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.
Both democrats and republicans have their "emotional" positions that can't be easily defended without going into rant mode, and for republicans the issue of marijuana is one of them.. because no facts support the decision to keep it illegal unless you're really a hardcore straight edge stick in the mud who uses no substances at all. (Admittedly that comes close to me but I still support legalization)
Actually that's not true, there are plenty of "facts" to justify a second look at the legalization movement in this country.
60 Minutes just did a story a few weeks back on what's happening in Colorado after legalization. There's been a sharp uptick in pregnant women giving birth to babies with THC in their system. Sharp uptick in teen use of marijuana, and law enforcement hasn't even developed an accurate equivalent to breathalizers for intoxicated drivers.
No matter how you feel about legalization, let's quit pretending that marijuana use is merely just a personal choice that has no affect on anyone but the user, because it's just not true. And while we're at it, let's quit conflating legitimate medical uses for marijuana with those who just want to get stoned recreationally.
Interesting but for me it doesn't change anything. I support legalization/decriminalization of all illicit drugs. I don't support this because I do any of them. I don't. I don't even drink or smoke. I just happen to believe that it isn't anybody's business but your own if you choose to imbibe substances that ultimately hurt you. The government needs to get out of the business of saving people from themselves. Prohibition II is turning out worse than the original.
That would be a compelling argument, if it were true. Problem is, as with any other drug, it doesn't "just" effect those who "choose" to use it. Colorado has seen a sharp uptick in pregnant women giving birth to babies with THC in their system. What short and long term effects might that have on an undeveloped brain? And then there are the indirect, unseen consequences of drug use. What might the financial impact on poverty stricken families be when deadbeats choose their drug addiction over feeding their families? And you want to end the drug war on "all" illicit drugs...I would assume that includes drugs like heroin? Look at all the overdoses going in the country right now from that drug. Imagine what it would look like if there were NO legal impediments to allowing that drug be proliferated. What do you say to all those mothers who've lost their children to drug addiction and death? Are they just collateral damage? And what about those addicts who would steal from others in order to support their habit?
I think people haven't given this as much thought as it warrants. I use to have something of a libertarian streak on this issue..... until I grew up and realized that worldview was irresponsible and unsustainable.
If the marijuana crosses state lines, then it becomes something that the federal government can try and crack down on. But as long as it is both produced and sold within the same state, then the federal government will fail to meet "interstate commerce" muster and the federal courts will strike down any attempts they make at enforcing federal laws against marijuana. The same would be true if it were cocaine or heroine or crystal meth -- though I don't foresee any states legalizing those drugs anytime soon.
Obama's policy of inaction gave states the courage to do their own thing. Now we get to watch as the federal government gets taught a lesson in following the United States Constitution. Should be fun!
LOL, yeah, not quite. The Federal Government has perverted the Interstate Commerce Clause to such an extent that it basically allows them unlimited reach to do anything they want, and the courts have been more than happy to let them get away with it. If the FedGov can tell you that you can't grow wheat on your own property to feed your livestock because it will effect the market for wheat nationally, then they could certainly come up with a justification for putting an end to the state-legal marijuana market...
An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for use to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. In 1941 Filburn grew more than the limits permitted and he was ordered to pay a penalty of $117.11. He claimed his wheat was not sold in interstate commerce and so the penalty could not apply to him
The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally (interstate), and is therefore within the purview of the Commerce Clause. Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.
This same strategy you are suggesting was used a few years ago by the state of Montana when they passed the "Montana Firearms Freedom Act" that basically said that guns manufactured and sold within the state of Montana couldn't be regulated by the Federal government. That law was struck down by the courts.
The law declares that firearms manufactured in the state of Montana after October 1, 2009, and which remain in the state, are exempt from United States federal firearms regulations, provided that these items are clearly stamped "Made in Montana" on a central metallic part.
Based on the Montana law, plaintiffs challenged the continued enforcement of federal gun laws, in federal district court, on October 1, 2009. These plaintiffs are the Montana Shooting Sports Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and MSSA president Gary Marbut. The legal complaint states that Marbut "wishes to manufacture and sell small arms and small arms ammunition to customers exclusively in Montana, pursuant to the MFFA, without complying with the NFA or the GCA, or other applicable federal laws
the Ninth Circuit panel unanimously ruled that Congress could regulate the internal manufacture of firearms within Montana because the creation and circulation of such firearms could reasonably be expected to impact the market for firearms nationally. A majority of the panel, over the dissent of Judge Bea, went further to hold that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act was preempted by the federal licensing law. Two petitions for a writ of certiorari sought to bring the matter before the United States Supreme Court, but the writ was denied in both instances
So don't look to the Interstate Commerce Clause to grant you any relief as far as marijuana policy is concerned.
