Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[KevinWestern]

I am for decriminalization. I thought that you knew that. Before I continue does that change things?

I think I just fully picked that up recently, lol. I think it will mean that the "arrest/imprisonment" wasted resource argument won't apply as much.

The main questions I still have:

1.) If it's decriminalized (ie deemed not that harmful), and so many Americans do it anyways, why keep pushing for all of those jobs to remain in Mexico and have it so that all the money filters back to ruthless cartel dealers who cut off people's heads - for example? With prohibition comes criminal activity, Disir, and with that comes violence. How much of a social cost do we pay for this? Again, we saw the black selling market for alcohol completely disappear in the US following prohibition. MJ will follow a similar pattern.

Why not have honest, law-abiding taxpayers here in America running the show? God knows that we can take all the jobs we can get at this point. We could regulate it, make sure there's no bad pesticides in the product, and (most importantly) ID every single person who wishes to purchase it.

2.) Does inconsistency line up with the proper expression of law/justice? If we make a law prohibiting substance A under reasons X,Y,Z, shouldn't those reasons also apply to substance B? I'm talking about Alcohol/Marijuana of course.

 

[Katzndogz]

I am for decriminalization. I thought that you knew that. Before I continue does that change things?

I think I just fully picked that up recently, lol. I think it will mean that the "arrest/imprisonment" wasted resource argument won't apply as much.

The main questions I still have:

1.) If it's decriminalized (ie deemed not that harmful), and so many Americans do it anyways, why keep pushing for all of those jobs to remain in Mexico and have it so that all the money filters back to ruthless cartel dealers who cut off people's heads - for example? With prohibition comes criminal activity, Disir, and with that comes violence. How much of a social cost do we pay for this? Again, we saw the black selling market for alcohol completely disappear in the US following prohibition. MJ will follow a similar pattern.

Why not have honest, law-abiding taxpayers here in America running the show? God knows that we can take all the jobs we can get at this point. We could regulate it, make sure there's no bad pesticides in the product, and (most importantly) ID every single person who wishes to purchase it.

2.) Does inconsistency line up with the proper expression of law/justice? If we make a law prohibiting substance A under reasons X,Y,Z, shouldn't those reasons also apply to substance B? I'm talking about Alcohol/Marijuana of course.

The black market didn't disappear. Not even close. Organized crime is MUCH bigger today than it was during prohibition. If you imagine that criminals decide to become law abiding citizens once their product is legalized, that has to be the weed talking. They just change product to one with a bigger profit margin. Legalize pot, they'll sell heroin. Legalize heroin, they'll sell weapons or slaves or ten year olds into prostitution.

Pot impairs judgement. Users don't think clearly.

 

[KevinWestern]

The black market didn't disappear. Not even close. Organized crime is MUCH bigger today than it was during prohibition. If you imagine that criminals decide to become law abiding citizens once their product is legalized, that has to be the weed talking. They just change product to one with a bigger profit margin. Legalize pot, they'll sell heroin. Legalize heroin, they'll sell weapons or slaves or ten year olds into prostitution.

Pot impairs judgement. Users don't think clearly.

I think there's a big issue with your logic though Katz. I'm going to lay it out for you:

You speak of these drugs like they're all "equally appealing", meaning that the 100 MJ customers you loose will be easily converted to 100 new heroin customers. Not the case. The heroin market is - and will remain - vastly smaller than the MJ market. Why? Because it's much more dangerous, you have to stick a needle in yourself, you can die the first time you take it, and it's horribly, horribly addictive.

What I'm saying is pot and alcohol are special products - irreplaceable - and are unique in that they're rather acceptable (in the USA) in most social situations across all ages. Can't say the same thing about meth, crack, heroin, etc.

You take MJ away from the cartels, you deal them a major blow and they will shrink in size and power. They have nothing to replace it with.

It's like telling a music label "oh just go get another guy, he'll make up all the lost revenue" when they lose Paul McCartney on their label. It's not that easy finding "another guy" who has the universal appeal of Paul McCartney.

 

[FA_Q2]

No one needs to lie. The evidence that pot is harmful to society, in a way where it should be banned is overwhelming.

also a lot of overwhelming evidence that it is made out to be much worse than it is.....and quit being a hypocrite Rock.....Alcohol is much worse and yet you have no problems with that and the damage it has done......is the reason because you do some drinking once in a while?....

