[quote]c/j wrote:
Zeplin you are right about the ignorance and propaganda and you seem very well informed. Zap and Zeb I will go toe to toe in a battle of political knowledge with you two, any fucking time. You guys mock what I say, and try to make me look dumb and irrational yet neither of you EVER have a single fact to go against anything I say. So all I can assume is that neither of you have any real info or have done any research on any of this shit, which explains your “plotically correct” bullshit point of view that you’ve been brought up to beleive the world works just as they’ve taught you it has. Good job fellas, way to think for youselves. You might want to check out today’s strong words before you make any more factless remarks. Until then do some research for christ fucking sakes, and then I dare your asses to bring it on.[/quote]
c/j, I am for legalization of marijuana.
Your rants are unintelligible drivel.
I have seen your “political knowledge” and I am thoroughly unimpressed.
Someone mentioned earlier that you are a conservative. I dont know anything about your politics but Im left wondering what has happend to the conservative movement? Back in the days of Goldwater, it was supposed to be about state’s rights, limited central government, and individualism. All I see people arguing for on this board is the ending of the federal govt’s war on drugs. Individual states will still be able to regulate drugs however they see fit. Considering congress recognized it needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, how do you justify current drug laws?
[quote]c/j wrote:
Zeplin you are right about the ignorance and propaganda and you seem very well informed. Zap and Zeb I will go toe to toe in a battle of political knowledge with you two, any fucking time. You guys mock what I say, and try to make me look dumb and irrational yet neither of you EVER have a single fact to go against anything I say. So all I can assume is that neither of you have any real info or have done any research on any of this shit, which explains your “plotically correct” bullshit point of view that you’ve been brought up to beleive the world works just as they’ve taught you it has. Good job fellas, way to think for youselves. You might want to check out today’s strong words before you make any more factless remarks. Until then do some research for christ fucking sakes, and then I dare your asses to bring it on.[/quote]
Ha ha…please read my many posts on the topic. Secondly take a breath and relax. Do you have anything that can help you relax?
Someone mentioned earlier that you are a conservative. I dont know anything about your politics but Im left wondering what has happend to the conservative movement? Back in the days of Goldwater, it was supposed to be about state’s rights, limited central government, and individualism. All I see people arguing for on this board is the ending of the federal govt’s war on drugs. Individual states will still be able to regulate drugs however they see fit. Considering congress recognized it needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, how do you justify current drug laws? [/quote]
There have always been certain federal laws, which supercede state laws. Modern day conservatives are not against this.
Again, my question to you is how do you justify federal drug laws in light of the Constitution?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Tell me where in the Constitution is the power to regulate drugs granted to Congress? If you can show me that, you win the debate…as far as I am concerned anyways.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Again, my question to you is how do you justify federal drug laws in light of the Constitution?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Tell me where in the Constitution is the power to regulate drugs granted to Congress? If you can show me that, you win the debate…as far as I am concerned anyways.[/quote]
Interstate commerce. Same place they stick all the laws they cannot justify.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Again, my question to you is how do you justify federal drug laws in light of the Constitution?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Tell me where in the Constitution is the power to regulate drugs granted to Congress? If you can show me that, you win the debate…as far as I am concerned anyways.
Interstate commerce. Same place they stick all the laws they cannot justify.[/quote]
I know you’re being facetious but if that is really their justification thats the biggest load of crap Ive ever heard.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Again, my question to you is how do you justify federal drug laws in light of the Constitution?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
Tell me where in the Constitution is the power to regulate drugs granted to Congress? If you can show me that, you win the debate…as far as I am concerned anyways.
Interstate commerce. Same place they stick all the laws they cannot justify.
I know you’re being facetious but if that is really their justification thats the biggest load of crap Ive ever heard.
[/quote]
I swear to god, that is what has been explained to me. I do not know for sure if it is true.
I dont understand how the federal govt could outlaw personal use of pot on the basis of interstate commerce. It has absolutely nothing to do with interstae commerce! As far as I can tell, drug laws were basically passed with ever increasing restrictions and penalties. The federal government essentially back doored outright criminalization of pot. Check out the full text of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937…that got there foot in the door. All I can say is if you give the government an inch…they take a mile.
One more thing on interstate commerce. Under Rehnquist, in United States v. Lopez, the court ruled that Congress had the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. With that said, in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice Scalia (who I normally agree with) and others decided that the conclusions reached in the Lopez case didnt apply to weed. Check out what some of the dessenting justices wrote:
O’Conner-
Federalism promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that ?a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.?
