O-Trap;1367658 wrote:Of course. It's not like we have historical precedent or anything. I mean, bootleggers and speakeasy owners are still running rampant, so I guess drug runners wouldn't go away either.



And why do you think that people should be stopped from using them? Once more, I call alcohol to the stand.

good thing alcohol isnt a problem :rolleyes:

O-Trap;1366809 wrote:No more than it does booze. People still do steal money to buy booze, cigarettes, televisions, etc., but I think you missed the point: It WILL stop the black market drug PUSHER from having a market where they are responsible to nobody and respect few, if any, laws.



Again ... booze, televisions ...



How about DON'T try to control them?

What a novel idea.

do you think we should legalize all guns, even for felons? why make it illegal for them to get, when they can get it so easily? eliminate the black market for gun traffickers etc.

Glory Days;1367674 wrote:good thing alcohol isnt a problem :rolleyes:

You're right. Alcohol isn't a problem. A lack of self-control and/or responsibility are the problems. Those things do, however, cause problems with use of alcohol pretty frequently, I'd say.

Whether we're dealing with deaths, vehicular manslaughter, or assault ... pretty sure alcohol plays a pretty big role rather frequently.

But that doesn't constitute a problem, though, right?

Alcohol is every bit as addictive and every bit as behavior-altering as many drugs which are currently illegal. It had a black market that was run by people who were every bit as crooked and willing to be violent as the drug traffickers today.

At least be consistent. There is zero LOGICAL justification for asserting that alcohol should be legal, but most drugs should not be.

Glory Days;1367678 wrote:do you think we should legalize all guns, even for felons? why make it illegal for them to get, when they can get it so easily? eliminate the black market for gun traffickers etc.

"Felon" is a pretty broad term. I'm not totally against permitting felons to own firearms, as they can be handled responsibly, and I have no logical grounds for thinking that being a felon makes one incapable of being responsible, but I don't suppose I'd have a problem with felons with a history of gun violence being prevented from using one during their probation ... similar to what we do with DUI offenders and alcohol (or sometimes their vehicle).

However, do you think we should ban all guns because of the actions of a small percentage of the felons in the country?

Glory Days;1367678 wrote:do you think we should legalize all guns, even for felons? why make it illegal for them to get, when they can get it so easily? eliminate the black market for gun traffickers etc.

Just when you think you've seen it all

pmoney25;1367789 wrote:Just when you think you've seen it all

thanks for such great imput.

It is hard to give much input on a statement that is so far out there that a rational reply its not possible.

Glory Days;1367540 wrote:100% legal, no. not harsh penalties, but a simple citation/fine works for me(depending on the amount you have, a truck load for example would warrant a little more punishment).

Ah, so just a slap on the wrist to make some money for the city/state/whoever. Why shouldn't a harmless (yes, it's harmless) plant be 100% legal? You do know why it's illegal, right? Please give me a specific reason why it should not be 100% legal.

Glory Days;1367678 wrote:do you think we should legalize all guns, even for felons? why make it illegal for them to get, when they can get it so easily? eliminate the black market for gun traffickers etc.

You're comparing gun violence to smoking weed? Let me go through the point you're failing to make: You think that since we want weed to be legalized and it would eliminate the black market for it(which would be good), we obviously think it'd be okay to legalize all guns so that black market would go away. Which isn't close at all to what everyone's been saying. Weed is a non-violent PLANT. Why should we be putting people away and spending taxpayer dollars on people who smoke weed? It's stupid. You know how many people are on probation because of possession of marijuana? I know I teach 20 of them. They aren't violent at all. But taxpayer dollars are wasted on their "criminal" acts.

It's stupid.

pmoney25;1367789 wrote:Just when you think you've seen it all

hasbeen;1367952 wrote:You're comparing gun violence to smoking weed? Let me go through the point you're failing to make: You think that since we want weed to be legalized and it would eliminate the black market for it(which would be good), we obviously think it'd be okay to legalize all guns so that black market would go away. Which isn't close at all to what everyone's been saying. Weed is a non-violent PLANT. Why should we be putting people away and spending taxpayer dollars on people who smoke weed? It's stupid. You know how many people are on probation because of possession of marijuana? I know I teach 20 of them. They aren't violent at all. But taxpayer dollars are wasted on their "criminal" acts.