I hardly ever drink. Like I said before - I'm very health conscious. I realize alcohol may be worse then pot when abused and alcohol abuse is a problem. I don't think prohibition of alcohol would effectively deal with the problem. The problem with pot is that the potential for abuse is greater and even in moderation it is bad for you.

Except that is blatantly false and nothing that you have brought to the table has shown that to be even remotely true.

the very concept is asinine. MJ cannot kill you period. MJ is not physically addictive, period. Alcohol is both. It is also the only substance that I am aware of that can KILL YOU FOR QUITTING!

 

[Katzndogz]

[...]

If pot "destroys" lives, how come three of our last four presidents (who have admitted to smoking pot) have been able to achieve so much? Like 'em or not - they have succeeded in their profession to the highest level possible.

[...]

You can add Michael Phelps to that positive example. He is the only man in history to win eight gold medals as an Olympic swimmer -- and he has admitted to being a regular marijuana user.

I wonder how Phelps would respond to the brainwashed Reefer Madness cyphers' ranting.

Phelps admitted to being a regular marijuana user????? That would come as big news to Michael Phelps!!!


Michael Phelps: Pot Shot Was a Learning Experience | E! Online

"It was a learning experience," the 27-year-old athlete told Details in the cover story of its August issue hitting newsstands Wednesday.

After racking up a record eight (count 'em, eight!) gold medals at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, it's easy to see how the guy felt entitled to let his rigorous workout routine go for once and ended up partaking in a little R&R of that type. But that doesn't mean, in reflecting back on the uproar the pic sparked, that it wasn't an error in judgment.

"I'm the kind of person who has to go through the learning experiences myself. Somebody could tell me, 'If you eat this much you'll be fat,' and I'd be like, 'Yeah, okay, let me try it,'" Phelps said. "I'll be the first to say I've made thousands of mistakes, but I've never made the same mistake twice."

 

[thanatos144]

also a lot of overwhelming evidence that it is made out to be much worse than it is.....and quit being a hypocrite Rock.....Alcohol is much worse and yet you have no problems with that and the damage it has done......is the reason because you do some drinking once in a while?....

I hardly ever drink. Like I said before - I'm very health conscious. I realize alcohol may be worse then pot when abused and alcohol abuse is a problem. I don't think prohibition of alcohol would effectively deal with the problem. The problem with pot is that the potential for abuse is greater and even in moderation it is bad for you.

Except that is blatantly false and nothing that you have brought to the table has shown that to be even remotely true.

the very concept is asinine. MJ cannot kill you period. MJ is not physically addictive, period. Alcohol is both. It is also the only substance that I am aware of that can KILL YOU FOR QUITTING!

What bullshit. Pot kills. There is driving impaired..... a doctor operating stoned.... cancer ( or did you forget it is a carcinogen) ...... just plain stoned violence. ... ti say pot doesn't kill is a huge fucking lie

tapatalk post

 

[Katzndogz]

The black market didn't disappear. Not even close. Organized crime is MUCH bigger today than it was during prohibition. If you imagine that criminals decide to become law abiding citizens once their product is legalized, that has to be the weed talking. They just change product to one with a bigger profit margin. Legalize pot, they'll sell heroin. Legalize heroin, they'll sell weapons or slaves or ten year olds into prostitution.

Pot impairs judgement. Users don't think clearly.

I think there's a big issue with your logic though Katz. I'm going to lay it out for you:

You speak of these drugs like they're all "equally appealing", meaning that the 100 MJ customers you loose will be easily converted to 100 new heroin customers. Not the case. The heroin market is - and will remain - vastly smaller than the MJ market. Why? Because it's much more dangerous, you have to stick a needle in yourself, you can die the first time you take it, and it's horribly, horribly addictive.

What I'm saying is pot and alcohol are special products - irreplaceable - and are unique in that they're rather acceptable (in the USA) in most social situations across all ages. Can't say the same thing about meth, crack, heroin, etc.

You take MJ away from the cartels, you deal them a major blow and they will shrink in size and power. They have nothing to replace it with.

