Posted on 02/09/2021 7:38:56 AM PST by RandFan
The taxman can't get his taste on that grow. New Jersey has made it illegal to grow your own, even for medical use. They want their taste.
Handcuff people in public? Throw them in filthy jails for pot? They use to do this all the time and I would guess in some venues they still do. Big dollar$$ involved in fining and incarcerating people. Last time I was in a court as a witness, I noted they had more cash registers than a Super Walmart. Amazing.
And don't give me that, "It doesn't affect people at all" bit, because it affects them immensely. Ever see government employment applications? And many other positions ask these poor slobs if they've ever been arrested for anything whether convicted or not. With some legalese saying you will be eliminated for not telling the truth and in some case under penalty of perjury. ☺ lol....
I agree with your implication that it is somewhat arbitrary. Like adulthood. There is a difference between and adult and a child but it’s a bit gray and we have largely settled on 18. There would have to be a decisive made as there has largely been with alcohol. I am ok with .06 BAC
If someone just has a puff or two with dinner and doesn’t get high, yeah right, no one uses pot that way.
Conservative, not libertarian. You don’t have the right to make yourself crazy.
So what level of alcohol use makes one crazy, and how do we effectively ban that while keeping alcohol legal?
There would have to be a decisive made as there has largely been with alcohol. I am ok with .06 BAC
Do you agree that with marijuana as with alcohol, it is possible to be more than stone-cold sober yet less than "crazy"? And that since this is possible with marijuana as with alcohol, both should be legal (while regulated)?
“...but blanket bans are a proven failure...”
And that’s what is causing the question to be surfaced, that they had all these arrests. If they had stayed within the law, they wouldn’t have been arrested. So the problem is not that they are being blanketed, they are individually being arrested for choosing to break the law based upon their personal choice. And if the laws are wrong, then get them changed. But while they are in effect and are there to protect people from a personal choice for recreation, then they should be arrested.
And these people won’t stop there. Look at Oregon which which legalized marijuana for recreational use in 2014, and now went a step further and voted to decriminalize illicit drugs. Measure 110 makes the possession of small quantities of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and other drugs a civil violation subject to a $100 fine, but no jail time.
Want that on the street? It’s an open invitation to solicit kids. And the line between the pusher and the user who sells some at a higher price and/or cuts it to afford more for themselves disappears. Where does it stop if no one is stopping it but adding to it? Like I said, stupid people just ignoring the problem. And now it is legally being expanded.
The punishment needs to be harsher and more of it. But there are too many people out there that consider arresting these people for violating the law that it is an issue. And too many try to use the old alcohol comparison to weed when both accomplish the same thing. Well, they got weed. Now in Oregon they got heroin, cocaine and LSD. This thinking is getting to be a write off substituting for intelligence.
wy69
So the problem is not that they are being blanketed, they are individually being arrested
"Blanket ban" refers to the law not the enforcement: completely banning rather than restricting or regulating the substance in question.
And if the laws are wrong, then get them changed.
It is wrong and it should change.
And these people won’t stop there. Look at Oregon which which legalized marijuana for recreational use in 2014, and now went a step further and voted to decriminalize illicit drugs. Measure 110 makes the possession of small quantities of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamines and other drugs a civil violation subject to a $100 fine, but no jail time.
"These people" are the voters or their elected representatives; drug law reform will stop wherever the voters decide.
And too many try to use the old alcohol comparison to weed when both accomplish the same thing.
Since both accomplish the same thing, shouldn't both have the same legal status - both legal or both illegal?
Presumably one can take a hit or two of marijuana without getting “high.” Suppose it varies with tolerance, intensity, method, potency of the dope.
And I know that no one smokes pot except to get high. I have never witnessed people taking just one or two bong hits. That’s not the usual way of things.
All that said we could have objective analysis as to when a person gets stoned to where they are likely damaging their brain or are impaired. And we could determine a thc level or whatever and say ok below that.