It's stupid.

so wait, gun trafficking isnt violent like drug trafficking? you serious? and dont bring up the bullshit statistics about minor marijuana offenders being in jail etc, because it just isnt true.

justincredible;1367928 wrote:Ah, so just a slap on the wrist to make some money for the city/state/whoever. Why shouldn't a harmless (yes, it's harmless) plant be 100% legal? You do know why it's illegal, right? Please give me a specific reason why it should not be 100% legal.

how is it harmless? its more toxic than cigarettes, highly abused, and has no medical use(its like having a headache and stomping on your foot to forget the headache). its also illegal, because well, society wants it that way. they dont want to live in a country where its legal. look at california, they voted to allow medical marijuana and after that little experiment, keep voting legalizing it down.

you really think that in washington and colorado, the cartels will just move out and focus elsewhere?

interesting abstract
http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=593225#References

although alcohol is a problem, marijuana was found slightly more often.

another study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220195744.htm

THC showed either no or unclear results for pain relief.

O-Trap;1367721 wrote:You're right. Alcohol isn't a problem. A lack of self-control and/or responsibility are the problems. Those things do, however, cause problems with use of alcohol pretty frequently, I'd say.

Whether we're dealing with deaths, vehicular manslaughter, or assault ... pretty sure alcohol plays a pretty big role rather frequently.

But that doesn't constitute a problem, though, right?

sure it does, eliminate marijuana or alcohol, those "problems" dont exist right?

Glory Days;1368557 wrote:so wait, gun trafficking isnt violent like drug trafficking? you serious?

You think the illicit trafficking will continue the same way it does now if drugs were made legal? YOU serious?

Again, the pattern thus far follows the same as the pattern of alcohol during prohibition. The "business" of alcohol was a dirty and violent one. Once it was legalized, did that violence continue, or did it wane?

So, actually, by pointing out the violence associated in the illegal trafficking industry (which, based on commonalities, seems to have everything to do with the illegality of the commodities, and not the commodities themselves), you make a good point that decriminalizing drugs would reduce the violent drug trafficking industry in lieu of one that is open and subject to consumer good regulations.

Glory Days;1368557 wrote:and dont bring up the bullshit statistics about minor marijuana offenders being in jail etc, because it just isnt true.

Care to drop the "real" statistics on us with some credible sources?

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:how is it harmless? its more toxic than cigarettes

But less toxic AND less addictive than alcohol.

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:... highly abused ...

No more than alcohol. Actually, I'm not even really sure what you'd define as "abused," but that's a tangent discussion.

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:.. and has no medical use ...

Ladies and gentleman, the alcohol hat trick!

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:its also illegal, because well, society wants it that way.

Ah, the democracy cover.

"Society" at large doesn't vote on it. It was made illegal by default. Society didn't make it illegal.

Also, as a fun little aside, the reason a full-on democracy fails is that majority can oppress the minority. It's the reason we aren't one.

Finally, when push comes to shove, it's not even decided by a vote of the public. It's passed by legislators. C'mon, man. This is elementary Social Studies level stuff.

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:they dont want to live in a country where its legal.

Oh noes. Too much freedom. Glad the public majority needs to approve of my actions in order for me to not worry about them being made illegal.

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:look at california, they voted to allow medical marijuana and after that little experiment, keep voting legalizing it down.

Actually, the bill just took to long to get to the State Assembly. Here, here is some reading material on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_Control,_Regulation,_and_Education_Act

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:you really think that in washington and colorado, the cartels will just move out and focus elsewhere?

To be honest, those aren't exactly hubs of cartel activity. However, those states are indeed further up the tree, since they'll have open and state-approved competition. In the states where it is illegal, they don't have that same competition. Thus, the states where it is still illegal are lower-hanging fruit.

And a cartel won't just disband. They'll look for some other industry to try to get into, but they're not going to be able to compete, nor are they going to want to.

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:interesting abstract
http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=593225#References

although alcohol is a problem, marijuana was found slightly more often.

Noble effort on their part, but a couple of problems with this.

#1 - It's not an accurate sample, and especially not an adequate cross-section.

#2 - The "abstract" even states that "[v]ehicular crash victims consumed alcohol more frequently."

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:another study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220195744.htm

THC showed either no or unclear results for pain relief.

Not really pertinent to this discussion, as I'm dealing with the issue of recreational consumption, much like cracking open a cold one for a football game.

Glory Days;1368576 wrote:sure it does, eliminate marijuana or alcohol, those "problems" dont exist right?

