View Full Version : Feds legislate to legalize marijuana. 10th Amendment issue.
It's no secret that I lean towards the Constitutionalist/libertarian side of the political spectrum. Personally, I believe that the prohibition of marijuana usage is a state's rights issue, read the 10th Amendment, and should not be decided by the federal government. If in fact they want to regulate it there should be a Constitutional Amendment passed as was done for the prohibition of alcohol, the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act.
It appears that several of our representatives also believe the federal government shouldn't be imposing bans on marijuana by introducing legislation to that effect (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-introduce-bill-legalize-marijuana-225335489.html).
That's where the argument ends for me. Personally I don't care if people want to smoke their bong, eat their twinkies and ice cream while watching Dazed & Confused. However, I do think these stories below are quite interesting and also point to some very valid medical reasons for the use of marijuana.
This Montana man cured his 2 year old son's brain cancer using marijuana in a medicinal fashion (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1383240/Boy-brain-cancer-cured-secretly-fed-medical-marijuana-father.html).
The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm) who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
The National Cancer Institute has changed it's wording due to the overwhelming responses they received after publishing the fact that marijuana has helped decrease tumors in humans. They still have relevent information concerning testing on mice and rats here (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/Page4#Section_7). A little more info on human testing is here. (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/Page7#Section_13)
This Montana man cured his 2 year old son's brain cancer
Montana is in the process of repealing their law. A lot of Dr. were giving anyone a "MED CARD" that would give them money for the office visit. Then "Med Cannabis" sprung up on every corner. Now with the repeal in process, they are quickly disappearing. My X works in the med insurance field and they can't justify paying for this as a prescription type med. Believe me people tried.
Personally I don't speak my "Opinion" on this. Can go several different way's.
It's just NOT for me. Life is good without it for me.
Life is good without it for me.
Bear in mind I'm not advocating the use of marijuana. This should be a state's rights issue and decided on that level per our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I totally agree, I didn't mean anything by that. The feds are trying to rule to much for my comfort on a lot of things. They have a sneaky way of working things to their advantage for a long time. A LOT of things should be up to each state.
The feds are trying to rule to much for my comfort on a lot of things. They have a sneaky way of working things to their advantage for a long time. A LOT of things should be up to each state.
I couldn't agree with you more!
Littlelebowski
06-23-11, 12:28
This would be very good for Mexico and our LEOs trying to enforce moronic marijuana laws.
Magic_Salad0892
06-23-11, 12:40
I would be an advocate on legalization, but not federally.
The 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
One of the most important Amendments that unfortunately seems to be ignored on a regular basis.
VooDoo6Actual
06-23-11, 13:16
One of the most important Amendments that unfortunately seems to be ignored on a regular basis.
+1 110%
FromMyColdDeadHand
06-23-11, 15:13
Medical marijuana saved the commercial realestate market in Colorado. They way I hear it they have bought or leased any place that they can grow or sell the stuff.
I'm an advocate:
1. 10th Amendment
2. Replace drugs like oxycontin, vicodin, perkesett, etc. that are in the medicine cabinets, and schools.
3. stop funding the cartels
4. legalize it and tax the hell out of it.
The problem I have is that I think a large portion of the population doesn't support drug laws. By enacting and enforcing them, it only breeds contempt for those who are tasked with enforcing laws no one understands, agrees with or respects.
However, I think people are up their own ass if they think they can smoke weed all day and not have any side effects. Any drug you introduce into your body will have an effect. The notion of good drugs and bad drugs is a fools argument. It is the effect on the individual user which must be weighed.
I take bigger issue with doctors making opiate and speed addicts out of huge numbers of people with the almost abusive "pain control" bullshit and "ADHD" horseshit. You want to know why your kids are in the ghetto buying heroin? Because they've been taking the parents Oxycodone for years...
This country is WAY over medicated.
So, does anyone think that the low level drug dealers are going to just up and get some motivation and get a real job? If you eliminate the illegality of the drugs, you're taking away their easy money.
The thugs aren't going to go to Wal-mart and get a job, they'll just move on to other criminal activity... like say... home invasions.
Not denying that it's a States rights issue, but there's most likely some fall out of the negative kind.
Just sayin'
So, does anyone think that the low level drug dealers are going to just up and get some motivation and get a real job? If you eliminate the illegality of the drugs, you're taking away their easy money.
The thugs aren't going to go to Wal-mart and get a job, they'll just move on to other criminal activity... like say... home invasions.
Not denying that it's a States rights issue, but there's most likely some fall out of the negative kind.
Just sayin'
Low level drug dealers aren't making huge amounts of cash here. It's not like there will be a sudden surge of bank robberies so shitheads can make their house payment. Its goverment housing anyway.
In my experiance, you'll see the trend shift to low level property crimes. Manily, vehicle break-ins. As a matter of fact, I think thefts from vehicles have replaced open drug markets in many communities.
Home invasion refers to a very specific crime. Your average home invasion victim...other drug dealers.
4. legalize it and tax the hell out of it.
I was with you until #4. Why do people feel the need to create a "sin tax"? What if it's for a legitimate medical use? Should it be taxed to hell even then? Most cancer patients withering away aren't exactly rolling in the dough.
Maybe we should tax the hell out of guns too? There's plenty of the Brady Bunch who'd agree with that type of philosophy.
The problem I have is that I think a large portion of the population doesn't support drug laws. By enacting and enforcing them, it only breeds contempt for those who are tasked with enforcing laws no one understands, agrees with or respects.
I agree with that assessment. If we had the police focused more on violent crimes, property crime and things of that nature instead of Johnny Doobie then there wouldn't be as much contempt for "the man".
However, I think people are up their own ass if they think they can smoke weed all day and not have any side effects. Any drug you introduce into your body will have an effect.