Relying on Congress? abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one?s own home for one?s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California?s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.
Thomas-
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything?and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Respondents? local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not ?Commerce ? among the several States.? U.S. Const., Art. I, ?8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution?s limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents? conduct, however, is not ?necessary and proper for carrying into Execution? Congress? restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, ?8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents? conduct.
Even the majority does not argue that respondents? conduct is itself ?Commerce among the several States.? Art. I, ?8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California?it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that ?commerce? included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
I think Thomas is 100% correct. the use of the commerce clause as a justification is absolute bullshit and I think our founding fathers whould shit a brick if they were alive today.
Umm, ZEB, kids already smoke pot. Do you really think that anyone here is suggesting legal sales for minors? Please.
Umm ToShinDo more would smoke pot if it were more readily available and socially acceptable. Do you think that anyone purposely promotes the sale of beer to minors? However, minors do drink beer. Now how did that happen?
[/quote]
Ummmm, ZEB, no I don’t more would smoke pot when their own classmates aren’t selling it anymore.
How do kids get beer? A recent survey showed many get it form their own parents. The point is that the current situation allows kids to buy and sell drugs directly. Adding ID checks and regulated access would add at least another layer for them to go through, making it that much more difficult.
ZEB no one wants kids doing drugs. Child cigarette smoking has now been decreasing a decent rate. Tell me how many adult cigarette smokers were put into jail to achieve this effect.
Ummmm, ZEB, no I don’t more would smoke pot when their own classmates aren’t selling it anymore.[/quote]
Do their “own classmates” sell them cigarettes too? You have to realize that there are a number of factors that result in a child using drugs, or any other substance for that matter.
If they actually would use less if pot were legalized it would be the first time in history that a product which has become commercialized, well promoted, price cut and made more readily available did not sell more!
Someone better inform Budwieser, Marlboro, Pepsi and a host of other companies who sell things that are not good for the body that marketing and product availablity don’t work. LOL
I would like to check the wording on that survey. First beer from parents? Regularly get beer from parents? Have gotten beer from parents in the past? Who did the survey is also important.
Furthermore, if your survey is spot on does that now mean if we legalize pot that Jr. will be getting his bag from Dad, since it’s now legal and socially acceptable?
And that’s something that needs to be stopped, not promoted by legalization!
Do you think it is easier or more difficult for a child to buy beer now or during prohibition? All a kid has to do now is sit in front of a grocery store and wait for a willing participant to walk by and bingo he has beer. It’s also more appealing because of the marketing and more readily available and cheaper!
Then we shouldn’t make it easier for them to get by commercializing it decreasing it’s price and making it more readily available!
Are you aware of how many children smoke?
According the American Lung Association:
FACT- “It is estimated that at least 4.5 million U.S. adolescents are cigarette smokers.”
FACT- “Each day, nearly 6,000 children under 18 years of age start smoking; of these, nearly 2,000 will become regular smokers. That is almost 800,000 annually.”
The (big) reasons are threefold:
Legal and more readily available!
More affordable because it is legal!
Highly promoted through magazines, etc. because it is legal!
Does the thought of 800,000 new child pot heads bother you? It’s certainly a possibility if pot were legalized.
Glad you brought that up as no one has mentioned it up to this point. I think we need to spend more on education regarding drug usage. There has never been enough energy directed toward a serious educational program, just plenty of lip service. However, I’m also for spending more to keep drug dealers in prision!
Here are my thoughts:
In my opinion, any filthy individual that smokes anything, whether it be cigarette or crack, deserves to die. How could somebody just screw up there body, and think nothing of it? I will not even eat candy or drink soda because I think it is bad for me; I as sure as hell ain’t going to smoke.
Ummmm, ZEB, no I don’t more would smoke pot when their own classmates aren’t selling it anymore.
Do their “own classmates” sell them cigarettes too? You have to realize that there are a number of factors that result in a child using drugs, or any other substance for that matter. [/quote]
Like the appeal of “forbidden fruit”?
"We find many things to which the prohibition of them constitutes the only temptation. " - William Hazlitt
“To forbid us anything is to make us have a mind for it.” - Michel De Montaigne
There are limits on alcohol advertising, why not on cannabis? Make them as severe as you please.
Yet the rate of smoking has gone from 36.4% in 1997 to 28.5% in 2001 (CDC) This was achieved with no adult arrests.
In addition, cannabis does not have nearly the addictive properties of nicotine. Judging from the NIDA surveys, 800,000 is absurd
[quote]As for societal costs, are you comfortable spending more on prisons than education in your state?
