...Corps have enough money, I think.
Who are you, and what did you do to Houston? ;-)
|
I would suspect that high quality marijuana would wind up as more of a niche market (think organic foods, fine wine, etc). I don't think it would go away.
I don't see preserving the industry in Humboldt or elsewhere as a good argument against legalization.
For one, what's good for one illegal (or semi-illegal or whatever) grower is good for all of them. That includes the Mexican cartels, etc.
Second, I can't get behind enacting laws to support an industry that doesn't pay any taxes for the services they (and all of us) rely on. I assure you that "marijuana proceeds" would raise some eyebrows on a 1040 the way things are right now. If it's not legal, we can't tax it, and that's what the whole argument is about right now. I'm not a fan of people reaping the rewards without paying into the system.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I'm cautiously for legalizing it. Legalizing pot makes about as much sense as repealing Prohibition, which we did 80 years ago, and for all the same reasons.
However, I've had good friends who got burned out on it and it took them YEARS to get back to where they could function as a normal human being. On the other hand, I've known otherwise good people whose careers have been ended over a DUI. And that doesn't begin to cover the more fatal and tragic consequences that alcohol can have.
If the ganj does get legalized, you can believe that corporations will be all over it. And it will be the tobacco companies, who have seen their bottom line take a big hit over smoking cessation and increased regulation. I imagine they probably already have plans in place, ready to be the first adopters, if legalization ever does occur.
And whereas I'd be in favor of legalization (cautiously), I'd still want to see a certain amount of regulation: over 21 to buy/possess like alcohol, restrictions against providing to underage persons, etc. I'd want it to still be forbidden to military personnel. And I'd hope that corporations would have policies regarding marijuana use similar to or stricter than what they have for alcohol use: no showing up at work stoned/drunk. I could even see some companies refusing to hire marijuana users, just like some companies won't hire smokers because they're more expensive to insure.
|
|
...Corps have enough money, I think.Who are you, and what did you do to Houston? ;-)
I have no problem with people having a jackload of moolah, but I'm kind of T. Roosevelt-esque when it comes to corporations. Too many of them act in very anti-capitalist ways (unnatural monopolies, stupid high risk loans, intentionally distributing dangerous products, B.F. Skinner style marketing, etc..). Philosophically, I may be laissez faire, but I'm too cynical to think people will ever be educated/intelligent enough to make informed decisions in the marketplace. If they were, Sham-wow couldn't sell a $5 chamois for $19.95...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ooh, yeah! All right!
We're jammin':
I wanna jam it wid you.
We're jammin', jammin',
And I hope you like jammin', too.
Ain't no rules, ain't no vow, we can do it anyhow:
I'n'I will see you through,
'Cos everyday we pay the price with a little sacrifice,
Jammin' till the jam is through.
We're jammin' -
To think that jammin' was a thing of the past;
We're jammin',
And I hope this jam is gonna last.
No bullet can stop us now, we neither beg nor we won't bow;
Neither can be bought nor sold.
We all defend the right; Jah - Jah children must unite:
Your life is worth much more than gold.
We're jammin' (jammin', jammin', jammin')
And we're jammin' in the name of the Lord;
We're jammin' (jammin', jammin', jammin'),
We're jammin' right straight from Yah.
Yeh! Holy Mount Zion;
Holy Mount Zion:
Jah sitteth in Mount Zion
And rules all creation.
Yeah, we're - we're jammin' (wotcha-wa),
Wotcha-wa-wa-wa, we're jammin' (wotcha-wa),
See, I wanna jam it wid you
We're jammin' (jammin', jammin', jammin')
I'm jammed: I hope you're jammin', too.
Jam's about my pride and truth I cannot hide
To keep you satisfied.
True love that now exist is the love I can't resist,
So jam by my side.
We're Jammin' (jammin', jammin', jammin'), yeah-eah-eah!
I wanna jam it wid you.
We're jammin', we're jammin', we're jammin', we're jammin',
We're jammin', we're jammin', we're jammin', we're jammin';
Hope you like jammin', too.
