Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A good election night for marijuana legalization
The Volokh Conspiracy ^ | November 5, 2014 | Ilya Somin

Posted on 11/05/2014 9:11:15 AM PST by right-wing agnostic

The 2014 election was a successful one for marijuana legalization. Referendum initiatives legalizing recreational marijuana passed in Alaska, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. Florida’s legalization amendment (which was limited to medical marijuana) failed, but only because victory required a 60% supermajority (it got just over 57% percent). A medical marijuana initiative did pass in the Pacific island territory of Guam.

Coming on the heels of the legalization of marijuana in Colorado and Washington in 2012, this is a further sign of pro-legalization momentum, and perhaps of dissatisfaction with the War on Drugs more generally – even among some conservatives.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: 2014elections; cannabis; conservingdependency; marijuana; marijuanalegaltion; pot; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-122 next last
To: DiogenesLamp
the philosophical underpinnings of marijuana legalization are open ended.

Some of them are, but here's one that isn't: If substance bans are to be based on the harms of the substances themselves, pot is by almost any measure less harmful than the legal drug alcohol - whose legality hasn't prevented us from thriving (although big government often has).

61 posted on 11/05/2014 12:47:57 PM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
Illegal pot bears no warnings - legal tobacco does.

And tell us how many people legal Tobacco kills because people don't realize how dangerous it is until they are already addicted.


62 posted on 11/05/2014 12:50:03 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Drug Usage in the US is about 2% currently.

First, there are no reliable statistics regarding drug usage in the U.S. because the majority of illegal drug usage is underground.

Second, I don't suppose that figure of 2% deliberately excludes alcohol and prescription drugs? If so, why?

63 posted on 11/05/2014 12:50:53 PM PST by gdani (Ebola has exposed the U.S. as fearful, easy-to-manipulate weaklings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
So marijuana legalization will lead to widespread opium use? Why should we believe that, since that was not the outcome of legalizing the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol?

You are a blatant f***ing liar. Repetitive too. Alcohol has been legal for thousands of years. It is an ingrained part in this culture, and always was. It was a very brief period in history that it was illegal. Yet, here you go again, comparing alcohol and marijuana, as if they were exactly the same thing.

"WAAAAAAAAAH!!!! They get Alcohol! I want my WEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD!!!!!"


64 posted on 11/05/2014 12:52:58 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

So your solution is a totalitarian regime with the power to execute drug dealers?

No, thanks. I would rather live next door to a dope smoker than a authoritarian who would use the boot heel of government to crush the life out of people in order to “save society”.


65 posted on 11/05/2014 12:56:10 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (The cure has become worse than the disease. Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“There is nothing conservative about introducing a poison into society.”

The poison’s already here, it’s always been here, and it can’t be eradicated, so nobody is really introducing anything. The utopian, progressive position is that you can wish the poison away by making a law against it. The pragmatic, conservative position is that we are stuck with the poison, so we might as well make sure our laws minimize the damage rather than exacerbate it.


66 posted on 11/05/2014 12:56:29 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I insist on treating my fellow citizens like adults; it is people like you who are seriously wrecking people's lives because you insist on enriching criminals and removing marijuana from effective regulation (such as age limits).

Drug Usage in the US is about 2% currently.

Wrong - past-month use of any illicit drug was 9.2% in 2012. Now if we subtract pot we arrive at 1.9% ... but pot is exactly the subject of this thread.

By 1900 in China, in the province of Manchuria, it was about 50% of the population.

Of the much more addictive opium.

Even accepting your seriously deluded argument as fact,

I note you offer no argument for this alleged serious delusion.

you are bitching about ruining the lives of 2% of the population

Enriching criminals hurts more than just their customers. And criminalizing pot for adults not only makes it easier for kids to get than cigarettes or beer, but it leaves it subject to tainting.

in favor of a policy which will ruin the lives of 50% of the population.

Legalizing marijuana won't do that - it's not opium.

