The simple truth of the marijuana issue

[ABikerSailor]

Try a freaking PTA meeting and ask parents if they want their kids smoking marijuana. You won't get 60%. You almost gotta laugh at a time in history when they are virtually outlawing cigarette smoking a quirky segment of society wants to legalize marijuana use. Are they going to play the old Ad. game of claiming that marijuana is good for you? The dirty little secret is that it ain't about getting high. A pot head could grow a bush of the stuff and smoke it until his brains ran out of his ears. What the "legalize marijuana" faction wants is to make a good old capitalist buck while they rant about the evils of capitalism. It's ironic that you could be arrested in California for possession of alcohol still equipment but you can manufacture a gateway drug. Maybe zombie movies will become a reality.

Try the same PTA meeting and ask the parents if they want their kids drinking Scotch and beer, and I bet you get the same response.

And, the true "gateway drug" is actually alcohol. Why? Because everyone knows that when a person gets drunk, they are more likely to do things they would never do sober. Dancing on bars, going home with people they don't like, etc.

Marijuana doesn't reduce those inhibitions. If you wouldn't do something sober, you are very unlikely to do it while stoned.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Only old folks who still believe "Reefer Madness" want it illegal. They are dying off, and every election cycle the poll numbers for legalizing go up 2 points, and now stand in the low 60% level of support.

How can a "democracy" not enact that which 60% of the people support?

A: when the Congress is too beholden to those making money off reefer prohibition - the LAWYERS



Making reefer legal does the following....

1. it stops a CASH FLOW OUT OF THE COUNTRY to some of the worst criminal gangs on the planet
2. it stops the crimes associated with dealing contraband, as it did when Chicago crime dropped off a cliff when Prohibition was repealed
3. it is a net PLUS $300 billion per year to the US Treasury, at a time when the US now has a $20 trillion deficit
4. it allows farmers to grow crops here that are useful for a variety of products, as hemp use is diverse and profitable
5. it employs more Americans who pay more in taxes



Keeping reefer illegal

1. keeps money flowing to criminal gangs and LAWYERS
2. appeases the worst sub human parrots to ever exist, those who actually believe "Reefer Madness" like Jeff Sessions

Eh, more youngsters will ruin their potential at a younger age and end up psychotic morons like many of their irresponsible liberal parents...

Small time growers will be forced out of the business by big time agriculture, low profit margins and politicians handing out fees, fines and jail time.

 

[LaDexter]

Eh, more youngsters will ruin their potential at a younger age and end up psychotic morons like many of their liberal parents.

another factless sub human parroting lies and spreading fear....


Does your preacher hate pot?

LOL!!!


Is Jesus coming back "soon?"

 

[Lumpy 1]

Eh, more youngsters will ruin their potential at a younger age and end up psychotic morons like many of their liberal parents.

another factless sub human parroting lies and spreading fear....


Does your preacher hate pot?

LOL!!!


Is Jesus coming back "soon?"

... thanks for supporting my view with a typical liberal moronic and emotional response ...

but.. I believe it should be a states rights issue with all unintended costs and otherwise a responsibility of the state and it's citizens.

Change the federal laws to allow state rights but don't inspire lawlessness in American citizens, that's just stupid in a country with the protections of the Constitution and Bill of Rights etc.

... and Yup, I do have a soul

 

[Rigby5]

No, when the federal government has exceeded its jurisdiction, as it has with the DEA, then you do not wait for Congress to change federal law, you have the federal law struck down by legal challenge to the SCOTUS.
Federal drug laws ARE lawlessness because they fundamentally violate the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Lumpy 1]

No, when the federal government has exceeded its jurisdiction, as it has with the DEA, then you do not wait for Congress to change federal law, you have the federal law struck down by legal challenge to the SCOTUS.
Federal drug laws ARE lawlessness because they fundamentally violate the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Would you feel the same way if the SCOTUS was tilted heavily to the right politically, just wondering?

 

[Rigby5]

No, when the federal government has exceeded its jurisdiction, as it has with the DEA, then you do not wait for Congress to change federal law, you have the federal law struck down by legal challenge to the SCOTUS.
Federal drug laws ARE lawlessness because they fundamentally violate the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Would you feel the same way if the SCOTUS was tilted heavily to the right politically, just wondering?

When the federal government is out of line, the only two options are an appeal to the SCOTUS, or civil war, so there is not much of a choice really.
But I thought the current SCOTUS was "tilted heavily to the right politically"?
And in fact, isn't it a more conservative court that would be more likely to rule against a usurping federal government?