We're jammin', we're jammin' (jammin'),
We're jammin', we're jammin' (jammin').
I wanna (I wanna jam it wid you) - I wanna -
I wanna jam wid you now.
Jammin', jammin' (hope you like jammin' too).
Eh-eh! I hope you like jammin', I hope you like jammin',
'Cause (I wanna jam it wid you). I wanna ... wid you.
I like - I hope you - I hope you like jammin', too.
I wanna jam it;
I wanna jam it.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
** spoiler omitted **...
I think the difference has something to do with the concept of proximate cause.
Edit: But what really baffles me is how people can advocate making marijuana illegal, but not making spray paint illegal. After all, you can get high off spray paint, so it's inconsistent to argue that marijuana should be illegal buy spray paint should be legal.
So...not banning something == promoting it?I also don't think legalizing it is the same as promoting it.I guess I would say that if the change in the law leads to an increase in the number of users (which it will, there are some people that don't currently use it merely because it is illegal and they don't want the hassle), then I would consider it a promotion of it. Certainly there may be public service messages saying, "Yeah we know we just said it was ok for you to use it, but keep in mind these health risks ...", so in that sense there probably won't be the official promotion of it.
Not quite. Unbanning = promoting it. If it was never banned in the first place, that would be one thing. But if it has been banned and then is unbanned, you are going to see an increase in the number of users. I don't think anyone is going to argue that.
I don't see how that adds up with your defense of individual liberty elsewhere.
I try not to presume what other people believe, based on some other discussions. I believe it is a good policy. People argue certain positions for various reasons. Strict belief is only one of them.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm trying to point out that someone can have an intellectual interest without having an emotional or personal interest.The question isn't "Should the government allow people?"; it's "Should the government be allowed to prevent them?"
This applies to a wide range of issues. Apparently we as a society are quite willing to allow the government to limit us on lots of things for "our own good", why should this be different?
|
With a sales tax attached, it's probably a better idea to make it legal.
The people I know who are already into this were already the sort of people who act as if the world owes them a living. I doubt that any of them would turn to alcohol if marijuana weren't available. At least one of them has gone on to trying more dangerous substances instead.
What I'm basically saying is recreational marijuana use, in my experience, is a symptom of an unmotivated selfish leech, not a cause and not ironclad truth in every instance. It certainly doesn't help those people to make its use legal, but it does take a huge burden off of our legal system. I'm against its use and for taxing it, which is the same as my stand on cigarettes.
I am admittedly strongly biased against habitual use of substances that alter brain chemistry... except caffeine. That's a wonder-drug!
Funnily enough, I don't even drink caffeine, I try to stick to caffeine free drinks
I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
Hmm...lets replace some words.
Saying beer isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who drinks a bit will move on to harder spirits, but you'll find very few hard alcoholics who didn't start wit 'just a drink' or two.
No one is burying heads in sand. To say its a gateway drug is an unfounded statment. Medical research has busted that myth, see the link I posted from Bristol University. I'm of the opinion that incorrect statments like that is exactly why it is illeagal.
Fear of the unknown.
What is the definition of "gateway drug"? I think people are using the term in slightly different ways, so I think some clarification might be useful on this term.
What is the definition of "gateway drug"? I think people are using the term in slightly different ways, so I think some clarification might be useful on this term.
Leading you onto stronger stuff.
Pot to LSD to Heroin
Shandy to Beer to Wine to Whisky
Salad to Steak and Chips to All You Can Eat
Honda Civic to Ford to Humvee
Monopoly to Risk to Dungeons & Dragons
You get the picture?
So...not banning something == promoting it?I also don't think legalizing it is the same as promoting it.I guess I would say that if the change in the law leads to an increase in the number of users (which it will, there are some people that don't currently use it merely because it is illegal and they don't want the hassle), then I would consider it a promotion of it. Certainly there may be public service messages saying, "Yeah we know we just said it was ok for you to use it, but keep in mind these health risks ...", so in that sense there probably won't be the official promotion of it.Not quite. Unbanning = promoting it. If it was never banned in the first place, that would be one thing. But if it has been banned and then is unbanned, you are going to see an increase in the number of users. I don't think anyone is going to argue that.