Don’t care for a kid while over it. Don’t drive or basically work. No elder care for dependents while stoned. Not ok if pregnant. Etc.
But potheads and I’ve known many would virtually always be over that limit.
we could have objective analysis as to when a person gets stoned to where they are likely damaging their brain or are impaired. And we could determine a thc level or whatever and say ok below that.
That answers the first of my two questions ...
“Since both accomplish the same thing,”
And that’s my point. Putting more impaired drivers on the road doesn’t make it safer or kill less people. If you can come up with a way to stop the blood I will back you 104%. But I need to hear it and someone has got to sell it to a group of morons that are already knowingly causing the death of people for their recreation.
And I guess you didn’t read about Oregon. And these fools in other states will see this and they will stretch it just as they did with the legalization in Oregon. And thanks to these recreation people, we now have hard drugs on the streets, legal. And it will not stop the sales coming from the cartels as they will be losing their gold mine and they will fight back. Dominos.
More of it is coming. Kevin Sabet, the founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana and a three-time White House Office of National Drug Control Policy adviser said, “The threat of criminal prosecution can be a powerful incentive for people to seek treatment, he said. Likewise, legalization can empower people to abuse drugs without fearing legal jeopardy.
“The threat of criminal prosecution can be a powerful incentive for people to seek treatment, he said. Likewise, legalization can empower people to abuse drugs without fearing legal jeopardy.”
“For a lot of people, they stop drinking once they got a DUI, and they realized what they were doing was wrong,” Sabet said. “I think a lot of people have gotten help through drug courts. For a lot of people, consequences are important. And I think we can find a way to marry the criminal justice and public health systems.”
And I hope when that happens a lot of people won’t be dead.....for someone’s choice of a recreation.
wy69
“”Since both accomplish the same thing, shouldn’t both have the same legal status - both legal or both illegal?””
“Putting more impaired drivers on the road doesn’t make it safer or kill less people.”
Which brings us back to the question you omitted from your reply: Should alcohol likewise be banned since its legality puts impaired drivers on the road?
“And I guess you didn’t read about Oregon.”
I did - I guess you didn’t read my reply.
“Kevin Sabet, the founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana”
Using tobacco Nazis as an authority now, I see.
“legalization can empower people to abuse drugs without fearing legal jeopardy.”
Why should they fear legal jeopardy? Should chronic unhealthy eaters fear legal jeopardy?
In 2019 1,024,508 drivers were arrested for driving while drunk.
Time for a re-think?
Sorry but the language here is deceptive. A marijuana-related violations, can be beating the heck out of someone because they smoked all your weed.
One of the marijuana-related violation they used to use to tug at your heart strings were a mother and son who decided to do a violent home invasion of a local weed dealer. My heart remained untouched.
“Since both accomplish the same thing, shouldn’t both have the same legal status - both legal or both illegal?
That question has already been answered. Both historically and currently. What I wish to happen as one voter and living in my area with the outlook of people that want a free for all recreational experience without being concerned about their family or their neighbors means nothing. All I can do is protect myself and mine.
I don’t go into certain areas that are filled with drug problems. Like some of the downtown areas of Seattle. I stay home on new year’s eve and let the other people play destruction derby. In other words, I am limited in my freedoms because some moron, or morons as it never seems to be a solo sport, wants to get stupid. And anyone who gets high and crawls into a vehicle is just, plain, stupid. And because so many people thought they were cute in the 1920’s, and pushed the issue, they invited the weak politicians to back off.
Now if everyone was responsible, and didn’t do things to hurt others, it would be a different story. But the use of drugs for recreation has turned too often into trying to one up everyone. And that’s when it hurts others.
So since the politicians decided they couldn’t stop it, they left the choice of who gets hurt up to the abuser. And now Oregon, which will set the standard, has used both alcohol and weed to introduce far worse into the mix. Does that sound responsible? If it does, you and I have no further discussion.
wy69
And your solution is to limit the freedoms of non-harming users of alcohol and marijuana. See a problem there?
