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.
Yes it was. It was legal until 1937, at which point the Marijuana Tax Act made it illegal to possess unless you paid an excise tax or were using it for medicinal purposes. The first marijuana arrests were tax evasion arrests. It wasn't until 1951 and 1956 that marijuana became a criminal narcotics-related offense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curbed Enthusiasm
Had Obama not been president, it's likely that we would not have seen the feds "look the other way" as state decriminalization is at odds with federal law.
I'm not sure I agree on the political calculus of who would really fight the states. I also don't think that, from a practical standpoint, federal law enforcement has had to look the other way to a significant degree.
Romney, for example, could be as hard-line against legalization as he wanted to be on the campaign trail (and he was), speaking of the dangers of a gateway drug to solidify his base. Certainly, being against legalization solidifies his base, but does that translate to picking a fight with the states if he were to have been elected? I really don't think so.
Overall, the isolated issue of legalization is a divisive grassroots draw outside of a primary campaign. However, when you get down to the business of restricting states' rights in the interest of maintaining criminalization, it becomes a grassroots and interest group loser. Just over half of Americans support legalization, but when asked if federal law should overrule states rights that majority jumps to 60%+ against such restrictions. Politically, you would have to strongarm the states to prevent them from pursuing or maintaining marijuana legalization policies. At that point you're going to go up against the individual states, states' rights/anti-federal grassroots groups and the NGA who would rail against the infringement of states's rights, even though they wouldn't necessarily embrace legalization. Do you really think that anyone who could get elected to the Presidency would want to take on that kind of fight? I do not.
Furthermore federal law enforcement efforts do not focus on individuals who possess small amounts of marijuana for recreational use. That is overwhelmingly the purview of local law enforcement. The only areas where there may be a practical conflict between state and federal law is on joint task force efforts. A review of U.S. Sentencing Commission data from 2012 shows that out of all federal drug sentencing on marijuana cases, over 98% were for trafficking. It just isn't a modern federal law enforcement priority, and I think someone would be hard pressed to make the argument that those types of cases are where we should be focusing limited federal resources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curbed Enthusiasm
And yes, I think that if alcohol was introduced to the market today as a new product, it would never be allowed because of the tremendous risk it brings. Same goes for tobacco.
I think you need to suspend more than just history for this argument. I think you need to suspend human nature. It's an interesting thought exercise, and you can draw logical conclusions that overwhelmingly side with prohibition of all of these things.
But people like to get drunk and high and I don't think that's ever going to go away. So we're left with the task of weighing that human interest with the dangers of the substance and crafting a regulatory environment to balance the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curbed Enthusiasm
I just don't understand how society benefits from condoning people getting high.
And I don't understand how you would qualify restriction, regulation and taxation as 'condoning'.
Last edited by KStreetQB; 11-03-2014 at 12:14 PM..
Louis Armstrong, the most beloved and influential figure in the history of American popular culture, was a pot smoker right up to the end of his life. But the bible thumpers and prohibitionists if they could have would have just thrown him in jail to rot and not give it a second thought.
Louis Armstrong, the most beloved and influential figure in the history of American popular culture, was a pot smoker right up to the end of his life. But the bible thumpers and prohibitionists if they could would have just thrown him in jail to rot and not give it a second thought.
There is a HUGE amount of successful people that have, or actively do partake.
The people that are most against decriminalization/legalization tend to be the most uninformed on the topic, or LEO Unions, big pharma, people that stand to loose if the pro cannabis folks win.
Thank you for sharing those links. They all are interesting reads and raise many good points. I still believe that there are medicinal uses for marijuana that can be beneficial to a sick patient under the guidance of a physician. But at the end of the day, I still don't think that, human nature or not, recreational drug use and getting high for the sake of getting high is something that should be permissible by law or condoned by society.
^ I don't think people even care what you think really, because you might not even know what you're talking about without first doing your own research.
Man-made medicine with often fatal side affects are ok with you but not a natural plant with no side affects at all?
Thank you for sharing those links. They all are interesting reads and raise many good points. I still believe that there are medicinal uses for marijuana that can be beneficial to a sick patient under the guidance of a physician. But at the end of the day, I still don't think that, human nature or not, recreational drug use and getting high for the sake of getting high is something that should be permissible by law or condoned by society.
Ok, so what about getting drunk? All that is, is getting high of alcohol.
If you want to bring human nature into the equation, the human body has cannabinoids present naturally in the body, whether cannabis has been consumed or not. The body is hard wired with receptors for cannabis. It's in our very biology.
Some folks like to end the day with a glass of wine, or a cigar, or a mixed beverage. Some, some like to have a spliff. It is NO different than any of the other aforementioned post work "ceremonies".
I suffer from depression, social anxiety, ADD and IBS...have you ever seen the commercials for medications that supposedly alleviate these things? It pathetic, the side-affects and warnings are practically the whole length of the commercial. Why would I take a medication that causes more problems than it solves? One puff is enough to alleviate a lot of symptoms...what are the side-affects of this detrimental menace to society drug known as marijuana? Sleepiness, euphoria, and munchies...yeah, I think I'll stick with the natural stuff! I don't even partake in alcohol much at all....maybe a single beer every couple of weeks.
At the end of the day, you hold your own beliefs...but when your beliefs obstruct others freedoms I have a problem with that. If you do not want to smoke cannabis, than don't do it. People should have the right to decide for themselves. MY BODY, MY CHOICE, MY LIFE.
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.