I don't see how that adds up with your defense of individual liberty elsewhere.I try not to presume what other people believe, based on some other discussions. I believe it is a good policy. People argue certain positions for various reasons. Strict belief is only one of them.
EDIT: To clarify, I'm trying to point out that someone can have an intellectual interest without having an emotional or personal interest.The question isn't "Should the government allow people?"; it's "Should the government be allowed to prevent them?"This applies to a wide range of issues. Apparently we as a society are quite willing to allow the government to limit us on lots of things for "our own good", why should this be different?
It isn't different, and shouldn't be. It's a balancing act between individual liberty and the good of society. I simply can't come up with any logical criteria that results in pot being illegal, but alcohol being legal.
What incremental harm to society does legalizing pot bring?
* Driving under the influence (DUI) is already illegal.
* Society already deals with the catastrophic health costs of smoking tobacco. In fact, in a number of bad behaviors (obesity, lack of exercise, fatty diets, etc.), we've come firmly down on the side of individual liberty. Why should pot be any different?
I have yet to see a cogent argument for the continued prohibition of Marijuana. In my experience, if one looks closely enough the opposition always boils down to personal distaste for the drug, or for those who choose to use it.
|
|
I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
No offense but you'll also not find hard addicts who didn't start with a beer or two.
I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
I rarely say this to anyone, because I believe they're entitled to their opinion, but you're wrong.
Marijuana is no more a gateway drug then alcohol or tobacco. You'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start with "just a bottle or two." The argument is through and through b@*@#%#&.
As for legalizing other more dangerous substances, so what? What the *bleep* do you care what someone else does to their body? Seriously? Why is it any of your g~& d@~n business? It's NOT. You, and society have every right to hold someone accountable for crimes they commit against other members of society, but you have absolutely no right to tell them what they can or can't do to themselves. Don't like that tweakers steal and hurt other people? Then hold them accountable for stealing and hurting, not for doing drugs.
It always amuses me to see non-hostily posted opinions turn the 'tolerant' people into jerkish hypocrites. Thanks for the entertainment. I mean that.
...But what really baffles me is how people can advocate making marijuana illegal, but not making spray paint illegal. After all, you can get high off spray paint, so it's inconsistent to argue that marijuana should be illegal buy spray paint should be legal.
Duh; it's the work of the powerful spray paint lobby.
What is the definition of "gateway drug"? I think people are using the term in slightly different ways, so I think some clarification might be useful on this term.Leading you onto stronger stuff.
Pot to LSD to Heroin
Shandy to Beer to Wine to Whisky
Salad to Steak and Chips to All You Can Eat
Honda Civic to Ford to Humvee
Monopoly to Risk to Dungeons & DragonsYou get the picture?
No. You have been saying pot is not a "gateway drug". Therefore if you want to use examples to define the meaning of the phrase, I think it would be better to use an example of what IS a "gateway drug".
EDIT: The only understanding I can get from your post is that either (a)you DO believe pot is a "gateway drug" or (b)you don't believe any drug is a "gateway drug".
No offense but you'll also not find hard addicts who didn't start with a beer or two.I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
An unfair comparison. I don't know if there's a study out there comparing the percentage of drinkers who went on to hard drugs vs the percentage of pot smokers who did, but I have no doubt that the results would be pretty heavy on the MJ side of the scale.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No offense but you'll also not find hard addicts who didn't start with a beer or two.I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
Yeah, but beer is different, because alcohol is harmless and non-addictive. It's not like pot at all. Heck, it's not even a drug, so there's really no way it could be a gateway drug. If it were a gateway drug, I'd oppose alcohol too, but since alcohol use and drug use are in no way related, connected, or similar, I just don't see how you could even begin to make that argument.
|
|
I know, right? It might even make Philadelphia Eagles fans civilized. ;)
What the hell is you problem man? You trying to... *snicker*... trying to... hee hee hee.Whoo! I could really go for a hot dog right about now!
