Why Are So Many Still Against Hemp / Marijuana ?

[steveh_131]

You mean like corn and melons sold out of a truck?

Is there Amish pot in your world, they can sell it like eggs and milk.

Yes.

Yes, that is how it should be in a 'free' country. But like I said, alcohol-style regulations would be an improvement and would at least eliminate the black market.

No comprendo? If MJ is legal, you cannot choose to use a pre-employment THC screening as a tool for "high"ring, anymore they someone can ask if you are a legal gun owner (this being a gun forum and all).

Says who? Got a source for this?

Then you said prescription drugs are another subject, and I disagreed.

I'm not talking about prescription marijuana. I'm talking about marijuana being sold the way alcohol is sold. Making it prescription-only just continues to feed the black market.

So, like a self-cleaning oven, legalization is going to fix the ghetto? Cause they can afford regulated MJ... Just don't be selling any Looseys.

Please cite one post of mine that has suggested that legalization will 'fix' the ghetto.

 

[Ericpwp]

Yes.

Yes, that is how it should be in a 'free' country. But like I said, alcohol-style regulations would be an improvement and would at least eliminate the black market.

You keep saying the black market will be eliminated. It will NOT. It will evolve.

Says who? Got a source for this?

In your world is MJ legal or not? Do we do pre-employment nicotine screenings? Is it okay not to hire someone citing that they smoke?

I'm not talking about prescription marijuana. I'm talking about marijuana being sold the way alcohol is sold. Making it prescription-only just continues to feed the black market.

So, we are stopping at MJ? Vicodin is still illegal to possess w/out a prescription, right?

Employment in this sector is highly volatile. Many end up in jail or dead. As the cycle continues, it will attract fewer and fewer new participants as the profit levels drop.

Will the criminals stop being criminals? Probably not that often. If there is no profit to be made, will it continue to attract non-criminals to a criminal life? Of course not. This is how it shrinks.

This sounds like the ghetto to me.


You are trumpeting small government and personal freedom as your reasoning for legalization, right? In Steve's internet world, does The DEA and all of the .gov task forces go away? The FDA? Is everything legal?

It won't be a giant explosion of government? Lets look at IL for that.

I'm saying that personal freedom to not hire a partaker in the buddage, then have to prove after the fact that they can remember a simple set of instructions in order not to have to pay unemployment is destroyed.

 

[rambone]

So, like a self-cleaning oven, legalization is going to fix the ghetto? Cause they can afford regulated MJ... Just don't be selling any Looseys.

Ghettos are definitely made worse through prohibition. Your policies put breadwinners in prison, break apart families, create orphans, and ultimately increase welfare dependency. Broken families and fatherless children result in higher crime rates (real crime, not victimless Nanny State offenses).

 

[steveh_131]

You keep saying the black market will be eliminated. It will NOT. It will evolve.

You're aware that I'm specifically talking about the marijuana sector of the black market, right? You think this black market will persist if marijuana is cheaply and freely available?

In your world is MJ legal or not? Do we do pre-employment nicotine screenings? Is it okay not to hire someone citing that they smoke?

You asserted that if marijuana is legalized, employers will not be legally able to screen based on drug tests for it. I'm asking you to provide a source for this. I know that in some states it is perfectly legal to refuse to hire tobacco smokers. I think that employers should be allowed to hire based on any criteria they like, including drugs, nicotine and alcohol.

So, we are stopping at MJ? Vicodin is still illegal to possess w/out a prescription, right?

We're discussing marijuana right now. While I would advocate the deregulation of all drugs, that is a different discussion for a different thread.

You are trumpeting small government and personal freedom as your reasoning for legalization, right? In Steve's internet world, does The DEA and all of the .gov task forces go away? The FDA? Is everything legal?

That would be ideal, but again, we're only discussing marijuana right now. So these agencies wouldn't go away, but their budget and scope would certainly shrink dramatically.

It won't be a giant explosion of government?

No, of course not.

