I'm heavily studying for my next exam now, so obviously my thoughts start wondering about everything except the exam material. I took a mental count of my friends, and realized that I know for a fact that half of them smoked pot with some regularity (as opposed to trying it once). I assume that some others are as well, particularly work friends who have to be careful about disclosing certain information.
Clearly the situation reached a point where anti-pot laws erode respect for law, and not pot smoking, and it's time to draw the line on drugs somewhere else. It seems like majority of Americans now agree. And, yet, it seems like neither political party is on-board yet, and the feeling is that being openly pro-pot without hiding behind medical bullshit is stilll unviable.
The question is, when do you think that will change? When will pot legalization be one of the campaign issues to be openly debated?
Never!
The problem is that so many advocates of pot legalization are poster children for keeping it illegal.
Well it is in many states.
I know there were some referendums, but are there mainstream politicians who campaign openly on the issue of pot legalization?
Max Planck - Science proceeds one funeral at a time.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 03:41:15 PM
I know there were some referendums, but are there mainstream politicians who campaign openly on the issue of pot legalization?
The party that considers it one of its primary goals in Poland got 15% of votes in last elections (becoming the third force in the Parliament) and the social-democrats are sympathetic, too.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 03:35:48 PM
Clearly the situation reached a point where anti-pot laws erode respect for law, and not pot smoking, and it's time to draw the line on drugs somewhere else
That applies to many things beyond just pot.
We've got effective decriminalisation now. It's technically illegal but practically tolerated and more or less everywhere. I don't think there'll be any movement for legalisation while that's the situation. What's the point?
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 03:38:27 PM
The problem is that so many advocates of pot legalization are poster children for keeping it illegal.
:D
Pot smokers should be put in jail!!! Oh wait, we already do that.
I almost don't care what we do with pot; legalize it or not. I'll listent to pro and con arguments on it though.
The Human Rights Party legalized pot in Ann Arbor in the 1970s, and everything worked out okay, until their unwillingness to ensure proper garbage collection lost them their dominance on the city council.
Not sure when someone will have the guts to propose pot legalization as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce unnecessary government involvement in shit that's not really the government's concern... wait, maybe it will be soon, but I am sure that the zealots will vilify such a person based on statements they probably never made in a period long ago.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 03:38:27 PM
The problem is that so many advocates of pot legalization are poster children for keeping it illegal.
Yup, sorta the same way PETA's message gets lost in the madness of their methodology.
Quote from: derspiess on May 08, 2012, 03:38:27 PM
The problem is that so many advocates of pot legalization are poster children for keeping it illegal.
50% are in favor now.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx
This is another one of those things that make Americans seem so alien.
Here you can literally do coke in front of a police car and they will simply look the other way.
Quote from: Iormlund on May 08, 2012, 05:32:16 PM
This is another one of those things that make Americans seem so alien.
Here you can literally do coke in front of a police car and they will simply look the other way.
Hell, in some police departments you can do coke on the front of a police car, and they will simply look the other way.
As I posted in the Canadian Politics thread a while back, I think we are close to a political party making this an official plank in their election platform. We have a number of former Mayors, former judges and other "elites" coming forward in favour of changing the laws. It is no longer viewed as a crazy idea. Rather I get the impression that the status quo is becoming viewed as the irrational approach.
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
Yeah, and a DWI-related death every 50 minutes in this country is really working out.
It will become a national political issue only after a majority of states have decriminalized.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 06:05:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
Yeah, and a DWI-related death every 50 minutes in this country is really working out.
It's not fast enough to stop the population growth rate in Pearl River County, Mississippi, so I have no sympathy for you.
You gotta die of something.
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 06:15:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 06:05:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
Yeah, and a DWI-related death every 50 minutes in this country is really working out.
It's not fast enough to stop the population growth rate in Pearl River County, Mississippi, so I have no sympathy for you.
You gotta die of something.
Well, unlike abortion and the death penalty, DWI crashes don't get traffic moving.
Every year the potheads up in Columbia try to get a ballot initiative for pot legalization. Every year it fails. Not that it would do any good. The Legislature here has a bad habit of overturning ballot referendums.
I'm broadly in favour of legalisation, but in retaliation I reserve the right to spent as little time as possible with heavy potheads/ people who still haven't grown up and still think dope is intrinsically 'cool'. :yawn:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 06:05:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
Yeah, and a DWI-related death every 50 minutes in this country is really working out.
Meh. Freedom = Danger
We made our choice, now we're living with it.
I'm with mongers on this one. My fear is that legalising pot will lead to some of the most boring people on the planet infesting public places such as parks or beer gardens, hopefully their reduced traffic awareness will lead to them being culled by drunk drivers, somehow the cosmic balance must be preserved.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 08, 2012, 06:50:11 PM
I'm with mongers on this one. My fear is that legalising pot will lead to some of the most boring people on the planet infesting public places such as parks or beer gardens, hopefully their reduced traffic awareness will lead to them being culled by drunk drivers, somehow the cosmic balance must be preserved.