Never!
*throws beer bottle at Cuchulainn's head*
OUCH! Man, I'm glad they started selling beer in plastic bottles at the stadium.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
An unfair comparison. I don't know if there's a study out there comparing the percentage of drinkers who went on to hard drugs vs the percentage of pot smokers who did, but I have no doubt that the results would be pretty heavy on the MJ side of the scale.
I have no doubt that if you did a study comparing the percentage of pot smokers to the percentage of pot smokers who tried alcohol first, you'd fine a very large overlap. Conclusion: alcohol is the gateway drug to marijuana! So, really, if you want to close the gate, you should start with alcohol.
No. You have been saying pot is not a "gateway drug". Therefore if you want to use examples to define the meaning of the phrase, I think it would be better to use an example of what IS a "gateway drug".What is the definition of "gateway drug"? I think people are using the term in slightly different ways, so I think some clarification might be useful on this term.Leading you onto stronger stuff.
Pot to LSD to Heroin
Shandy to Beer to Wine to Whisky
Salad to Steak and Chips to All You Can Eat
Honda Civic to Ford to Humvee
Monopoly to Risk to Dungeons & DragonsYou get the picture?
In practice, I think "gateway" drugs exist simply by virtue of being prohibited. That is, people who use/sell/buy one prohibited material are likely to use/sell/buy others. The result is an entire culture of ignoring drug laws, so in practice you're likely to get other drugs from the guy from which you purchase your pot.
In other words, it isn't anything inherent about pot. Look at prohibition and the mafia.
|
|
An unfair comparison. I don't know if there's a study out there comparing the percentage of drinkers who went on to hard drugs vs the percentage of pot smokers who did, but I have no doubt that the results would be pretty heavy on the MJ side of the scale.No offense but you'll also not find hard addicts who didn't start with a beer or two.I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
How is it an unfair comparison. You have no more evidence to back you up than I have, and yet you get to make your statement. However, I have never heard of an addict who never drank alchohol ever. ever and the fact is that if your argument were as fair a comparison there'd be easily linkable studies to show it. You really think people who want thing to be illegal wouldn't love that study to exist. Pretty much the fact that it doesn't exist means it's a fair comparison.
I have no doubt that if you did a study comparing the percentage of pot smokers to the percentage of pot smokers who tried alcohol first, you'd fine a very large overlap. Conclusion: alcohol is the gateway drug to marijuana! So, really, if you want to close the gate, you should start with alcohol.
Bludgeoned once again by the harsh club of correlation vs. causation.
Ouch!
The stuff is never going to be legalized in the U.S., because the War on Drugs exists not to promote public safety, but to support the massive prison-industrial complex. Over time, more and more things become illegal, the penalties get stricter, and the percentage of adults in prison continues to increase. This is a MAJOR economic driving force that isn't going to go away, and it's not something that the Powers That Be are going to voluntarily interfere with.
The legal status of pot has nothing -- repeat, ZERO -- to do with its relative health effects or lack thereof.
Yeah, but beer is different, because alcohol is harmless and non-addictive. It's not like pot at all. Heck, it's not even a drug, so there's really no way it could be a gateway drug. If it were a gateway drug, I'd oppose alcohol too, but since alcohol use and drug use are in no way related, connected, or similar, I just don't see how you could even begin to make that argument.
You have overloaded my SARCASM-O-METER. My lawyer will be in touch about the cost of a replacement.
No. You have been saying pot is not a "gateway drug". Therefore if you want to use examples to define the meaning of the phrase, I think it would be better to use an example of what IS a "gateway drug".What is the definition of "gateway drug"? I think people are using the term in slightly different ways, so I think some clarification might be useful on this term.Leading you onto stronger stuff.
Pot to LSD to Heroin
Shandy to Beer to Wine to Whisky
Salad to Steak and Chips to All You Can Eat
Honda Civic to Ford to Humvee
Monopoly to Risk to Dungeons & DragonsYou get the picture?
It means to some doing X means you will do Y because you've done X.
