Dude. Where do you get the idea that anyone that "smokes pot" is a Libertarian or a "hippy"? Is it your contention that smoking "pot" should be illegal?
I guess you're right. We can't have competition, can we?
Why can't we all just get along?
Posted on 02/28/2009 8:55:36 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
It's not necessarily being "liberal on social issues," but rather trying to avoid the concentration and centralization of power. In order to fight a "war on drugs," you must design and implement Government machinery that can be turned against you at a later date.
Otherwise, ping to some resident FR Libertarians.
Apparently, folks on the ground believe otherwise:
FR: "Holland scrapping liberal policies on drugs and brothels to clean up image"
I saw nothing about usage rates in the linked articles. Do you have a source which says that the Dutch use more marijuana than the US?
The articles you linked also said nothing about a general prohibition returning. Wishful thinking by some, IMO.
Amsterdam had a murder rate of about 3.6/100,000 in 2007.¹ San Jose, one of the safest cities in the US with a population over 500,000, had a murder rate of 3.5 in 2007². Overall, the murder rate in the US is nearly 4X the Dutch rate.³
¹http://www.expatica.com/nl/articles/news/Record-low-murder-rate-once-again.html
²http://city-data.com
³http:/nationmaster.com
Of course not. There can be no reasonable rates of US pot usage~ any such statistics would be nothing more than a guess anyway, as the lion's share of pot users are underground, and have never been busted.
Amsterdam had a murder rate of about 3.6/100,000 in 2007.¹ San Jose, one of the safest cities in the US with a population over 500,000, had a murder rate of 3.5 in 2007². Overall, the murder rate in the US is nearly 4X the Dutch rate.³
So what? Is it your position that legalized pot and magic mushrooms would suddenly cause the drug trafficking gangbangers and crack driven criminals (the large portion of those US murders, I would bet) to quit their territories and find Jesus? Is it your assertion that there is some link between murder and illegal marijuana?
"Legalizing drugs is playing right into the hands of drug cartels."
legalizing drugs or not has NOTHING to do with national defense.
Yes, in precisely the same way that alcohol was introduced into the public schools following the repeal of Prohibition.
Agreed, and that strengthens my argument. Given that limitation on counting US users, they still found enough to conclude that Dutch policies do not increase usage rates.
Dutch users are not hampered by that limitation, so the number of US users is probably under counted compared to the Dutch.
So what? Is it your position that legalized pot and magic mushrooms would suddenly cause the drug trafficking gangbangers and crack driven criminals (the large portion of those US murders, I would bet) to quit their territories and find Jesus?
No.
Is it your assertion that there is some link between murder and illegal marijuana?
Yes.
Drug dealers kill each other over the lucrative, untaxed proceeds, just as they did over alcohol during Prohibition. The Mexican cartel wars killed about 6,000 last year. They are primarily fighting over marijuana profits:
John P. Walters, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said marijuana, not heroin or cocaine, is the "bread and butter," "the center of gravity" for Mexican drug cartels that every year smuggle tons of it through the porous U.S.-Mexico border. Of the $13.8 billion that Americans contributed to Mexican drug traffickers in 2004-05, about 62 percent, or $8.6 billion, comes from marijuana consumption.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/022208dnintdrugs.3a98bb0.html
I will accept this assertion for the sake of the argument, though I find it extremely unlikely that marijuana is the primary "center of gravity" for major drug cartels anymore.
Even if that is the case, It does not sway my position one bit- Legalizing and taxing vice is a morally despicable position. I disagree with it profoundly on both counts, even as I disagreed with legalized gambling (and the income to the state it provides), which is now so much a part of the furniture here in MT.
It does strengthen my argument too, by the way, that the feds, (and primarily the Republicans) have done little in the way of real enforcement, and thereby the odious federal laws caused by the "war on drugs" must have a different motive. ANY effective means of curtailing drug availability begins with shutting off our southern border, like so many of our other problems these days.