I for one don't think most people are gonna be burning it all day, every day and the ones who are obviously know there are side effects. Everything we ingest into our bodies as side effects from fatty meat to soda and a Snickers bar but they aren't outlawed either.
This country is WAY over medicated.
I couldn't agree with you more.
I was with you until #4. Why do people feel the need to create a "sin tax"? What if it's for a legitimate medical use? Should it be taxed to hell even then? Most cancer patients withering away aren't exactly rolling in the dough.
Maybe we should tax the hell out of guns too? There's plenty of the Brady Bunch who'd agree with that type of philosophy.
A sin tax for it was something I used to always believe in to help reduce the deficit without any REAL thought into it :o
The problem I have is that I think a large portion of the population doesn't support drug laws. By enacting and enforcing them, it only breeds contempt for those who are tasked with enforcing laws no one understands, agrees with or respects.
However, I think people are up their own ass if they think they can smoke weed all day and not have any side effects. Any drug you introduce into your body will have an effect. The notion of good drugs and bad drugs is a fools argument. It is the effect on the individual user which must be weighed.
I take bigger issue with doctors making opiate and speed addicts out of huge numbers of people with the almost abusive "pain control" bullshit and "ADHD" horseshit. You want to know why your kids are in the ghetto buying heroin? Because they've been taking the parents Oxycodone for years...
This country is WAY over medicated.
Definitely waaay over medicated and running to the doctor for pills for every sneeze, sniffle, ailment. Yet they regurgitate the msm horsecrap about drug companies and their evil profits. A fool and their money........
The full text of the bill, HR 2306, can be read here (http://prohibitionsend.com/2011/06/23/text-of-bill-hr-2306-ending-federal-marijuana-prohibition-act-of-2011/).
A good article on the subject here. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7995-ron-paul-bill-attacks-federal-marijuana-war
“I don't have to tell you how historic and important this bill has the potential to be,” said executive director Neill Franklin of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of current and former law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges that advocates ending drug prohibition. In a message urging people to contact their congressional representatives in support of the bill, Franklin noted that, among other benefits, the legislation would free up law enforcers to “focus on solving violent crime rather than wasting their time on nonviolent marijuana offenses.”
The full text of the bill, HR 2306, can be read here (http://prohibitionsend.com/2011/06/23/text-of-bill-hr-2306-ending-federal-marijuana-prohibition-act-of-2011/).
A good article on the subject here. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7995-ron-paul-bill-attacks-federal-marijuana-war
among other benefits, the legislation would free up law enforcers to “focus on solving violent crime rather than wasting their time on nonviolent marijuana offenses.
The funny thing is that, depending on politics, agencies already selectively enforce laws as is. Many "illegal" activities deemed non-important are allowed (therefore non-enforced) by LEOs every day.
ForTehNguyen
06-26-11, 09:23
we lock up a greater % of our population than any other country in the world (huge chunk of them, harmless drug users that hurt no one). Yes we lock up more people than countries run by dictators, despots, and warlords. Sad
theblackknight
06-26-11, 09:24
Dose this mean we can quit messing around and legalized 'roids?
ForTehNguyen
06-26-11, 09:28
nothing wrong with legalizing roids either. If certain sporting leagues want to ban it then fine, that is their right too. If someone has body building for a hobby and wants to use them, I have no problem with that. The side effects are well known and people use them despite it. Complete waste of time trying to make them illegal and enforcing it.
Dose this mean we can quit messing around and legalized 'roids?
I don't see why not. I wouldn't consider it absolutely necessary but I think people using them with the proper advice from a sports doctor would get the best results possible. As far as I'm concerned you own your own body and should be able to ingest whatever it is you choose but do remember there are side effects to most things in life, including steroids.
we lock up a greater % of our population than any other country in the world (huge chunk of them, harmless drug users that hurt no one). Yes we lock up more people than countries run by dictators, despots, and warlords. Sad
Dude, why are you always putting up these one liners? List a statistic saying what percent of the locked up population are "harmless drug users that hurt no one". I'm not doubting your statement, but you don't list the stats when you make these blanket comments.
Many people are not just locked up for drug use. They have committed acts of theft and violence. They have also committed other crimes while engaging in drug use. Many of these crimes are often committed to get more resources for the drugs. Once the drugs start to decrease a person's ability to become a useful member of society (lose their jobs or never get one), and they still have a habit, then they turn to crime to support the habit. The drug use only cases are usually minimum security or forced rehab.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong here, I'm not calling you out. I've read most of the legalization threads in the GD forum, sometimes more than once because I want to understand both sides of the issue better. You've made that comment in almost every single thread and I have to ask you where that info is coming from.
I don't arrest "users". "Users" don't go to prison. Traffickers and distributors go to prison. Federally the typical minimum sentence is 3-5 years. If they traffic across state lines then the minimum goes up to 10, 20 if RICO charges can be applied. Billy Bob the nickle dime bag dealer isn't going to federal prison for the lengths of time I listed, that is unless he is doing it near a school. Mostly what we have been working is hydroponic marijuana being traded for cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy. Our cash seizures have run from as low as 20-30,000 a pop to a single 3.4 million dollar seizure. We took a half million just last week. Everywhere we are taking dope and money we are taking guns. I could care less about the 3-5 plants you have in your backyard for your personal smoke but once you start converting your basement, garage, apartment, warehouse to grow on a commercial scale, endangering your family and neighbors with the fire potential from your home-made wiring job to support the grow lights, timers, and drip systems then you get my attention. Put it in a plane, car, truck, etc and move it across country, now you have my attention. Legalization is not going to reduce the crime, lessen the number of those killed in drug/currency rips, and organization on organization violence. It will increase it. When it does innocents will get caught in the crossfire. Sit down with the Sheriff's of Lake, Mendocino, and Humboldt Counties, to name a few, and ask them what is at the root of all of their violent crime and every homicide in their AO and they'll answer with one word; marijuana. Ask them who is taking over all of the production and they'll answer Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Legalization will make it all better? Yeah, right.
variablebinary
06-26-11, 13:56
we lock up a greater % of our population than any other country in the world (huge chunk of them, harmless drug users that hurt no one). Yes we lock up more people than countries run by dictators, despots, and warlords. Sad
We could shrink that number dramatically by closing the border, and deporting all illegals.