I can't give examples because there aren't any real provable examples. To say smoking pot will lead onto harder drugs is nonsense.I smoke cigarettes so using that logic my next move would be cigars.
I'm sure you do know what I mean.
EDIT
Missed your edit.
I don't think smoking weed leads to taking harder drugs.
I posted a link to a study carried out by Bristol University investigating 20 assorted "drugs" and cannabis came in at #12 in the "danger scale" with heroin #1 and alcohol #8. They found no link between smoking weed and moving onto stronger drugs at all.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
** spoiler omitted **...
I think the difference has something to do with the concept of proximate cause.
Edit: But what really baffles me is how people can advocate making marijuana illegal, but not making spray paint illegal. After all, you can get high off spray paint, so it's inconsistent to argue that marijuana should be illegal buy spray paint should be legal.
You can get high off a lot of stuff. But spray paint's primary use is for spray painting. Marijuana's primary use is getting high. Now before you protest, "but what about hemp rope?" I know about hemp rope. According to my crystal ball of wiki the C. sativa that is bred for making rope and other industrial uses has much less THC than the varieties grown for recreational and medicinal use. So they aren't really the same. But I do see your point. Baseball bats can be used to hurt somebody; should we ban baseball bats? Lots of people die in fiery auto crashes; should we outlaw cars?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually though, if I had my druthers, and it were feasible to do so, I'd much prefer alcohol to have lower availability/greater restrictions than marijuana. I've seen far worse behavior out of drunks than stoners.
That said, I'd also be pro-legalization of most psychedelics, particularly LSD, shrooms, and peyote. It's addiction and dependence that concern me when it comes to drugs and, as far as I know, the psychedelics tend to have low rates of addiction/dependence.
The stuff is never going to be legalized in the U.S., because the War on Drugs exists not to promote public safety, but to support the massive prison-industrial complex. Over time, more and more things become illegal, the penalties get stricter, and the percentage of adults in prison continues to increase. This is a MAJOR economic driving force that isn't going to go away, and it's not something that the Powers That Be are going to voluntarily interfere with.
The legal status of pot has nothing -- repeat, ZERO -- to do with its relative health effects or lack thereof.
Not to say you don't have a point, but every time I hear the phrase "________-industrial complex," I can't help but picture some stoned dude with long hair going "It's a conspiracy, man!" ;-)
Not to say you don't have a point, but every time I hear the phrase "________-industrial complex," I can't help but picture some stoned dude with long hair going "It's a conspiracy, man!"
Yeah, the name is unfortunate, because it makes me sound that way to myself as well. But think about this one: a few years ago, taking a leak in your backyard was OK, maybe a slap on the wrist and no time for "public indecency." Now it's a major felony, and you're a registered sex offender for life.
There's only one way to make any kind of sense out of that.
|
|
I'll take the unpopular stand and say no.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
I also see it as a stepping stone to legalizing other, more dangerous substances.
Marijuana is not the gateway drug; alcohol and tobacco are the gateway drugs. Very few people who try pot for the first time haven't tried alcohol, tobacco, or both first. The whole gateway drug crap is just that. It's something the government employees and private prison owners use to justify their continued existence. If marijuana were legalized we would not only save the $38 billion a year wasted on the horrendously ineffective "war on drugs" and the countless billions being used to keep minor drug offenders serving mandatory minimums but we would probably generate triple that in revenue from taxation and regulation.
Alcohol prohibition was a horribly failed experiment that led to the solidification of organized crime as a major player in the criminal underworld. We have created and perpetuate the same problem through the prohibition of marijuana. We have not learned from history and are now in the "doomed to repeat it" stage of things.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You can get high off a lot of stuff. But spray paint's primary use is for spray painting. Marijuana's primary use is getting high.
Right, and a gun's* primary use is killing/injuring another human. That's a relevant difference for why a person might support restrictions on firearms, but not restrictions on drugs.
*I assume we are talking about gun ownership for reasons other than hunting animals, since that tends to be the types of restrictions that are controversial.
