Posted on 05/24/2014 3:38:24 PM PDT by Wolfie
Where The War On Pot Will Go To Die
In some states, there's an untenable mismatch between the crime and the time, but does anyone think that pot—medical or recreational—will still be illegal in 10 years?
Now that a majority of Americans—54% and climbing, according to Pew Research—believe that marijuana should be treated like beer, wine and liquor, it’s time to ask: where does the war on pot go to die?
What episode will trigger that final skirmish that kicks over the hollowed-out edifice of marijuana prohibition like the Berlin Wall? What will be the final outrage against common sense and common decency that triggers an Arab Spring for weed in these U.S.? Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia already have medical marijuana (with more to come), and full legalization has gained 13 percentage points in just the past five years.
Ironically, whatever ends the war on pot won’t happen in Colorado or Washington, which have already legalized recreational pot and have received vague promises from Attorney General Eric Holder that the feds won’t bust people and businesses who comply with state laws. Colorado is further along in the retail process than Washington (where pot shops won’t open until mid-July), and so far the only problem of note is that the state is raking in 40% more tax revenue than originally projected.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
It was reported yesterday that MoDo almost OD’ed on the stuff. I believe that it will be legal in 10 years at society’s peril.
Remember the libertardians want ALL drugs legal... before they start pointing out there is no age of consent in the Constitution...
I dispute that hard liquor is "readily" available to kids - who report that they can get illegal-for-adults pot more easily than they can get legal-for-adults beer.
Once hooked, a lifetime of fighting addiction.
Marijuana is less addictive than alcohol.
Staggering around in a daze, desperate and cold-blooded, abandoning and destroying families, ,leeching off welfare,
So you thought "Reefer Madness" was a documentary?
robbing pedestrians, and breaking into houses.
Legalization brings down prices and thus drug-buy-motivated theft.
Rubbish - she had an intense and unpleasant high.
I believe that it will be legal in 10 years at society’s peril.
It's legal now in CO and WA - where is the rash of "ODs"?
Luckily "libertardians" aren't in charge; legalization of drugs other than pot is not even on any state's radar. (FWIW, I support a healthy pause after pot legalization before even considering any further steps.)
before they start pointing out there is no age of consent in the Constitution...
Nor are there any federal age-of-consent laws - it's always been all at the state level.
I can't believe you can't recognize a hyperbolic quip. My mistake
Heroin is extremely addictive, and today’s highly potent marijuana is not only harmful to the body but a gateway drug to cocaine and heroin. No matter how many low-level drugs you throw at people, they will push against the boundaries and seek ever harder stuff. You need simple bright lines against dangerous drugs. No marijuana allowed!
Your compromise solution – the heroin-and-Jack Daniels utopia — will still have burdensome rules and be a big, malignant mess. Even if drugs are cheap, addicts will still need living expenses. They will mug people and break into houses to support themselves. Or go onto welfare and get free drugs forever.
Yep — Reefer Madness revealed the truth. It showed the libertarian obsession with getting high on marijuana. Most (juvenile-minded) libertarians care little about “good libertarianism” — rolling back harmful economic laws involving minimum wage, runaway entitlements, insider trading and antitrust etc. What they love most is drugs, sex and rolling back the laws of God.
Of those who have used heroin, 23% have at some time been addicted - for alcohol, the figure is 15%. Addictive drugs, both.
and today’s highly potent marijuana is not only harmful to the body
As are alcohol, tobacco, and bacon double cheeseburgers.
but a gateway drug to cocaine and heroin.
Not significantly more so than alcohol or tobacco.
No matter how many low-level drugs you throw at people, they will push against the boundaries and seek ever harder stuff. You need simple bright lines against dangerous drugs. No marijuana allowed!
Where's the bright line against the deadly addictive mind-altering drug alcohol? Do its users push against the boundaries and seek ever harder stuff?
Your compromise solution – the heroin-and-Jack Daniels utopia —
What's your ideal policy on Jack Daniels?
will still have burdensome rules and be a big, malignant mess.
Legalized alcohol is working much better than the alternative did.
Even if drugs are cheap, addicts will still need living expenses. They will mug people and break into houses to support themselves. Or go onto welfare and get free drugs forever.
But less so than when drugs are expensive. As a conservative, I favor reducing government expenditure and other theft.
Most (juvenile-minded) libertarians care little about “good libertarianism” — rolling back harmful economic laws involving minimum wage, runaway entitlements, insider trading and antitrust etc. What they love most is drugs, sex and rolling back the laws of God.
Then go argue with them.
