Posted on 01/23/2015 7:13:21 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Colorado’s decision to legalize marijuana was a bad idea, the state’s governor said Friday.
Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who opposed the 2012 decision by voters to make pot legal, said the state still doesn’t fully know what the unintended consequences of the move will be.
If I could've waved a wand the day after the election, I would've reversed the election and said, 'This was a bad idea,’” Hickenlooper said Friday on CNBC's “Squawk Box.”
“You don't want to be the first person to do something like this,” he said.
He said that he tells other governors to “wait a couple of years” before legalizing marijuana as Colorado continues to navigate an unknown, non-existing federal regulatory landscape for the industry.
“There's a whole regulatory environment... that really regulates alcohol,” he said. “We're starting from scratch and we don't have a federal partner because [marijuana] is still illegal federally.”
In February 2014, the Obama administration released guidelines for the marijuana industry indicating the federal officials would not target financial institutions or businesses engaging in selling pot as long as those businesses were compliant with state laws.
Despite the guidelines, banks are reluctant to finance marijuana businesses in states where it is legal because federal law still lists marijuana as an illegal drug. Congress would need to pass a law removing that language.
Marijuana is legal in four states: Colorado, Oregon, Alaska and Washington. Congress has blocked the District of Columbia from legalizing pot after voters in November cast ballots that they wanted to make the drug legal.
It actually knocks the props out from under your argument!
From the linked article:
One model for the evolution of alcohol consumption suggests that ethanol only entered the human diet after people began to store extra food, potentially after the advent of agriculture, and that humans subsequently developed ways to intentionally direct the fermentation of food about 9,000 years ago. Therefore, the theory goes, alcoholism as a disease resulted because the human genome has not had enough time to fully adapt to alcohol.
Yes, primates (and other animals) have been occasionally eating rotten fruit for tens of millions of years. But human beings appeared on the scene only about one hundred thousand years ago, and potent sources of alcohol became available (and hence the phenomenon of alcoholism a practical problem) only after the advent of agriculture (according to the article you cited).
And, really, our "national experience" with alcohol can't be longer than the age of our country, now, can it?
On the other hand, you claim that our "national experience" with "illicit drugs" is only 70 years long? Well, that's true insofar as, before that, they weren't illicit! Rather, they were legal!
All I am suggesting is that we should return to the situation before these drugs were illegalized approx. 70 years ago!
Better that our G.N.P. should drop by tens of billions of dollars than that we should continue squandering tens of billions of dollars to limit people's inherent right to intoxication.
Regards,
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy!
Please try to stick to arguments which don't violate Logic!
Regards,
Post of the Day Award!
Regards,
Then, by the same logic:
If all those serial killers were pot tobacco users, then all those specific pot tobacco users were serial killers.
Ergo tobacco likewise produces serial killers, and ergo tobacco should likewise be illegalized.
Q.E.D.
If you like, you can also substitute "milk" for "tobacco."
Regards,
The findings of that study were considered nearly statistically insignificant so every finding is qualified with “can” or “might” or “might contribute to” or “correlates”. Another junk study based on statistical semantics. Debunked here in the same med journal: http://m.pnas.org/content/110/11/4251.abstract
While people debate knife-edge statistics, you can go to any hospital right now and find many people with directly observable brain and body damage from legal alcohol, tobacco and pills. People whose organs are failing but they can’t quit. People who would die from withdrawal shock IF they quit. You will NEVER see such horror from pot use. There is no “maybe” or “might cause” with these legal drugs yet we allow them to addicts on demand for easily faked diseases and taxpayers pay for them.
There is absolutely NO reason besides profit for this twisted logic. Pot prohibition is NOT to keep us healthy “for the children”. It is a scam to take our rights and sell more profitable toxic addictive drugs.
Cannabis effects not to blame for IQ loss - study:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10859185
Yes, new users of any intoxicant can feel uncomfortable, act stupid or even panic. It is simply not their “drug of choice”. It’s all personal perspective and I don’t consider these to be side effects.
The stigma, propoganda and illegality around pot also increases the risk of panic and fast heart rate.
Pot doesn’t make the heart “race” (except the few individuals who panic). In some users it increases the rate about equally to walking (which can cause a heart attack in the sick). The components of the smoke are not good but far less smoke is inhaled by typical pot use than with tobacco use.
