Glenn Beck

[ydoaPs]

04NXAFktROo

He wants to legalize pot. What do you think?

[Sayonara]

I think he's getting plenty enough of it while it's illegal.

[Phi for All]

I don't think that interview came off the way Beck would've wanted it to. I don't think his argument that smoking pot isn't a victimless crime was meant to solicit a rationale that legalizing it, regulating it and taxing it is the smart thing to do.

 

The interview excerpt also ends without Beck having the final word. This doesn't seem like a normal Beck segment.

[Mr Skeptic]

I thought I'd never see the day when I agree with Glen Beck. Also, I think this is a particularly good time to do this: we really do need more income and less spending.

 

Pros:

New income: tax on marijuana

Savings: less spending on jail and law enforcement

Less disrespect for the law (from people who smoke pot, or know someone who does and gets away with it)

Less crime

Less lives destroyed.

Less money funneled to criminal elements

Smaller government, more liberty

More consistent laws (compare to tobacco and alcohol)

 

Cons:

People upset that others don't follow their morality

A few more people who are cheerful, paranoid, and hungry

 

I'm sure there's a few more, both of pros and cons.

[bascule]

This makes him the second Fox News personality to advocate legalization of marijuana after John Stossel

[ParanoiA]

Really I would like to see marijuana and prostitution both decriminalized, at least, across the entire union. Prostitution is probably more important since it involves breaking the black market's hold and subjugation of women; re-empowering them with the strength of the law, the way the rest of us get to enjoy our trade/labor rights when we sell ourselves by the hour.

 

Although among the pros could be the reassembly of some family units, previously destroyed by prison for mom or dad, or both.

 

But hey, I ain't bitchin'. I'm still not convinced Beck is a libertarian, but hey, we're all free to lie to ourselves I guess.

[bascule]

Prostitution is probably more important since it involves breaking the black market's hold and subjugation of women

 

While that's true and eliminating that is a noble cause, the war on drugs costs far more lives

[Phi for All]

This makes him the second Fox News personality to advocate legalization of marijuana after John Stossel

I think Beck may see the laws changing in California later this year and wants to be able to point to this clip of his supporting it as a conservative movement against a burgeoning federal government. I suppose it doesn't matter whether it's liberal or conservative as long as people stop going to jail for it and feeding criminal elements.

[bascule]

I think Beck may see the laws changing in California later this year and wants to be able to point to this clip of his supporting it as a conservative movement against a burgeoning federal government. I suppose it doesn't matter whether it's liberal or conservative as long as people stop going to jail for it and feeding criminal elements.

 

California is very much the acid tests for states rights issues on drug policy. If California's state laws say marijuana is legal, and the Controlled Substances Act says it's not, who wins? I sure hope it's California state law. Only SCOTUS will tell, I suppose...

[Mr Skeptic]

California is very much the acid tests for states rights issues on drug policy. If California's state laws say marijuana is legal, and the Controlled Substances Act says it's not, who wins? I sure hope it's California state law. Only SCOTUS will tell, I suppose...

 

Interesting. I guess this could quickly get both Democrats and Republicans agreeing on this, for different reasons. I certainly can't see Republicans supporting federal control over states rights.

[ParanoiA]

While that's true and eliminating that is a noble cause, the war on drugs costs far more lives

 

That's probably true, ultimately. I guess I see them tied together so much it's hard to distinguish which is doing the most damage.

 

Let me ask you this, do you support the decriminalization of all drugs, or just some more "harmless" ones like marijuana?

 

I used to be of the mind that certain drugs needed to remain illegal. But I have found it hard to maintain that position when you see how the black market exploits abusers and addicts. The private sector legally would exploit them too, but it would be limited to their wallet. Drug dealers don't stop with your wallet.

 

Also, as an aside, I've always wanted to know if drugs like heroine, meth and so forth would be cheap to make if the chemicals and manufacturing process were legal. I'm curious if criminalization is driving up their costs absurdly. I think with marijuana it would be cheaper to make, and the average person could do it on their own - but I've also noticed it remains fairly high priced in California. Not sure about Colorado.