Neither is a problem, but permitting one while branding the other a problem would be logically inconsistent, and thus, hypocritical. Just saying.

Damn - Otrap deserves an applause.

I would defend my post, but o-Trap is smarter than me so I'll just be in his corner yelling 'yeah bitch!'

O-Trap;1368667 wrote:...


Ah, the democracy cover.

"Society" at large doesn't vote on it. It was made illegal by default. Society didn't make it illegal.

Also, as a fun little aside, the reason a full-on democracy fails is that majority can oppress the minority. It's the reason we aren't one.

Finally, when push comes to shove, it's not even decided by a vote of the public. It's passed by legislators. C'mon, man. This is elementary Social Studies level stuff.



...

It's hardly default. It's the manner that the vast majority of our legal affairs are addressed in this country. Marijuana usage is not a fundamental right nor is it a civil right. Our process of government has chosen to not make it a legal practice. It will take a mass amount of public pressure on the legislative process to legalize it. Although that desire has increased over the last 15 years we are not yet near a massive population push.

I think it will come some day but we are n't there yet.

Con_Alma;1368696 wrote:It's hardly default. It's the manner that the vast majority of our legal affairs are addressed in this country. Marijuana usage is not a fundamental right nor is it a civil right. Our process of government has chosen to not make it a legal practice. It will take a mass amount of public pressure on the legislative process to legalize it. Although that desire has increased over the last 15 years we are not yet near a massive population push.

I think it will come some day but we are n't there yet.

The de facto law is that using marijuana is illegal. That is to say that you are denied the right until legislated otherwise. That strikes me as the default.

I merely find that odd, as most things are legal until they are legislated to be illegal. Why the backward process? I recognize that it is not a fundamental or civil right. I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency of such a law, and that "because enough people want it that way" isn't how it got that way.

I recognize that what you're saying is true. It will take a lot of pressure, though that does seem to at least be starting. It's quite a ways off.

From a pressure standpoint, it seems that same-sex marriage is similar. It will take pressure to change things. It's starting to happen, and for that, it seems like it's gaining ground well, but we're not there with that, either.

The fact is that the public and the politicians are quite okay with logical inconsistency. Hence why your post was dead on in regard to what will have to happen for the law to change.

You are not denied the right for it isn't a right being denied. Suggesting that the manner that the vast majority of actions and activities are defined is illegal can hardly be considered default. It is the way we defined such legalities.

I agree with you that the similarities of same sex marriage exist from a cultural pressure and legal perspectives. It continues to be my opinion that no one should be required to gain permission from the State for a relationship contract. Standard contract law could be applied if we feel the need to continue providding benefits to such relationships.

I also don't find it logically inconsistent. We decide culturally what is and isn't acceptable on many issues. There's a difference culturally with how marijuana and alcohol are used.

Con_Alma;1368728 wrote:You are not denied the right for it isn't a right being denied.

Let me rephrase, then. With most actions, legislation is merely required to make the action ... or something about the action ... illegal. The default with most things, thus, is that it is legal until legislated otherwise.

In this case, as well as the same sex marriage one, the default is that the action is illegal until legislation changes it.

Con_Alma;1368728 wrote:I agree with you that the similarities of same sex marriage exist from a cultural pressure and legal perspectives. It continues to be my opinion that no one should be required to gain permission from the State for a relationship contract. Standard contract law could be applied if we feel the need to continue providding benefits to such relationships.

I agree whole-heartedly.

Con_Alma;1368737 wrote:I also don't find it logically inconsistent. We decide culturally what is and isn't acceptable on many issues.

Sure we do, but the arrival at the conclusions are seemingly arbitrary, permitting logical inconsistency. We see one thing as acceptable because we've been raised to believe it is. We see another as unacceptable because we've been raised to believe it is. This allows for a believe despite no logical distinction that can be used to suggest one as bad for society without suggesting the other is as well.

Con_Alma;1368728 wrote:There's a difference culturally with how marijuana and alcohol are used.

In the details, sure, but by and large, it's not that different. People do both recreationally to feel better through the chemical processes from each and how they alter our bodies.

You are right, we decide culturally and we have been wrong many times on cultural issues(Slavery, Women Voting, Prohibition) and we are wrong on gay marriage and marijuana right now. I will let you in a secret, the majority can be wrong. Based off this logic, no one should complain about anything Obama does because that is what the people voted so it just has to be that way.

