So much for MJ decriminalization

[scrappy]

If one were to examine the entire spectrum of economic benefits accruing from the decriminalizing or legalizing MJ, one would see that the biggest gainer is the public, especially the tax-paying public. And who would be the biggest loser? The lawyers. (I just wish I had some statistics to back this up.)

 

That is exactly why MJ will never be decriminalized or legalized.

[Dudde]

You have to remember Obama's background too, he's helped a lot of small neighborhoods that have probably had severe drug problems - that would cause a lot of personal bias

[scrappy]

I can feel the day of legalization in the flow of time...it chills the bone. By that time I hope to have fully automated my house so I don't have to have contact with the outside world, so I won't care

Dudde, maybe your paranoia is unjustified. With regards to physical harm from MJ relative to dependence on it, how do you justify criminalizing it when these data are commonly known:

 

(source)

 

Shouldn't you be more paranoid about cigarette smoking and beer drinking?

Edited March 29, 2009 by scrappy

[Dudde]

Indeed I am - I drink alcohol, but I do so responsibly. I dislike being around smoke of any kind outside of campfires, my nose seems to flip me off anytime I do. Thus the aforementioned "as long as it's inside" - I don't mind other people doing whatever they want to do, as long as

 

a: they take care of their family

 

and

 

b: I can still go places I want to go, without having to smell anything worse than exhaust in the air

 

Hell if stabbing yourself with a fork were addictive, I'd be all for whoever wanting to do that, as long as they didn't come bleed all over me. I'm not interested in the welfare of these individuals, so much as I am them annoying society/providing crap for their family

[scrappy]

b: I can still go places I want to go, without having to smell anything worse than exhaust in the air

Then you must also hate old ladies who wear too much perfume in public places. My point being this: Should everything that offends you be criminalized? I happen to be offended by NASCAR for a whole lot of good reasons, but I don't think its activities should be felonious (we need to know who these people are and watch out for them).

[Pangloss]

You have to remember Obama's background too, he's helped a lot of small neighborhoods that have probably had severe drug problems - that would cause a lot of personal bias

 

The president is also a religious person who supports public funding for faith-based organizations, a concept that got a big shot in the arm last week with new legislation making its way through Congress that greatly expands AmeriCorps. The opposition party is quite up in arms about it, concerned about public funding for faith-based organizations. No, really -- Democrats are now extolling the virtues of these organizations, and Republicans are expressing concern about the government supporting groups that promote a specific ideological agenda.

 

The hypocrisy of politicians never ceases to amaze.

[Dudde]

The hypocrisy of politicians never ceases to amaze.

 

That's a funny statement, but how true - I hadn't been watching the news lately so I haven't heard about supporting AmeriCorps - being pretty atheistic though, I've worked with them several times, I usually like what they do to help and promote...well, 4 years ago anyway.

 

Then you must also hate old ladies who wear too much perfume in public places. My point being this: Should everything that offends you be criminalized?

 

I do honestly, well I mean I don't hate the old ladies, old people are cool, but I hate most perfumes/colognes on the market today. I don't necessarily believe that everything that offends us should be outlawed - but there's a big difference between an old lady walking around with perfume, and smoke from recreational (or professional I guess) smokers

[bascule]

That is exactly why MJ will never be decriminalized or legalized.

 

I think that it won't be legalized for the time being because the politicians who are privy to doing so have bigger fish to fry.

[Daecon]

I demand an ultimatum.

 

Either make cannabis as legal as alcohol and tobacco, or make alcohol and tobacco as illegal as cannabis.

[CaptainPanic]

I can feel the day of legalization in the flow of time...it chills the bone. By that time I hope to have fully automated my house so I don't have to have contact with the outside world, so I won't care

 

ROFL! What kind of legalization are you talking about? Napalm flamethrower legalization?

 

Do you already have a fully automated "recognize Dutch people system"? The Dutch live in a country where the stuff is decriminalized, and we don't need a visa to enter the US of A. In other words: people who live in a country with legalized tolerated weed can already reach your doorstep just like that (although it's not possible to import the stuff itself, the crazy and dangerous stoners can come).