 

[Lumpy 1]

No, when the federal government has exceeded its jurisdiction, as it has with the DEA, then you do not wait for Congress to change federal law, you have the federal law struck down by legal challenge to the SCOTUS.
Federal drug laws ARE lawlessness because they fundamentally violate the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Would you feel the same way if the SCOTUS was tilted heavily to the right politically, just wondering?

When the federal government is out of line, the only two options are an appeal to the SCOTUS, or civil war, so there is not much of a choice really.
But I thought the current SCOTUS was "tilted heavily to the right politically"?
And in fact, isn't it a more conservative court that would be more likely to rule against a usurping federal government?

Pleased to meet you Rigby, welcome to the USMB ...

I'd rather have the peoples representatives calling the shots (politics has turned the Judicial Branch to crap level trust) and I'll have to read up on Jeff Sessions and the DEA judgements. I'm under the impression they were following the law as required and the resistance was yet another emotional response politically motivated.

 

[Crixus]

I was in the Navy back in the late '60s early '70s.

They actually showed us Reefer Madness as an anti-drug training film.

That was an awesome movie. My Ma said they saw it in school. Even way back then it was widely considered a comedy.

 

[Rigby5]

No, when the federal government has exceeded its jurisdiction, as it has with the DEA, then you do not wait for Congress to change federal law, you have the federal law struck down by legal challenge to the SCOTUS.
Federal drug laws ARE lawlessness because they fundamentally violate the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Would you feel the same way if the SCOTUS was tilted heavily to the right politically, just wondering?

When the federal government is out of line, the only two options are an appeal to the SCOTUS, or civil war, so there is not much of a choice really.
But I thought the current SCOTUS was "tilted heavily to the right politically"?
And in fact, isn't it a more conservative court that would be more likely to rule against a usurping federal government?

Pleased to meet you Rigby, welcome to the USMB ...

I'd rather have the peoples representatives calling the shots (politics has turned the Judicial Branch to crap level trust) and I'll have to read up on Jeff Sessions and the DEA judgements. I'm under the impression they were following the law as required and the resistance was yet another emotional response politically motivated.

When the states did legalize, that was the "peoples representatives calling the shots".
The Judicial Branch may be corrupt these days, but not more so than Congress.
As to the law, the only source of any authority in a constitutional democratic republic is the defense of inherent individual rights.
So before anyone can arrest anyone, there has to be clear cause to believe it was necessary in order to prevent harm to someone.
Nanny laws, (where you protect people from themselves), likely are not really legal.
And the whole point of the Bill of Rights, (especially the 9th Amendment), is that the federal government only has very limited jurisdiction, and is really limited to what states would have no way of being able to do themselves. Such as regulate commerce between states. But states are more than capable of regulating drugs and health issues inside of their own state. So since their is not article authorizing the feds to regulate any sort of health or drug issue, then for the feds to do so is illegal. It would be like Congress passing national speed limits. Totally illegal.

 

[Silhouette]

When the federal government is out of line, the only two options are an appeal to the SCOTUS, or civil war, so there is not much of a choice really.
But I thought the current SCOTUS was "tilted heavily to the right politically"?
And in fact, isn't it a more conservative court that would be more likely to rule against a usurping federal government?

There's always writing your representatives in Congress? That third option?

 

[Rigby5]

When the federal government is out of line, the only two options are an appeal to the SCOTUS, or civil war, so there is not much of a choice really.
But I thought the current SCOTUS was "tilted heavily to the right politically"?
And in fact, isn't it a more conservative court that would be more likely to rule against a usurping federal government?

There's always writing your representatives in Congress? That third option?

It is not a question of whether Congress is doing what I want or not, but that it is illegal for Congress to regulate drugs, healthcare, or anything else outside of their explicit constitutional jurisdiction. It would be like writing Congress to change the speed limit on my street. Its not their place. Even if Congress made the speed limit exactly what I wanted, it would be totally wrong and illegal.

 

[Silhouette]

It is not a question of whether Congress is doing what I want or not, but that it is illegal for Congress to regulate drugs, healthcare, or anything else outside of their explicit constitutional jurisdiction. It would be like writing Congress to change the speed limit on my street. Its not their place. Even if Congress made the speed limit exactly what I wanted, it would be totally wrong and illegal.

Yeah, sorry. The big stuff that affects the entire nation is in the realm of our collective states (Congress) to all have a voice in setting regulations all must abide by. You understand that Congress is a collection of all the states, right?