You say "legalize because it is unstoppable anyway." I say "They have never really meant to stop it or they would have shut the border down, first thing."
I am *for* real enforcement solutions. The first, and primary one, is border enforcement.
I provided numbers directly from the ONDCP, you gave an opinion. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which is more believable.
Even if that is the case, It does not sway my position one bit- Legalizing and taxing vice is a morally despicable position. I disagree with it profoundly on both counts, even as I disagreed with legalized gambling (and the income to the state it provides), which is now so much a part of the furniture here in MT.
The people of MT must not share your opinion as to legalizing and taxing vice, and CA may be looking to get its hands on some of the marijuana commerce. The trend does not look to be going in favor of marijuana prohibitionists.
Let me ask this, under the Constitution, do you think the decision to legalize marijuana within a state should be up to fedgov or to the individual state?
It does strengthen my argument too, by the way, that the feds, (and primarily the Republicans) have done little in the way of real enforcement, and thereby the odious federal laws caused by the "war on drugs" must have a different motive. ANY effective means of curtailing drug availability begins with shutting off our southern border, like so many of our other problems these days.
You say "legalize because it is unstoppable anyway." I say "They have never really meant to stop it or they would have shut the border down, first thing."
Singapore is an island nation with draconian drug laws, yet their rate of heroin addiction was worse than the Netherlands in 1996 (latest comparison year I could find). Iran was reported by the BBC in 2004 to have the highest rate of heroin addiction in the world. That means drugs are getting in. This links to a post with the sources.
I am *for* real enforcement solutions. The first, and primary one, is border enforcement.
I agree with border enforcement, but you're chasing rainbows if you think we're going to fight a "real" WOD. The War on Marijuana is collapsing.
*shrugs* My opinion is probably as informed as theirs... We have already determined that "they" really have no idea as to consumption, and I would assert that "they" are equally as ignorant as to supply, having no idea what is really coming across the border, or what is going on anywhere... Local hot houses and even acreages of marijuana make for a very large percentage if what is available on the street is any indication. What they capture from local growers is a tiny, tiny fraction of the distributable product.
Furthermore, just about any other drug is worth more per pound, is easier to smuggle, and has just as ready a clientèle. Cocaine would seem to be the product with the most bang for the buck- Marijuana would be a waste of space in Columbia when it will grow just as well almost anywhere.
The people of MT must not share your opinion as to legalizing and taxing vice, and CA may be looking to get its hands on some of the marijuana commerce. The trend does not look to be going in favor of marijuana prohibitionists.
That does not make the people of MT or the people of CA right in their determinations.
Many a family paycheck is taken by the one-armed bandit here now- Families that already have little enough are now with damn well less. And sanctioned by the state, so it's all ok. It's "victimless", after all- They can always go get food stamps from the feds I guess.
Let me ask this, under the Constitution, do you think the decision to legalize marijuana within a state should be up to fedgov or to the individual state?
As I said above, I don't think the fed has any business telling any state what to do about anything within it's sovereign borders. That includes any drug, and any regulation thereof- with the exception of the Constitutionally granted powers that are enumerated to the Federal Government.
It is my position that the fed has a legitimate jurisdiction in matters of interstate trafficking, and international trafficking, including whether or not something is legal to import or export across the US border.
In addition, it may be reasonable to assume that the fed and the states assembled (through some arrangement) should be able to facilitate agreement on what is legal and what is certainly *not* in both medicine and illicit drugs for some form of sanity and uniformity's sake... And perhaps, if everyone is in agreement, some arrangements could be made to help states with less money to cover the costs incurred in enforcing such a uniform code.
But I would hasten to add, such agreements would remain between the states respectively, and *not* in the hands of the fed, and certainly not meant to be coerced participation. The fed might facilitate, but must not profit by it. And where differences occur, they are the state's sovereign right within it's borders to determine.