And because so many people thought they were cute in the 1920’s, and pushed the issue, they invited the weak politicians to back off.
It wasn't the politicians - Prohibition was ended by an amendment passed by three-quarters of the states through ratifying conventions of citizen delegates.
So since the politicians decided they couldn’t stop it, they left the choice of who gets hurt up to the abuser.
You assume that DUI is lessened by banning the substance - but during Prohibition the opposite was the case:
"The Volstead Act, passed to enforce the Eighteenth Amendment, had an immediate impact on crime. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. The study revealed that during that period more money was spent on police (11.4+ percent) and more people were arrested for violating Prohibition laws (102+ percent). But increased law enforcement efforts did not appear to reduce drinking: arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrests of drunken drivers increased 81 percent. Among crimes with victims, thefts and burglaries increased 9 percent, while homicides and incidents of assault and battery increased 13 percent. More crimes were committed because prohibition destroys legal jobs, creates black-market violence, diverts resources from enforcement of other laws, and greatly increases the prices people have to pay for the prohibited goods." - https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa157.pdf
You post fallacy as “fact”.
I’ve been using cannabis daily for medicinal reasons since 2015 with great results.
I was unemployable due to mental illnesses for over 15 years. I started using cannabis because unlike the psych meds I took as prescribed, the cannabis actually treated my symptoms successfully.
I went from being unable to work to happily working 2 jobs today & thriving in every aspect of my life while still using cannabis every single day.
So the government, after jailing millions, fining them, forcing them into government probation programs, creating mountains of paperwork, files, hiring tens of thousands of people to administrate all this insanity, jamming the courts etc, they simply dismiss OVER 90 percent of them after charging the tax payers hundreds of billions for this colossal war on drugs disaster?
“It wasn’t the politicians - Prohibition was ended by an amendment passed by three-quarters of the states through ratifying conventions of citizen delegates.”
The temperance movement was a strong force in U.S. politics in the early 20th century, enabling it to win passage of the Eighteenth Amendment. Its influence began to wane, however, in the wake of lax enforcement of prohibition and the emerging illegal economies that quenched the thirst of many American adults. On Feb. 20, 1933, Congress proposed the Twenty-first Amendment, aimed at rescinding prohibition, and in April Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Cullen-Harrison Act, which amended the prohibition-based Volstead Act to permit the consumption of low-alcohol beer and wines. Ratification of the amendment was completed on Dec. 5, 1933.
But it might interest you to know that it was never illegal to drink during Prohibition. The 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, the legal measure that included the instructions for enforcing prohibition, never barred the consumption of alcohol—just making it, selling it, and shipping it for mass production and consumption. You could do a small home brew.
“And your solution is to limit the freedoms of non-harming users of alcohol and marijuana.”
You got a better solution that keeps drunks, pushers, those harming users, and the destruction of business when they take over an area, off the street and hard drugs away from my kids? They at that point have encroached upon my freedoms for theirs. And they don’t have the right. I said I’d back you. I’m waiting for a solution. But remember, this solution has to satisfy and protect everyone’s rights and person. My solution is if you consume, and consider the safety for yourself and others, and you are not breaking the law, have fun. But if you break the law, you should be prosecuted because you chose to, nobody twisted your arm. And there are legal ways to do it to consume. That’s what we have right now. And that’s the only consistent and safe way to handle it. You break the law, go to jail. It is your choice.
You know any good citizens that use drugs like weed. I do. And they do not ever use it when they have to drive or are responsible to someone for property or family. And they’ve never been arrested because they’ve never broken the law. Read the thread. Limiting people whose freedoms are intruding other people freedoms, is what laws are made for. And those bring arrested violated them and threatened someone’s safety of property. The non-harming users are not in that category. And the harming users are also encroaching on the non-harming users. If hey weren’t on the street to do this choice thing, it couldn’t happen.
Wy69
Not so - they've broken the law against marijuana possession. Do you support ending that law? I do.