It's like telling a music label "oh just go get another guy, he'll make up all the lost revenue" when they lose Paul McCartney on their label. It's not that easy finding "another guy" who has the universal appeal of Paul McCartney.

Contrary to what you might believe, heroin need not be injected. It can be snorted like cocaine.

Take MJ away from the cartels and they won't shrink at all. They will just shift to something else. To imagine the cartels will simply give up and go away is so simplistic it defies description. Say you are right, say the cartels feel a real pinch in the pocketbook. They will simply war on the legal markets. They can move to cigarettes and to a large extent already have. They can pick up express kidnappings, human trafficking. Not all human trafficking is moving illegals into the US, sometimes it's moving chattel slaves out of the US and into the sex slave foreign market. Or, just go to work for a regular paycheck like Los Angeles gang bangers did by joining Al quaeda.

 

[FA_Q2]

I didn't make an argument that there was a massive blackmarket for alcohol. You have a hard time wrapping your brain around that.

There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. Look into that.

Make a comparison by country. Because the "I just want to get high" argument is a failure.

But you are making the claim that the black market for MJ would still exist. How can you claim that when we have another product of the same type where a massive black market essentially vanished? The idea that the black market will continue to exist is simply silly. No one is going to go to the corner drug dealer when they can get the same product in the store. It just is not going to happen.

The arguments for decriminalization rather than legalization ring very hallow to me. There is no justification in baring the sale of a product that is completely legal to produce and carry yourself. That is utterly asinine. Further, what grate negative is created by allowing the commercialization of MJ over just having people grow it themselves? It will still be sold – that is a hard fact. The only difference is that one will remain unregulated and under the control of criminals while the other is open to control, regulation and in the open. Decriminalization still leaves a product that people have no clue what it contains or whether it is safe. Legal sales eliminate this, allowing people access to a safe and regulated product.

This same argument is brought fourth in a thousand other areas from abortion to food. Why is it suddenly different for this one singular product? The simple reality is that it is not. Legal sales are always better than illegal ones.

Lastly, what are you referring to when you say other countries? I think that Holland is an excellent example of legal weed sold in the open. They have no problem with the sale of pot there.

 

[thanatos144]

I didn't make an argument that there was a massive blackmarket for alcohol. You have a hard time wrapping your brain around that.

There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. Look into that.

Make a comparison by country. Because the "I just want to get high" argument is a failure.

But you are making the claim that the black market for MJ would still exist. How can you claim that when we have another product of the same type where a massive black market essentially vanished? The idea that the black market will continue to exist is simply silly. No one is going to go to the corner drug dealer when they can get the same product in the store. It just is not going to happen.

The arguments for decriminalization rather than legalization ring very hallow to me. There is no justification in baring the sale of a product that is completely legal to produce and carry yourself. That is utterly asinine. Further, what grate negative is created by allowing the commercialization of MJ over just having people grow it themselves? It will still be sold – that is a hard fact. The only difference is that one will remain unregulated and under the control of criminals while the other is open to control, regulation and in the open. Decriminalization still leaves a product that people have no clue what it contains or whether it is safe. Legal sales eliminate this, allowing people access to a safe and regulated product.

This same argument is brought fourth in a thousand other areas from abortion to food. Why is it suddenly different for this one singular product? The simple reality is that it is not. Legal sales are always better than illegal ones.

Lastly, what are you referring to when you say other countries? I think that Holland is an excellent example of legal weed sold in the open. They have no problem with the sale of pot there.

Tell me something genius is there still a black market for alcohol and cigarettes?

tapatalk post

 

[Pogo]

[...]

If pot "destroys" lives, how come three of our last four presidents (who have admitted to smoking pot) have been able to achieve so much? Like 'em or not - they have succeeded in their profession to the highest level possible.

[...]

You can add Michael Phelps to that positive example. He is the only man in history to win eight gold medals as an Olympic swimmer -- and he has admitted to being a regular marijuana user.

I wonder how Phelps would respond to the brainwashed Reefer Madness cyphers' ranting.

Phelps admitted to being a regular marijuana user????? That would come as big news to Michael Phelps!!!


Michael Phelps: Pot Shot Was a Learning Experience | E! Online

"It was a learning experience," the 27-year-old athlete told Details in the cover story of its August issue hitting newsstands Wednesday.