Hispanics make up 21% of the Prison populace.
ForTehNguyen
06-26-11, 15:44
Dude, why are you always putting up these one liners? List a statistic saying what percent of the locked up population are "harmless drug users that hurt no one". I'm not doubting your statement, but you don't list the stats when you make these blanket comments.
Many people are not just locked up for drug use. They have committed acts of theft and violence. They have also committed other crimes while engaging in drug use. The drug use only cases are usually minimum security.
Its quite obvious that our huge prison population is not due to violent crime since violent crime has been either flat or falling in the past 20 years. However, drug arrests have increased dramatically over the past 20 years and half of those arrests were for Mary Jane. Mere possession is a huge majority of these arrest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs#Arrests_and_incarceration
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Marijuana_arrests_timeline.gif
Violent and nonviolent crime
7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[15] 52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at year end 2008 were in for violent crimes.[15] 21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes. Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge. 41% percent of convicted and unconvicted jail inmates in 2002 had a current or prior violent offense; 46% were nonviolent recidivists. [19]
From 2000 to 2008, the state prison population increased by 159,200 prisoners, and violent offenders accounted for 60% of this increase. The number of drug offenders in state prisons declined by 12,400 over this period. Furthermore, while the number of sentenced violent offenders in state prison increased from 2000 through 2008, the expected length of stays for these offenders declined slightly during this period.[15]
Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.
Arrests and incarceration
The United States has the second highest incarceration rate in the world.[44] (we are #1 now since this citation). A very large portion of people who are incarcerated are imprisoned for drug-related crimes. In 1994, it was reported that the "War on Drugs" results in the incarceration of one million Americans each year.[45] Of the related drug arrests, about 225,000 are for possession of cannabis, the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States.[46]
In 2008, 1.5 million Americans were arrested for drug offenses. 500,000 were imprisoned.[47]
In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes was rising 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%.[48] Among the prisoners, drug offenders made up the same percentage of State prisoners in both 1997 and 2004 (21%). The percentage of Federal prisoners serving time for drug offenses declined from 63% in 1997 to 55% in 2004.[49] The US Department of Justice, reporting on the effects of state initiatives, has stated that, from 1990 through 2000. "the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates." In addition to prison or jail, the United States provides for the deportation of many non-citizens convicted of drug offenses.[50]
Federal and state policies also impose collateral consequences on those convicted of drug offenses, such as denial of public benefits or licenses, that are not applicable to those convicted of other types of crime.[51]
Marijuana constitutes almost half of all drug arrests, and between 1990–2002, out of the overall drug arrests, 82% of the increase was for marijuana.
We could shrink that number dramatically by closing the border, and deporting all illegals.
Hispanics make up 21% of the Prison populace.
And are probably carrying across the lion's share of all the drugs entering the country.
Its quite obvious that our huge prison population is not due to violent crime since violent crime has been either flat or falling in the past 20 years. However, drug arrests have increased dramatically over the past 20 years and half of those arrests were for Mary Jane. Mere possession is a huge majority of these arrest.
You very cleverly posted stats for violent crime only. I assume these are referring to murders, assault/battery, etc... How many of those were drug related?
What about theft, counterfeiting, identity theft, property damage, and who knows whatever else that is non-violent, yet very serious? Are there stats on whether these crimes are drug related or not?
Your comments earlier indicated that a huge amount of incarcerated people were "harmless drug users that hurt no one". You're now citing evidence that drug arrests have increased, while violent crime is down. What percentage of these drug arrests are users only, hurting no one? How many of these drug arrests had to do with trafficking and other illegal activities versus "harmless" users only. Are the arrests of these users leading to incarceration or just forced rehab? Because, if most "users, harming no one" were simply arrested, but not incarcerated, that would render your prior comment invalid.
It's also important to note if these drug-related non-violent crimes include theft, identity theft, counterfeiting, property damage etc...
See, I have a deep seated belief, that as people, the main commodity we have to trade is our time. We can never get more of it and it is a limited resource. We can either choose to trade our time for $1/hour or $200+/hour, but that is each individual's choice, and ultimately their life. The decisions you make during the course of your life (schooling, hard work, dedication, business opportunities, luck) will determine what you end up trading your time for.
Thieves, steal your hard-earned money, and things you purchased with that money. By extension, however far fetched you may think that is, they are stealing from your life.
I would lock up people like that any day. Drugs or no drugs.
montanadave
06-26-11, 16:54
Seems to me the decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana argument will never be resolved by baby-boomers who are, to a large degree, still fighting the Vietnam War.
Tell me whether someone fought in Vietnam or protested the war, and it's generally a pretty safe guess as to what their politics are today. The whole marijuana debate gets rolled up (no pun intended) in the dirty, dope-smokin', draft-card burnin' hippies versus the blue collar hardhats, beer chuggin', "America: Love It or Leave It" stereotypes that still run pretty deep in this country.
They can't seem to agree on anything else, why expect them to reach a reasoned consensus with respect to marijuana?
Thirty years from now it'll be legal, a bunch of old-timers will be bitchin' about how the country's gone in the crapper (again), and most people won't give it a second thought.
Seems to me the decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana argument will never be resolved by baby-boomers who are, to a large degree, still fighting the Vietnam War.
Tell me whether someone fought in Vietnam or protested the war, and it's generally a pretty safe guess as to what their politics are today. The whole marijuana debate gets rolled up (no pun intended) in the dirty, dope-smokin', draft-card burnin' hippies versus the blue collar hardhats, beer chuggin', "America: Love It or Leave It" stereotypes that still run pretty deep in this country.