I still see no valid argument for the Drug War. The same people praising it in this thread will bash the Federal Governments involvement in Education, Healthcare, Guns..in other threads. If States want to regulate/ban/legalize then so be it as that is more along the lines of what is suppose to happen. The Federal government is not suppose to have the authority/power to do so. But I guess that only applies to fiscal issues not in regards to your personal liberty.

Glory Days;1368572 wrote:how is it harmless? its more toxic than cigarettes, highly abused, and has no medical use(its like having a headache and stomping on your foot to forget the headache). its also illegal, because well, society wants it that way. they dont want to live in a country where its legal. look at california, they voted to allow medical marijuana and after that little experiment, keep voting legalizing it down.

you really think that in washington and colorado, the cartels will just move out and focus elsewhere?

interesting abstract
http://archsurg.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=593225#References

although alcohol is a problem, marijuana was found slightly more often.

another study
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121220195744.htm

THC showed either no or unclear results for pain relief.

More toxic than cigarettes? Can I get a link? You can vaporize marijuana and get essentially no carcinogens. Highly abused? Again, link? It is not possible to become physically dependent on marijuana. Also, you can't OD on it no matter how much you consume in one sitting. Sure, you can become mentally dependent on it but you can become mentally dependent on anything. No medical use? Science says you're wrong. And it's illegal because of bullshit propaganda from the 1930s like "Reefer Madness." It's not illegal because it's a dangerous drug. It's illegal because it threatened the profits of certain industries. Most polls I'm seeing say that the majority of American's think it should be legal and the number seems to grow every day.

Again, prohibition DOES NOT WORK. Nature should be legal for fucks sake.

You guys are missing the point. How is Glory Days supposed to get hard if he doesn't get to use force on giggling teenagers with the munchies

BoatShoes;1368865 wrote:You guys are missing the point. How is Glory Days supposed to get hard if he doesn't get to use force on giggling teenagers with the munchies

Those giggling teenagers are a menace to society, dangerous, and deserve to be punished by legal action.

O-Trap;1368766 wrote:Let me rephrase, then. With most actions, legislation is merely required to make the action ... or something about the action ... illegal. The default with most things, thus, is that it is legal until legislated otherwise. ...

That's case with everythng. Marijuana is not different. Stating it was illegal by default made it appear as if it was not intentional that we made it that way.

O-Trap;1368766 wrote:...In this case, as well as the same sex marriage one, the default is that the action is illegal until legislation changes it....

I disagree. Marriage existed even before there was a State.

O-Trap;1368766 wrote:...Sure we do, but the arrival at the conclusions are seemingly arbitrary, permitting logical inconsistency. We see one thing as acceptable because we've been raised to believe it is. We see another as unacceptable because we've been raised to believe it is. This allows for a believe despite no logical distinction that can be used to suggest one as bad for society without suggesting the other is as well....

Not necesarily. The activities and culture surrounding marijuana are different than that of alcohol. One is desired by the society, the other wasn't at the time. The logic isn't based on bad or goo as much as desired r not desired. We want to be that but not that.

O-Trap;1368766 wrote:...In the details, sure, ....

The "details" were enough of a difference to make it illegal. I believe it will be decriminalized one day but it won't be until a massive amount of the populace forces the legislators to act. We are closer today than yesterday but we aren't there yet.

pmoney25;1368779 wrote:You are right, we decide culturally and we have been wrong many times on cultural issues(Slavery, Women Voting, Prohibition) and we are wrong on gay marriage and marijuana right now. I will let you in a secret, the majority can be wrong. Based off this logic, no one should complain about anything Obama does because that is what the people voted so it just has to be that way.

I still see no valid argument for the Drug War. The same people praising it in this thread will bash the Federal Governments involvement in Education, Healthcare, Guns..in other threads. If States want to regulate/ban/legalize then so be it as that is more along the lines of what is suppose to happen. The Federal government is not suppose to have the authority/power to do so. But I guess that only applies to fiscal issues not in regards to your personal liberty.

Law does not necessarily equal what it right. Your examples above are proof. However, law is still how we function in this country. We are a nation of laws. I have never spoke of being morally right or wrong with regards to drugs being illegal.

The validity of the war on drugs is because they are illegal and we have an obligation to enforce the law. If you want to question the law's desired presence that's a different point but suggesting the government isn't valid in enforcing the existing law is ridiculous.

The governemnt has no more power in this issue than the people allow it to have. If the people want it changed, it absolutely can be changed. The people have not yet done what it takes to get it changed.