Posted on 01/12/2014 10:49:32 AM PST by Libloather
Maryland Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) this week said he's opposed to laws legalizing marijuana.
While Maryland legislators are expected to take up several proposals to legalize the drug this year, the Democratic minority whip said he's concerned it’s a gateway to harsher narcotics.
"I'm not a proponent of the legalization of marijuana," Hoyer said Thursday during a taping of C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program, which will air Sunday.
The position puts Hoyer on the same page as Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D), but at odds with a recent shift in public opinion.
O'Malley said earlier in the week that he's "not much in favor" of the legalization proposals members of the state's General Assembly plan to introduce in both chambers this year.
“I’ve seen what drug addiction has done to the people of our state and the people of our city,” O'Malley said Wednesday in an interview with Baltimore's WEAA radio station.
Public sentiment, meanwhile, has shifted sharply in favor of legalization in recent years. A CNN/Opinion Research poll released Monday found that 55 percent of Americans support the move to legalize the drug — up 12 points from 2012 and 39 points from 25 years ago.
A Gallup poll released in October put the level of support at 58 percent.
Interest in decriminalizing marijuana has skyrocketed since voters in Colorado and Washington state voted last year to legalize the drug for recreational use.
While marijuana remains illegal under federal law, the Justice Department announced last year that it wouldn’t attempt to block state efforts to legalize it. Colorado venders began selling it openly on Jan. 1.
"By regulating marijuana like alcohol, Colorado voters hope to reduce crime and keep marijuana away from kids," Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said as the sales began.
Along with Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Polis has sponsored legislation to eliminate the federal laws criminalizing the drug.
At least 18 other states and Washington, D.C., have legalized marijuana to some extent, though most of those laws relate to the treatment of medical conditions and require a doctor's prescription.
Hoyer this week noted that a former Baltimore mayor, Kurt Schmoke, had advocated for legalizing pot several decades ago. Hoyer said he supported that move at the time, but has since changed his tune based on his discussions with drug-treatment experts.
"My initial reaction was a positive one," Hoyer said. "Then as I talked to people who deal with drug abuse issues, with rehabilitation issues, I became convinced that marijuana was, in fact, a threshold drug and that it would lead to the use of harder, very harmful drugs.".
Great, keep it illegal under federal law. Just quit bitching about abuse of the constitution when it suits you. The end does not justify the means, and those who fail to understand what the word interstate means have no sympathy from me when it’s used against them.
So it’s ok, that no one who thinks pot should be a legal drug, has no solutions for any of my very likely scenarios?
It’s not ok with me. I have children and grandchildren and some of them have security clearances they need to protect. Losing their jobs because of someone’s careless use of a LEGAL recreational drug is a strong possibility in your scenario where pot is legal.
All I am asking is for you explain how you think the unintended consequences, which are not at all far-fetched, should be handled.
If you think it should be legal, than you have to consider the consequences, and you should be prepared to address them.
Otherwise, just saying ‘I think it should be legal’ is pretty stupid and very shortsighted.
I am armed to the teeth and carry everywhere I go. I do not smoke pot. That said, conservatives will argue all day that if you make guns illegal, only outlaws will have guns. How can you make the opposite argument about a plant the grows in the wild?
That would be my take, too.
In front of my house ain’t public property, genius.
It’s my property.
Please go away now.
If I intend to smoke pot, it’s going to be in my living room.
If you don’t like it, you’re more than welcome to show yourself to the door.
I’m really not concerned with all of your other concerns, because they are not my concerns.
There is nothing “psychopathic” about those three expectations. If someone under the influence of a drug does something to another, that is premeditated, as that person chose to throw out self-control. It is no different than a person going into a crowded mall, placing on a blindfold, and then randomly firing a gun. If they hit someone, how can they claim it wasn't “premeditated?”
If weed or other drugs that chase your capacity to control yourself doesn't make you do things that hurt others, then you won't have to worry about the torture. But if it did, you would.
Let's not be “libertines,” please.
I wouldn’t use it in such a way that it endangers others.
The reason I wouldn’t do that is bc I’m not an ahole.
I cannot account for the behavior of everyone else in this world, and neither can anyone else, and neither can any laws.
People do dumb sh*t all the time, legal or not.
Your questions are exactly how liberals justify big government. You’re bordering on support for prior restraint.
Can you guarantee that you won’t turn into a homicidal maniac and shoot up a shopping mall? See how easy that is? But I guess your desire to abuse the constitution is couched by how “very likely” your scenarios are.
The same logic was used for prohibition, which though a stupid idea, at least acknowledged that the power was extra-constitutional, and required an amendment.
At least those foes of liberty were intellectually honest.
Are drunk drivers that hit and kill an innocent driver charged with premeditated murder?
Is alcohol illegal because all unintended consequences of that legal product cannot be insured against?
You don’t have to answer either of those, because anyone with a brain already knows the answers to both.
Let’s not play the double standard game please.
Laboratories of DemocracyAnd I don't have any problems if some states foolishly blow themselves off of the flag; let them get swallowed by social Darwinism.
For the third time now "smart guy", I said on public property in front of your house.
For example I'm looking out my front window now. Out past where the front of my property ends I see...low and behold...public property. The front of my house faces this public property.
Geez, you can't be that obtuse...can you?
Please go away now.
Irony.
Truthfully, I hope the Democrats keep both marijuana and hemp illegal until there is a Republican congress and POTUS.
The reason being that hemp agriculture could pump about $20 billion into the US economy overnight, employing tens of thousands of people in high paying jobs. So I would prefer that Republicans and conservatives get the credit for it.
To start with, hemp can grow on marginal land, so unlike the ethanol fiasco, no existing farmland needs to be diverted raising prices. Hemp requires minimal irrigation, fertilizer and pesticide as well, so it is very cheap to grow.
Next, right now the pulp and paper industry have a gross annual income of about $25 billion. With some retooling, instead of wasting high quality trees to make wood pulp, they could make *very* high quality paper with hemp, as well as use that wood for much more valuable lumber, lowering its price as well.
Second, refined hemp is much like silk in texture and appearance, and makes good quality clothing.
Third, hemp also makes good quality animal fodder, which if you lower its price, again currently high because of ethanol, it lowers the price of meat and dairy.
Finally, growing hemp actually inhibits the growth of marijuana, as well as reducing its potency. Since the drug containing resins are produced only by the female plants, male plants are culled, but with hemp in production, the air would be dense with hemp pollen, which would both stop resin production and make for lower quality seed.
I have no problem with you soaking your brain with THC in your own living room. Knock yourself out.
It's in public, where I do.
I don’t smoke pot either. I just do not see it as a problem that is worth the money we have spent on it or the freedoms we have lost in the fight against it. Practically, the effort to end its use has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Pot is more available and more potent now than it was 30 years and billions of enforcement dollars ago. I suspect that legalizing it and selling it in licensed outlets will result in the availability to minors being reduced from what it is now.
“There’s no reason to keep it illegal.”
Yes there is, unless you don’t care if every Mfg plant in America moves to China. They won’t stay to be sued into bankruptcy by tort lawyers when someone gets run over by a lift-truck.
Those things happen now, your laws don’t stop them.
/johnny
It’s up to employers to make sure that the people that work for them are up to the necessary standards.
If you don’t want pot smokers working for you, then don’t hire them.
“Surely the first time I’ve ever agreed with this moron.”
Trouble is, Steny (WTH kind of name is that, anyway?) was probably drunk when he said it.
Your laws don’t stop lift truck drivers from smoking it now.
/johnny
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.