And yes, I do mean to leave even the fate of heroin and every other sort of illicit drug in the hands of the sovereign state, as well as the regulation of every sort of medicine. We may disagree over pot, perhaps, but it seems reasonable to me that most states, left to their own devices, would come up with something similar enough in kind, and diverse enough to keep us free. This is what I believe our founding fathers had in mind, and what we would be better advised to implement.
Bear in mind, this does not make me any less a proponent of the war on drugs. I just think the execution thereof has been wholly bastardized for a different purpose.
Singapore is an island nation with draconian drug laws [...]
Singapore is also noted for being singularly corrupt- Bribery is a way of life, the triads control everything, and have for centuries. Statistics do not always tell the tale.
I agree with border enforcement, but you're chasing rainbows if you think we're going to fight a "real" WOD. The War on Marijuana is collapsing.
Believe it or not, I agree with you. But I think the reason for that is because somebody's been packin' sand up our nether regions for a very long time. And the reason it will fail (and it will fail totally, I am afraid) is because far too many will remain faithfully attached to a party which is leading them down the garden path- And I am not speaking of Democrats.
It is my position that the fed has a legitimate jurisdiction in matters of interstate trafficking, and international trafficking, including whether or not something is legal to import or export across the US border.
In addition, it may be reasonable to assume that the fed and the states assembled (through some arrangement) should be able to facilitate agreement on what is legal and what is certainly *not* in both medicine and illicit drugs for some form of sanity and uniformity's sake... And perhaps, if everyone is in agreement, some arrangements could be made to help states with less money to cover the costs incurred in enforcing such a uniform code.
But I would hasten to add, such agreements would remain between the states respectively, and *not* in the hands of the fed, and certainly not meant to be coerced participation. The fed might facilitate, but must not profit by it. And where differences occur, they are the state's sovereign right within it's borders to determine.
And yes, I do mean to leave even the fate of heroin and every other sort of illicit drug in the hands of the sovereign state, as well as the regulation of every sort of medicine. We may disagree over pot, perhaps, but it seems reasonable to me that most states, left to their own devices, would come up with something similar enough in kind, and diverse enough to keep us free. This is what I believe our founding fathers had in mind, and what we would be better advised to implement.
I would second that.
Now, as I assume you are a Libertarian minded fellow, I have a question for you:
Imagine, if you would, that the WoD is just being conceived. All of the affronts to liberty and to state's rights have never occurred, no coercive measures, no raping of the Commerce Clause...
If we were under the afore-mentioned framework (as declared in my last post), with all states and the federal government passing supporting legislation enacting something similar to the WoD, but mindful of the tenets laid out in the framework as discussed, would you still stand as firmly against the WoD?
It has been bandied about on this thread that you dope smokin' Libertarian hippies only care about getting your pot legalized. It is my contention that it is the ill-conceived federal construct that gives you fits (and rightly so). Which one is it?
Dude. Where do you get the idea that anyone that "smokes pot" is a Libertarian or a "hippy"? Is it your contention that smoking "pot" should be illegal?
I guess you're right. We can't have competition, can we?
Why can't we all just get along?
legalizing drugs or not has NOTHING to do with national defense
________________________________________________
Are you totally oblivious to the talks of war against Mexico?
Our country faces a far greater threat with the WOD than we do with the WOT.
I repeat: We should NOT surrender on either front.
Yes, in precisely the same way that alcohol was introduced into the public schools following the repeal of Prohibition. endorsing gay sex ......
This libertarian and many others, including Ron Paul, favor legalization but DO NOT advocate a tax on the product. Now...perhaps you will find a better argument for your position.
____________________________
I might believe you don’t want to tax pot. But look at how California libs want to.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/marijuana/index
Please don’t attempt to think that Libertarians (libs) don’t want the stuff taxed. They do.
And as I keep saying. Legalizing pot (like booze, like cigarettes, like gambling....) will lead to taxation and bigger government.
Not mention a nation of pot heads.
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.