67 posted on 11/05/2014 1:03:20 PM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
If you're saying warnings are irrelevant, I wonder why you brought them up in the first place.
68 posted on 11/05/2014 1:04:45 PM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
So marijuana legalization will lead to widespread opium use? Why should we believe that, since that was not the outcome of legalizing the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol?

Alcohol has been legal for thousands of years. It is an ingrained part in this culture, and always was. It was a very brief period in history that it was illegal.

None of which explains why it didn't lead to widespread opium use although marijuana legalization supposedly will. You might as well have added that alcohol is a liquid, for all the relevance it has to that question.

69 posted on 11/05/2014 1:06:47 PM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: gdani
With regard to the War on Drugs, your "specific quantity of government" has resulted in:

* Asset forfeiture with no finding of guilt

Yes, and that is wrong and needs to be repealed.

* The PATRIOT ACT being used far more for drugs than anything terrorism-related

That was not enacted as having anything to do with the "war on drugs." That act has it's own inherent flaws that have nothing at all to do with fighting drugs, but as with the RICO statutes and other governmental laws, it has been perverted into something it was never intended to be.

* A prison system that incarcerates more people per capita than any other country on the planet

And needs to. That isn't even being reasonable to blame incarcerations on drugs. We have more murderers, rapists, robbers and thieves than do the other nations. Many of the "drug" incarcerations are plea deals to get them out of more serious crimes.

* Drug/narcotics checkpoints

Never ran across one of those. Seen traffic stop checkpoints, but I don't even know how you could create a "narcotic" check point. You have to have probable cause to search.

And, of course, no knock raids, police corruption, increased organized crime and a whole host of other things courtesy of a "specific quantity of government".

And you think none of this would have happened without a war on drugs? I think that is a naive understanding of what is going on in the world. Government is increasingly seizing ever more power using any and all pretexts for doing so.

Meanwhile, illegal drugs are every bit as available and cheap as they have always been since the farcical War On Drugs was announced.

Meanwhile Murders, rapes, and robberies are still every bit as available and cheap as they have always been since the farcical war on crime was announced.

By your logic (that unless something is absolutely eradicated) efforts to control it must be a failure, then laws to prevent murders, rapes and robberies are also failures, and so should be done away with.

Do you know how ridiculous it is to suggest that because we have a 2% usage in this nation the whole effort is a failure?

This idea demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the nature of law. Given the constraints put on the war on drugs (not actually killing and destroying foreign suppliers) then I would say holding it down to 2% of the population makes it a pretty d@mn successful program.

You just aren't grasping what success is supposed to look like.

70 posted on 11/05/2014 1:07:19 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

Sure they did. You’ve seen examples of it already. They have been posted to you before. I’m not going to bother posting them again, because I am once again fed up with dealing with your dishonest behavior.


71 posted on 11/05/2014 1:15:30 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp; gdani
Meanwhile Murders, rapes, and robberies are still every bit as available and cheap as they have always been since the farcical war on crime was announced.

According to the FBI, two-thirds of murders are solved - whereas the fraction of drug 'crimes' that are even detected is assuredly orders of magnitude smaller.

72 posted on 11/05/2014 1:17:07 PM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
I point out to you how this same idea is working in New York as regarding their cigarette taxes.

And I point you to Article V of the US Constitution, which specifies the process of amendment. This is the means by which the States modify the enumerated powers transferred to the national government.

73 posted on 11/05/2014 1:18:03 PM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Nobody ever died from the proximate cause of smoking too much pot (unlike the toxic legal drug alcohol).

Sure they did. You’ve seen examples of it already. They have been posted to you before.

I recall no such examples - perhaps you're thinking of someone else. And since the lethal dose for THC is about 240 joints' worth, I doubt such examples are genuine.

You do know what "proximate" means, I hope?

74 posted on 11/05/2014 1:19:53 PM PST by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“The bulk of it certainly is, else you wouldn’t need Mexican drug gangs sneaking it over the border for you.”

Aren’t those gangs only sneaking it over because it’s illegal to cultivate it here? Seems like a bit of circular reasoning on your part.