If your point is that laws against commercial sale protect you and your kids - they don't. As I pointed out in my previous post, DUI went UP when Prohibition was enacted. And kids have been reporting since well before any state legalized marijuana sales that they could get it almost as easily as beer or cigarettes, despite the latter two drugs being much more widespread among adults. This indicates that legalizing licensed selling to adults works better than criminalization at keeping drugs away from kids - which makes sense, because only under licensed legalization do those who sell to adults have an incentive to not also sell to kids (namely, the risk of losing their legal adult sales).
Prohibitions don't protect you and your kids - and they do enrich violent criminals, with all the ills that entails.
On Feb. 20, 1933, Congress proposed the Twenty-first Amendment, aimed at rescinding prohibition [...] Ratification of the amendment was completed on Dec. 5, 1933.
Yes, ratification by the citizens of three-quarters of the states - so the end of Prohibition can't be pinned on "weak politicians."
“... they’ve broken the law against marijuana possession.”
Only the federal law and only in some states.
Currently, both medical and recreational marijuana is legal in Washington. As the second state to legalize recreational marijuana, Washington is a hot-spot for cannabis tourism. Anyone over the age of 21 with a valid ID from any US State (or international passport) can legally purchase marijuana in Washington State, although some local jurisdictions have banned dispensaries within their city limits.
Purchases include both cannabis and cannabis-infused products along with paraphernalia such as pipes, lighters and papers, making most recreational marijuana dispensaries a one-stop smoke shop. When it is time to light up, however, make sure you’re not anywhere near a school, park or public transportation, otherwise you could be subject to a fine.
And it is highly taxed by the local government. I’ve got two stores within mile of my home. Both are busy. And as long as they follow the law, they won’t harm anyone and they will not be arrested. It’s very simple. But seems to be very difficult for people to do or understand.
A good article on this in this state is:
https://potguide.com/washington/marijuana-laws/
Different states handle it different ways.
wy69
“It wasn’t the politicians - Prohibition was ended by an amendment passed by three-quarters of the states through ratifying conventions of citizen delegates.”
Don’t read into the article I gave you from Britannica. The amendment we are discussing was created by Congress and was ratified by the states with Utah giving the final vote. But then it went back to congress and was finalized and sent to Roosevelt. Congress could have pulled the plug any time they wanted. But they had committed to the dry states and pussed out by letting the states vote on it. They had a lot of money into the enforcement folks at the Treasury Department.
There have been a number of Amendments going through the states, the last one in 1992. But the process of wording the amendment is within congressional responsibility. Congress words it. And either the states like it or they don’t. And then they dicker. Sometimes that dickering can stop it in going forward and many times does.
The process:
The following steps must be completed for an amendment proposed by Congress to be added to the United States Constitution.
Step 1. Passage by Congress. Proposed amendment language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
Step 2. Notification of the states. The national archivist sends notification and materials to the governor of each state.
Step 3. Ratification by three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. A governor’s signature on the ratification bill or resolution is not necessary.
Step 4. Tracking state actions. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect. Congress may set a time limit for state action. The official count is kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. Legislatures must return specific materials to show proof of ratification.
Step 5. Announcement. When the requisite number of states ratify a proposed amendment, the archivist of the United States proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United States Statutes-at-Large. So if you want to say the states ratified it. Go ahead. But they didn’t write it and they can’t change it. So, who’s bill is it? And if they don’t like it the bartering process can go on for many years. The 27th Amendment, which prevents members of Congress from granting themselves pay raises during a current session, was ratified in 1992....202 years after it was first submitted to the states. So they don’t always jibe.
States have rights. And you’ll notice it is still not legal to possess, grow, or distribute weed within federal laws. The house voted to do so on Dec 4, 2020, but it never got out of the senate. I think it will this year with a liberal senate. And they will have to determine the laws pertinent to its entry into society for the feds...and the penalties for the failure to follow them.
wy69
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.