They can't seem to agree on anything else, why expect them to reach a reasoned consensus with respect to marijuana?
Thirty years from now it'll be legal, a bunch of old-timers will be bitchin' about how the country's gone in the crapper (again), and most people won't give it a second thought.
Dave, I understand your point and you are probably correct in your observations about the country in 30 years. Just a FYI, I'm in my mid-thirties, not a baby boomer.
My point isn't about being for or against legalization. It's about challenging specific arguments and blanket statements being used by legalization advocates.
Want to legalize based on constitutional grounds and states' rights? Fine. Ok, by me on that point, except we don't exactly have a libertarian government right now. By the way, I'll be for anyone having their right to put crap in their body as long as society as a whole isn't responsible for cleaning up their mess via entitlements.
Want to argue for legalization because a "huge chunk" of those poor incarcerated "drug users, that never hurt any one", ended up in a penitentiary because they didn't commit a crime other than possession? PROVE IT. (not directed at you)
Attempts to apply decriminalization of drug use in Portugal (forced rehabilitation and it's still illegal to traffic drugs there) to forecast the success of all out drug legalization, here in the U.S., will also be met with questions for data.
ForTehNguyen
06-26-11, 18:26
thats the problem now, so many people have been indoctrinated with the status quo that legalization is going to be real tough. Even if it were allowed for the states to regulate, i doubt many of them would legalize the hard stuff. Its mainly the younger non baby boomers who have been pushing it.
Sometimes I feel that everything should be legalized. Pot, heroin, meth, all of it. This way the people who want to it legal won't have anything to complain about & the weak minded will OD & die off.
I hear stories of doctors, lawyers, professors & tons of other professionals who partake of the forbidden weed, but I don't know any of them. The only people I know/have known that smoke are lazy, unmotivated, dirtbags.
If in fact they want to regulate it there should be a Constitutional Amendment passed as was done for the prohibition of alcohol, the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act.
That's a very good point. Back then most politicians still believed (well, more than now) that the Federal Government only had the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Now most have not read it.
It is a State issue. Funny how in 1919 they felt it was necessary to amend the Constitution to ban Alcohol but in 2009 they didn't find it necessary to require people to buy government health insurance.
I personally don't smoke dope and could care less if it was legalized, but if majority of people in a State want it, more power to them.
Sometimes I feel that everything should be legalized. Pot, heroin, meth, all of it. This way the people who want to it legal won't have anything to complain about & the weak minded will OD & die off.
I hear stories of doctors, lawyers, professors & tons of other professionals who partake of the forbidden weed, but I don't know any of them. The only people I know/have known that smoke are lazy, unmotivated, dirtbags.
It would be more likely that they would eventually become disabled and in need of government assistance. Care to pay for it?
I know people that smoke MJ or have smoked MJ, very intelligent people, that have had their careers or life's potential stunted. One of them is a lawyer, easily one of the brightest to graduate our high school class, but took 10 years longer than he needed to get the degree because he found pot in college.
That's a very good point. Back then most politicians still believed (well, more than now) that the Federal Government only had the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Now most have not read it.
It is a State issue. Funny how in 1919 they felt it was necessary to amend the Constitution to ban Alcohol but in 2009 they didn't find it necessary to require people to buy government health insurance.
I personally don't smoke dope and could care less if it was legalized, but if majority of people in a State want it, more power to them.
I don't believe the Constitution granted the federal government the power to provide social security, medicare, or welfare either.
Our system is broken right now. People are no longer responsible for their actions. Drugs generally make people less responsible. In a society like ours, where the responsible ones bear the burden, legalization of drugs will put more of the burden on them.
I agree with you though, it is a state issue. However, the federal government has already twisted things too much for me to be for full on legalization. Decriminalization, yes.
It would be more likely that they would eventually become disabled and in need of government assistance. Care to pay for it?
No Gov't assistance unless you're proven clean. Just how welfare should be.
It would be more likely that they would eventually become disabled and in need of government assistance. Care to pay for it?
I know people that smoke MJ or have smoked MJ, very intelligent people, that have had their careers or life's potential stunted. One of them is a lawyer, easily one of the brightest to graduate our high school class, but took 10 years longer to get the degree than he needed to because he found pot in college.
You could replace that with alcohol and it would still be the same story except no one gives a shit about alcoholics.
You could replace that with alcohol and it would still be the same story except no one gives a shit about alcoholics.
True, I've made my position fairly clear in another thread. We're beating a dead horse. Sorry, I don't mean to.
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=82239
MJ isn't the same thing as the other drugs. I am willing to be more flexible with MJ.
No Gov't assistance unless you're proven clean. Just how welfare should be.
There are a lot of should be's, but reality is not this way.
I don't arrest "users". "Users" don't go to prison. Traffickers and distributors go to prison. Federally the typical minimum sentence is 3-5 years. If they traffic across state lines then the minimum goes up to 10, 20 if RICO charges can be applied. Billy Bob the nickle dime bag dealer isn't going to federal prison for the lengths of time I listed, that is unless he is doing it near a school. Mostly what we have been working is hydroponic marijuana being traded for cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy. Our cash seizures have run from as low as 20-30,000 a pop to a single 3.4 million dollar seizure. We took a half million just last week. Everywhere we are taking dope and money we are taking guns. I could care less about the 3-5 plants you have in your backyard for your personal smoke but once you start converting your basement, garage, apartment, warehouse to grow on a commercial scale, endangering your family and neighbors with the fire potential from your home-made wiring job to support the grow lights, timers, and drip systems then you get my attention. Put it in a plane, car, truck, etc and move it across country, now you have my attention. Legalization is not going to reduce the crime, lessen the number of those killed in drug/currency rips, and organization on organization violence. It will increase it. When it does innocents will get caught in the crossfire. Sit down with the Sheriff's of Lake, Mendocino, and Humboldt Counties, to name a few, and ask them what is at the root of all of their violent crime and every homicide in their AO and they'll answer with one word; marijuana. Ask them who is taking over all of the production and they'll answer Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Legalization will make it all better? Yeah, right.
