Ind. state senator wants study on legalizing pot

[kingnereli]

Serious question here. What evidence is there that the drug cartels would disappear if pot were legalized? In this debate there is a lot of speculation on both sides because we just don't know for sure what would happen. My side says the social ills would get worse. The pro drug side seems to think there will be some smoke induced utopia free of drug violence. Here are my thoughts.

Surely America is not the only customer to the cartels and they would continue to operate basically as usual and there would still be violence on our southern border. Secondly, if pot were then only drug legalized the cartels still have a pretty diversified product. I won't pretend to know their profit margins on the various drugs but I just don't see them going away if pot were legalized. Not that it will be. Have I mentioned that this isn't going to happen and there is a lot of breath wasting in threads like this?

 

[hornadylnl]

Serious question here. What evidence is there that the drug cartels would disappear if pot were legalized? In this debate there is a lot of speculation on both sides because we just don't know for sure what would happen. My side says the social ills would get worse. The pro drug side seems to think there will be some smoke induced utopia free of drug violence. Here are my thoughts.

Surely America is not the only customer to the cartels and they would continue to operate basically as usual and there would still be violence on our southern border. Secondly, if pot were then only drug legalized the cartels still have a pretty diversified product. I won't pretend to know their profit margins on the various drugs but I just don't see them going away if pot were legalized. Not that it will be. Have I mentioned that this isn't going to happen and there is a lot of breath wasting in threads like this?

You're right. Any discussion on liberty in this country is breath wasting. The overwhelming majority in this country believe liberty is determined by their own personal feelings on a subject. Liberty is liberty, regardless of how I feel about. Liberty is minding my own business about what everyone else is doing so long as it isn't affecting my liberty. Instead, we want to bribe people into "aceptable" behaviors via nanny state laws, regulations, and tax codes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You could have mad this easier to quote....

.
omg, where do i start?
Ok back...

Alcohol has been a staple of American culture (referencing it's intoxicating properties) from colonial times. It's hard to convince Americans to accept outlawing a substance that, to this day, the vast majority of Americans have grown up with. Hell, Jesus drank alcohol. That fact, alone, in a strongly Puritanical society makes it difficult to demonize the substance.
Marijuana on the other hand, though used for a variety of industrial purposes, had never, up until very recently been a preferred choice for "leisure." bull****! the instant someone found out you could smoke it, they passed a law? no. its recorded use goes back to 7000BC and its been legal even in this country up until about 1910.

I clearly referenced American Culture (with culture indicating widespread, common use). No need to give history lessons, I'm well aware of how long marijuana has been used for its mind altering properties. That said, you will not find a single culture (or at least I have found one) where marijuana was used pure for recreational purposes; until the 20th century that is.

Secondly, alcohol had legally (before Prohibition) be produced and distributed in massive amounts here on our own shores. All of the major brewers, didn't simply "pop up" after prohibition. They always existed, and once prohibition hit, they simply diversified, waiting for the day when they could produce again.
In the meantime places like Canada and Mexico, where alcohol was still produced legally, filled the gap. and likewise before marijuana was prohibited, the census bureau recorded over 8300 hemp plantations. a plantation being defined as at least 2000 acres. yeah smokeing was one of the uses. i know i know, not the only use.

Hemp is not marijuana. That is a common misconception. They are differing varieties of the same species of plant. Hemp has a ridiculously low concentration (less than .05, I believe) of THC. Marijuana, on the other hand has exponentially higher levels. So to point at 8300 hemp plantations as being in the same league with 8300 marijuana plantations (the latter which never existed) would be a misnomer. You can attribute this often confused instance, due to the fact that the Feds made no distinction between the two, and criminalized both.