That works. :D And since there will be thousands less people in prisons (at least here in the States) we can put those drunk drivers who kill pot smokers away for life.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 08, 2012, 06:50:11 PM
I'm with mongers on this one. My fear is that legalising pot will lead to some of the most boring people on the planet infesting public places such as parks or beer gardens, hopefully their reduced traffic awareness will lead to them being culled by drunk drivers, somehow the cosmic balance must be preserved.
Indeed.
I've one friend, an older guy, refugee from the 60s, who regularly smokes dope and it is absolutely no big deal, you wouldn't know if he was or wasn't did and he invests no theatre in going about it.
Whereas I was with some people around my age and a bit younger, the other week and they made a huge production, of hey look at us, were cool, were going to skinny up, all sort of giggly child like.
I could understand this in 16-21 year olds where it's a safe rebellion, but these were people in their 30s and 40s. <_<
Quote from: Scipio on May 08, 2012, 06:15:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 06:05:32 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
Yeah, and a DWI-related death every 50 minutes in this country is really working out.
It's not fast enough to stop the population growth rate in Pearl River County, Mississippi, so I have no sympathy for you.
You gotta die of something.
Hell, just allowing use of cars at all has our society trading convenience for thousands upon thousands of fiery, mangled deaths...even without alcohol involved. We have accepted that bargain with the automobile, as we have with the bottle.
Though I agree with CdM on the general worthlessness of alcohol, I also recognize the folly in trying to ban it outright.
I used to like CdM, until he made noises about trying to deprive me of wine.
I'd like to have all drunk drivers flogged, then raped by the general population at Angola prison.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 04:56:30 PM
We've got effective decriminalisation now. It's technically illegal but practically tolerated and more or less everywhere. I don't think there'll be any movement for legalisation while that's the situation. What's the point?
Is that a serious question? First of all, it's not really tolerated if you're caught with it. But, even if it is tolerated, having a law that's not generally enforced is a terrible thing, as it opens the window for selective prosecution. It is indeed a fact of life where I live: black kids caught with pot are reamed a lot harder than white kids.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 07:40:29 PM
Is that a serious question? First of all, it's not really tolerated if you're caught with it. But, even if it is tolerated, having a law that's not generally enforced is a terrible thing, as it opens the window for selective prosecution. It is indeed a fact of life where I live: black kids caught with pot are reamed a lot harder than white kids.
You missed the point. I'm talking about the situation here. It is tolerated if you're caught with it, unless you've got a lot the police just wave you on. I don't think anyone gets arrested for possession here. That's what I mean by effective decriminalisation.
Therefore there's no pressure for legalisation, because people wonder 'what's the point?' There's no need. If the police actually did arrest people for pot possession or use and if there were prosecutions then I think legalisation would become a mainstream issue.
My second point still applies. If you're cool with pot, don't make criminals out of dealers. Only bad things come from laws that kinda exist, but not really.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 07:50:51 PM
My second point still applies. If you're cool with pot, don't make criminals out of dealers. Only bad things come from laws that kinda exist, but not really.
Yeah. You're right but not so many people care about dealers. As long as everyone can buy and use themselves there's no real pressure for legalisation.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 07:52:19 PMYeah. You're right but not so many people care about dealers. As long as everyone can buy and use themselves there's no real pressure for legalisation.
Depends how heavy the illegal-pot-funded gang wars get.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 07:58:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 07:52:19 PMYeah. You're right but not so many people care about dealers. As long as everyone can buy and use themselves there's no real pressure for legalisation.
Depends how heavy the illegal-pot-funded gang wars get.
That's true. But even then I think it'd take a lot. Because it's decriminalised, it's sort of domesticated and I think removed from thinking about where it comes from and what it funds. So I think it'd probably have to get very heavy for people to think in that way and push for legalisation.
I would be fine with some sort of compromise. Perhaps pot is just a fine or something. I just am tired of people getting criminal records and spending time in prison for pot. It is entirely a waste of money.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 07:50:51 PM
My second point still applies. If you're cool with pot, don't make criminals out of dealers. Only bad things come from laws that kinda exist, but not really.
Meh, the hard-core criminal dealers will just switch to whatever drugs are still banned. I don't care so much about regular potheads or those that grow for themselves and their buddies...but those who make a living at it using mafia-style tactics should be fed to drug-sniffing dogs.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 08, 2012, 08:33:07 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 07:50:51 PM
My second point still applies. If you're cool with pot, don't make criminals out of dealers. Only bad things come from laws that kinda exist, but not really.