 

Interesting. I guess this could quickly get both Democrats and Republicans agreeing on this, for different reasons. I certainly can't see Republicans supporting federal control over states rights.

 

I don't know. A handful of republicans supported mandated health care coverage until Obama and the democrats jumped on board - or at least that's what Maddow said last night (well she said all republicans after using the association fallacy to indict them all - there's that PhD at work she's always bragging about).

 

And this is the classic republican/conservative double standard issue. This is where they scramble to come up with excuses to abandon their supposed principles on individual liberty and seemingly forgeting all those appeals they made to social engineering. It will be interesting to see how they choose a side and what rhetoric they adopt.

Edited April 1, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Sisyphus]

California is very much the acid tests for states rights issues on drug policy. If California's state laws say marijuana is legal, and the Controlled Substances Act says it's not, who wins? I sure hope it's California state law. Only SCOTUS will tell, I suppose...

 

My prediction is that it will remained untested by SCOTUS for at least a while, because the federal government would just stop enforcing it in California, while still reserving the legal right to do so.

 

On the other hand, somebody will probably find a way to force the issue. And if they do, I suspect the feds will win. I don't think the states rights case is strong enough* and I don't see how it's different than thousands of other federal laws, but IANAL. Which would just mean the "we can enforce it but we won't" status quo would be maintained.

 

Which is good enough, frankly. If California can have de facto legalization, then other states will probably follow (after it fails to cause the collapse of civilization). Which would in turn make it be taken more seriously as a national issue.

 

*Not to say that it shouldn't be a state issue, just that it Constitutionally doesn't have to be. I suspect weaker cases for interstate commerce have been upheld.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Sisyphus

[Phi for All]

I used to be of the mind that certain drugs needed to remain illegal. But I have found it hard to maintain that position when you see how the black market exploits abusers and addicts. The private sector legally would exploit them too, but it would be limited to their wallet. Drug dealers don't stop with your wallet.

This brings up an interesting point. If all drugs were legalized, would all of them be created and exploited or would some be deemed too dangerous for normal sales? Would the danger heighten sales or would the availability of less dangerous drugs temper the market?

 

Imagine today an alcohol that left 10% of its users blind if they drank a certain amount. Would the market sort out the danger because there are plenty of other alcohols out there to drink that are far safer?

 

If all drugs were legal, would people stay away from the more addictive or degenerative or outright destructive because there was now plenty of far safer drugs on the market? If normal amphetamines could be gotten legally and used somewhat safely, would people still want methamphetamine?

[jryan]

Glenn Beck has been a Libertarian for quite a while now, and Stossel has always been a Libertarian. As such, their support for marijuana legalization isn't exactly shocking.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

This brings up an interesting point. If all drugs were legalized, would all of them be created and exploited or would some be deemed too dangerous for normal sales? Would the danger heighten sales or would the availability of less dangerous drugs temper the market?

 

That is an interesting question. I would guess that heroin, cocaine and meth would likely not find a legal manufacturer willing to take the risk, but it would likely still be sold on a black market by unlicensed dealers.

 

Imagine today an alcohol that left 10% of its users blind if they drank a certain amount. Would the market sort out the danger because there are plenty of other alcohols out there to drink that are far safer?

 

Well, the other argument is that there IS alcohol, yet many people still buy coke. The trouble is that the effect that people seek is generally directly related to the danger of the drug. Psychedelics tend to be safer than mood altering drugs like heroin... but someone seeking a heroin high will most likely not settle for marijuana.

 

 

If all drugs were legal, would people stay away from the more addictive or degenerative or outright destructive because there was now plenty of far safer drugs on the market? If normal amphetamines could be gotten legally and used somewhat safely, would people still want methamphetamine?

 

Most likely not, for the reasons I stated. Each drug has a different effect on the person, and what that person chooses to take is driven more by what they are seeking than what is legally available and safe.

Edited April 1, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

If all drugs were legalized, I don't think usage would change much. Are there really a lot of people out there thinking, "I wish I could be a heroin junky, if only it were legal!" Then again, I don't understand how anyone could do that to themselves in the first place, so anything's possible, I guess.