Exactly, it's illegal and that creates an illegal market for it :D You're preaching to the choir.
I don't believe the Constitution granted the federal government the power to provide social security, medicare, or welfare either.
You're right, let's get rid of all 3 of those as well. They're all redistribution schemes and a huge financial burden on our youth and the children of today.
thats the problem now, so many people have been indoctrinated with the status quo that legalization is going to be real tough. Even if it were allowed for the states to regulate, i doubt many of them would legalize the hard stuff. Its mainly the younger non baby boomers who have been pushing it.
While I can understand what you mean about indoctrination, I can assure you that I'm viewing the facts with a very open mind and have made my conclusions after analyzing both sides of the argument. The fact is, there aren't any facts to forecast the successes of all out legalization. Both of us have looked at the facts, you have taken them to mean one thing, and I have taken them to mean another.
While I have come to believe in the merits of decriminalization, I won't take the pro-legalization side's talking points and apply them at face value because many of them, like your statement regarding "harmless users, that hurt no one", either don't have facts to support them, or require leaps of faith using the existing facts in order to believe them.
One can make the argument that Portugal, which has decriminalization, has succeeded in reducing drug usage, but their system is far from full legalization (it's still illegal to traffic drugs there) and the country is in shambles due to their socialist tendencies.
From a libertarian point of view, I can understand that the argument is on a constitutional rights and state rights platform. I can agree with that. People argue that we should be free to put in our bodies whatever we please. Ok, I agree. But, when expanding someone else's liberty and pursuit of happiness, through legalization of ALL drugs (especially cocaine, crack, heroin, meth) will directly impact mine and society's as a whole (through higher taxes, higher entitlements), I take issue with that.
But who knows, maybe in 30 years, like montanadave said, what we're debating will have happened anyways. For better or worse remains to be seen. Hopefully, we're not like Portugal in 30 years, and China will be using us as an argument for legalization of drugs.
You're right, let's get rid of all 3 of those as well. They're all redistribution schemes and a huge financial burden on our youth and the children of today.
Irish, if we could do that, I am fully on board. I don't think you and I have much in the way of disagreement, perhaps just in the order in which the events take place.
People should be allowed to fail. Only then will they start making the right decisions.
Tell me whether someone fought in Vietnam or protested the war, and it's generally a pretty safe guess as to what their politics are today. The whole marijuana debate gets rolled up (no pun intended) in the dirty, dope-smokin', draft-card burnin' hippies versus the blue collar hardhats, beer chuggin', "America: Love It or Leave It" stereotypes that still run pretty deep in this country.
Totally agree.
Thirty years from now it'll be legal, a bunch of old-timers will be bitchin' about how the country's gone in the crapper (again), and most people won't give it a second thought.
IDK about that. Unless we get our shit together there might not be a United States in 30 years for it to be legal in.
People should be allowed to fail. Only then will they start making the right decisions.
Well said. Remove the .Gov welfare state safety net and let people live with the repercussions of their actions.
ForTehNguyen
06-27-11, 17:26
While I can understand what you mean about indoctrination, I can assure you that I'm viewing the facts with a very open mind and have made my conclusions after analyzing both sides of the argument. The fact is, there aren't any facts to forecast the successes of all out legalization. Both of us have looked at the facts, you have taken them to mean one thing, and I have taken them to mean another.
From a libertarian point of view, I can understand that the argument is on a constitutional rights and state rights platform. I can agree with that. People argue that we should be free to put in our bodies whatever we please. Ok, I agree. But, when expanding someone else's liberty and pursuit of happiness, through legalization of ALL drugs (especially cocaine, crack, heroin, meth) will directly impact mine and society's as a whole (through higher taxes, higher entitlements), I take issue with that.
Prohibition and then legalization of alcohol is already the case study we have. The social economics is no different, if people took the time to learn from history. Even back then they knew they had to pass a constitutional amendment for that policy to be legal. Excessive alcohol usage was HIGHER during prohibition than it was before. It was more dangerous to drink alcohol then because who knows what bootleggers put in the booze. Exact same thing is happening now. Drug usage is higher in the US than countries that tolerate drugs to a certain extent.
And I have a problem with us spending 100s of billions of dollars since we started a futile war, enriching cartels and the gangs and who knows what the indirect cost to society is. All this time we could've been making huge tax revenues like alcohol and tobacco. Instead we enrich the criminals and fuel a giant prison industrial complex that arose from it. Gigantic amount of unintended consequences resulted. It is impossible to "win" this war just like it was impossible to win the war on alcohol.
Look how much less smokers there are today compared to 20 years ago. We accomplished this through education, not throwing people in jail. From a Constitutional argument, what gives the govt the right to tell us what to put in our bodies? Legalization does not mean I condone the usage. Alcohol and tobacco are legal now and I use neither, and the same will go for these narcotics. Moral of the story is when the laws of legislating morality collide with the laws of supply and demand you get unintended consequences, and there's plenty of that to go around.
Your taxes are higher now because we blow $60B a year on the drug war. If it were legalized your taxes will be higher only if you use the substance. The welfare entitlements is a completely different animal. You are currently supporting alcoholics and smokers on entitlements, but thats not alcohol or cigarettes fault. Govt should not be providing these entitlements in the first place. Not wanting to pay for other peoples medical problems is a good argument against socialized medicine.
GermanSynergy
06-27-11, 17:31
Well said. Remove the .Gov welfare state safety net and let people live with the repercussions of their actions.
Do you think that this will ever be the case in this country?
Do you think that this will ever be the case in this country?
