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.
The appeal for medical pot is there when emotionally wrenching examples are used to try and have it legally available. Even people against general pot usage will vote for medical pot. However the anti-pot group used some powerful arguments as well (i.e. give an inch and you will have pot everywhere). Apparently enough people were wise enough to know this would happen. You know dog gone well that the dopers of NORML may try to get their foot in the door via the medical appeal, but they have no intention of stopping there.
Heck even CO's own (D) governor recognizes the problems with pot use in his state, but that wont convince a single doper who selfishly only wants it legal, regardless of the problems associated with it.
Ooops, I forgot, pot has no ill effects, and is totally harmless according to the apologists. The rest of us are 100% wrong.
OK. Well, we've covered how Gov. Hickenlooper seems to have a bit of cognitive dissonance over the whole issue. I'll not return your patronizing attitude and assume those are not too big of words for you to understand, and that you have the intellectual capacity to read this post.
So let me ask this - describe three ways that prohibition of pot has actually kept it away from anyone who wants it. If you can't do this, describe two. If you can't even do that, describe one. One out of three ain't bad, I don't suppose. In any case, it's now time to shift the burden of proof to the side of prohibition. You'd think after decades there would be a track record of tangible results besides feeding the prison-industrial complex.
If you can't do this, you have nothing meaningful to say, and we can safely conclude just operating off fear, propaganda, stereotypes and ignorance.
Also, this little comment stuck out at me so much that I needed to read three pages just to make sure I was right about this, and I am - over three pages of this discussion, you are the only one so far to speak out against the course of action Colorado has taken.
I knew one of the first pro dope comments couldn't resist dragging booze into it. Regardless of how bad something else is, try focusing on the ills of dope to determine whether it is good, bad or indifferent, regardless of other maladies in the world.
As to the OP's question, if dope could be sufficiently regulated to where only the truly medically needy could get it (i.e. cancer, glaucoma), not the hippie dopers for absurd reasons (i.e. anxiety, insomnia) then I would support it.
However if CA is any example, you give an inch and dopers take a mile.
`
What gives you the right to say what a free man can and can't do in the privacy of his own home? This entitlement that is so rampant today is ridiculous. People smoking do nothing to you, why don't you focus on your own shortcomings and leave people to do what they want?
And don't even try to argue that society will be somehow destroyed if it's legalized for recreational use. I hate to break it to you, but it's been a part of society for decades, weed is very easy to find and tons of people smoke it, particularly the 30 and under crowd, who will eventually take over in office and as the primary voters of this nation once all the old prohibition/reefer madness loving people die. What tangibly HAS destroyed society however, is prohibition, with the private prison industry, the black market, making tons of our up and coming youth into criminals with a record just for having a little weed on them. They can't contribute to society after that, no one will hire them.
It's like when someone grows up being FORBIDDEN from even thinking about sex, told that it's the devil, abstinence-only sex ed, and grounded for a month for wearing a revealing top.
Then once they're finally off to college.....what do they do? They go NUTS.
Finally liberated, they end up going absolutely wild, sleeping around with everyone, engaging in risky behaviors, not thinking of sex in the context of what it means and entails for them, but only in the context of doing things because they can. That, and they were never taught to responsibly manage their sex life.
But by snatching that freedom away, it only takes one back to square one -- if not a few steps behind that. Because if a freedom is seen as a fleeting thing that could be snatched away again at any moment, people are really going to go hog wild when they get even a taste of freedom, because they figure that they'd better enjoy it while they can.
If the freedom remains, eventually the novelty is worn off, and they start to think more critically about the 'vice' and how to incorporate it into their life in a responsible and sane way.
Colorado is currently going through that transition with pot. People are still going bonkers about the newfound freedom. Eventually it will die down, and it will seamlessly integrate with society.
I have mixed feelings about it. For every person who can be helped by medical marijuana there may be another who is harmed. There will be a large percentage of people who dabble with little apparent social impact.
I'm still trying to find a historical example of a culture which has used marijuana legally for centuries that has produced a healthy, thriving nonviolent society. Any examples?
Because I worked with addicts the only examples I have are negative and they can be severe regardless of personal opinion. I think we need a lot more research and planning before we jump in with the "anything goes" idea.
Another thought - who's going to profit and at whose expense? Will it set up another situation of the rich flourishing by producing something the less wealthy want?
I voted in favor of this because I am tired of having non violent criminals be forced into mandatory sentences. Someone please explain why a person can murder another individual and get a plea bargain or plead insanity and get away with murder yet someone found with pot gets in way more trouble? WTF? Backwards laws and legislation. The two party system just wants to control us all and have us be cattle's who are prodded to do the what they want us to do. I hope the Supreme Court rules to remove federal laws on Marijuana and takes the federal crime out of it. Time to stop this insanity. America is #1 in the world for incarcerations. The prison industrial complex plans to keep it that way.