[ParanoiA]

This brings up an interesting point. If all drugs were legalized, would all of them be created and exploited or would some be deemed too dangerous for normal sales? Would the danger heighten sales or would the availability of less dangerous drugs temper the market?

 

Imagine today an alcohol that left 10% of its users blind if they drank a certain amount. Would the market sort out the danger because there are plenty of other alcohols out there to drink that are far safer?

 

If all drugs were legal, would people stay away from the more addictive or degenerative or outright destructive because there was now plenty of far safer drugs on the market? If normal amphetamines could be gotten legally and used somewhat safely, would people still want methamphetamine?

 

Hmm, I really don't know. On the one hand, I'd certainly fall into the category of people who wouldn't bother with the potentially blinding alcohol. But I know alpha males that would do it, rather obnoxiously I might add, to impress the party crowd.

 

And I'd imagine price and image would have a lot to do with it. Here in Missouri (and probably everywhere for that matter) the grownups running the governments are just beside themselves about K2. They're shocked and disappointed they can't regulate our conciousness as K2 would effect it.

 

But among pot users, K2 is just a legal version that isn't as potent as the real thing - which is true since it doesn't contain any THC, just synthetic cannabanoids (from what little I've read on it anyway). K2 would only replace the real thing if its potency trumped the real thing. And there's a spot for image building there.

 

If people think the "safer" alternative isn't as potent or good as the more dangerous version of a given drug, then I don't think it's as attractive as we might wish it to be. I suspect it would be more important to produce safe versions that seriously give the dangerous ones a run for their money.

 

Take "vaping" for instance. Vaporizing, ahem, herbs and stuff is much safer than burning them but I notice people are far more interested when they discover the intensity of "effects" when using this method. Being safer didn't really sell them as much as being "better".

 

Anecdotal is all I got on this one. I'll bet there are some decent stats on this kind of thing in Holland. But I can't search for them here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If all drugs were legalized, I don't think usage would change much. Are there really a lot of people out there thinking, "I wish I could be a heroin junky, if only it were legal!" Then again, I don't understand how anyone could do that to themselves in the first place, so anything's possible, I guess.

 

Yeah I agree with this. I think the law really just nudges the mainstream overall opinion of a given thing because we, by and large, see the legal system and government as a legitimator. We interpret laws as "right" and "correct" behavior mandates. We're such sheeple.

 

I don't believe people refrain from smoking pot because it's illegal. Rather, because it's illegal, society interprets this as pot is "wrong", and thus influences individuals to not want to smoke pot to begin with via society's label. So they poison themselves with alcochol and add to miserable stats that drug has to brag about, including death from overdose.

[Sisyphus]

There already is a kind of alcohol than makes you go blind, and it's already perfectly legal: methanol. Nobody tries to drink it. Maybe they would if it were legal and ethanol wasn't?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I don't believe people refrain from smoking pot because it's illegal. Rather, because it's illegal, society interprets this as pot is "wrong", and thus influences individuals to not want to smoke pot to begin with via society's label. So they poison themselves with alcochol and add to miserable stats that drug has to brag about, including death from overdose.

 

If that's true, then it would imply that legalization would increase usage, because it would change the perception of it. That may be true. The first sentence is definitely true. People who want to smoke pot already do, and it is extremely popular. As a means of preventing that, the War on Some Drugs is a ridiculous failure. But maybe it is successful in influencing public perception?

 

But if you just legalize everything, then maybe it would just remove the mental reliance on legal status to judge them, and people would actually think for themselves?

[Syntho-sis]

Pot isn't just some random commodity..

 

It's ruined lives and families. If you don't believe me just go visit Eastern Kentucky.

 

Now's it's pot, then it will be coke, then heroin, then meth...It will never stop until everyone is satisfied.

[jryan]

That's true too, Syntho-sis. I worked with a lot of heavy pot users as a social worker, and the drug is far from harmless.

[Sisyphus]

Pot isn't just some random commodity..

 

It's ruined lives and families. If you don't believe me just go visit Eastern Kentucky.

 

Now's it's pot, then it will be coke, then heroin, then meth...It will never stop until everyone is satisfied.

 

What won't ever stop? Legalization? And who is the everyone? People who use those drugs anyway?