Anyway, I don't want a gun control argument, but I don't think they are completely analogous to restrictions on drug use. There's definitely a common thread in the arguments (individual liberty, personal responsibility), but there are a sufficient number of differences that one can support/oppose one and not the other (and this goes both ways, I don't see a conflict between a person who is against gun regulation and for drug criminalization).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Not to say you don't have a point, but every time I hear the phrase "________-industrial complex," I can't help but picture some stoned dude with long hair going "It's a conspiracy, man!" ;-)
Oh man, that would make a great word game.
ninja-industrial complex
hairweave-industrial complex
cereal-industrial complex
I have no doubt that if you did a study comparing the percentage of pot smokers to the percentage of pot smokers who tried alcohol first, you'd fine a very large overlap. Conclusion: alcohol is the gateway drug to marijuana! So, really, if you want to close the gate, you should start with alcohol.
Bludgeoned once again by the harsh club of correlation vs. causation.
Ouch!
No, the blind bashing of snideness doesn't bother me, I knew what I was in for when I made my post. Besides, it's Sebastion. Snarkiness is to be expected. ;-)
|
|
An unfair comparison. I don't know if there's a study out there comparing the percentage of drinkers who went on to hard drugs vs the percentage of pot smokers who did, but I have no doubt that the results would be pretty heavy on the MJ side of the scale.
There is a study i found several years ago writing a paper for college (i'm not going to go sifting for it, you'll have to take my word on it). Basically it stated that while people were more likely to have used marijuana before using harder drugs, they were most likely to have used tobacco and alcohol before touching marijuana. So while marijuana use might lead to the use of harder drugs, it's not fair to call it the gateway drug since something like 85% of pot users got their start on alcohol and tobacco (the true gateway drugs).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
No, the blind bashing of snideness doesn't bother me, I knew what I was in for when I made my post. Besides, it's Sebastion. Snarkiness is to be expected. ;-)I have no doubt that if you did a study comparing the percentage of pot smokers to the percentage of pot smokers who tried alcohol first, you'd fine a very large overlap. Conclusion: alcohol is the gateway drug to marijuana! So, really, if you want to close the gate, you should start with alcohol.
Bludgeoned once again by the harsh club of correlation vs. causation.
Ouch!
I'm like the scorpion - it's in my nature.
Anyway, for what it's worth, I can see arguments against legalization. In fact, the DOJ has a pretty good list on their website:
http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/index.html
I personally dislike alcohol, but I don't think it's entirely fair to make the claim that alcohol is legal therefore marijuana should be legal (though, I also admit, I am persuaded by that claim). Just because we have one legal substance that can be abused and can create societal ills doesn't mean we should legalize others. That's sorta like saying "well, I'm already in debt, might as well go on that vacation to Hawaii."
|
|
It doesn't matter what California does about marijuana, it's Federal Schedule I drug. You can't even make it legal with "prescriptions". The only way anyone can ever possess marijuana in the US legally is with a DEA license, something they barely give out... or of course, holding it as evidence to a crime :P
By the way, to head off people claiming the Feds are "violating California's law" by seizing marijuana whether 'medical' or not: Federal law always trumps State law. Always.
However, if California's law were to actually hold water...
1) Well, a little of both.
2) I don't think it should be criminalized, but making it legal would increase the price like crazy :)
3) Yes, clearly.
----
By the way, just my 2cp on "gateway drugs": every drug is a "gateway drug" in a such a general sense as is usually used. Will smoking pot make you shoot up with heroin? No. Have a good number of heroin users smoked pot before? Yeah, probably. I don't think pot 'causes' other drug use anymore than getting in the car 'causes' me to drive to Mexico. Sure, getting in the car is a likely first step, but just because I do get in the car doesn't mean I can't just ride to the store and back.
Anyway, like I said, just my 2cp :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Federal law always trumps State law. Always.
Forgive me, IMAL.
Federal law always trumps state law, provided that it is not a matter reserved to the states. Most federal laws are promulgated through the commerce clause or as a requirement to receive federal funding, and in the case where both the feds and the states have authority to legislate, the supremacy clause does indeed say that the feds win.
