Posted on 09/11/2012 12:21:05 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
This November, voters in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington will consider ballot measures to legalize and regulate marijuana, much as alcohol and tobacco are taxed and regulated. In this first in a series of "one minute debates" for election 2012, three writers give their brief take on the issue.
The 'yes' case is argued by Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). The 'no' position is offered by David G. Evans, a special adviser to the Drug Free America Foundation. And a middle path is suggested by Kevin A. Sabet, who has worked on drug policy under three presidents of both parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Pot cannot be regulated like Alcohol and Tobacco.
Pot isn’t a complicated substance, it is just a weed, treat it like a tomato plant and the sturdy plant becomes a source for high quality weed, except that it is a neater, tidier plant than a tomato plant, so it is easier to grow in your closet, or spare bedroom.
Since the weed stays useful for years, you can grow your own occasionally maybe 10 pounds at once, and then use the excess for parties and casual sales, gifts to little brothers and sisters, and for in between growing seasons.
Do you dislike what Ann Ryan had to say as well? There is a big difference between a Classic Liberal and a libertarian party liberal. If you don't know the differences then you shouldn't be trolling us.
The party that has much to HIDE welcomes this.
I favor #1.
I am exceptionally tire of the militarized LEO and their WOD and the negative effects on our civil liberties is too high a cost, IMO, to pay for the supposed benefits of interdiction and suppression of marijuana use.
“There will never be significant taxes to collect.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ahh! But that’s the number one reason TO legalize it.
If you take away the tax revenue, what’s left?
I’ll tell you what’s left. HEAVY FINES and even jail time for being caught with an unregulated joint.
Is this really what you liberals want? More taxes - more legislation?
First, we should settle the question of whether they can.
“So which section of the Constitution do you personally believe delegates authority to fedgov to overrule the states on medical marijuana?”
Good point. The booze prohibitionists realized that they needed an amendment if Congress was to have the authority to ban an intoxicant. Drug prohibitionists are as bad as liberals in this respect. They are too lazy to amend the Constitution to expand the federal government’s reach, so they just expand it without any constitutional authority.
of course you did. Your pro-federal government regulating the substance. You can not get around that
I have grown pot and my grandmother used to grow tobbacco, she used it for chewing to save money, but she couldn’t make a fine Marlboro, making Scotch or whiskey is difficult and takes a lot of effort.
Growing pot is incredibly easy, it truly is a weed, in fact it can be hard to keep it out of your yard, to feed it and play with it a little gives you great pot.
Pot is easier than tomatoes, when it is legal it will be like cheap weenies during the summer, it will be shared, and gifted, people will show up at parties with free ounces, because the hobby guys and the gardeners will all be competing with each other. There won’t be anything to regulate.
Correct, but vastly undestated. Prior to Prohibition, the primary drink was beer and wine. Whiskey, Gin and other Liquors were considered "low class", and the drink of the drunkard. During Prohibition, people quickly realized that condensing the alcohol was a more efficient and profitable way to move alcohol. A keg of beer gets 20 people drunk - the same keg of Whiskey gets 200 people drunk.
Carry this over to the WOD. 20 years ago, Crack, PCP, Crystal, Meth and a host of other drugs didn't exist. We had various grades of marijuana (none of them holds a candle to the grades commonly available today) and Coke. But, because of demand and the need to concentrate the narcotics; drugs that were never contemplated 20 years ago - are commonplace today, with newer and more addicive variations appearing more and more often.
Prohibition does far more than create a criminal class, and create a very lucrative contraband product. It CREATES newer and more dangerous forms of contraband. For example, prior to Prohibition, the liquor Everclear did not exist.
“Do you dislike what Ann Ryan had to say as well?”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An atheist libertarian? Why would I dislike what an atheist libertarian has to say?
~snort~
“There is a big difference between a Classic Liberal and a libertarian party liberal.”
A Social liberal is still a liberal. I don’t trust them. If they are wrong socially - they are wrong economically, politically, and in all other ways as well.
There were a lot of positives from the Prohibition era.
It was known as the Roaring 20’s. A time of great economic prosperity.
Church Attendance per capita hit an all time high.
Admissions to mental hospitals per capita hit an all time low.
“I favor #1.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pity that your NORML heroes Barney Frank and Ron Paul are retiring, isn’t it?
A real pity.
This is an issue that tears me. One the one hand the fedgov has no responsibility to protect people from themselves. I don’t see any reason to ban pot.
On the other hand I tend to detest pot heads. They usually have no motivation and contribute nothing to society.
I could be convinced to support legalization IF any crime involving the drug (say selling to minors) was dealt with extremely harshly, AND any health damage resulting from it’s use was not covered by any form of government aid or even private insurance (in other words, you smoke it and it kills you - tough noogies!) Of course I feel the same way towards alcohol, tobacco, not using seat belts, and riding motorcycles without helmets. It’s not my job to pay for someone else’s stupidity.
I did hear a report this morning that pot greatly increases the incidence in testicular cancer. Again, if you smoke it and your balls fall off don’t come crying to me.
Utopia through regulation is a socialist concept.
Doesn't matter if it worked or not. it is still socialism 101.
of course you did. Your pro-federal government regulating the substance. You can not get around that
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Link please. What? No link? Then you are lying.
She could have, but you need to get the right seeds, grow them right, harvest them right, age them right and dry them right. Same thing happens with pot, there’s ditch weed which is what you probably grew, and there’s top end indica you can sell for over $1000 an ounce. There’s a lot of hard work, patience and good seeds that goes into making top end pot.
Tobacco’s legal and people aren’t running around selling ditch tobacco. If it became illegal though it would show up. Quality white markets kill low end black markets, people are willing to pay for convenience and quality.
Once it is legal, then it will become fully legal.
If you have ever had a persistent problem with unwanted pot plants popping up, then you know what legalization will result in, plants will be everywhere.
Troll.
If this is a war, what exactly is the exit strategy?
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.