Why is that important you may ask? Well, it's simple. When prohibition was repealed, the engines of legal manufacturing needed little more than a dusting off to start catering to the needs of the general public. This is where alcohol prohibition and marijuana legalization widely diverge.
There are no commercial means of production, of marijuana, in the United States. you mean dirt, tractors and rain? by me there is quite a few fields that have not been plowed for atleast two years b/c of the economy. if given the opportunity, im sure those guys would get to work.
Those are hardly "means for production" (well, technically they are), But let's not play coy. Anyone can have tools, but not everyone can built a house.
You know full well, that if marijuana were made legal today, there would not be an infrastructure (cultivation, employees, marketing, distribution ie "means for production") able to immediately, or better yet, on short notice provide for consumers, in absense of the Cartels offerings.

I will address you other contentions a lil later.

 

[machete]

The problem with liberty is that people of your political persuasion have a bloated sense of it.

and thats the problem with your side,,,you dont understand what liberty is,,,and when we tell you what it is,,,you dont like it

They stump for rights that, constitutionally or otherwise, don't exist,

and right there is the problem with your side,,,youve got it all upside down...

your side stands up for government power that surely doesnt exist,,, any power a government has comes through a grant of authority from the PEOPLE,,, the PEOPLE must first have a right that they can then delegate to a government... government does not come first,,,then the PEOPLE... if the PEOPLE think they have rights that dont exist,,,then the government is on even more thin ice by claiming it has powers,,,since powers without an act of delegating have even less moral footing than a right someone says they have...

if I never gave the government a power,,,then the government doesnt rightfully have that power... if i dont have rights,,,then EVERYTHING the government does is illegitimate,,,because the government has no foundation for its actions...

so maybe the PEOPLE say they have rights that they really dont have,,,big deal... the government is in a far more reduced state,,,as every power it has comes from PEOPLE,,,not from natural law... the government can never point to nature and say,,,a government has the right to X,,,because governments dont exist in nature,,,governments are made by the PEOPLE,,,always being less than the PEOPLE,,,since the people retain most of their rights and only delegate a little to the government...

so maybe people go too far with their rights,,,good thing to have... just because a people dont have a right doesnt mean that the government gets to intrude on whatever were talking about... government is not supposed to be on the other side of the liberty fence,,,penning us in and only letting us keep what freedom it has to... if were talking about a right that someone doesnt really have,,,on the other side of that fence is supposed to be miles of open space,,,not a government uniform...

 

[kingnereli]

You're right. Any discussion on liberty in this country is breath wasting. The overwhelming majority in this country believe liberty is determined by their own personal feelings on a subject. Liberty is liberty, regardless of how I feel about. Liberty is minding my own business about what everyone else is doing so long as it isn't affecting my liberty. Instead, we want to bribe people into "aceptable" behaviors via nanny state laws, regulations, and tax codes.

Did you just not want to answer my question or respond directly to anything I said? This is just a pointless, mischaracterizing rant that doesn't further the conversation. I didn't say discussing liberty was breath wasting. I said acting as though pot would become legal before all of us in this thread are dust is breath wasting.

Could I ask you to clarify your definition of liberty. You say it is minding my own business about what everyone is else is doing as long as it isn't affecting MY liberty. Firstly, it is troublesome to use the term in the definition of the term. Secondly, should I be concerned only if something is affecting only my own freedom or if any individual or set of third parties is being affected?

and thats the problem with your side,,,you dont understand what liberty is,,,and when we tell you what it is,,,you dont like it

I think I've got a pretty good grasp of what liberty is. My definition is very close to what hornadylnl posted. Yet I can also acknowledge that there things that don't fall under the heading of rights or freedoms.

and right there is the problem with your side,,,youve got it all upside down...

your side stands up for government power that surely doesnt exist,,, any power a government has comes through a grant of authority from the PEOPLE,,, the PEOPLE must first have a right that they can then delegate to a government... government does not come first,,,then the PEOPLE... if the PEOPLE think they have rights that dont exist,,,then the government is on even more thin ice by claiming it has powers,,,since powers without an act of delegating have even less moral footing than a right someone says they have...

if I never gave the government a power,,,then the government doesnt rightfully have that power... if i dont have rights,,,then EVERYTHING the government does is illegitimate,,,because the government has no foundation for its actions...