75 posted on 11/05/2014 1:23:13 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
>>> * The PATRIOT ACT being used far more for drugs than anything terrorism-related

That was not enacted as having anything to do with the "war on drugs." That act has it's own inherent flaws that have nothing at all to do with fighting drugs, but as with the RICO statutes and other governmental laws, it has been perverted into something it was never intended to be.

Wrong again. There is nothing in the USA PATRIOT Act that limits its powers to anti-terrorism. The language of the statute itself explicitly allows for criminal investigations.

We tried to warn you Big Govt folks.

>>>* A prison system that incarcerates more people per capita than any other country on the planet

And needs to. That isn't even being reasonable to blame incarcerations on drugs. We have more murderers, rapists, robbers and thieves than do the other nations.

That's odd. In my state, at least half the people in our prisons are there for non-violent crimes, including drug crimes.

Many of the "drug" incarcerations are plea deals to get them out of more serious crimes.

Citation?

>>>* Drug/narcotics checkpoints

Never ran across one of those. Seen traffic stop checkpoints, but I don't even know how you could create a "narcotic" check point. You have to have probable cause to search.

Oh, they exist. Courtesy of nanny staters. Try Google.

>>>Meanwhile, illegal drugs are every bit as available and cheap as they have always been since the farcical War On Drugs was announced.

Meanwhile Murders, rapes, and robberies are still every bit as available and cheap as they have always been since the farcical war on crime was announced.

You do realize crime - including violent crime - has been going down in the U.S. for decades, right?

Do you know how ridiculous it is to suggest that because we have a 2% usage in this nation the whole effort is a failure?

Your 2% figure is BS, as I said previously. Heck, it doesn't even resemble government figures for just illegal drugs.

Pray tell, where exactly did you get your 2% figure?

...then I would say holding it down to 2% of the population makes it a pretty d@mn successful program.

Again with the 2%....

You just aren't grasping what success is supposed to look like.

Drugs just as cheap & plentiful as they have been since the WOD was declared is not in any way, shape or form a "success".

76 posted on 11/05/2014 1:23:50 PM PST by gdani (Ebola has exposed the U.S. as fearful, easy-to-manipulate weaklings)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: gdani
There's a legitimate debate to be had. But not when one side breathlessly exclaims that marijuana kills people.

No one said this. You just aren't keeping up with the debate. I never argued that marijuana was killing (through overdose, that is) "people", my argument has been consistently that it will kill societies, albeit slower than a stronger poison would. Did you miss all my references to China? China is not a person, it is a society. Drugs killed China.

Once again, let me correct your failure to understand or grasp the simple argument I am making. Legalized drugs will kill a society. More dangerous drugs will simply do it faster.

77 posted on 11/05/2014 1:26:28 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

“It’s the difference between strychnine and arsenic. One just kills you more slowly is all. “

Nonsense. Marijuana is not toxic to humans in any quantity, unless someone is allergic to it.


78 posted on 11/05/2014 1:28:43 PM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
Some of them are, but here's one that isn't: If substance bans are to be based on the harms of the substances themselves, pot is by almost any measure less harmful than the legal drug alcohol - whose legality hasn't prevented us from thriving (although big government often has).

Legal Alcohol kills 85,000 people per year. Again, it's been accepted for several thousand years despite the misery and deaths it causes. We don't need another drug like alcohol.

And of course, every time you try to use alcohol to justify pot, i'm going to point out that your argument devolves to this.

"WAAAAAAAAAH!!!! They get Alcohol! I want my WEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD!!!!!"


79 posted on 11/05/2014 1:29:50 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: gdani
First, there are no reliable statistics regarding drug usage in the U.S. because the majority of illegal drug usage is underground.

Reliable or not, those are the figures being put out by the people who make it their job to come up with such figures. No doubt they are a statistical extrapolation. Till someone presents an argument that there are better figures, I will have no choice but to use what is available.

Second, I don't suppose that figure of 2% deliberately excludes alcohol and prescription drugs? If so, why?

I would assume it does, and because those are legal.

80 posted on 11/05/2014 1:34:05 PM PST by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-122 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson