And tell us how many people legal Tobacco kills because people don't realize how dangerous it is until they are already addicted.
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 ...
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).
And tell us how many people legal Tobacco kills because people don't realize how dangerous it is until they are already addicted.
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?
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!!!!!"
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”.
“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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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".
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.
“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.
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!!!!!"
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.
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.