so maybe the PEOPLE say they have rights that they really dont have,,,big deal... the government is in a far more reduced state,,,as every power it has comes from PEOPLE,,,not from natural law... the government can never point to nature and say,,,a government has the right to X,,,because governments dont exist in nature,,,governments are made by the PEOPLE,,,always being less than the PEOPLE,,,since the people retain most of their rights and only delegate a little to the government...

so maybe people go too far with their rights,,,good thing to have... just because a people dont have a right doesnt mean that the government gets to intrude on whatever were talking about... government is not supposed to be on the other side of the liberty fence,,,penning us in and only letting us keep what freedom it has to... if were talking about a right that someone doesnt really have,,,on the other side of that fence is supposed to be miles of open space,,,not a government uniform...

I agree with quite a bit of what you said here, actually. Though I don't understand how you made the step from a right that doesn't exist to the open space on the other side of the fence. Why can't an elected government regulate an issue when there is no fundamental right determining what should be? For the sake of this argument let's say we are talking about a government that actually listens to what the people want and does it. It seems like you are saying that that fact that a right doesn't exist is reason enough for the government to stay out of an issue. That sounds a lot like how a right that does exist works to me.

I also believe in certain moral restraints that I can't really go into here because it is against forum rules. (It's a shame.) These moral restraints apply to both social and fiscal issues and all levels of government are bound by them.

Do you have any input on my cartel question?

 

[machete]

I agree with quite a bit of what you said here, actually. Though I don't understand how you made the step from a right that doesn't exist to the open space on the other side of the fence.

back to this??? if it dont exist for me,,,it sure dont exist for the government...

Why can't an elected government regulate an issue when there is no fundamental right determining what should be?

if theres no fundamental right at issue,,,why are they doing it??? everything a government does is supposed to be for the mutual benefit of rights... if i have no right,,,like the nonexistent right to have my neighbor keep his house up to support my property values,,,then the government shouldnt be enacting laws to tell my neighbor to mow or paint,,,since it aint their call to get involved...

For the sake of this argument let's say we are talking about a government that actually listens to what the people want and does it.

that sounds probably the scariest of all...

It seems like you are saying that that fact that a right doesn't exist is reason enough for the government to stay out of an issue. That sounds a lot like how a right that does exist works to me.

getting it???

governments act,,,at the minimum,,,and only when necessary,,,to preserve and protect rights... if there aint a right going on,,,i never gave them permission to get involved... the size of government IS NOT anything I dont have a right to,,, the size of government IS ONLY what I told them to do...

 

[kingnereli]

back to this??? if it dont exist for me,,,it sure dont exist for the government...

Forgive me? I'm still trying to understand your position.

if theres no fundamental right at issue,,,why are they doing it??? everything a government does is supposed to be for the mutual benefit of rights... if i have no right,,,like the nonexistent right to have my neighbor keep his house up to support my property values,,,then the government shouldnt be enacting laws to tell my neighbor to mow or paint,,,since it aint their call to get involved...

You're really close with this one. You and I don't have the right to have our property rights preserved by anyone forcing our neighbors to keep their lawns. However, the neighbors private property rights are in play and are the reason the government should not be interfering.

that sounds probably the scariest of all...

You've completely lost me here as that is precisely what the people we elect are supposed to be doing.

getting it???

governments act,,,at the minimum,,,and only when necessary,,,to preserve and protect rights... if there aint a right going on,,,i never gave them permission to get involved... the size of government IS NOT anything I dont have a right to,,, the size of government IS ONLY what I told them to do...

Is this all true even if the actions of a person or persons is damaging other people in some way or any aspect of society as a whole?

 

[machete]

You've completely lost me here as that is precisely what the people we elect are supposed to be doing.

no way,,,thats mob rule...

Is this all true even if the actions of a person or persons is damaging other people in some way or any aspect of society as a whole?

i apologize,,,i dont get it,,,please say this another way,,,im sorry....

 

[rambone]

For the sake of this argument let's say we are talking about a government that actually listens to what the people want and does it.

that sounds probably the scariest of all...