So, I'm being very anal, because you are correct in general, and you are correct in regards to state/federal drug laws, but it's not true that federal law always trumps state law.
I was going to say I couldn't think of an example of this, but I just did. SCOTUS struck down a federal law a while ago that prohibited possession of a gun within x' feet/miles/cubits of a school. The federal law was passed under the commerce clause, and SCOTUS concluded it was too attenuated from commerce, and not a valid exercise of federal power. So, in that instance, if the state had a law that said "you can have a gun in the classroom" the state law would trump the federal law.
It doesn't happen very often, but it can, in theory, happen.
Edit: It's my understanding that state police are the primary enforcers of drug laws and that, typically, most drug crimes are prosecuted under state law (which likely tracks or incorporates the federal law). If the state stops enforcing drug laws, while it may still be a federal crime, the FBI just doesn't have the manpower to enforce those laws on its own. So, even if it is still illegal under federal law, as a practical matter, it likely doesn't make a difference - the feds aren't going to prosecute you because they have bigger fish to fry.
An unfair comparison. I don't know if there's a study out there comparing the percentage of drinkers who went on to hard drugs vs the percentage of pot smokers who did, but I have no doubt that the results would be pretty heavy on the MJ side of the scale.There is a study i found several years ago writing a paper for college (i'm not going to go sifting for it, you'll have to take my word on it). Basically it stated that while people were more likely to have used marijuana before using harder drugs, they were most likely to have used tobacco and alcohol before touching marijuana. So while marijuana use might lead to the use of harder drugs, it's not fair to call it the gateway drug since something like 85% of pot users got their start on alcohol and tobacco (the true gateway drugs).
Yeah, I figured it would be out there, but I'm not invested enough in the argument to go looking. However, the secondary statement that they were likely to have used alcohol and tobacco is like saying they were likely to have driven cars. It's far to large a percentage of the population to be definitive.
Of course, I'm sure that people who have never smoked or drank at all are FAR more likely to not try any drugs, but where's the fun in that statement of the obvious?
|
|
Federal law always trumps State law. Always.
I was going to say I couldn't think of an example of this, but I just did. SCOTUS struck down a federal law a while ago that prohibited possession of a gun within x' feet/miles/cubits of a school. The federal law was passed under the commerce clause, and SCOTUS concluded it was too attenuated from commerce, and not a valid exercise of federal power. So, in that instance, if the state had a law that said "you can have a gun in the classroom" the state law would trump the federal law.
It doesn't happen very often, but it can, in theory, happen.
Indeed, I mis-spoke (or typed, rather), State law can trump Federal law, but it takes another Federal ruling (in this case, the Supreme Court) to make it so.
Thanks for pointing that out, I'm running on only a few hours of sleep here :P
|
But what really baffles me is how people can advocate making marijuana illegal, but not making spray paint illegal. After all, you can get high off spray paint, so it's inconsistent to argue that marijuana should be illegal buy spray paint should be legal.
They can pry my Bestial Brown out of my cold, dead hands.
|
Julian May had the answer to this (in Intervention, I think):
1) Legalise (and tax) all drugs
2) Provide copious opportunities for counseling and help for those who request it
3) Execute anyone who commits a serious crime while under the influence
I doubt that it will ever happen, but I'd love to see it tried.
|
|
What is the definition of "gateway drug"?Leading you onto stronger stuff.
Monopoly to Risk to Dungeons & Dragons.
"Take Liverpool St Station, to Park Place, via Kamchatka, to checkmate Blackleaf."
No! Not Blackleaf!
Will no-one think of the children?!?!
It's my fault Blackleaf Died!!!
DnD is a gateway to hangings
In practice, I think "gateway" drugs exist simply by virtue of being prohibited. That is, people who use/sell/buy one prohibited material are likely to use/sell/buy others. The result is an entire culture of ignoring drug laws, so in practice you're likely to get other drugs from the guy from which you purchase your pot.
In other words, it isn't anything inherent about pot. Look at prohibition and the mafia.
So for you it would be more of a "get that ass through the door" drug. Get people to the dealer, who then tries to "up-sell" them on some stronger types of mind-affecting products.