After racking up a record eight (count 'em, eight!) gold medals at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, it's easy to see how the guy felt entitled to let his rigorous workout routine go for once and ended up partaking in a little R&R of that type. But that doesn't mean, in reflecting back on the uproar the pic sparked, that it wasn't an error in judgment.

"I'm the kind of person who has to go through the learning experiences myself. Somebody could tell me, 'If you eat this much you'll be fat,' and I'd be like, 'Yeah, okay, let me try it,'" Phelps said. "I'll be the first to say I've made thousands of mistakes, but I've never made the same mistake twice."

So Michael Phelps needs to be shot in the face, right?

See also:
Tim Lincecum
Rand Paul
Paul McCartney
Clarence Thomas
George Soros
Bill Gates
Sanjay Gupta
Rush Limbaugh
Tom Brokaw
John Hickenlooper (Gov. of Colorado)
Lincoln Chafee (Gov. of Rhode Island)
Andrew Sullivan
Sarah Palin
Phil Jackson
Morgan Freeman
Willie Nelson
Arnold Schwarzenegger

-- all of 'em, slacker stoner addicts who have never accomplished anything. Line 'em up and shoot 'em all in the face.

2013 Top 50 Most Influential Marijuana users

 

[Katzndogz]

Get real. Alcohol was made legal and the black market almost disappeared. It still hasn't disappeared completely, but substantially. That's one example.

Another example is cigarettes, which are still technically legal but severely limited. The black market is exploding. That's another example.

 

[Pogo]

I hardly ever drink. Like I said before - I'm very health conscious. I realize alcohol may be worse then pot when abused and alcohol abuse is a problem. I don't think prohibition of alcohol would effectively deal with the problem. The problem with pot is that the potential for abuse is greater and even in moderation it is bad for you.

Except that is blatantly false and nothing that you have brought to the table has shown that to be even remotely true.

the very concept is asinine. MJ cannot kill you period. MJ is not physically addictive, period. Alcohol is both. It is also the only substance that I am aware of that can KILL YOU FOR QUITTING!

What bullshit. Pot kills. There is driving impaired..... a doctor operating stoned.... cancer ( or did you forget it is a carcinogen) ...... just plain stoned violence. ... ti say pot doesn't kill is a huge fucking lie

tapatalk post

And your link for this is .... where?


Exactly. That's why you're a convenience store clerk. I suspect your entire education comes from that 16-year-old who wandered in to buy papers and then couldn't find his wallet.

 

[Katzndogz]

You can add Michael Phelps to that positive example. He is the only man in history to win eight gold medals as an Olympic swimmer -- and he has admitted to being a regular marijuana user.

I wonder how Phelps would respond to the brainwashed Reefer Madness cyphers' ranting.

Phelps admitted to being a regular marijuana user????? That would come as big news to Michael Phelps!!!


Michael Phelps: Pot Shot Was a Learning Experience | E! Online

"It was a learning experience," the 27-year-old athlete told Details in the cover story of its August issue hitting newsstands Wednesday.

After racking up a record eight (count 'em, eight!) gold medals at the Beijing Olympics in 2008, it's easy to see how the guy felt entitled to let his rigorous workout routine go for once and ended up partaking in a little R&R of that type. But that doesn't mean, in reflecting back on the uproar the pic sparked, that it wasn't an error in judgment.

"I'm the kind of person who has to go through the learning experiences myself. Somebody could tell me, 'If you eat this much you'll be fat,' and I'd be like, 'Yeah, okay, let me try it,'" Phelps said. "I'll be the first to say I've made thousands of mistakes, but I've never made the same mistake twice."

So Michael Phelps needs to be shot in the face, right?

See also:
Tim Lincecum
Rand Paul
Paul McCartney
Clarence Thomas
George Soros
Bill Gates
Sanjay Gupta
Rush Limbaugh
Tom Brokaw
John Hickenlooper (Gov. of Colorado)
Lincoln Chafee (Gov. of Rhode Island)
Andrew Sullivan
Sarah Palin
Phil Jackson

-- all of 'em, slacker stoner addicts who have never accomplished anything. Line 'em up and shoot 'em all in the face.