You've completely lost me here as that is precisely what the people we elect are supposed to be doing.

no way,,,thats mob rule...

The concept here is that we are not a democracy, where the majority can get anything it wants, even if that means invading people's rights. What if the majority wants to confiscate guns? Create massive welfare programs? Socialize medicine? Get the drift? We are a republic that is supposed to be protective of individual rights, no matter what outrageous tyranny that the majority demands.

Ben Franklin said "Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

That's why people's feelings don't really matter on this subject. The government has no authority to invade people's lives like this. People also have the right to property -- even if its a scary plant that 51% of the people want to "ban" from growing.

 

[hornadylnl]

Did you just not want to answer my question or respond directly to anything I said? This is just a pointless, mischaracterizing rant that doesn't further the conversation. I didn't say discussing liberty was breath wasting. I said acting as though pot would become legal before all of us in this thread are dust is breath wasting.

No, you didn't say it, I said it. Any time someone dares to question government authority, we get the same old you post this stuff too much, you can move to another country, yada, yada, yada.

Could I ask you to clarify your definition of liberty. You say it is minding my own business about what everyone is else is doing as long as it isn't affecting MY liberty. Firstly, it is troublesome to use the term in the definition of the term. Secondly, should I be concerned only if something is affecting only my own freedom or if any individual or set of third parties is being affected?



I think I've got a pretty good grasp of what liberty is. My definition is very close to what hornadylnl posted. Yet I can also acknowledge that there things that don't fall under the heading of rights or freedoms.

This simplest definition of liberty is the right to property. Property isn't limited to the square of dirt that has my name in the plat book. My property is my land, my house, my car, my body, my thoughts, etc. You are free to do with your property whatever you please as long as it doesn't affect my ability to use my property. You can swing your fist wildly anywhere you please. Once your fist contacts my nose, you've violated my property. Smoking a plant in the privacy of your home in no way affects my ability to use my property. If you hit my car while driving high as a kite, you've violated my right to my property and thus are required to make me whole again.

I agree with quite a bit of what you said here, actually. Though I don't understand how you made the step from a right that doesn't exist to the open space on the other side of the fence. Why can't an elected government regulate an issue when there is no fundamental right determining what should be? For the sake of this argument let's say we are talking about a government that actually listens to what the people want and does it. It seems like you are saying that that fact that a right doesn't exist is reason enough for the government to stay out of an issue. That sounds a lot like how a right that does exist works to me.

I also believe in certain moral restraints that I can't really go into here because it is against forum rules. (It's a shame.) These moral restraints apply to both social and fiscal issues and all levels of government are bound by them.

Do you have any input on my cartel question?

So the rights laid out in the constitution the only rights that our founders granted us? Were they supposed to spell out every single right that we citizens have? The constitution was a limit on government. In another thread on here, it was mentioned that Patrick Henry hated the constitution. From the reading I've done on Henry, he hated it all for the wrong reasons and he knew it would lead to exactly the type of government we have. He knew it was powerless to prevent the federal government from taking our liberties. He was totally against a central government.

I don't do a lot of things like drugs, drink in excess, so my oats to every willing field, etc because of my moral beliefs. But where do I get the right to tell you what your beliefs should be? A government and population that tells you that you can't marry Bill today can tell you that you can't marry Sue tomorrow. Many in this thread are calling for "new legislation" to legalize pot. Why do we need more laws? Repeal the ones criminalizing pot and call it done. It's the same as gay marriage. The answer isn't legalizing it, the answer is getting the state out of the marriage business. The state needs to recognize they have no power to regulate "illegal drugs". By creating "new legislation", they are not relinquishing that power.

As far as the cartels, how have our current laws served to eliminate them?

 

[dwagner3701]

This is never going to pass. As it shouldn't. Most employers require drug tests for employment...you smoke pot you can't work there. Now before the if it's legal they can't do that crowd starts up...yes they can. You can't work drunk either. Employers don't want impaired employees. The more people are allowed to smoke the more they will smoke. Pretty soon you have people smoking in their cars at noon and they can't function the rest of the day. Those that are in favor of pot smoking must not have...or don't want a job.