No, just wishful thinking on my part. My predictions for our country are not very pleasant due to our current economic, military and interventionist positions and policies that we hold and impose in the world theater.
This isn't exactly the right thread for it, although the OP is about Ron Paul sponsoring this bill, but I don't see anyway out of our country collapsing economically without someone stepping in and putting us back on the right fiscal track. The only person I've seen who is committed to our country, our Constitution and the American ideals that once made us the greatest country in the world is Ron Paul.
Many members here on M4C consider themselves to be Republicans and espouse the greatness of Ronald Reagan while shunning Ron Paul. The fact of the matter is they were cut from similar cloth and have similar stances on many of the ideals they both consider to be important in government. While I consider neither one to be perfect I do think they're both closer to the mark than anyone else in the political picture. These are some of my favorite quotes by Ronald Reagan, he sounds just like a Ron Paul libertarian.
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves. - Reagan
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. - Reagan
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. - Reagan
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. - Reagan
Man is not free unless government is limited. - Reagan
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth! - Reagan
Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing. - RR
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. - RR
The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much. - RR
polymorpheous
06-27-11, 18:49
People should be allowed to fail. Only then will they start making the right decisions.
I've finally found a sig line.
:D
polymorpheous
06-27-11, 18:52
I love these threads.
Most people I know really don't quite know what to make of my views.
I fit in so well here.
You guys are awesome!
Well said. Remove the .Gov welfare state safety net and let people live with the repercussions of their actions.
I don't care for FICA, or the millions of random government grant programs that I can never benefit from but taking that literally and to the complete extent-- You will have to 'live with the repercussions' of things beyond your control as well.
Mandatory liability insurance is a big one. SEC rules (they help, even if the agency is toothless). A functional court system. Civil service rules, it might be hard to believe but before they existed the government was even more corrupt under the patronage system.
Prohibition and then legalization of alcohol is already the case study we have. The social economics is no different, if people took the time to learn from history. Even back then they knew they had to pass a constitutional amendment for that policy to be legal. Excessive alcohol usage was HIGHER during prohibition than it was before. It was more dangerous to drink alcohol then because who knows what bootleggers put in the booze. Exact same thing is happening now. Drug usage is higher in the US than countries that tolerate drugs to a certain extent.
I believe I, and a few others, already addressed most of these points in the last debate we had, but I'll do it again here. I wasn't going to get in on this thread, but after seeing your "drug users, that hurt no one" comment, I couldn't let that go without substantial clarification.
Alcohol, tobacco, and MJ are very different drugs than the others. You quoted the statistic "excessive alcohol use". What about overall social experimentation and recreational use? Legalization of anything will increase overall accessibility and use. Just learn from history by looking at alcohol. Decrease of "excessive use", perhaps. So do we want many more people using the hard drugs recreationally, but not excessively?
According to lanesmith:
Although addictive and frequently abused, alcohol has got nothing on meth, heroin, crack, and most commonly abused prescription drugs. The vast majority of American adults socially drink alcohol and lead productive lives without falling into the social safety nets. As an emergency physician who is at the bottom of that net, I've not seen or heard of one person, not a single one, who has managed to "socially" use on of these big three and maintain a self-sufficient existence. Instead my day is dominated fixing problems created by these drugs at a huge cost to the tax payer and citizens who pay higher premiums due to cost sharing. Even the top earners (celebrities, athletes, etc.) spiral out of control and end up being social recipients.
I'll illustrate with a little experiment:
Take 10 people and have them drink 2 standard servings of alcohol each weekend night for a month. Then, take a different 10 people and have them take a hit of meth, heroin, or crack each weekend night for a month. At the end of the month, let both groups go about their "business" and see which group goes on to live productive lives. Finally, image that all of the people in both groups are teenagers. Don't get me wrong, there is no data behind my experiment, just a lot of practical experience and common sense.
So, if you want a majority of Americans to vote for drug legalization, you must first eliminate of all of the publicly funded social safety nets so that those of us who work are not supporting all those living in a haze. Then, you have to demonstrate a workable mechanism to keep these drugs out of the hands of kids so that we do not create even bigger future generations of recipients. Good luck.
According to YVK:
Obvious problem with this report, as already mentioned above, is bunching all drugs of abuse together. I think most reasonable folks would agree that pot should be legal; meth and coke, on the other hand...
People's attitudes are almost predictable based on how often/how close they have to deal with drug abusers. I almost fully agree with lanesmith, having spent nine years in a large public hospital and having taken care of countless drug abusers. My only disagreement is in regards to alcohol; I think it is a bigger problem than we say it is. Wanna make drugs legal - fine, just don't make me a) be obligated to take care of them and b) be obligated to pay for that care out of my taxes.
Somehow, we forget that we've had legalized drug treatment programs for a while - methadone maintenance programs, anyone?
I'd say that 50% of the time those recipients had an unscheduled drug test, such as during ED or inpatient work-up, we'd detect both methadone and opiates; so much for success.
Finally, I'll add that there seems to be a certain hypocrisy with the pro-legalization crowd using the libertarian platform. Libertarians are generally anti-tax, and anti-government intrusion. The pro-legalization crowd will argue that you should legalize all drugs because people have a right to do what they want to their bodies. Then, in the argument to support legalization, they'll say, drugs will be safer because government will regulate the content/purity. They'll say, we can tax the hell out of it and make money on it (by the way taxing something that would be legal, such as heroin, would be very anti-business for the heroin industry). Proponents of drug legalization also say we'll force the new businesses to comply with government regulations. I wonder who determines those regulations......politicians perhaps??? Then, you have them saying how successful Portugal is in the decriminalization of drugs except that their addicts are forced to undergo rehab.
Doing the same thing under a different guise...