Meh, the hard-core criminal dealers will just switch to whatever drugs are still banned. I don't care so much about regular potheads or those that grow for themselves and their buddies...but those who make a living at it using mafia-style tactics should be fed to drug-sniffing dogs.
Would they really find the switch so easy? If that's the case, is it just laziness keeping them from exploiting those harder/more expensive drug markets?
If America is going to become a place where I can't roll a J and smoke out, I don't want to live here anymore. #Canada #Canuckistan #Hongcouver.
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2012, 08:39:01 PM
Would they really find the switch so easy? If that's the case, is it just laziness keeping them from exploiting those harder/more expensive drug markets?
I doubt it'd be easy, but the attraction of money might be worth starting a war over (ala Mexico). If pot is legal, it's easy enough to grow, that the illegal market, and thus easy profits, should dry up pretty quick. Killing the current crack/meth/heroin dealers to edge into their market has got to be better than not being able to get your bling.
But then, I don't play the Game, so what the fuck do I know? :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 07:52:19 PM
Yeah. You're right but not so many people care about dealers.
The situation is quite different here. Taking away the profit motive from the gangs is the main reason so many people are coming out in favour of legalization.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 08, 2012, 08:45:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 08, 2012, 08:39:01 PM
Would they really find the switch so easy? If that's the case, is it just laziness keeping them from exploiting those harder/more expensive drug markets?
I doubt it'd be easy, but the attraction of money might be worth starting a war over (ala Mexico). If pot is legal, it's easy enough to grow, that the illegal market, and thus easy profits, should dry up pretty quick. Killing the current crack/meth/heroin dealers to edge into their market has got to be better than not being able to get your bling.
But then, I don't play the Game, so what the fuck do I know? :P
The drug dealers have a pretty finely balanced trade, at least here in Canada. We produce pot and the surplus production is traded for cocaine with the Mexicans. Take away the Pot production from the gangs and they have nothing left with which to trade.
Now it is true that someone is still going to try to find a way to get cocaine into Canada but I am willing to bet that cocaine use is considerably lower in Canada then Pot use. And with those lower numbers it will become a lot more feasable to treat cocain addiction as what it is - a health problem - rather than a criminal issue. Which will further squeeze any profits from illegal dealilng.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 08:23:02 PMThat's true. But even then I think it'd take a lot. Because it's decriminalised, it's sort of domesticated and I think removed from thinking about where it comes from and what it funds. So I think it'd probably have to get very heavy for people to think in that way and push for legalisation.
... not the case in Vancouver at least. Seems like people are getting gunned down every month.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:12:31 PM
I used to like CdM, until he made noises about trying to deprive me of wine.
Wine snobbery is an entirely different issue. One that requires an entirely different criminal code.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 09:02:57 PM
... not the case in Vancouver at least. Seems like people are getting gunned down every month.
Shit. Yeah I can imagine that changes things. I could be wrong but my impression is that there's less deaths, they're generally from stabbings. I don't think they're associated by most people with pot. Though I could be wrong.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:06:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:12:31 PM
I used to like CdM, until he made noises about trying to deprive me of wine.
Wine snobbery is an entirely different issue. One that requires an entirely different criminal code.
That should include attempted snobbery to catch Marty on bonus week.
Sheilbh,
Here is a recent article you might find interesting
QuoteEight B.C. mayors including Vancouver's Gregor Robertson have issued a letter urging provincial political leaders to support the regulation and taxation of marijuana.
In a letter released today by Stop the Violence B.C., the mayors expressed their support for the coalition's campaign to overturn marijuana prohibition in an effort to reduce crime.
"We see a seemingly endless stream of anti-marijuana law enforcement initiatives in our communities, yet marijuana remains widely and easily available to our youth," the letter reads.
"Based on the evidence before us, we know that laws that aim to control the marijuana industry are ineffective and, like alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s, have led to violent unintended consequences."
The letter, addressed to B.C. Premier Christy Clark, NDP Leader Adrian Dix and Conservative Leader John Cummins, is also signed by Burnaby's Derek Corrigan, North Vancouver mayor Darrell Mussatto, Lake Country mayor James Baker, Armstrong mayor Chris Pieper, Metchosin mayor John Ranns, Enderby mayor Howie Cyr, and Vernon mayor Robert Sawatzky.
"It is time to tax and strictly regulate marijuana under a public health framework; regulating marijuana would allow the government to rationally address the health concerns of marijuana, raise government tax revenue and eliminate the huge profits from the marijuana industry that flow directly to organized crime," the mayors wrote.
The eight mayors say they will be recommending that the Union of B.C. Municipalities support a motion in favour of taxation and regulation of marijuana.
"We also encourage politicians to speak their conscience, even if their views go beyond the silence coming from the political parties themselves," they wrote.