Glad you brought that up as no one has mentioned it up to this point. I think we need to spend more on education regarding drug usage. There has never been enough energy directed toward a serious educational program, just plenty of lip service. However, I’m also for spending more to keep drug dealers in prision!
[/quote]
And apparently users too! Of course if you have two bags of weed, well that’s intent to distribute, so you’re a dealer too. Have a scale in your kitchen? Considered a dealer.
Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995
was due to drug convictions. - USDOJ
“According to ONDCP, federal spending to incarcerate drug offenders totals
nearly $3 Billion a year – $2.525 Billion by the Bureau of Prisons, and $429.4 Million by Federal Prisoner Detention.” - ONDCP
“The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined
populations of Wyoming and Alaska.” - Dr. John Irwin “America’s One Million NonViolent Prisoners”
You’re sure that cannabis use will increase with legalization. Yet in the Netherlands, their percapita use is less than ours:
Social Indicator Comparison Year US Netherlands
Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 36.9%1 17.0%2
Past month prevalence of marijuana use (ages 12+) 2001 5.4%1 3.0%2
Lifetime prevalence of heroin use (ages 12+) 2001 1.41 0.42
Incarceration Rate per 100,000 population 2002 7013 1004
Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 379?5 223?5
Homicide rate per 100,000 population 2001 5.566 1.516
With all the availability, their kids still smoke less than ours.
How much money should we spend on prohibition? When should we expect real results from it? It’s been around 30 years, shouldn’t it be working yet?
“According to the United Nations, profits in illegal drugs are so inflated, that three quarters
of all drug shipments would have to be intercepted to seriously reduce the
profitability of the business. Current efforts only intercept 13% of heroin shipments and 28%-40%* of cocaine shipments. (*At most; the UN Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention notes that estimates of production and total supply are probably understated by reporting governments.)” -UNODCCP
Doesn’t look like we can police our way out of this. The laws are basically unenforceable. And this then creates contempt for the justice system
“Far from a simple attempt to rid the nation of crime and drugs, our policy against narcotics – like any public policy – comes with strings attached. And increasingly these strings are constricting around the necks of Americans’ lives and liberties.” - Joel Miller
You guys have your hands full with c/j. I’ve read some of his shit and if you guys can even form reasonable responses to that nonsense I give you pre props. Best of luck. I thought this thread was pretty much a dead horse, but now I have to keep my eyes peeled for the debate/discussion. Although if my definition of debate is correct it will be fairly one-sided as I believe it takes the ability to form a reasoned position and then skillfully argue said position.
[quote]Brendan B wrote:
Here are my thoughts:
In my opinion, any filthy individual that smokes anything, whether it be cigarette or crack, deserves to die. How could somebody just screw up there body, and think nothing of it? I will not even eat candy or drink soda because I think it is bad for me; I as sure as hell ain’t going to smoke.[/quote]
Read your post and don’t see anything really new. I think that this debate has reached a point where most do (at least on the Internet).
I will never prove to you that making drugs legal will worsen the situation. You will never prove to me that the Netharlands are even remotely similar in any way shape or form to the US.
I will simply reiterate my point one last time:
Making pot legal will indeed increase it’s usage.
If it’s legal it’s more readily available.
If it’s legal it’s more affordable.
If it’s legal it will be highly promote in one form of the media or the other.
If it’s legal it becomes more socially acceptable.
Again, if I am wrong then Marlboro, Budwieser, Pepsi and a host of other corporations have wasted billions on price wars, advertising and distribution. And we all know that they have not done so.
Good luck in your war FOR drugs…And I hope you never get caught toking. Although a little jail time might be good for you…KIDDING
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes lothario all the government does is make up lies to fool the masses…(sheesh)[/quote]
Well golly, ZEB… then what’s with all the bullshit “pot supports terrorism” commercials? Come on, buddy! I’m not saying that the Fed is nothing but lies, but… sheesh! Right back at ya! Are you going to be able to look me in the eye, with a straight face, and say “Yes, lothario… pot smokers are supporting terrorism.”
I’m going to bet my money on a different horse, ZEB. It’s not that I don’t trust your acting skills, it’s just that you will feel ridiculous trying to say it. Trust me.
Plain and simple: this time they are lying.
You may not realize it, but this is very similar to making an argument against driving because of all the motorcycle fatalities we have in this country. Drugs have their uses, both positive and negative. It is not up to Momma Fed to decide our lives for us. This is an integral part of personal liberty (which I have a definite fondness for), and I would think that based on this idea, you of all people would be pro-legalization, just on principle. Oh well. You are very conservative, after all.
