Pot Legalized

As far as tar and carcinogens, a pack a day tobacco smoker smokes 5 ounces a week and unfortunately it's often the cumulative effect which gets them for many problems. Either can be used with an atomizer. Point being the analogy doesn't hold up but people believe it.

Quote: Beethoven

Medical use and recreational use are two vastly different issues.

Agreed... but I don't think recreational use is as dangerous as you have been led to believe.

Quote: Beethoven

Actually, it's not the NRA; it's the US Constitution, Amendment #2.

The NRA which purports responsible gun ownership is under the thumb of of gun manufacturers and the fringe to not put limits on anything...this is not in the spirit of the second amendment and given the NRA's vast lobbying power this falls directly on them. You are being intellectually dishonest about the the fact that "straw buyers" aren't a big part of the problem and a major artery of putting illegal guns on the street. I don't expect perfection but any reasonable person can see what is going on at the shows, private party transactions that is. Why would the NRA oppose that if they weren't bowing down to their masters and the fringe? I have ZERO issues with people owning as many guns as they want but they should ultimately be responsible for what happens with those guns when they are sold to private parties ...they should be held to the same rules as an FF licensed dealer. Since private parties don't have the resources that a FF dealer has, the transactions should be banned or forced to go through a FF dealer as an intermediary and the penalty for disobeying the law should be stiff monetarily and forfeiture of all future gun ownership on any 2nd offense. Guns have serial numbers, its not that hard to track.
This is a whole other discussion but figured I'd just say it.

Quote: Beethoven

If you really believe that legalizing marijuana is going to give cops loads of free time, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I believe as an independent free thinking voter (registered libertarian since 1990, before it was cool, but I mainly vote republican for fiscal reasons). that legalizing MJ would:
1. Free up whatever portion of a police budget, time etc is being taken up with MJ arrests, court systems time etc..
2. Prevent minor, repeat offenders from having a criminal record and therefor future employment troubles ( think labor force participation/ underemployment) One is much more likely to find "alternative" sources of employment if they are excluded due to a possession offense or are not bondable for that reason
3. Reduce what portion of our prison budget is being used to house clothe and feed those offenders albeit only half a percent of most prisoners currently for possession only.. It also removes them from the prison which- can get them involved by default in prison gang activity and criminal grad school if you will.

If you take the criminal profit motive out of MJ you would also:

1. reduce a major part of the Mexican Cartels' cash flow that support other more dangerous and addictive substances such as cocaine,meth, and heroin. It won't stop them of course but it will certainly put a crimp in their ability to fund other projects and ultimately help reduce the $$ and fear corruption that plagues a number of latin american countries and has been very destructive to Mexico.

You know the cartels grow pot in the US on federal land often forcing illegal immigrants to tend to the "farms" under the threat of harming their families back home right??... this is slavery and by supporting the illegality of MJ you are by your logic supporting slavery. Don't you think slavery is wrong?

2. Increase tax coffers of state and local govt. in the same way cigarettes and alcohol contribute now.


Gee... I don't see how that would reduce the burden on law enforcement to investigate other crimes, including the administrative burden on municipalities budgets and court systems. Not to mention the burden on the taxpayer, especially if the product is taxed. You get an increase in the top line (revenue) and a reduction in bottom line (expense).


The real Beethoven was only deaf, I don't think he was blind......maybe he was?

I'm not sure making something legal so the government can tax it is a good argument to any small government conservative. I'm not sure it's a good argument to a Liberal either. Might be to a Democrat, though.

Quote: scotty71

The real Beethoven was only deaf, I don't think he was blind......maybe he was?

Quote: scotty71

Agreed... but I don't think recreational use is as dangerous as you have been led to believe.

Funny, I didn't know that you had mind-reading capabilities to know what I "believe". Did you bother to actually read my posts?

The real Scotty on Star Trek was Scottish. I don't think he was illiterate.....maybe he was?

Quote: scotty71

The NRA which purports responsible gun ownership is under the thumb of of gun manufacturers and the fringe to not put limits on anything...this is not in the spirit of the second amendment

Um.....says who? You??

Sorry, but that is your opinion, my friend. An opinion that many disagree with.

Quote: scotty71

You are being intellectually dishonest about the the fact that "straw buyers" aren't a big part of the problem and a major artery of putting illegal guns on the street.

Again, whose posts are you reading? Methinks you are being intellectually dishonest by not reading my prior posts.

The real Scotty on Star Trek was Scottish. I don't think he was illiterate.....maybe he was?

Quote: scotty71

...the transactions should be banned or forced to go through a FF dealer as an intermediary and the penalty for disobeying the law should be stiff monetarily and forfeiture of all future gun ownership on any 2nd offense.

I refer you to the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Quote: scotty71

I believe as an independent free thinking voter (registered libertarian since 1990, before it was cool, but I mainly vote republican for fiscal reasons). that legalizing MJ would:
1. Free up whatever portion of a police budget, time etc is being taken up with MJ arrests, court systems time etc..