But no worries, the Dutch are peaceful people, and it's quite safe on our streets. Indeed, I dare say it's safer here than in the US of A, looking at the number of people in prison and/or murders

 

I'm so puzzled by this post... not scared in a country of legalized guns, but scared by a drug which makes people peaceful and in the mood to watch a movie. Your remark here looks like: "Not scared by a lion with an attitude, but panicking by the sight of bambi." It just doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but I really feel like laughing at you Dudde... it's the stupidest post I've read in ages... At least it's a good thing that you know your opinion is biased.

[Sisyphus]

Then you must also hate old ladies who wear too much perfume in public places. My point being this: Should everything that offends you be criminalized? I happen to be offended by NASCAR for a whole lot of good reasons, but I don't think its activities should be felonious (we need to know who these people are and watch out for them).

 

Well the reason that's different is because perfume is not toxic, chemically addictive, or psychoactive. (Or if it is it's far less so than tobacco or cannabis.) Strong perfume is merely distasteful (according to some).

 

I do wonder what would happen if taken to extremes, however. If I bought ten thousand bottles of cheap perfume and sprayed their entire contents into the air in the downtown area of a major city, would I be arrested for anything? (Air pollution codes, perhaps?) Should I be?

[CaptainPanic]

I don't necessarily believe that everything that offends us should be outlawed - but there's a big difference between an old lady walking around with perfume, and smoke from recreational (or professional I guess) smokers

 

Yeah, the smoker first thinks, then talks, while the old lady just talks and talks.

[Phi for All]

Come on, we don't need any "that's stupid" comments. I welcome opposition comments for what they are: a chance to hone your own arguments and see exactly what it is about MJ that people object to.

 

I agree that Obama can't be the one to start this. It has to come from a logical, rational public who marginalize the "let's get high" angle and focus on the merits of economic competition in various markets, reducing crime, increasing revenue through taxation and reducing prison population by removing the least offensive inmates.

 

One concern is that existing laws aren't sufficient to cover MJ use. How much could you smoke and still drive a car legally, and how would it be measured, like blood alcohol content is measured?

[Sisyphus]

It has to come from a logical, rational public

 

I would also add "abstinent" (from cannabis). To those made skeptical by the "let's get high" mentality, the most credible advocates of legalization are those who don't partake.

[Phi for All]

I would also add "abstinent" (from cannabis). To those made skeptical by the "let's get high" mentality, the most credible advocates of legalization are those who don't partake.

Great point. I've partaken in the past but don't now and you're right, the most pragmatic arguments come from the economic and criminal angle, rather than the "it's no worse than alcohol" proponents.

[Daecon]

It does bring attention to the hypocrisy of their attitude, though.

[Phi for All]

It does bring attention to the hypocrisy of their attitude, though.

Hypocrites, by definition, rarely see their actions as hypocritical. It's just not the angle to take for change, and I think this is what Obama is trying to teach us. Shouting across the aisle is no longer a viable option.

[Daecon]

One concern is that existing laws aren't sufficient to cover MJ use. How much could you smoke and still drive a car legally, and how would it be measured, like blood alcohol content is measured?

 

Suppose someone has been smoking a lot earlier that day, then they go driving... they no longer have any cannabis on their person or in their car, can they get into any legal trouble considering they're not in possession of any cannabis?

 

Or would they be charged with be "driving while intoxicated" which could be considered a subjective threshold if different people have different tolerance limits to it.

 

Surely the active chemical in cannabis would become present in the circulatory system as it goes between the lungs and the brain? Still, other than a blood test, how would it be measured?

 

I'm sure some sort of breath test could be invented, like for alcohol...

Edited March 30, 2009 by Transdecimal
my post made no sense

[Sisyphus]

Suppose someone has been smoking a lot earlier that day, then they go driving... they no longer have any cannabis on their person or in their car, can they get into any legal trouble considering they're not in possession of any cannabis?

 

Or would they be charged with be "driving while intoxicated" which could be considered a subjective threshold if different people have different tolerance limits to it.

 

Surely the active chemical in cannabis would become present in the circulatory system as it goes between the lungs and the brain? Still, other than a blood test, how would it be measured?

 

I'm sure some sort of breath test could be invented, like for alcohol...