I don't know if anyone else heard of saw Gov. Hickenlooper's comments about how legalizing Pot was a bad idea. It is difficult to be the first to do anything; however, I strongly encourage you to read the article and add any others you may have read.
Most everyone wants MJ to be legal by prescription for those with the medical need. Given the conflicting agency, state and federal laws, maybe pharmaceutical companies are where it should be grown to be dispensed at a pharmacy like other controlled substances. We've all heard stories about the street corner shops in CA and what most lack.
What do you think after reading Gov. Hickenlooper's comments?
MSR
I think that ship has sailed and the Governor doesn't seem all that upset with it at this juncture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Legalizing what?
Alcohol?
You know, alcohol - which has factored in the deaths of tens of thousands of Coloradans since Prohibition was repealed?
You know what is fascinating?
What's fascinating is that people can be totally cool with a substance that kills hundreds of Americans every week because it was legal yesterday and last month and last year, but legalize another substance that only kills a fraction of the people and people wet their pants.
That's fascinating. And a testament to the ability of people to slavishly worship the status quo.
Agree. Goodness, a quick review of my facebook news feed showed a number of middle aged adults posting pictures of what all they had to drink last night.
But we like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
Drug dealers could care less. It's the law enforcement/prison industrial complex that fears legalized drugs the most. There are huge profits being made by locking up people on simple possession charges. Make pot completely legal in the USA and it would empty out 1/2 the prisons, and we wouldn't need endless numbers of cops and lawyers.
Huge incentive indeed to keep it illegal and the Democrats just like the GOP are sellouts.
It's not often we agree - but we certainly agree on this. We are criminalizing half our population and the prison industrial complex is LOVING it. And raking in profit hand over fist; while the poor schlob busted for some weed can no longer find work because he has a criminal record.
But what woud happen to the numbers employed by the DEA? And thousands of local 'drug task forces'? And the lawyers and the for-profit prison systems?
When will the politicians in both parties stand up and realize that the WAR ON DRUGS is a complete an utter FAILURE?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfre81
Maybe I'm not reading you properly, but nearly 70 percent of DC voters chose to legalize. (We can call that a supermajority.) The one trying to block it is one Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican from Maryland and an anesthesiologist who's backed by the pharmaceutical industry. He will not engage in any meaningful debate about the subject. People blow up his Facebook page all the time over it. I'm one of them.
He said that if DC voters don't like it, they should move out. Sounds like limited government and federalism like Republicans want to say they stand for.
I say Rep. Harris should be the one who moves out of DC next election. Too bad he's in the most solidly GOP district of Maryland and it would have to be in the GOP primary to happen.
This isn't an issue, though, where one party is for and one party is against. Dianne Feinstein is a prohibitionist lackey and a Democrat. Michigan Rep. Justin Amash is a libertarian-leaning Republican (and young, he and I are about the same age) and is for reforming cannabis laws. Prohibition itself is big-government social engineering and a costly failure. More public funds go to incarceration than education. If that's not a sign that something's wrong, I don't know what is.
You'd think if the Nixon/Reagan-style drug warrior approach worked, the "war" would've been won by now. Guess what? It hasn't been.
We can't just blame Nixon and Reagan because the 'drug warrior' approach has continued and multiplied under various administrations. No one will address it because no politician can afford to be 'pro drugs'.
While we continue to incarcerate non-violent offenders. While drugs continue to be big business for those dealing illegally AND those responsible for prosecuting and jailing them.
We are so losing this war on drugs and no one wants to do anything about it. Legalizing pot might be the first positive step.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woxyroxme
The people have spoken, pot is legal, deal with it.
Some people may do things with their freedom that you may not like or approve of but that does not make freedom a bad thing.
Has it only been Nixon and Reagan? Surely not, but every trend has its innovators. Those two gentlemen pursued it with earnestness and were driving forces behind building the prison-industrial complex. No doubt, new lockups were popping up left and right in the 1990s, along with the rise in the private prison industry - something quite insidious in any society that calls itself free. I'm all for free enterprise, but turning incarceration into a for-profit commodity is guaranteed to be corrupt, and has been shown to be.
When California legalized medical use in 1996, it was generally assumed that if cannabis prohibition was ever to be fully lifted somewhere, it would be there. But, California has a very large prison guard union that holds a lot of clout in Sacramento.
Building prisons has been a lazy way out of innovating and bringing new industry and jobs to places that need it. As scared as some people seem to be about legal cannabis turning into a business and an industry, this is one way to do it.
I notice that Colorado's unemployment rate is very low right now, which suggests two things - this new industry is creating jobs, and that people aren't suddenly not showing up to work anymore or living off welfare or unemployment and sitting around getting high.
Dnvrsoul, you didn't indicate who you were trying to educate, but I hope you are not trying to educate me. I am 58 years old and have 44 years of direct experience with the plant. And I ACTUALLY live here too.
After some of the nonsense you listed, I am glad to hear you still have an open mind about the subject. That is actually quite rare in my experience.