I'll ask you again.....why hasn't that happened in WA or CO?

Quote: scotty71

2. Prevent minor, repeat offenders from having a criminal record and therefor future employment troubles ( think labor force participation/ underemployment)

That's fine if you don't mind working with a bunch of potheads. Others don't share your opinion.

Quote: scotty71

3. Reduce what portion of our prison budget is being used to house clothe and feed those offenders albeit only half a percent of most prisoners currently for possession only.

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Potheads love spreading the myth about the number of people who are in prison for ONLY marijuana possession.

Quote: scotty71

If you take the criminal profit motive out of MJ you would also:

1. reduce a major part of the Mexican Cartels' cash flow that support other more dangerous and addictive substances such as cocaine,meth, and heroin.

OK, then let's REALLY cut down on their cash flow by legalizing cocaine, meth, and heroin. (For some reason, I don't think you'll accept your own argument when applied to these other substances.)

Quote: scotty71

You know the cartels grow pot in the US on federal land often forcing illegal immigrants to tend to the "farms" under the threat of harming their families back home right??... this is slavery and by supporting the illegality of MJ you are by your logic supporting slavery. Don't you think slavery is wrong?

Good lord. I've heard potheads use some really dumb arguments, but this one takes the cake. lol...

Quote: scotty71

2. Increase tax coffers of state and local govt.

Ah, some honesty at last. It's all about sucking out more tax dollars, right? (BTW, this is a liberal—not a libertarian—argument)

Quote: scotty71

Gee... I don't see how that would reduce the burden on law enforcement to investigate other crimes, including the administrative burden on municipalities budgets and court systems. Not to mention the burden on the taxpayer, especially if the product is taxed. You get an increase in the top line (revenue) and a reduction in bottom line (expense).

Gee, I'll ask again...why hasn't this happened in WA or CO?

Quote: TheCesspit

I'm not sure making something legal so the government can tax it is a good argument to any small government conservative. I'm not sure it's a good argument to a Liberal either. Might be to a Democrat, though.

I'm not for bigger govt at all but the transactions are already taking place and its adding a cost to society without any renumeration other than sales tax (on $$ dealers spend at stores) or civil fines which may or may not go into the general budget for society as a whole.
I'm open to the fact that I can be wrong too... I just dont see it that way right now.

Quote: scotty71

Agreed... but I don't think recreational use is as dangerous as you have been led to believe.


The NRA which purports responsible gun ownership is under the thumb of of gun manufacturers and the fringe to not put limits on anything...this is not in the spirit of the second amendment and given the NRA's vast lobbying power this falls directly on them. You are being intellectually dishonest about the the fact that "straw buyers" aren't a big part of the problem and a major artery of putting illegal guns on the street. I don't expect perfection but any reasonable person can see what is going on at the shows, private party transactions that is. Why would the NRA oppose that if they weren't bowing down to their masters and the fringe? I have ZERO issues with people owning as many guns as they want but they should ultimately be responsible for what happens with those guns when they are sold to private parties ...they should be held to the same rules as an FF licensed dealer. Since private parties don't have the resources that a FF dealer has, the transactions should be banned or forced to go through a FF dealer as an intermediary and the penalty for disobeying the law should be stiff monetarily and forfeiture of all future gun ownership on any 2nd offense. Guns have serial numbers, its not that hard to track.
This is a whole other discussion but figured I'd just say it.




I believe as an independent free thinking voter (registered libertarian since 1990, before it was cool, but I mainly vote republican for fiscal reasons). that legalizing MJ would:
1. Free up whatever portion of a police budget, time etc is being taken up with MJ arrests, court systems time etc..
2. Prevent minor, repeat offenders from having a criminal record and therefor future employment troubles ( think labor force participation/ underemployment) One is much more likely to find "alternative" sources of employment if they are excluded due to a possession offense or are not bondable for that reason
3. Reduce what portion of our prison budget is being used to house clothe and feed those offenders albeit only half a percent of most prisoners currently for possession only.. It also removes them from the prison which- can get them involved by default in prison gang activity and criminal grad school if you will.

If you take the criminal profit motive out of MJ you would also:

1. reduce a major part of the Mexican Cartels' cash flow that support other more dangerous and addictive substances such as cocaine,meth, and heroin. It won't stop them of course but it will certainly put a crimp in their ability to fund other projects and ultimately help reduce the $$ and fear corruption that plagues a number of latin american countries and has been very destructive to Mexico.

You know the cartels grow pot in the US on federal land often forcing illegal immigrants to tend to the "farms" under the threat of harming their families back home right??... this is slavery and by supporting the illegality of MJ you are by your logic supporting slavery. Don't you think slavery is wrong?