 

Yes, driving while under the influence is illegal, and it should be illegal. There's nothing subjective about it. People have different tolerances for alcohol, too, but the maximum legal blood alcohol content for driving doesn't take that into account, and I'm totally fine with that. Just make it illegal to drive while having levels in your system that would significantly impair someone with low tolerance. If laws are currently insufficient in this regard, they could easily be made sufficient, with drunk driving laws as a model.

[iNow]

And DUI laws are already on the books.

[Dudde]

Do you already have a fully automated "recognize Dutch people system"?

nah, Dutch people are pretty cool, in fact, the only people that work for my company who have my last name are Dutch.

 

 

I'm so puzzled by this post... not scared in a country of legalized guns, but scared by a drug which makes people peaceful and in the mood to watch a movie. Your remark here looks like: "Not scared by a lion with an attitude, but panicking by the sight of bambi."

 

To be fair, I never said I was scared of MJ, not in the slightest, I find it highly annoying and, as recognized, the annoyance and distaste I have for the substance comes from completely personal past encounters. (also, I hate guns, and find them pansy-ish, and wish real criminals weren't the pansies they are, so we wouldn't necessarily need them for self defense)

 

It just doesn't make any sense. Sorry, but I really feel like laughing at you Dudde...

 

Indeed, my aim is to bring more laughter and humor into this world, I'm pleased that my statements are bringing me closer to this goal!

 

oh, and

yeah, the smoker first thinks, then talks, while the old lady just talks and talks

 

I've never found this to be an actual scenario, I may need to visit another country to do that first though. I don't know how many of the people around here from the U.S are from poorer neighborhoods or more crime infested areas, but in the United States, I haven't found a lot of responsible adults or kids who have any reason they should be allowed to have this legalized. Close to none TBH

[bascule]

I would also add "abstinent" (from cannabis). To those made skeptical by the "let's get high" mentality, the most credible advocates of legalization are those who don't partake.

 

Like Penn Jilette? He doesn't smoke, drink, etc and never has.

 

If you do not have the right to put whatever you want into your body you are not living in a free country

[GutZ]

So long as less than 90% (or A LOT) of the people disapprove government is not going to change anything. Obama is a politician, and he's no better than Bush in a lot of regards.He says he going to do something to get votes and approval to get and keep their position. people contribute to his campaign he has responsibilities to others, and in today's politics that's more important than doing what is correct. It's too bad because he's a smart man. This is how it will be for a while.

 

What is correct is legalizing it. I really don't care if other people dislike it, or hate the smell, or whatever, that's a stupid reason to take away someones freedom to choose. I have to deal with ignorant people everyday, why can't we make ignorance illegal? it's far more danger to the public.The whole idea about it being for safety is BS. It's a plant. If we can't trust ourselves to regulate how we use it, we might as well take away all thought processing out of everything. Let's just have the government tell us what to do. We should have not brushing your teeth be illegal as well. You may think I am being ridiculous but that's only because this whole issue is ridiculous.

 

A few signatures....Done...No Armageddon.

 

I am seriously debating on whether I should even follow politics anymore. personally I think hitting rock bottom might not be bad for civilization to ****ing wake up. This whole world could use a reset or pause button right now.

[Sisyphus]

So long as less than 90% (or A LOT) of the people disapprove government is not going to change anything.

 

Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? Instead of getting mad at Obama for not doing what the majority doesn't want him to do, how about we work on trying to turn that majority into a minority?

[GutZ]

Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? Instead of getting mad at Obama for not doing what the majority doesn't want him to do, how about we work on trying to turn that majority into a minority?

 

I am mad at Obama because he is in the very position to do that. I think he should spend more time being a leader than trying to maintain his position as one.

 

The reason why it's still illegal is due to misinformation, and that people are easy to manipulate. How long as this issue been around. It's not like people haven't been trying to pursue people to look at the facts.

 

Democracy is flawed. We don't really live in a true democracy anyway. I wish it were more virtous for a leader to actually lead, even if the majority doesn't follow, assuming that it's the right thing to do. Freedom is one of those fundemental aspects to human that is important.

 

Government is redudant and so is democracy if it's self defeating.