

Quote

tough rules make little difference to the number of addicts: harsh Sweden and more liberal Norway have precisely the same addiction rates. Legalisation might reduce both supply (pushers by definition push) and demand (part of that dangerous thrill would go). Nobody knows for certain. But it is hard to argue that sales of any product that is made cheaper, safer and more widely available would fall. Any honest proponent of legalisation would be wise to assume that drug-taking as a whole would rise

See what they did there? Drug taking would likely rise, yet the rate of addiction is likely to remain the same.

Quote

Unless you're talking about legalising all drugs you're not gunna acheive anything. And even then there will be violent crimes associated with black market prostitution, gambling, counterfeit designer products, stolen goods, illegal immigrant smuggling etc. etc.

Yes, people are shanking each other over fake Coach bags (I'm being sarcastic here). Stolen goods and smuggling I can see being associated with violence, but gambling is not usually related to violence these days. None of the problems you've mentioned are as widespread or lucrative as that of drug usage and addiction to such drugs.

[Cold Iron]

amphibian, on Mar 9 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

See what they did there? Drug taking would likely rise, yet the rate of addiction is likely to remain the same.

But in both countries the official state position is that it's illegal despite the differences in punishment. This makes a real difference, kids mostly grow up with the attitude pot is worse than booze in large part due to this state position. I've been a pot addict and I don't actually know whether Australian laws are lax or not, but I know it's not legal. You make pot legal over a certain age and it goes from stoners hiding in their basements to full blown parties where all the cool kids go. You are going to get more addicts if you legalise, no question.

amphibian, on Mar 9 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

Yes, people are shanking each other over fake Coach bags (I'm being sarcastic here). Stolen goods and smuggling I can see being associated with violence, but gambling is not usually related to violence these days. None of the problems you've mentioned are as widespread or lucrative as that of drug usage and addiction to such drugs.

Are you actually arguing that legalising all drugs will lower crime?

[amphibian]

Cold Iron, on Mar 9 2009, 01:06 AM, said:

But in both countries the official state position is that it's illegal despite the differences in punishment. This makes a real difference, kids mostly grow up with the attitude pot is worse than booze in large part due to this state position. I've been a pot addict and I don't actually know whether Australian laws are lax or not, but I know it's not legal. You make pot legal over a certain age and it goes from stoners hiding in their basements to full blown parties where all the cool kids go. You are going to get more addicts if you legalise, no question.

Having dealt with alcoholics and heroin addicts before, I am hesitant to classify anyone who smoked pot regularly for a while as a cannabis addict. To be addicted is on a very different mental and physiological plane than to want to smoke every day to have fun. The substance being abused really becomes a coping strategy, an end in itself. There might be some people out there who genuinely are addicted to pot, but I've not run across any out of a few hundred people.

You seem to associate pot smoking with kids. I can tell you from experience that older people toke up a lot more than you think. I think that's the entire premise of the show Weeds.

Quote

Are you actually arguing that legalising all drugs will lower crime?

You're the one that said that as long as any form of black market trade is "illegal" (I took this as a typo meaning "exists"), it will be impossible to get rid of street gang violence. You've tried to turn this into a "all or none" proposition two or three times now.

I do believe that the legalization of pot will lower crime statistics, the associated judicial costs and that society will actually have a net benefit. I do recognize that heroin, crack, meth and cocaine are far more intertwined with gangs and violence though. I do not support legalization of those "harder" drugs.

An interesting issue was raised earlier in this thread by HD and some of the others - how do you measure DUI or DWIs with pot? Modified breathalyzer? Officer's sniff test? Instant piss analyzing machine? I'll have to go and ask some of my more hardcore legalization friends if anyone's come up with something plausible.