Again, we are seeing this issue through different lenses. I would love it if there were no stupid people clogging up my ER at all hours of the night… “Hey Bubba! Hold my beer while I mess with this poisonous snake in the yard!” (happens once a week in Tallahassee… we have a treatment protocol in place for all of the drunk 'necks who get bit by taunting pygmy rattlers… I’m not kidding)
But I can’t stop them. Passing more and more laws or keeping ridiculous restrictions that don’t work and cost 4 billion dollars a year and growing is not the answer to stupid people. I will tell you a secret:
If you want to stop stupid people, you don’t pass laws… you make fun of them. If I come home from the gym, and the house smells like reefer madness, I walk upstairs to the living room, point my finger at my functionally retarded roommate, and exclaim “you don’t even know your own name right now, you fucking idiot… no wonder you can’t ever get anything but the occasional fat chick!” And then all is right with the world. I laugh… he cries… and then the bong hits stop.
It’s the same thing with treating “suicide attempts”. These girls get dumped by their loser boyfriends and take three handfuls of aspirin. Then they call 911. What do we do? Make them miserable: pump their stomachs full of charcoal while telling them how smart they are, stick a tube up their nose, they puke all over themselves, all while we affirm that yes, they are morons and it “helped so much” to take a bunch of pills. After the drama, do we see that girl “crying for attention” again? Hell no! Tough love, man… it works.
I finally finished reading all of the posts on this very long thread and wanted to chime in with some of my thoughts.
First of all, ZEB, I don’t really see how you can say that insurance costs, medical cost, etc will increase. I just don’t see why this would be. Even if you could prove it too me, I don’t see why insurance companies couldn?t just decide to stop covering for expenses due to drug use or anything else for that matter.
I don’t really understand why some of them cover the costs of lung cancer or heart problems for those that smoke cigarettes or are morbidly obese. These people directly influence my taxes and my insurance premiums and do so by doing things are that “not good for you.”
I agree that there are reasons not to legalize it (some valid, some not), but most people do not abstain from smoking because it is illegal. Those that don’t smoke choose not to for other reasons, and they are not going to start smoking just because the government decides that it is legal all of a sudden. Saying “it shouldn’t be legal because that’s the way it has been for a really long time and if we change it now it will make things worse,” doesn’t really hold up as an argument for me and doesn’t make the law any more valid. It doesn’t change the fact that the law is outdated and ridiculous.
I don’t think anyone is saying that smoking weed is a good thing health wise, except in cases where is medically useful (cancer, aids, glaucoma, etc), but the point is why keep fighting a war that cannot be won, a war that we are losing every day and spending billions of dollars on.
Those of us that are for legalization recognize that those billions of dollars could be put to better use for things like education, both general education and educating children about drugs. No more lies. Kids just wanted to be treated like adults, and while they may not have as much wisdom as someone twice their age, they like don’t like being lied to anymore than you or I. The drug education programs in place for kids now are a joke. Those that wear those D.A.R.E t-shirts are openly mocking them. Don’t you think when kids grow up and realize that most of the things they heard about weed were BS that they might try it out of spite, or BECAUSE it is illegal and there is an element of rebellion involved.
Perhaps the money should be spent fighting other drugs like methamphetamine, oxycontin, heroin, crack, etc. The bush admin has made it clear that Weed is their main target in the “war on drugs.” How many people are fucking up their lives because of marijuana? Compare that to the people that are basically turning their homes into bombs by manufacturing meth. Or the crackhead who holds up a liquor store or a pedestrian for money to buy crack. Why is there all this focus on marijuana when there are so many other problems out there to fight?
Unfortunately, those that could actually benefit from its medicinal properties are the ones who are really getting the raw end. They shouldn?t be made to suffer when a perfectly reasonable medication is available. If aspirin was somehow made illegal tomorrow would you deny someone who had a recent stroke or heart attack from getting it?
I agree that most of us who favor legalization are between the ages of 18-34 and may or may not have children, but that doesn’t mean that our opinions don’t matter or that we don’t know what we are talking about.
Could it be that we are just more free thinking and are more prone to question the status quo rather than to just sit back and say “ah fuck it, its the government what can you do?” We argue for the legalization because we think that it being illegal is wrong and want things to change.
Ultimately, I realize that the legalization of marijuana for the common person is very unlikely to happen. No politician is going to be willing to stick his or her neck out to get that to happen. But that doesn?t mean we should just throw up our hands, forget about it, and move on to something else.