These posts remind me how annoying I used to sound back in my more conservative days. lol
Both democrats and republicans have their "emotional" positions that can't be easily defended without going into rant mode, and for republicans the issue of marijuana is one of them.. because no facts support the decision to keep it illegal unless you're really a hardcore straight edge stick in the mud who uses no substances at all. (Admittedly that comes close to me but I still support legalization)
This.
It's hard to have rational discussions about marijuana with conservatives because it quickly sends them ranting and spouting off propaganda from the '80s. Truth is, when you look at it with an open mind, there is zero reason at all to keep it illegal unless you want to go all out and ban all psychoactive substances, including alcohol. We all know how well that works.
I know a couple with a young boy who was born with a seizure disorder. At age 6 he was having 100 grand mal seizures a day. Doctors had tried every known seizure med from the drug companies with zero help at all. The parents moved to Colorado. On Cannabis, he has not had a seizure in three years. In fact, he is now able to go to school. They have been hoping for a change In the laws so they could move back home to here, Missouri.
It's hard to have rational discussions about marijuana with conservatives because it quickly sends them ranting and spouting off propaganda from the '80s. Truth is, when you look at it with an open mind, there is zero reason at all to keep it illegal unless you want to go all out and ban all psychoactive substances, including alcohol. We all know how well that works.
It's cognitive dissonance. They have held onto this lie for so long, that no amount of truth will change their minds.
Blah Blah Blah Protect The Children! Here we go again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
That would be a compelling argument, if it were true. Problem is, as with any other drug, it doesn't "just" effect those who "choose" to use it. Colorado has seen a sharp uptick in pregnant women giving birth to babies with THC in their system. What short and long term effects might that have on an undeveloped brain? And then there are the indirect, unseen consequences of drug use. What might the financial impact on poverty stricken families be when deadbeats choose their drug addiction over feeding their families? And you want to end the drug war on "all" illicit drugs...I would assume that includes drugs like heroin? Look at all the overdoses going in the country right now from that drug. Imagine what it would look like if there were NO legal impediments to allowing that drug be proliferated. What do you say to all those mothers who've lost their children to drug addiction and death? Are they just collateral damage? And what about those addicts who would steal from others in order to support their habit?
I think people haven't given this as much thought as it warrants. I use to have something of a libertarian streak on this issue..... until I grew up and realized that worldview was irresponsible and unsustainable.
Colorado seeing an "uptick" in babies with the by-products of cannabis use in their system may be true, but so what. It's not toxic and I'm sure some women have used it before it was legal there, yet we don't hear of cannabis deformity or developmental issues. Why is that?
So until someone comes up with why you should be concerned, it's a non-issue. What short and long term effects will it have on their brains? Likely nothing. The US government has a patent on it as a neuro-protectant. So brains should be safe.
Many studies have shown, and Michigan and Florida, among others have proved, that drug testing "poverty stricken" people is not cost effective because they use illegal drugs at a low rate. So your concern is unfounded. What they use is usually the much cheaper and legal alcohol. Which is toxic, so if you want to be concerned about the babies, be concerned about the poverty stricken alcoholics who father them.
As you must know cannabis is about as addictive as caffeine, so I don't think anyone is giving up food
for cannabis.
As for the other drugs, these are used by a very small percentage of the population. Alcohol kills more people than all the illegal drugs combined. Heroin now kills more people than traffic fatalities. How's that prohibition model working for you?
Yes, all drugs should be legalized. Then we can start treating addicts as having a medical problem instead of a criminal problem - like we treat alcoholics.
I would say to those mothers that if the drug their child was taking had been legal they might have sought help instead of hiding their addiction until it was lethal.
Addicts would not have to steal to support their habit if drugs were legal. The price of drugs reflects the illegality of the drug and the risk that involves.
People have thought a lot about this over the last 50 years. PROHIBITION DOESN"T WORK! Can you hear us now?
No matter how you feel about legalization, let's quit pretending that marijuana use is merely just a personal choice that has no affect on anyone but the user, because it's just not true.
So what? You can say that about 1000 products. Do you want to ban every product that might impact somebody other than the user? Like cars, golf balls, bicycles, beer, wine, cough medicine, etc.
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.
Blah Blah Blah Protect The Children! Here we go again.
