Marijuana Use Has Increased in Colorado: Study

NBC Snooze ^ | DEC. 27, 2014

[truth_seeker]

You should probably take a look at “The War on Drugs” and the results from it.

It qualifies for the definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.”

America will be better off with marijuana decriminalized/legalized, and other very dangerous substances kept illegal (meth, heroin).

And “lack of capacity due to intoxication” should not be a defense or mitigating factor in criminal/civil cases for alcohol or drugs.

In California they are charging 2nd degree murder for deaths due to drivers’ intoxication.

[DiogenesLamp]

You should probably take a look at “The War on Drugs” and the results from it.

I am well aware of the bad consequences we have gotten from the "War on drugs." I am aware of the overreach and abuse. I am aware of the asset forfeiture laws, and various other anti-constitution anti-freedom aspects of it.

I think they have gone too far, and they need to cease doing many things that they have been doing in the last couple of decades.

But now I have to ask you, are you aware of the consequences of *NOT* fighting the "war on drugs"? Let us set aside the case of Marijuana for a moment and consider the case of Cocaine. Or Opium. Or Meth. Are you aware that there exists an example in history of a nation that legalized drugs? Do you know what the result was? It was an unmitigated disaster. It caused so much social and economic destruction that the form of government which this nation had possessed for several thousand years collapsed.

From what I can see of history, *NOT* having a war on drugs produces *FAR WORSE* consequences than having a war on drugs. Shouldn't we prefer the path of less human destruction?

America will be better off with marijuana decriminalized/legalized, and other very dangerous substances kept illegal (meth, heroin).

Perhaps this is true, but I am doubtful. I expect several things to happen if marijuana is decriminalized/legalized. I expect "the gateway effect" to increase usage of worse drugs. I expect the legal arguments used to justify Marijuana legalization will not be able to deny entry to drugs like crack, meth, opium, cocaine, heroine, etc. I expect Marijuana usage to increase and capture more and more of the population which doesn't currently use it (in the manner of a logistic growth curve) and I expect it will result in an increased dependency on government by a large segment of the toking class.

I expect it to initiate a further downward social and economic spiral and one from which it may be impossible to recover.

I think Marijuana is just the match which will eventually burn down the forest.

But I could be wrong. That's just what I see.

[truth_seeker]

So are you saying America should have a War on Marijuana, because China should really have had a War on Opium over 200 years ago?

I’ll be 67 soon. I’ve seen marijuana in the culture for over 50 years. Mostly used by teens and young adults, until they tire of it.

Meanwhile alcohol kills and ruins lives. Comparing the two, there is no comparison.

Want to expend police resources? Stamp out meth. It does in months what alcohols takes years to do.

[Ken H]

Constitutional Authorization for Drug interdiction derives from the Mandate to defend the nation and not "Wickard". That Liberal judges say otherwise, and that it has become the goto precedent, is immaterial to me.

This gross violation of the Constitution was written, enacted and judicially confirmed as a regulation of interstate commerce. Even Scalia said so in Raich =>

Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

So why did Scalia strengthen Wickard, rather than calling it a defense issue? You ccertainly can't call him a liberal. You, like Scalia, are endorsing Wickard and trashing the Tenth by supporting fedgov meddling in intrastate marijuana commerce. Your denials notwithstanding.

[ozzymandus]

Duh-ers go first.

[DiogenesLamp]

So are you saying America should have a War on Marijuana, because China should really have had a War on Opium over 200 years ago?

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying we should learn the lessons that China learned without having to go through their misery and that we should understand the nature of creeping addiction which often starts out small.

It is my opinion that marijuana will "normalize" drug usage in the manner that homosexuality has been creeping into the national culture. Slowly, and incrementally.

It is my opinion that marijuana will "normalize" drug usage in the manner that Hitler began his conquest of Europe. Slowly and incrementally.

It is my opinion that marijuana will "normalize" drug usage in the manner that Liberals have overtaken the schools and universities and then the common culture. Slowly and incrementally.

If we don't stop drugs at the Sudetenland, we will end up having to fight them at the Bulge.

[DiogenesLamp]

This gross violation of the Constitution was written, enacted and judicially confirmed as a regulation of interstate commerce. Even Scalia said so in Raich =>

Yes it *IS* a gross violation of the Constitution, but that does not prove the "war on drugs" to be illegitimate, it just proves that the current lawyer talking points which they claim justifies it is wrong. Again, authority for the drug war is perfectly reasonable under the defense clause. They just don't bother to assert this argument because "Wickard" makes it unnecessary for them to do so.

I will also point out that the "war on drugs" began with the "Pure food and drug act" of 1906, long before Wickard was ever contemplated.

[truth_seeker]

A government big enough to identify and place in prison, each and every user of marijuana is too big for me.

You are delusional if you think your fellow voters want that, either. Your arguments (homosexuality, Hitler, etc) won’t change their minds, either.

With 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year, marijuana pales as a national threat.

Your lack of perspective or intellectual consistency is apparent.

[DiogenesLamp]

A government big enough to identify and place in prison, each and every user of marijuana is too big for me.

Why do you insist on projecting false assumptions on me? There is no need to put every smoker in prison if you put every supplier in prison. Sure, the way *you* tell it, my ideas look insane and ridiculous, but here's the thing. You aren't accurately presenting my ideas.

You are delusional if you think your fellow voters want that, either.

If my fellow voters thought that gun control would be a good idea they would still be wrong. I do not measure the rightness or wrongness of an idea based on what my "fellow voters" think. The best argument to demonstrate the foolishness of this is to point to the fact that they elected this current idiot twice.

I will say right now, I don't believe in Democracy. Neither did the founders. They felt that the average man was little more than a fool and would enact policies and ideas that would bring us all to ruin. (as we have seen come to pass)

The founders were dead set against democracy which they regarded as "mob rule". They set requirements for the voting franchise which generally required the ownership of land and the payment of taxes.

I can assure you that all of the pot smokers I know aren't paying any taxes, they are sucking on the tax payers right now.

I don't care what the non taxpayers want. They ought not to even be allowed to have a vote and it is in a large part to the fact we let worthless parasites vote that the Democrat party has maintained it's grip on power this last half century.

With 88,000 alcohol related deaths per year, marijuana pales as a national threat.

Do you know what is a "tu quque fallacy"? The fact that alcohol causes thousands of death and much misery ever year does not justify allowing Marijuana to do the same.

Your lack of perspective or intellectual consistency is apparent.

Unless you are willing to present better arguments in support of your position ( I am beginning to doubt you can even understand mine) then it would appear the lack of perspective and intellectual consistency lies with you.

You genuinely do not seem to have contemplated this issue to the extent that is necessary to have a good grasp of the long term and likely consequences of the policies you are advocating.

[truth_seeker]

I’m finished with you. I have to go earn some money to pay taxes on.

And when I get the money, I don’t want to waste it chasing pot smokers.

Don’t you have to work?

[DiogenesLamp]

Don’t you have to work?

No. I've made a big enough pile so that I don't have to work anymore. I can sit around arguing with people on the internet if I'm of a mind to do so, which more and more often I am not. It is becoming an increasingly futile past time attempting to argue with people who have irrational beliefs and irrational reasoning methods.

[ConservingFreedom]

It is my opinion that marijuana will "normalize" drug usage

Nah, widespread use of the drug alcohol has already done all the normalizing we can expect. And note that 44% of Americans have used marijuana despite its illegality - and yet use of other drugs remains much lower.