2013 Top 50 Most Influential Marijuana users

After seeing the entire list, including Michael Phelps who said it was a one time lapse in judgment and Sarah Palin who didn't admit to anything at all. I would have to say the world would be much improved if the lot of them had their noses blown off. Hugh Hefnet? George Soros? Yes, much improved.

 

[Circle_Breaker]

I didn't make an argument that there was a massive blackmarket for alcohol. You have a hard time wrapping your brain around that.

There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. Look into that.

Make a comparison by country. Because the "I just want to get high" argument is a failure.

But you are making the claim that the black market for MJ would still exist. How can you claim that when we have another product of the same type where a massive black market essentially vanished? The idea that the black market will continue to exist is simply silly. No one is going to go to the corner drug dealer when they can get the same product in the store. It just is not going to happen.

The arguments for decriminalization rather than legalization ring very hallow to me. There is no justification in baring the sale of a product that is completely legal to produce and carry yourself. That is utterly asinine. Further, what grate negative is created by allowing the commercialization of MJ over just having people grow it themselves? It will still be sold – that is a hard fact. The only difference is that one will remain unregulated and under the control of criminals while the other is open to control, regulation and in the open. Decriminalization still leaves a product that people have no clue what it contains or whether it is safe. Legal sales eliminate this, allowing people access to a safe and regulated product.

This same argument is brought fourth in a thousand other areas from abortion to food. Why is it suddenly different for this one singular product? The simple reality is that it is not. Legal sales are always better than illegal ones.

Lastly, what are you referring to when you say other countries? I think that Holland is an excellent example of legal weed sold in the open. They have no problem with the sale of pot there.

Tell me something genius is there still a black market for alcohol and cigarettes?

tapatalk post

No there really isn't.

I've never seen or heard of black market tobacco.

And the amount of Moonshine illegally created is so minuscule that it's not worth mentioning.

 

[thanatos144]

Lol cigarette black market makes billions a year lol I of course don't expect you to.admit it because that proves another lie in the talking points from the large pro pot lobby

tapatalk post

 

[KevinWestern]

Lol cigarette black market makes billions a year lol I of course don't expect you to.admit it because that proves another lie in the talking points from the large pro pot lobby

Ok, a few things here. The revenue of the illegal cigarette market is a tiny fraction of the revenue of the legal cigarette market. This is an easily provable fact.

Secondly, the fact we have an illicit cigarette trade is entirely the government's fault. When you make a product that costs only $0.40 to make cost $12 to consumers from these mindless and obscene taxes, some people will find a way to get their hands on something cheaper. Alcohol taxes are not quite as dramatic, nor will be MJ's. I say the gov't should lower the cig tax, personally.

However, (as we've seen with cigs) MOST tend to still buy legally.

MOST.

 

[Disir]

I am for decriminalization. I thought that you knew that. Before I continue does that change things?

I think I just fully picked that up recently, lol. I think it will mean that the "arrest/imprisonment" wasted resource argument won't apply as much.

The main questions I still have:

1.) If it's decriminalized (ie deemed not that harmful), and so many Americans do it anyways, why keep pushing for all of those jobs to remain in Mexico and have it so that all the money filters back to ruthless cartel dealers who cut off people's heads - for example? With prohibition comes criminal activity, Disir, and with that comes violence. How much of a social cost do we pay for this? Again, we saw the black selling market for alcohol completely disappear in the US following prohibition. MJ will follow a similar pattern.

Why not have honest, law-abiding taxpayers here in America running the show? God knows that we can take all the jobs we can get at this point. We could regulate it, make sure there's no bad pesticides in the product, and (most importantly) ID every single person who wishes to purchase it.

2.) Does inconsistency line up with the proper expression of law/justice? If we make a law prohibiting substance A under reasons X,Y,Z, shouldn't those reasons also apply to substance B? I'm talking about Alcohol/Marijuana of course.

First of all, I am for decriminalization of smaller amounts of all drugs. Decriminalization does not say that drugs are not harmful. Decriminalization says, we have bigger fish to fry. The harm reduction method states lets move substance abuse to a health issue and not a criminal issue and lets make sure that this does the least harm to society and treats those that face addictions with dignity.