It means to some doing X means you will do Y because you've done X.
I can't give examples because there aren't any real provable examples. To say smoking pot will lead onto harder drugs is nonsense.
I smoke cigarettes so using that logic my next move would be cigars.I'm sure you do know what I mean.
EDIT
Missed your edit.
I don't think smoking weed leads to taking harder drugs.
I posted a link to a study carried out by Bristol University investigating 20 assorted "drugs" and cannabis came in at #12 in the "danger scale" with heroin #1 and alcohol #8. They found no link between smoking weed and moving onto stronger drugs at all.
From your first part, it appears as if you agree with my part (b) of my edit, that you don't believe any drug is a "gateway drug".
Though your edit is worded in such a way that it makes me think you do believe that a drug could be a "gateway drug", but mary jane is not one of them.
In order for something to be a "gateway drug" would it have to lead to another drug 100% of the time?
The stuff is never going to be legalized in the U.S., because the War on Drugs exists not to promote public safety, but to support the massive prison-industrial complex. Over time, more and more things become illegal, the penalties get stricter, and the percentage of adults in prison continues to increase. This is a MAJOR economic driving force that isn't going to go away, and it's not something that the Powers That Be are going to voluntarily interfere with.
The legal status of pot has nothing -- repeat, ZERO -- to do with its relative health effects or lack thereof.
I disagree. The fact that it has become legal for "medical use" (some people have questionable medical needs for it) in 13 (14?) states, I think shows that it might indeed become legal. Just because it becomes legal doesn't mean that the "prison-industrical complex" will not have other drugs to spend its time going after and still making their money, and in fact if the people are right and it is a "gateway drug" and leads to more use of those harder drugs, that will just drive up more demand for the "prison-industrical complex".
The US society has a long history of increased restrictions and then when it is shown to be too strict the pendulum swings back the other way, even farther than it was before. Those "crimes" about peeing in your backyard are a result of increased awareness of child molestation, and so the laws are being applied very strictly (in some cases for purely political reasons, Judge gets re-elected because they are "tough" on "crime"). As more cases of this become aware, those laws are going to be changed to a more reasonable level.
Saying marijuana isn't a gateway drug is burying your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that everyone who tokes a bit will move on to harder drugs, but you'll find very few hard addicts who didn't start wit 'just a joint' or two.
Its likely they had alcohol as well so are we going to argue that we need to ban beer because its a gateway drug?
Cigarettes and coffee are stimulants as is crystal meth and cocaine. Hence it strikes me that if we are worried about gateway drugs we should be outlawing latte's because they lead to crystal meth abuse.
In fact thinking about this some more...I really like my coffee. Logically speaking I'm obviously a fan of stimulants and I get my 'fix' by drinking lots of coffee. If one where to outlaw coffee you'd actually lead me to acquiring my stimulant 'fix' through the use of underground Arabica...but if there is no Hazelnut flavored blackmarket coffee...does that not then lead me to acquiring my fix with something more dangerous and harder? If so then it seems to me that I might actually end up with a problem addiction because I've become hooked on a hard drug partly because I was not able to acquire a steady flow of the softer version I'd normally use.
In other words it strikes me that I currently can acquire my drug of choice in an easily available socially acceptable form (I get it at the local Starbucks) and because its easily available I can get on with my life without bothering anyone else or using up the resources of local law enforcement. Make it illegal and you not only drive me into the black market but you now have to spend resources to catch me and more resources to keep me locked away instead of out working, earning money and paying taxes.
All of this leads me to the conclusion that if we have examples of comparably soft drugs that do relatively little harm it makes sense to legalize them so as to not only free up law enforcement resources for better things but also to encourage drug users to stick with the lighter stuff thats going to cause them, and the rest of society, less harm and hassle.
As more cases of this become aware, those laws are going to be changed to a more reasonable level.
Sadly, I lack your gumdrops-and-lollipops view of law enforcement trends.
P.S. Why do you spell the word as "industrical?" Is that a pun I'm missing?