[ydoaPs]

Pot isn't just some random commodity..

 

It's ruined lives and families. If you don't believe me just go visit Eastern Kentucky.

 

Now's it's pot, then it will be coke, then heroin, then meth...It will never stop until everyone is satisfied.

More so than alcohol? Let's see some numbers here. Anecdotes aren't evidence.

[bascule]

Let me ask you this, do you support the decriminalization of all drugs, or just some more "harmless" ones like marijuana?

 

I used to be of the mind that certain drugs needed to remain illegal. But I have found it hard to maintain that position when you see how the black market exploits abusers and addicts. The private sector legally would exploit them too, but it would be limited to their wallet. Drug dealers don't stop with your wallet.

 

I'm a bit iffy on the issue of "legalize everything". I think, at the very least, the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional and what is legal and what isn't should be decided at the state level.

 

Pot isn't just some random commodity..

 

It's ruined lives and families.

 

I think the prohibition of marijuana has ruined lives and families. I also think alcohol has ruined lives and families. And yet alcohol is legal...

 

Now's it's pot' date=' then it will be coke, then heroin, then meth...It will never stop until everyone is satisfied.[/quote']

 

The slippery slope! It slips! It slips both ways too... the government has banned marijuana. Soon they'll ban alcohol, then sugary beverages, and they won't stop until you have to ask the government's permission to drink a glass of water. Stop the madness!

[ParanoiA]

Pot isn't just some random commodity..

 

It's ruined lives and families. If you don't believe me just go visit Eastern Kentucky.

 

 

How does smoking pot ruin lives worse than imprisoning them? Ever tried to get a job after prison? How about after smoking pot?

 

How do your wife and kids fare while you're in prison? I wonder how many single moms draining the welfare system have a pot dealing hubby in prison. Exactly how is smoking pot at home worse for your kids than you being in prison while they grow up?

 

I don't think ruining people's lives with prison and other forms of incarceration remotely compare to the "damage" by smoking pot itself.

 

The problems with drugs relate to their illegality - not problems themselves. Most of the violence, overwhemingly, is directly caused by it being illegal - fueling the black market. We have created drug dealers and pimps - they don't have a job if we don't create one for them.

 

How many beer gangs do you see roaming the streets? How about the mafia wine gangs? See any drive-by shootings by cigarette dealers in your town?

 

You have no right to regulate my consciousness.

 

Now's it's pot, then it will be coke, then heroin, then meth...It will never stop until everyone is satisfied.

 

What's the problem with that? It's almost like there's a problem with everyone being satisfied. I thought that was part of the point of this country. Each of us can pursue happiness however we define it as long as it doesn't hurt others?

[jryan]

More so than alcohol? Let's see some numbers here. Anecdotes aren't evidence.

 

Well, before we go to far, are you arguing FOR legalized drugs or AGAINST legalized alcohol? It would seem to me that showing that alcohol is just as conducive to further experimentation as pot isn't so much an argument in favor of pot, but an argument against alcohol.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think the prohibition of marijuana has ruined lives and families. I also think alcohol has ruined lives and families. And yet alcohol is legal...

 

In the same way that prohibitions on embezzlement have ruined lives. Not that I support embezzlement, but arguing that a law that people willingly break is at fault for the people breaking the law is not at all accurate.

 

It's a point I liked to make with my pot smoking clients: if pot is not addictive, then why risk your family to smoke it? Obviously, if it isn't addictive, you COULD walk away from pot at any time... yet still many still ruined their own families while fully aware of the consequences, simply to get high.

 

People with that level of commitment to their families, in my professional opinion, aren't destined to create healthy families anyway.

 

Of course, if marijuana is addictive -- which seems the case given the willingness of people to risk everything to smoke it -- then the rationalization for legalizing it is even weaker than it is already.

Edited April 1, 2010 by jryan
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

Pot isn't just some random commodity..

 

It's ruined lives and families. If you don't believe me just go visit Eastern Kentucky.

 

Now's it's pot, then it will be coke, then heroin, then meth...It will never stop until everyone is satisfied.

 

So has alcohol. I know: how about we ban alcohol?