The regulation of narcotics & their trafficking affects all 50 states, so the FDA and its regulations exist legally and in full force as the Will of the 50 States.

 

[Reasonable]

Only old folks who still believe "Reefer Madness" want it illegal. They are dying off, and every election cycle the poll numbers for legalizing go up 2 points, and now stand in the low 60% level of support.

How can a "democracy" not enact that which 60% of the people support?

A: when the Congress is too beholden to those making money off reefer prohibition - the LAWYERS



Making reefer legal does the following....

1. it stops a CASH FLOW OUT OF THE COUNTRY to some of the worst criminal gangs on the planet
2. it stops the crimes associated with dealing contraband, as it did when Chicago crime dropped off a cliff when Prohibition was repealed
3. it is a net PLUS $300 billion per year to the US Treasury, at a time when the US now has a $20 trillion deficit
4. it allows farmers to grow crops here that are useful for a variety of products, as hemp use is diverse and profitable
5. it employs more Americans who pay more in taxes



Keeping reefer illegal

1. keeps money flowing to criminal gangs and LAWYERS
2. appeases the worst sub human parrots to ever exist, those who actually believe "Reefer Madness" like Jeff Sessions

We have a backward administration trying to take the country back to the 1800’s. No surprise they’d also be wrong about marijuana. That’s one thing the left and right have in common. They love their hootch.
Watch a major backlash against Sessions and Trump as the word gets out what they’re trying to do.

 

[Reasonable]

California is going to get filthy rich making pot legal.
It should be legal in all 50 states.

 

[Silhouette]

California is going to get filthy rich making pot legal.
It should be legal in all 50 states.

Selling it to whom? Themselves? The massive surplus driving the price....up?... Or are you suggesting they traffick a clear surplus across state lines?

See why Sessions is getting involved?

 

[Thinker101]

California is going to get filthy rich making pot legal.
It should be legal in all 50 states.

Hopefully they make enough to afford their illegals.

 

[Borillar]

This is yet another issue upon which Republicans are wrong.

In 2009, the Dems had the WH and both houses of Congress.

What did the Dems do?

Did they enact the will of the people?

HECK NO!!!!!!!

The Dems did what they always do - they SOLD OUT for MONEY from the ATTORNEY LOBBY

jones thinks no one on the right smokes pot....this is just yet another issue were he is wrong....

About the only holdouts are the right wing social conservatives. Pretty much everyone else is moving towards legalization of marijuana.

 

[ABikerSailor]

California is going to get filthy rich making pot legal.
It should be legal in all 50 states.

Selling it to whom? Themselves? The massive surplus driving the price....up?... Or are you suggesting they traffick a clear surplus across state lines?

See why Sessions is getting involved?

Why shouldn't they be able to ship marijuana from one state to another if it is legal in both states? If CA produces too much, they can ship it to places like Nevada and Oregon (both are on CA's border). And, I don't really think that there are too many places in the Nevada desert where they can grow their own in places other than hydroponic grow houses. CA has the Emerald Triangle, and I'm pretty sure that all the people visiting Las Vegas would be more than happy to smoke and buy the excess from CA.

 

[toobfreak]

Only old folks who still believe "Reefer Madness" want it illegal.

Wrong. You are an idiot if you think anyone believes in reefer madness. Blanket rules and broad categorizations do not work. There are many reasons for smoking pot, from psychological escape of mental issues, medical, to recreational to even religious, but individuals vary greatly in their reaction to and capacity to handle it. So the broad legalization of it statewide based solely on age is just as poor a solution as the Fed wanting to treat it like a heinous narcotic locking people up for years just for smelling of it.

How can a "democracy" not enact that which 60% of the people support?

Because we are not a democracy! And if mob rule is your idea of a good way to resolve issues, let me get together a majority in your neighborhood who wish to take your house and family from you, turn it into a public theater and throw you in the street. After all, 60% of the community is "for" it. I'm sure there are areas where 60% of the people would be happy to run around naked, have orgies with minors and rob people at will.

I'm not against legalization, just that there are responsible ways to dispense and use an intoxicant and ways that are not. At the very least:

1). Age 21 so that the person's lungs have matured (smoking stunts their development).
2). Health in good order or medical / other need.
3). Responsibility in using it.

One thing I AM against are high prices-- -- -- not only does that invite crime but the stuff is a weed! It costs little to grow it. Hundreds of dollars an ounce is just plain ridiculous.