Marijuana playing larger role in fatal crashes
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/06/09/marijuana-accidents/10219119/
who didn’t see THIS coming? I knew this was coming, and next will be lung cancer linked to pot smoking.
Who among us is asking for prohibition on alcohol and cheeseburgers? That is politically impossible, even if we wanted to do it. But we should keep in place a bright line around marijuana and harder drugs. Alcohol already causes huge problems. So why legalize drugs that are even more addictive?
You favor regulating heroin and crack cocaine like hard liquor — even though that would involve the exact sort of bureaucratic rules and police that libertarians abhor. The stuff would inevitably spread into schools and neighborhoods everywhere, not just the inner city. It would be far cheaper and more abundant than today. Sixteen-year old kids will become hooked for life.
As are alcohol, tobacco, and bacon double cheeseburgers.
Who among us is asking for prohibition on alcohol and cheeseburgers? That is politically impossible, even if we wanted to do it.
The point is that if you're really concerned about "harm to the body" as you claim to be, you should at least want and ask for those bans as well as continuation of the marijuana ban (whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question). If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen.
But we should keep in place a bright line around marijuana and harder drugs. Alcohol already causes huge problems. So why legalize drugs that are even more addictive?
Marijuana is less addictive than alcohol. And by your logic, why not criminalize the drug that is harmful to the body and already causes huge problems: alcohol?
Your compromise solution – the heroin-and-Jack Daniels utopia —
What's your ideal policy on Jack Daniels?
I missed your reply to this question.
will still have burdensome rules and be a big, malignant mess.
Legalized alcohol is working much better than the alternative did.
You favor regulating heroin and crack cocaine like hard liquor — even though that would involve the exact sort of bureaucratic rules and police that libertarians abhor.
Then so much the worse for the libertarians. If one wants to come and argue to me that no drugs, including alcohol, should be regulated, I'll be happy to argue against him.
The stuff would inevitably spread into schools and neighborhoods everywhere, not just the inner city.
It's already in schools and neighborhoods under criminalization - because a black market can't be regulated. Another argument in favor of legalization and regulation.
It would be far cheaper
Thus taking profits away from criminals - and reducing motivation to theft. Another argument in favor of legalization and regulation.
and more abundant than today.
Much more abundant? I see no reason to believe that there are millions of adults who are deterred from hard drug use by its illegality but who would be undeterred by its inherent self-harms.
Sixteen-year old kids will become hooked for life.
As I noted in post #103 (with no response from you on that point) kids report that they can get illegal-for-adults pot more easily than they can get legal-for-adults beer. Another argument in favor of legalization for adults and regulation.
No heroin is NOT at most places — because it is illegal and expensive. If you can’t understand the law of supply and demand, you understand nothing at all. There will certainly be more demand when heroin and crack are everywhere. Frail humans will be less worried about “self-harm” it heroin is as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn. It’s called being placed in a position of temptation. As for banning alcoholic-double cheeseburgers, it is politically impossible. It’s an irrelevant issue. Why even discuss it? It’s much more practical to keep hard drugs illegal.
As are alcohol, tobacco, and bacon double cheeseburgers.
Who among us is asking for prohibition on alcohol and cheeseburgers? That is politically impossible, even if we wanted to do it.
The point is that if you're really concerned about "harm to the body" as you claim to be, you should at least want and ask for those bans as well as continuation of the marijuana ban (whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question). If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen.
As for banning alcoholic-double cheeseburgers, it is politically impossible. It’s an irrelevant issue. Why even discuss it?
Already answered just above: If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen. (Whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question.)
Your compromise solution – the heroin-and-Jack Daniels utopia —
What's your ideal policy on Jack Daniels?
I missed your reply to this question.
I missed your reply to this question.
The stuff would inevitably spread into schools and neighborhoods everywhere, not just the inner city.
It's already in schools and neighborhoods under criminalization - because a black market can't be regulated. Another argument in favor of legalization and regulation.
No heroin is NOT at most places — because it is illegal and expensive.
I never said it was at most places - but it's certainly far from confined to the inner city.
Is hard liquor "at most places"? I know of no evidence that it's sold in my neighborhood.
It would be far cheaper
Thus taking profits away from criminals - and reducing motivation to theft. Another argument in favor of legalization and regulation.
and more abundant than today.
Much more abundant? I see no reason to believe that there are millions of adults who are deterred from hard drug use by its illegality but who would be undeterred by its inherent self-harms.
If you can’t understand the law of supply and demand, you understand nothing at all. There will certainly be more demand when heroin and crack are everywhere.