 

[mrjarrell]

This is never going to pass. As it shouldn't. Most employers require drug tests for employment...you smoke pot you can't work there. Now before the if it's legal they can't do that crowd starts up...yes they can. You can't work drunk either. Employers don't want impaired employees. The more people are allowed to smoke the more they will smoke. Pretty soon you have people smoking in their cars at noon and they can't function the rest of the day. Those that are in favor of pot smoking must not have...or don't want a job.

So, it's your contention that, should marijuana be legalised or decriminalised, people will just run out and suddenly start smoking? Seriously? People who smoke pot currently are having no problems getting their hands on it. I'd be willing to bet that, if I were to suddenly decide to take up the habit, I could find some in a day or two, (most notably by checking with some of the local politicians on my city and county council, if the rumours are true). That makes no sense. Lots of folks already have access to alcohol and they don't drink on the job, why would they suddenly decide to start smoking pot on the job, if they're not currently doing it? That's just another scare tactic.

 

[rambone]

This is never going to pass. As it shouldn't. Most employers require drug tests for employment...you smoke pot you can't work there. Now before the if it's legal they can't do that crowd starts up...yes they can. You can't work drunk either. Employers don't want impaired employees. The more people are allowed to smoke the more they will smoke. Pretty soon you have people smoking in their cars at noon and they can't function the rest of the day. Those that are in favor of pot smoking must not have...or don't want a job.

And the solution is... wait for it... fire them. Not create a nationwide ban on a plant.

If you come to work drunk, you get fired. If you come to work stoned, you get fired. See?

 

[dwagner3701]

There are plenty of people that drink and smoke on the job now....I say fire them all. But the unions say other wise.
It will lead to more social programs for rehab, and more claims for unemployment, and disability.

 

[mrjarrell]

There are plenty of people that drink and smoke on the job now....I say fire them all. But the unions say other wise.
It will lead to more social programs for rehab, and more claims for unemployment, and disability.

Based on what information? If someone is intoxicated at work and that's against the rules then they face firing, unions or not. As for rehab...you prefer jail instead? Jail costs more in the long run than a rehab program. As for unemployment, why would they get it if they were fired for cause? And disability? As far as I know drug addiction is not an acceptable reason to collect disability. Do you know something we don't?

 

[dwagner3701]

I have seen it first hand. I don't know if you have a job...as you spend a lot of time posting worthless crap on this site. But when you have been out in the work force for some 30 years you see a lot of things. You really feel good about yourself talking down to everyone don't you. Do you even own any gun besides the .22 your grand dad left you?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Nice Doggy

 

[Bunnykid68]

This is never going to pass. As it shouldn't. Most employers require drug tests for employment...you smoke pot you can't work there. Now before the if it's legal they can't do that crowd starts up...yes they can. You can't work drunk either. Employers don't want impaired employees. The more people are allowed to smoke the more they will smoke. Pretty soon you have people smoking in their cars at noon and they can't function the rest of the day. Those that are in favor of pot smoking must not have...or don't want a job.

I know a person or two maybe 100 that smoke. No silly law is going to change how much they smoke now or in the future.

 

[mrjarrell]

I have seen it first hand. I don't know if you have a job...as you spend a lot of time posting worthless crap on this site. But when you have been out in the work force for some 30 years you see a lot of things. You really feel good about yourself talking down to everyone don't you. Do you even own any gun besides the .22 your grand dad left you?

*Sigh* The usual crap. If you don't have a logical answer start with the insults. If you considered what I wrote to be "talking down" then you better get a thicker skin.

 

[level.eleven]

*Sigh* The usual crap. If you don't have a logical answer start with the insults. If you considered what I wrote to be "talking down" then you better get a thicker skin.

This thread went full derp several pages ago with the new theory that re-legalizing cannabis will somehow make cartels stronger.