Also, pot does not have to be smoked and it gets easier to do so when it is legal/cheap. In Colorado and California many people are quitting smoking completely and switching to vapor and edibles.
Basically, smokeless pot is about as dangerous as a brisk walk to people with poor heart health. Far safer than any comparable drug out there
There is what “you consider” and then there is physiology.
Physiology wins
Nomatter what the semantics, the “panic issue” can be completely avoided with careful dosing. That is finally possible thanks to legal pot medications that have doses on the package. Thanks to legalization!
Besides temporary sleepiness, bigger appetite and more laughter(which I consider all very good things for healing sick people), the only side effects from pot are comparable to a brisk walk or cup of coffee.
That’s NOTHING compared to every other known drug (legal and illegal). EVERY drug on the pharmacy shelf (both Rx and OTC) is more dangerous and toxic than pot.
If you read my page you will see I am libertarian about genuine medical usages of medications.
You won’t see me making a single excuse for people taking drug trips and don’t expect me to swallow the same.
When sober life feels better than drugs and their side effects, people will choose sobriety on their own without force.
In the “rat park” experiment, the rats felt better constantly using drugs rather than sitting sober in a cage.
While in a “park” setting with activities, good food and friends the rats chose sobriety on their own. Even going as far as overcoming their chemical addictions without help.
Trouble is of course we are not rats.
You do have a point about sober life winning on its own merits, which God urges on people through the bible. Sobriety most notably includes acknowledgment of the love of God.
I've known many people who completely dropped Rx opiates, benzos, anti-epilepsy and antidepressants for cannabis. Including two doctors.
Based on success rates I've seen I'd estimate at least 25% of people would stop using those types of Rx drugs if cannabis was legal everywhere. That absolutely terrifies the drug makers who would lose billions. It's not surprising many anti-pot studies are funded by pharma and alcohol conglomerates.
I don't agree with people doing drugs for kicks but prohibition is clearly not the answer any way you look at it (except from the eyes of people making money from it).
I automatically get suspicious of folks who go all gaga for some particular (earthly) remedy. I’ve seen it in multiple different contexts.
We aren’t as far from rats and other animals as some people think. All the base impulses are there behind a thin veneer. Especially in terms of addiction.
I have experience with many addicts and saw a human version of the “rat park” after moving from the USSR. Many people who were alcoholics in that crumbling cage of a country became sober when they saw life and opportunity here. Some remained alcoholics but nobody became worse.
Addiction always begins when sober life is painful and no hope is seen. Addiction reverses when the opposite becomes true.
Placing nonviolent depressed people in jail purely for addiction (possession) and making them forever unemployable does nothing to improve their life or stop the addiction. It makes it worse and hurts everyone except the people making money from this system
I uphold a traditional biblical view of men and animals. Both special creations, but men more special. Both are not existing in their optimal state in this world. Evil and violence reigns among both men and beasts. However sin can properly only be charged to men. Animals lack the capability to grasp the prerequisite to sin, which is God’s expectations understood and then defied. Animals at best understand God as a provider (e.g. the lion roars and seeks its food from God) not a giver of a higher law of love.
I hate to see people embracing demons through addictions. I believe firmly in personal responsibility before God. That is the only thing that will truly show blessing. The attempt to blame an inanimate substance for sin dodges the matter, and even the bible tells us so.
It’s not saying it’s a remedy or cureall. Just that it can replace several classes of toxic and addictive relief drugs.
However, studies are now coming out that it stops certain cancers in the body. So it may a become a true cure for something after all. Not many drugs can say that...
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4509456
“The attempt to blame an inanimate substance for sin dodges the matter, and even the bible tells us so.”
So isn’t that the very definition of our drug policy? We are focusing on finding and seizing these substances (blaming them and claiming they are all-powerful) while ignoring what causes people to use them in the first place
Why of course. And I have criticized it for that reason. I do respect the intentions behind it which is why I don’t just say damn the whole thing to hell.
I tend to be skeptical on principle, while certainly welcoming any and all valid science.
Herbal medicine has a lot of variables in it, including potency questions. The same plant may not deliver the same effects if harvested in January as if harvested in July. There is something to be said for the purified-drug paradigm. It makes the science much sounder.
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.