If you can’t understand elsaticity of demand, you understand nothing at all. Market economics encompasses the possibility that demand for a good rises little or not at all as availability increases or price drops - that is, that demand for the good may be inelastic.
Frail humans will be less worried about “self-harm” it heroin is as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn.
Hard liquor is not as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn - there's no reason to expect legal heroin would be.
It’s called being placed in a position of temptation.
There is no evidence for widespread temptation toward the (in many locations) readily available thrill of "breezing" (http://www.kcchronicle.com/2014/06/18/police-chief-teen-was-breezing-before-he-was-struck-by-a-train/aqpu3pv/).
Do you really think demand for heroin or crack would be inelastic if it is as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn? Cartels and organized crime will surely make heroin available for those who can’t jump through all the hoops at a liquor store.
Plenty of people in a weak, experimental or overly self-confident moment will try something that promises a huge high — if it is put on the table in front of them.
Take heroin once and you could be hooked for life. A 25 percent chance you will. Fortunately, with heroin currently illegal, most of us don’t get that chance.
Once again, why are we talking about national bans on 100-proof cheeseburgers? Why waste energy, in your words, talking about that? It is totally irrelevant what you or I think about such a crazy ban. It is much more realistic to keep existing laws in place and draw a bright clear line against hard drugs.
As are alcohol, tobacco, and bacon double cheeseburgers.
Who among us is asking for prohibition on alcohol and cheeseburgers? That is politically impossible, even if we wanted to do it.
The point is that if you're really concerned about "harm to the body" as you claim to be, you should at least want and ask for those bans as well as continuation of the marijuana ban (whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question). If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen.
As for banning alcoholic-double cheeseburgers, it is politically impossible. It’s an irrelevant issue. Why even discuss it?
Already answered just above: If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen. (Whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question.)
Once again, why are we talking about national bans on 100-proof cheeseburgers? Why waste energy, in your words, talking about that? It is totally irrelevant what you or I think about such a crazy ban.
You keep asking that question even after I've answered it twice. Do you have such a low opinion of your fellow FReepers that you think they won't notice?
The answer, for the THIRD time: If you can't even bring yourself to say, "Yes, I favor bans on all things that are harmful to the body" then your "harmful to the body" argument against marijuana is merely a smokescreen. (Whether you invest energy in those goals is a different question.)
Your compromise solution – the heroin-and-Jack Daniels utopia —
What's your ideal policy on Jack Daniels?
I missed your reply to this question.
I missed your reply to this question.
I missed your reply to this question.
and more abundant than today.
Much more abundant? I see no reason to believe that there are millions of adults who are deterred from hard drug use by its illegality but who would be undeterred by its inherent self-harms.
If you can’t understand the law of supply and demand, you understand nothing at all. There will certainly be more demand when heroin and crack are everywhere.
If you can’t understand elsaticity of demand, you understand nothing at all. Market economics encompasses the possibility that demand for a good rises little or not at all as availability increases or price drops - that is, that demand for the good may be inelastic.
Frail humans will be less worried about “self-harm” it heroin is as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn.
Hard liquor is not as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn - there's no reason to expect legal heroin would be.
Do you really think demand for heroin or crack would be inelastic if it is as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn?
Educate yourself - elasticity is independent of change in price or availability, and if elasticity is low or zero demand will change little or not at all with even a substantial change in price or availability.
And as I said: "Hard liquor is not as cheap and ubiquitous as popcorn - there's no reason to expect legal heroin would be."
Cartels and organized crime will surely make heroin available for those who can’t jump through all the hoops at a liquor store.
What "hoops"? Have you ever been to a liquor store?
It’s called being placed in a position of temptation.
There is no evidence for widespread temptation toward the (in many locations) readily available thrill of "breezing" (http://www.kcchronicle.com/2014/06/18/police-chief-teen-was-breezing-before-he-was-struck-by-a-train/aqpu3pv/).
Plenty of people in a weak, experimental or overly self-confident moment will try something that promises a huge high — if it is put on the table in front of them.
"Put on the table in front of them"?! A second ago it was "jumping through all the hoops"! Try to keep your story straight from one sentence to the next.
So are YOU one of these supposed "weak, experimental or overly self-confident" people? Or are you spouting the usual liberal arrogance about how people aren't fit to decide how to live their lives so you have to decide for them?
Take heroin once and you could be hooked for life. A 25 percent chance you will.
No, a 23% chance you will at some point be dependent - as opposed to 15% for the legal drug alcohol. Dependencies can be successfully held in check by those who want to; there are 12-step programs and treatment centers all across the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.