_________________________________________
And I have a problem with us spending 100s of billions of dollars since we started a futile war, enriching cartels and the gangs and who knows what the indirect cost to society is. All this time we could've been making huge tax revenues like alcohol and tobacco. Instead we enrich the criminals and fuel a giant prison industrial complex that arose from it. Gigantic amount of unintended consequences resulted. It is impossible to "win" this war just like it was impossible to win the war on alcohol.
Do you really think the war on drugs has been propagated correctly? This war is a sham. We have leaders who pay lip service to the war, but don't have the guts to do what it takes to win it. The money is being funneled to politically well connected companies, to make money, and do very little because people/politicians are afraid of the political fallout of what it would really take to prevent drugs from entering the U.S.
This sounds like a good way to start things on the right track:
Personally, I like to get rid of the term "War on Drug" since it is more of a political euphemism. The current situation is much more of a police action at this point. So, I'm happy to end this "war" since it really does not seem to involve our military. However, I would keep most of the same laws on the books with the possible exception of decriminalization of pot for personal use. We can go back to calling it a war when we:
1) Militarize our border with a real fence, machine guns, and mines - lots and lots of glorious mines.
2) Bring the full weight of our Navy and Air Force against smugglers with a shoot first attitude.
3) Secret military tribunals for suspected foreign drug smugglers being tried as unlawful enemy combatants.
4) Mandatory, unannounced drug testing for all welfare reciepients. That means no alcohol, nicotine, or dope if you are on the public dime.
5) Mandatory lifetime of hard labor sentence in the coldest part of Alaska for domestic drug dealers.
6) Cooperation agreements with all countries receiving US foreign aid that allows us unfettered clandestine action against cartels within their border. If you want our money, we get to take out the trash a la Bin Laden style.
Ahh, fantasy is such a wonderful coping strategy.
Also, remember that alcohol legalization did not take away the problems associated with having the drug in society. I wonder if the tax dollars gained by taxing tobacco and alcohol are really a net plus or minus versus the costs to society as a whole.
It should also be noted that legal alcohol, produced in the open and heavily taxed and regulated, is responsible for massive social costs. How many people are killed by drunk drivers every year? How much do we as a society pay in costs related to those who abuse alcohol? (A tiny minority of all alcohol users) Think about it: How much of your car insurance premium is the result of some drunk careening into people on the highway?
Often in these debates alcohol prohibition gets brought up as an example of a failed policy and legalization is discussed as if it made problems disappear. It doesn't. It replaces one set of problems with another set of problems.
The question becomes which set of problems is preferable.
Do you really think that crime rates will magically disappear??
Criminals have existed long before the war on drugs. They simply choose to live outside of the law and get their income through dishonorable means. Even before the war on drugs, we've had murderers, bandits, violent gangs, bank robbers, burglars etc... you name it. Before drugs, gangs had protection rackets and other sources of illegal income.
How do you know the mafia isn't thriving? The organization has matured and taken it's illegal activities more underground through the veil of legal business instead of conducting them overtly, but I would argue that the crime families still exist and will continue to do so. They will still influence politicians through illegal bribes and campaign contributions. Criminals will not go away just because you took their favorite source of income away.
There is a black market that exists for pretty much anything that is illegal, and for anything that is legal, but is hard or expensive to get. You will still have people buying drugs, like alcohol, for minors. You already have "legal" drugs like oxycontin, being purchased legally (and probably being paid for by an insurance plan, which means the cost is being defrayed by the group as a whole), then being resold at a profit. This is an example of drug related crime, even when the drug is legal.
I am going to borrow a line from a fellow forum member:
You can not legislate the poor into prosperity. On the same token, you can not legislate the criminals into righteousness. -LowSpeed_HighDrag
_______________________________________
Look how much less smokers there are today compared to 20 years ago. We accomplished this through education, not throwing people in jail. From a Constitutional argument, what gives the govt the right to tell us what to put in our bodies? Legalization does not mean I condone the usage. Alcohol and tobacco are legal now and I use neither, and the same will go for these narcotics. Moral of the story is when the laws of legislating morality collide with the laws of supply and demand you get unintended consequences, and there's plenty of that to go around.
One likely explanation is the heavy taxation, because increasing the prices will reduce the demand...basic economics. There's also the possibility that many cigarette smokers are moving to marijuana. I know of many cigarette smokers that used to only smoke cigarettes and now mostly smoke marijuana in private, but smoke cigarettes in public. In some cases, huge taxes on tobacco have given rise to a new black market.
I wrote this before in the other thread and I'll paste it here:
We already spend money on treatment and prevention (education) of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. It still doesn't stop. Drug use is more likely a social/behavioral/cultural issue. People know drugs are "bad" and they've known forever. Yet, you'll always have jackasses willing to **** themselves up. I hate when patients tell me that the tobacco companies lied to them and I want to say, you mean that big ****ing warning on the package from the Surgeon General telling you that smoking will kill you didn't mean anything?? By the way, for those of you who have a family history of Age Related Macular Degeneration, don't smoke, and if you do, quit. It will increase the progression or the likelihood of you developing the disease.
The problem is the "hard" drugs (meth, heroin, cocaine (and it's derivatives)) are highly addictive and far more devastating at a faster rate than alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. As lanesmith said earlier, it is possible for alcohol and tobacco users to be normal contributors to society. This isn't really so for the "hard" drug users. Do we pay for the treatment, medical bills, housing, food, and monthly welfare/disability check of the new addicts with tax money? Who pays for their drugs?
How do we ensure that there won't be a new cocaine, heroin, or meth lobby/interest group? Doesn't big tobacco, and now "big cannabis" have lobbyists fighting for them?
If we go along with the libertarian line of reasoning, if they have the freedom to put whatever they want in their bodies, then the country as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for their self-destruction. Their families can care for them if they wish, but the country as a whole shouldn't have to suffer the financial burden of more leeches.