I'm saying that personal freedom to not hire a partaker in the buddage, then have to prove after the fact that they can remember a simple set of instructions in order not to have to pay unemployment is destroyed.

Again, this is a red herring. Deregulation of marijuana does not necessarily imply that drug users become a 'protected class'. I would be expressly opposed to classifying them as such.

I oppose both prohibition and forcing employers to hire people they don't want to hire.

 

[Ericpwp]

It's raining outside.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Marijuana should probably, and I reluctantly say this, be legal. What a person ingests into their body, isn't the business of the govt. It is as simple as that. Puritanical values, govt control, and private profit are the reasons it's illegal.

 

[rambone]

Marijuana should probably, and I reluctantly say this, be legal. What a person ingests into their body, isn't the business of the govt. It is as simple as that. Puritanical values, govt control, and private profit are the reasons it's illegal.

Why the reluctance? You seem to be acknowledging that it is violating our freedom and supported for less than desirable reasons.

 

[AtTheMurph]

govt control is the reasons it's illegal.

I simplified your post to make it concise and entirely correct. Government control over us is the only reason it is illegal. We have never given government the power to regulate what we can eat or smoke or snort or inject. But govt as simply assumed that power over us and we sit idly by and allow it to continue.

Why shouldn't I be able to to the a drug store and buy pot or penicillin for that matter?

 

[Ericpwp]

Marijuana should probably, and I reluctantly say this, be legal. What a person ingests into their body, isn't the business of the govt. It is as simple as that. Puritanical values, govt control, and private profit are the reasons it's illegal.

This seems to be the view of many LEOs.

While we're at it, can we get rid of speed limits too?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why the reluctance? You seem to be acknowledging that it is violating our freedom and supported for less than desirable reasons.

Because I personally think the drug is destructive. But being self-destructive shouldn't be illegal.

 

[steveh_131]

I simplified your post to make it concise and entirely correct.

Actually, I think he was still correct. Government control is at the heart of it, yes, but there's a whole lot of money and influence from pharmaceutical companies behind the legislation.

While we're at it, can we get rid of speed limits too?

Finally, you're understanding liberty. Bravo!

 

[Ericpwp]

We can just call them "Speed Suggestions".

I too believe MJ is destructive, thus my stance.

 

[steveh_131]

We can just call them "Speed Suggestions".

Yes, and then use them to determine liability in case of accidents. Which is basically what happens now, minus the revenue generation that has zero effectiveness in improving road safety.

Good idea.

I too believe MJ is destructive, thus my stance.

So are alcohol addictions, gambling addictions, sex addictions, food addictions... I could go on.

Should all potentially destructive activities be prohibited?

 

[AA&E]

I can find/fund another poll to show the opposite. Means very little that a majority of Washington Post readers that felt strongly enough to answer are for legalization.

saying that your the most "authoritative" doesn't make it so.

If you want to hide in your own little bubble and not acknowledge the world is changing around you that is fine. If you put your fingers in your ears and hum loud enough it might drown out the sounds as well.

 

[AA&E]

No comprendo? If MJ is legal, you cannot choose to use a pre-employment THC screening as a tool for "high"ring, anymore they someone can ask if you are a legal gun owner (this being a gun forum and all).

Then you said prescription drugs are another subject, and I disagreed.

So, like a self-cleaning oven, legalization is going to fix the ghetto? Cause they can afford regulated MJ... Just don't be selling any Looseys.

Why? Because you said it is so? Employment at will... you should look up the meaning. I've seen employees test for tobacco usage in effort to reduce their medical coverage costs and sick leave pay. It was treated in the same manner as any other drug they didn't approve of... test positive, get fired.

 

[AA&E]

We can just call them "Speed Suggestions".

I too believe MJ is destructive, thus my stance.

Liberals have the same belief about your firearms...

 

[JettaKnight]

Liberals have the same belief about your firearms...

Why can't weed fans stick to the issue?


And doing so, I see the recreational use of MJ to be deleterious.

 

[Beowulf]

Yes, and then use them to determine liability in case of accidents. Which is basically what happens now, minus the revenue generation that has zero effectiveness in improving road safety.