2. Increase tax coffers of state and local govt. in the same way cigarettes and alcohol contribute now.


Gee... I don't see how that would reduce the burden on law enforcement to investigate other crimes, including the administrative burden on municipalities budgets and court systems. Not to mention the burden on the taxpayer, especially if the product is taxed. You get an increase in the top line (revenue) and a reduction in bottom line (expense).


The real Beethoven was only deaf, I don't think he was blind......maybe he was?

Excellent post Scotty. That's also my problem with the NRA. I also understand people want to own guns. The NRA is under the thumbs of the gun makers therefore just way too extreme.

You can't be a pimp and a prostitute too, but that's never stopped the government from trying.

Don't forget cocaine is legal in the United States depending on the individual such as dentists and researchers. Thanks to Coca-Cola, there is coke.

Beethoven:

I don't have time to read all of your posts. I might agree with what you have to say on a lot of topics. I'll make it a point to review them. most that I have seen though seem to be quite slanted and lacking in objective thought. I too tire of many of the liberal and conservative 'groupthink' arguments because if you box all of them together as a platform they are not properly debated on their own merits... if you feel that they should be grouped as one you are just as bad as those you might despise IMO

We should debate "gun control" on another thread or not. If you want to state your case I will be happy to argue or agree on merits of what you feel is threatening gun owner rights, laws that you think should or shouldn't be changed if any. I didn't want to hijack the thread but you made a comment that "pot" smokers were anti gun and that is a naive 'group think' argument.

In a society where we've wasted BILLIONS of $$ on a war on drugs with little if anything to show for it except larger prisons- we have an opportunity to hit large drug organizations where it hurts, and that should not be discounted.

I really don't care if the other drugs mentioned were legalized and controlled adequately, people certainly don't have a hard time finding them even though we have spent BILLIONS trying to stop it. The money motive created by their illegality creates corruption and allows them to flourish in my opinion because the larger organizations have more money and fear with which to corrupt the system. That being said... the other substances are both physically and mentally addictive and can lead to much costlier burdens on society as well as overdose/death.

As far as WA and CO go I would say a few things.
1. There hasn't been enough time to get evidence either way.... so I may have spoken out of turn a little early. But I'll happily wager money on statistics a few years down the road if you would like.
2. The people of those states voted that way and it does not impose on any other citizens rights.
3. The only evidence I have seen you put together in regards to pot... I haven't read all your post mind you but they were an :
a. An article about the increase in homeless people which was possibly the dumbest thing I've read because its not creating homeless ness in the sense that people are so into pot they are
losing their jobs and are perpetual losers. They are going there because they can smoke weed. And by the way I agree if you smoke pot all day( and aren't in hospice) you are a loser.
The same way I think anyone drinking or chain smoking all day are losers. There will always be losers.
b. The article about the kid who jumped of fell to his death is indeed an unfortunate occurrence but may or may not have had anything to do with weed, he might have made the terrible
decision after eating one too many benydrils, antidepressants or NyQuil??? who knows but its a weak argument against legalization unless you propose the criminalization of all stimulants and depressants not prescribed by a doctor.

At the end of the day legal pot for recreational use is not a passion of mine but I can see the big picture connections and evidence that the war on drugs has failed and has created industries and employment that relies heavily on its existence whether it be jobs, equipment, or lawyers.

Quote: Beethoven

Funny, I didn't know that you had mind-reading capabilities to know what I "believe". Did you bother to actually read my posts?

I do, thats why I make a lot of cash relative to most I find, pay a lot of taxes and hate to see my money squandered

Quote: Beethoven

That's fine if you don't mind working with a bunch of potheads. Others don't share your opinion.

Where do you work that you would worry about working with potheads all day? Do people drink and smoke all day at your office?
What do you do for a living...you can be vague but I'm curious in general? I'm curious how your "straight edge" income compares to others... please be honest if you can. also, Any employer can screen for any substance abuse if they'd like. Not sure if they can fire smokers but they often seem fro be on smoke breaks or planning smoke breaks. BTW I smoke cigarettes Im embarrassed to say but it has never detracted from my work because I don't smoke during work hours.

Quote: Beethoven

Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Potheads love spreading the myth about the number of people who are in prison for ONLY marijuana possession.

No myth there I said it was a half of one percent of Prisoners, its a waste of your money if you are a taxpayer and value the courts time

Quote: Beethoven

Ah, some honesty at last. It's all about sucking out more tax dollars, right? (BTW, this is a liberal—not a libertarian—argument)

It's a realist argument... I dont follow any party line, I think for myself. I am okay with anyone of age growing it themselves, it just won't happen though if it's made available in stores. I like to drink a beer and a glass of scotch now and then as do many people... I don't brew or distill my own out of convenience and a lack of expertise.
Its not about tax dollars its about efficiency my friend. The govt will want to tax it because they spent enough money trying to stop it...should that continue or not?