_________________________________________
Your taxes are higher now because we blow $60B a year on the drug war. If it were legalized your taxes will be higher only if you use the substance. The welfare entitlements is a completely different animal. You are currently supporting alcoholics and smokers on entitlements, but thats not alcohol or cigarettes fault. Govt should not be providing these entitlements in the first place. Not wanting to pay for other peoples medical problems is a good argument against socialized medicine.
You're not making the connections here. You cannot address each individual issue as an isolated issue. This is where the law of unintended consequences occurs. Any large action, such as legalization, will have far reaching consequences that will affect things in the social, medical, and economic arena.
Your taxes might be higher if you use the substance, but look above, I believe I addressed this already with John Wayne's post.
I don't have the stats on this , but ever wonder what the cost of alcohol and tobacco enforcement is? My parents, who owned a liquor store, were routinely (at least every year) sent letters saying they had passed the undercover agent alcohol and tobacco underage buying sting operation. How much of our tax dollars are spent every Friday and Saturday evening at 12AM-3AM when all the LEOs are out in force in search of drunk drivers. How much of our court systems are tied up with DUI cases and other cases involving alcohol? The point is, we are still paying for it regardless if we drink.
Keep in mind, I'm not necessarily arguing against legalization, I'm just debunking all the wonderful positive things that will happen once we legalize all drugs. I recognize that there are pros and cons associated with legalization versus non-legalization. The most valid argument takes place on a constitutional rights and states rights platform. The rest of them are easily debatable and often false.
No, just wishful thinking on my part. My predictions for our country are not very pleasant due to our current economic, military and interventionist positions and policies that we hold and impose in the world theater.
This isn't exactly the right thread for it, although the OP is about Ron Paul sponsoring this bill, but I don't see anyway out of our country collapsing economically without someone stepping in and putting us back on the right fiscal track. The only person I've seen who is committed to our country, our Constitution and the American ideals that once made us the greatest country in the world is Ron Paul.
I agree that things don't look very good and unfortunately, we are both entertaining the same wishful thinking.
The only way to prevent our elections from being bought out and influenced by unions, big business, and other special interests (the way things are now), is to limit the power and scope of any government.
The less an elected official can do, the less he will be approached by groups with deep pockets.
Honestly your post was way too long to address everything. I don't think we need to quote everyone's opinions from another thread, about a different topic, into this thread. If those people want to chime in they're more than welcome but it doesn't make much sense to me to duplicate another thread here. Some quick answers of mine in bold.
Finally, I'll add that there seems to be a certain hypocrisy with the pro-legalization crowd using the libertarian platform. Libertarians are generally anti-tax, and anti-government intrusion. Absolutely correct. The pro-legalization crowd will argue that you should legalize all drugs because people have a right to do what they want to their bodies. Another true statement. Then, in the argument to support legalization, they'll say, drugs will be safer because government will regulate the content/purity. Then they aren't arguing a libertarian point of view, period. The free market will determine who has a good product, will thrive and continue to do business. They'll say, we can tax the hell out of it and make money on it (by the way taxing something that would be legal, such as heroin, would be very anti-business for the heroin industry). Again, not a libertarian argument just someone stating they wants drugs legalized. A proponent of drug legalization doesn't make them knowledgeable about libertarianism. Proponents of drug legalization also say we'll force the new businesses to comply with government regulations. I wonder who determines those regulations......politicians perhaps??? Again, not if the person is arguing from a libertarian point of view.
This sounds like a good way to start things on the right track:
2) Bring the full weight of our Navy and Air Force against smugglers with a shoot first attitude.
3) Secret military tribunals for suspected foreign drug smugglers being tried as unlawful enemy combatants.
5) Mandatory lifetime of hard labor sentence in the coldest part of Alaska for domestic drug dealers.
That sounds like a great idea if you're from Stalinist Russia, Maoist China or Pol Pot's Cambodia. None of these ideas sound even remotely American.
The only way to prevent our elections from being bought out and influenced by unions, big business, and other special interests (the way things are now), is to limit the power and scope of any government.
The less an elected official can do, the less he will be approached by groups with deep pockets.
And the only person who's ever promised to do that and can back it up with their voting record is Ron Paul. :dirol:
Irish, sorry about the long post and for cluttering up your thread.
I put the others' post in there because they applied to the discussion at hand, and was careful not to apply them incorrectly. I only wanted to clear up what I perceive to be misconceptions and over-simplifications.
I know not all of the things I wrote in the hypocrisy comment are libertarian. Some are, some aren't. It just shows that even after legalization, libertarians will still be at odds with the government for overstepping their powers.
I took lanesmith's comments mostly in jest. No, some of the more draconian measures aren't American at all.
While I like Ron Paul, I doubt he will be able to fix all that is wrong with our country in his lifetime.
Irish, sorry about the long post and for cluttering up your thread.
Not to worry brother, you bring a lot to the conversation and topic at hand with well thought out arguments and good information.
titsonritz
06-28-11, 14:49
Finally a little progress, it only took one decade with alcohol to figure out what has not been fully realized in four decades with drugs, you cannot legislate morality. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives dead or ruined later are we any better off today then we were in 1971 when Tricky Dick declared war on drugs? Common sense must prevail someday.
Some interesting reports and articles have been published recently...
6/2/11 Global Commission on Drug Policy.
...declared today that the "global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world." Four decades ago, policy makers imagined creating a drug free world through "harsh law enforcement action" that cracked down on drug production and distribution. But the resulting "vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers" have only led to an expansion of the trade, higher rates of drug consumption, and has created — as seen in places like Mexico or Afghanistan — deadly, volatile new arenas for an illicit industry to sow mayhem. (http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/06/02/report-the-global-war-on-drugs-has-failed-is-it-time-to-legalize/)
GCDP Official report here (http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report).
6/14/11 LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) - Declares WOD a failure on it's 40th Anniversary. (http://www.leap.cc/40years/)
LEAP official report here (http://www.leap.cc/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/40th-Report-V-2.pdf).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.