Junkies are not causing harm to society until they steal your stuff and sell it to acquire the drug or as HIV positive or Hepatitis 3 share needles with someone else and spread the love. And have babies. Society pays a much higher price here with medical treatment than needle exchange programs and the like. Society isn't giving it's approval here.

Too, it allows society to deal with the mentally ill that are using drugs. This is an issue that is part and parcel but does not apply to everyone.

Oh, I'm sure that you have read all kinds of crap about marijuana prison population issues. The problem is that there is an awful lot of screaming and not much fact checking. I find the same problem with people that jump up and down about non-violent offenders in prison. How many times does your car need to be stolen before you want that individual in prison?


Prohibition would never have happened had there not been anti-German hysteria at the time and targeting German-American brewers was done to prove just how American you really were. That is what happened. That was the game changer. A collusion of knuckleheads.

I refuse to perpetuate the notion that a suit somehow makes someone more upstanding. It impacts how we look at white collar crime as a whole.

 

[Pogo]

Lol cigarette black market makes billions a year lol I of course don't expect you to.admit it because that proves another lie in the talking points from the large pro pot lobby

tapatalk post

Your comparison is invalid. What you're talking about is illicit trade in a product that's already legal and legally manufactured. Basically you're talking about smuggling. That's not a comparison with a substance that it's illegal to manufacture or even possess.

You thought this through as if you just got stoned.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I am for decriminalization. I thought that you knew that. Before I continue does that change things?

I think I just fully picked that up recently, lol. I think it will mean that the "arrest/imprisonment" wasted resource argument won't apply as much.

The main questions I still have:

1.) If it's decriminalized (ie deemed not that harmful), and so many Americans do it anyways, why keep pushing for all of those jobs to remain in Mexico and have it so that all the money filters back to ruthless cartel dealers who cut off people's heads - for example? With prohibition comes criminal activity, Disir, and with that comes violence. How much of a social cost do we pay for this? Again, we saw the black selling market for alcohol completely disappear in the US following prohibition. MJ will follow a similar pattern.

Why not have honest, law-abiding taxpayers here in America running the show? God knows that we can take all the jobs we can get at this point. We could regulate it, make sure there's no bad pesticides in the product, and (most importantly) ID every single person who wishes to purchase it.

2.) Does inconsistency line up with the proper expression of law/justice? If we make a law prohibiting substance A under reasons X,Y,Z, shouldn't those reasons also apply to substance B? I'm talking about Alcohol/Marijuana of course.

The black market didn't disappear. Not even close. Organized crime is MUCH bigger today than it was during prohibition. If you imagine that criminals decide to become law abiding citizens once their product is legalized, that has to be the weed talking. They just change product to one with a bigger profit margin. Legalize pot, they'll sell heroin. Legalize heroin, they'll sell weapons or slaves or ten year olds into prostitution.

Pot impairs judgement. Users don't think clearly.

you mean like when you said after smoking a joint you are still high 30 days later?....yea you think real clear Katz....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The black market didn't disappear. Not even close. Organized crime is MUCH bigger today than it was during prohibition. If you imagine that criminals decide to become law abiding citizens once their product is legalized, that has to be the weed talking. They just change product to one with a bigger profit margin. Legalize pot, they'll sell heroin. Legalize heroin, they'll sell weapons or slaves or ten year olds into prostitution.

Pot impairs judgement. Users don't think clearly.

I think there's a big issue with your logic though Katz. I'm going to lay it out for you:

You speak of these drugs like they're all "equally appealing", meaning that the 100 MJ customers you loose will be easily converted to 100 new heroin customers. Not the case. The heroin market is - and will remain - vastly smaller than the MJ market. Why? Because it's much more dangerous, you have to stick a needle in yourself, you can die the first time you take it, and it's horribly, horribly addictive.

What I'm saying is pot and alcohol are special products - irreplaceable - and are unique in that they're rather acceptable (in the USA) in most social situations across all ages. Can't say the same thing about meth, crack, heroin, etc.

You take MJ away from the cartels, you deal them a major blow and they will shrink in size and power. They have nothing to replace it with.

It's like telling a music label "oh just go get another guy, he'll make up all the lost revenue" when they lose Paul McCartney on their label. It's not that easy finding "another guy" who has the universal appeal of Paul McCartney.

Katz knows the Pot crowd she used to hang with them.....