Is November 6th the beginning of the end for marijuana prohibition? (Obama, independent)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,450,688 times
Reputation: 6670
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by no1brownsfan
You said it right here! Follow the money! Personally, I'd tell Big Pharma to go pound salt! At any rate, does anyone honestly think that either one of these two candidates would end the prohibition of marijuana? If so, I have some swamp land in Arizona for sale! Romney certainly won't, and Obama lied when he said that he wouldn't go after the dispensaries in LA and enforce the federal ban!
I personally think that the prohibition of marijuana should be repealed... like yesterday!
Am as much for legalization as anyone, but come on, let's be fair here. What other Prez., besides Obama, has ever come anywhere even close, to addressing, let alone lightening up enforcement of the federal laws on marijuana? And the fact remains, if you want the laws changed, no matter what the POTUS wants, it still has to be the Congress to do it (and BTW, you'll note who's running that these days)!
Am as much for legalization as anyone, but come on, let's be fair here. What other Prez., besides Obama, has ever come anywhere even close, to addressing, let alone lightening up enforcement of the federal laws on marijuana? And the fact remains, if you want the laws changed, no matter what the POTUS wants, it still has to be the Congress to do it (and BTW, you'll note who's running that these days)!
I'm well aware that it has to go through Congress as well as the special interests who stand to lose a ton of money if it is legalized. Oh well! Too bad, so sad! They need to find another way to make their bread and butter! This silly war on a plant has harmed more lives than it has helped!
voters in two states are expected to pass measures to legalize non-medical use of marijuana for the first time. they are expected to easily pass by a comfortable margin. possession of marijuana is currently 'decriminalized' in 14 states. ie: In California if caught with one ounce of pot or less, without a card, the fine is $100.
Washington State and Colorado will be the first in the country to remove all penalties for possession (for up to one ounce for personal use), no medical marijuana card or prescription required. in Colorado you will be allowed to grow up to six marijuana plants for personal use.
its about time. the war on drugs is an epic failure and cops have better things to do than chasing potheads. the war on drugs is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.
So in Cali, where I once lived, if caught with small amounts of pot, you get a $100 fine. How is this "decriminalized"? The one caught is still having to go through the criminal justice system.
In Miss., another state where I once lived, if caught with less than one ounce of pot chances were you'd go to jail, at least for one night, and then you'd get hit with at least a $1500 fine, loss of your driver's license for 6 months, and possibly jail time depending on the judge's mood and the offenders' race. Yet Miss. claims it too has "decriminalized" pot possession. Doesn't sound like it to me.
Decriminalization is merely a buzz word for state authorities to deal effectively with the high volume of offenders. Real decriminalization would mean that the cops wouldn't try to bust people for weed.
The war on drugs, as examined through the lens of "wasting taxpayer dollars" is a failure--but sadly that's not what the war on drugs is about. The war on drugs is about social control over a large segment of the population and a pretense by which the authorities can search citizens without a court order in addition to being a nifty justification for high police budgets (and an all around general scare tactic--no telling how many times a politician who mentions "drugs" also uses the word "kids" or "children" in the same sentence, as if kids could afford a $140 bag of hydroponic).
The war on drugs examined in its proper light reveals an overwhelming success. It keeps cops funded at high levels (governments, state, local, and federal routinely waste taxpayer dollars--it's what they do). It keeps state and federal subsidized private prisons in business, not to mention the drug treatment facilities. It gives judges, bailiffs, court reporters, prosecutors and defenders something to do every day without fail--every day the perps are there, waiting arraignment or their plea bargain adjudication. The war on drugs in this light is very successful because it generates the justice-system economy and puts lots of folks to work. Politicians won't say these things about the drug war. Instead, they'll try to scare you by saying that we need more police enforcement so that your 8 year old doesn't start snorting bath salts after having smoked a joint (which made them crave a more intense high like the one bath salts supposedly provides). No, politicians do not focus on the real nature of the drug war--which is overwhelmingly successful.
My post should be construed as just a different way of looking at things. I support an end to the drug war in all states, but I won't hold my breath and whenever it does come (like in the next 200 years or so), the deep South will opt out of drug legalization.
Didn't Obama say that states cannot make up their own laws even if their laws are the same as federal ones? Would Obama allow states to make laws contrary to federal laws?
Well Obama might have said that, probably not verbatim, but the general idea is contained in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution--so the founding fathers said it first.
No, not with Obama or Romney in WH. It is a bad idea anyway, as it is currently not possible to road test pot-impaired drivers.
Inability to road test pot-impaired drivers is independent of the legalization question because pot-impaired drivers operate on the roads even in the areas where drug enforcement is most rigid. Just because it's illegal in most states today doesn't mean that pot heads don't drive around stoned.
Why is legalization a bad idea--other than the road test idea?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,326 posts, read 54,344,425 times
Reputation: 40721
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
its about time. the war on drugs is an epic failure and cops have better things to do than chasing potheads. the war on drugs is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.
Let's hope we don't end up with a MittWit who opposes even the medical use of the herb, I guess he doesn't want to deprive Big Pharma of any $$$.
I think just writing a ticket on people that are caught with small amounts of MJ is better than locking them up. If they are operating a moving vehicle make the punishment the same as DWI.
I thought it was people in California that were racist against Mexicans? The name "marijuana" was created to put a negative spanish spin on hemp..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I'd tell Big Pharma to go pound salt! At any rate, does anyone honestly think that either one of these two candidates would end the prohibition of marijuana? If so, I have some swamp land in Arizona for sale!
Romney certainly won't, and Obama lied when he said that he wouldn't go after the dispensaries in LA and enforce the federal ban! 