Good idea.



So are alcohol addictions, gambling addictions, sex addictions, food addictions... I could go on.

Should all potentially destructive activities be prohibited?

You should really not bother arguing with him. He lives in a fantasy land where all drugs users are burned out homeless fiends, who will shank you for a few dollars to get their next fix. He literally belives in Anslinger's Reefer Madness.

The problem with most drug prohibitionists is that most of everything they think they actually know about drug use and addiction is a complete fabrication. They've been fed decades of government and private propaganda about what will happen if a person does drugs. This gets reinforced by the anecdotal horror stories that come out of law enforcement as they deal with the mess that true addicts can cause.

But the thing that most people don't know is that only a small percentage of users of substances with high chemical dependence potential actually become addicts.

From the Dept of Health and Human Services SAMHSA study:

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepend/newUseDepend.cfm

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Alcohol and illicit drug dependence were defined in SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health using the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria which includes such symptoms as withdrawal, tolerance, unsuccessful attempts to cut down on use, and continued use despite health and emotional problems caused by the substance.[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Based on SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 3.2% of the persons aged 12 or older who first used alcohol 13 to 24 months prior to the survey interview were dependent on alcohol in the past 12 months.[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of the persons aged 12 or older who first used marijuana 13 to 24 months prior to the survey interview, 5.8% were dependent on marijuana[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] in the past year.[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Among new users of crack cocaine in the 13 to 24 months prior to the survey interview, 9.2% were dependent on any type of cocaine in the past year.[/FONT]

• [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of the new users of heroin in the 13 to 24 months prior to the survey interview, 13.4% were dependent on heroin in the past year.
  [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]So, despite the fact that even some of the most reviled and dangerous drugs (like crack and heorin) have very small levels of users becoming dependent on the drug. And of those who are dependent, the vast majority are going to be only self destructive (losing jobs and relationships), not dangerous to society at large... other than, I suppose, driving under the influence.

But we have let the neo-prohibitionists and the government work us into such a frenzy over the supposed dangers of drugs that they've conned the populace into supporting a multi-billion dollar "War on Drugs" that has resulting in millions of Americans having their lives destroyed, an overly militarized police force that is truly becoming a danger to the populace, an erosion of civil liberties, unchecked political corruption, and the funding of massive international narco-terrorist organizations who are destabilizing entire countries (like Mexico, which is basically in the middle of a low grade civil war at this point). All instead of simply diverting a fraction of the resources we've put into police and prisons into treatment centers, to deal with drug addicts like we do with alcoholics, putting them in treatment, and not in prison for 20 years.

Do I think marijuana should be legal? Absolutely. There is no sane justification that can come to the conclusion the damage to society of it being illegal is than the hyped up and mostly phony arguments of the damage it will cause being legal. Now the trickier question is do we just legalize everything and let people decide that they do and do not put into their bodies? I don't know if I'm ready to go that far, though I do know that the drug policy we have been following in this country is an abject failure and it well beyond time to try something new, based on rational thinking and not just fear mongering and lies.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[D-Ric902]

If you want to hide in your own little bubble and not acknowledge the world is changing around you that is fine. If you put your fingers in your ears and hum loud enough it might drown out the sounds as well.

So you think 900 people that took a survey in Washington are the majority?
and I'm living in a bubble

as long as it supports your pet issue it must be accurate and to be sceptical of the result is putting fingers in my ears.

Thats how liberal, climate change, gun control, spending, ideas are furthered.

Without substantial foundation, just cherry picking what you like and reject all others.

I think your the one with fingers in your ears to push what you want in the face of opposition

 

[AA&E]

Why can't weed fans stick to the issue?


And doing so, I see the recreational use of MJ to be deleterious.

Like your cohort and his straying to multiple subjects during the course of debate?

I see people like you all the time, you are a defender of freedom and small government as long as it fits your version of how you want things to be. You want to keep practicing a failed policy while expecting different results. Fortunately most people are starting to see the error of your way of thinking.