When it comes to being "killed in accidents" because of being stoned, I suggest you go to the cops themselves to get the true story. In the interview I saw, with an actual law enforcement officer, the officer said "I can't tell any difference" when asked about traffic related incidents since legalization. When the information comes from someone out in the real world like that I give it a lot more consideration than I do when it comes from some sort of "study". Of course, there is no comparison with alcohol in this category. But the real comparison should be this: The number of people harmed and/or killed because of prohibition is absolutely staggering compared to any accidents caused by cannabis users.
The homeless population has nothing to do with pot "being bad"! They are here because finally there is a place in the world that has come to its senses. Many are quite accomplished and adept, so they came here thinking "Getting a job won't be a problem, I am a hard worker". But they didn't count on tens of thousands of others thinking the same thing. So yes there's a problem, but it is temporary because there will be more and more places coming to their senses as time goes on. There will be no need to flock specifically to Denver anymore.
Please keep in mind that for every one of those "stoners" you see hanging out around pot shops, there are at least 1000 responsible cannabis users that are in the closet that you don't know about. They are your neighbors, your coworkers, and yes, the driver in the car next to you. Unfortunately though, the stereotype has been cast. But it is draconian to put these millions of responsible users in prison because of this stereotype, and the brainwashing that has taken place over the last 80 years on prohibition. Most prohibitionists just do not like the type of people the stereotype represents, so they want to keep it illegal simply because of that. But when you think about, you realize those people are waging a war against the culture, not against a supposedly evil weed. This makes it is a culture war, a war on people, not a war on drugs.
Anyway, thanks for the chance to post this. I don't waste my time trying to set things straight with prohibitionists, since there is no amount of direct evidence or logic that will sway them. But you, with your still open mind, is like a breath of fresh air and I don't mind taking the time trying to educate.
What nonsense did I list? Umm no I'm pretty sure people who are homeless actually came here for the pot....duh. Do you think there are tons of middle class people who moved here with no job, and are now all of a sudden homeless?
Trust me you couldn't educate me if you tried...and NO the first thing I thought of when pot passed was fu%% I hope my house value doesn't tank. I think financially not emotionally.
Also, I'm glad you aren't one of the stoners...but people who are posting DO NOT LIVE HERE so I gave what I have seen so far..
OK. Well, we've covered how Gov. Hickenlooper seems to have a bit of cognitive dissonance over the whole issue. I'll not return your patronizing attitude and assume those are not too big of words for you to understand, and that you have the intellectual capacity to read this post.
So let me ask this - describe three ways that prohibition of pot has actually kept it away from anyone who wants it. If you can't do this, describe two. If you can't even do that, describe one. One out of three ain't bad, I don't suppose. In any case, it's now time to shift the burden of proof to the side of prohibition. You'd think after decades there would be a track record of tangible results besides feeding the prison-industrial complex.
If you can't do this, you have nothing meaningful to say, and we can safely conclude just operating off fear, propaganda, stereotypes and ignorance.
I am only going to respond, not because of an absurd challenge (as if I don't there is not legit reason/s).
For starters, I am a firm believer that if the state condones behavior, it not only gives tacit approval, but encourages it. So even though prohibition might seem like a losing battle, it maintains the moral/legal high ground. I could go into detail, but I suspect you will not even begin to understand my point.
Another way it is kept it away from people, are jobs/occupations that prohibit it. I suspect it will not be too far down the road where a pothead sues their employer for prohibiting them from pot usage on their own time. Another words, many occupations that drug test prevent people who would otherwise use pot from doing so. I must know at least 25 people or more that do not smoke pot because they know they will lose their well paying jobs if they are randomly drug tested and caught.
I will also point out that no parent, no matter how hard they try can keep kids from drinking or doing dope if they choose to do so. However if it is legal, even morally centered kids might be willing to try something if the state says it is legal at a certain age.
Case and point, I will use alcohol as my example. In my state, probably most, you cannot legally drink unless you are 21.
In my day it was 18, but now the law prohibits it until 21. My son knows he cannot drink legally, so he doesn't because he knows the consequences if he does. Anyway, we go over to Ireland where the legal drinking age is much lower. As we sit in an Irish bar in Dublin, he orders a soda, and I ask him if he wants to finally have a beer with his Dad. He jumps at the chance, so we have a Guinness & Harp (Half & Half) together for the first time. Later in the day he asks me why I allowed him to have a drink, and I explained it was legal in Ireland.
Needless to say a few months later we were back in the states, and he wanted to have another beer with me during a dinner, and I refused. I explained that it was illegal, and we should always try to obey the law of the land. He said he understood why, and said he was going to wait until he could legally. However, he wants to head back to Ireland before he turns 21 again.
The moral of this story is that if you are consistent and set the right example, kids are much easier to raise, and have their moral compass in proper working order.
As a parent, it makes life much easier to get good kids to follow your rules if the law is on your side.
Hopefully the time I took did not fall on deaf ears.
`
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.