The letter comes as Vancouver city council is set to discuss a motion to endorse the Stop the Violence B.C campaign next week.
"This is not a partisan issue," Robertson said in a news release. "Widespread access to marijuana for our youth, grow-ops that provide funds for organized crime, and significant costs to taxpayers for enforcement are all compelling reasons to re-examine our failed approach to prohibition."
Council will vote on the motion next Tuesday (May 1).
Similar motions were recently passed by other B.C. municipalities, including North Vancouver.
Stop the Violence B.C. is a coalition of law enforcement officials, legal experts, public health officials and academic experts from the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria, and the University of Northern B.C
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:06:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:12:31 PM
I used to like CdM, until he made noises about trying to deprive me of wine.
Wine snobbery is an entirely different issue. One that requires an entirely different criminal code.
Next you will be telling me Champagne is produced in California.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:09:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:06:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:12:31 PM
I used to like CdM, until he made noises about trying to deprive me of wine.
Wine snobbery is an entirely different issue. One that requires an entirely different criminal code.
Next you will be telling me Champagne is produced in California.
So, there is a hell.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:15:20 PM
So, there is a hell.
Wine snobbery's only saving grace is the fact that Maynard James Keenan owns a vineyard. And a very good one at that.
You know it's gotten to the point where prescription drug abuse is probably as big a problem as cocaine / crack. I have my doubts about how effective legalization / decriminalization would be.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:02:59 PM
You know it's gotten to the point where prescription drug abuse is probably as big a problem as cocaine / crack. I have my doubts about how effective legalization / decriminalization would be.
You've got to hit the doctors, hard.
But you're also talking about a fundamental paradigm shift of thinking in today's clinical care environment, which right now is script-first-ask-questions-later.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:02:59 PM
You know it's gotten to the point where prescription drug abuse is probably as big a problem as cocaine / crack. I have my doubts about how effective legalization / decriminalization would be.
Well, a big difference is you cannot grow Oxycontin in your backyard....the main point with pot, is that it should be very easy to kill the profit motive.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 08, 2012, 10:11:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:02:59 PM
You know it's gotten to the point where prescription drug abuse is probably as big a problem as cocaine / crack. I have my doubts about how effective legalization / decriminalization would be.
Well, a big difference is you cannot grow Oxycontin in your backyard....the main point with pot, is that it should be very easy to kill the profit motive.
You probably can't grow cocaine in your backyard either.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:12:59 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 08, 2012, 10:11:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:02:59 PM
You know it's gotten to the point where prescription drug abuse is probably as big a problem as cocaine / crack. I have my doubts about how effective legalization / decriminalization would be.
Well, a big difference is you cannot grow Oxycontin in your backyard....the main point with pot, is that it should be very easy to kill the profit motive.
You probably can't grow cocaine in your backyard either.
I'm kinda iffy on legalizing pot. Cocaine...nah.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 08, 2012, 09:07:26 PM
Shit. Yeah I can imagine that changes things. I could be wrong but my impression is that there's less deaths, they're generally from stabbings. I don't think they're associated by most people with pot. Though I could be wrong.
Not in Vancouver. There was an other shooting just a few days ago. There's been at least two people shot a year within a ten block radius of my house. Not a whole lot of stabbings going on, just shootings.
The peak was in 2009, but it's still ongoing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Vancouver_gang_war
When I was in Hong Kong doing research for Sleeping Dogs (Triad flavoured action game), the HKPD gang specialists I talked to said something like "you're coming to Hong Kong to research gangs fighting? We got nothing on Vancouver."
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:12:59 PMYou probably can't grow cocaine in your backyard either.
No, but you can trade your backyard grown pot for the cocaine someone down south grew in their yard.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 11:49:01 PM
When I was in Hong Kong doing research for Sleeping Dogs (Triad flavoured action game), the HKPD gang specialists I talked to said something like "you're coming to Hong Kong to research gangs fighting? We got nothing on Vancouver."
Met some Vancouver detectives a couple years ago. Man, they had some hardcore tales to tell.
Interesting factoid they mentioned: Vancouver also happens to be North America's biggest launch point for the sex slave trade to the Middle East. For a lot of runaway blondes from the midwest, Vancouver's their last stop before a short life to Sheikh Rattle and Roll.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 11:57:08 PMMet some Vancouver detectives a couple years ago. Man, they had some hardcore tales to tell.
Interesting factoid they mentioned: Vancouver also happens to be North America's biggest launch point for the sex slave trade to the Middle East. For a lot of runaway blondes from the midwest, Vancouver's their last stop before a short life to Sheikh Rattle and Roll.
Really? Never heard anything like it... who runs that? And why Vancouver?
I didn't realize there was a big sex slave trade out of North America.
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 12:02:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 11:57:08 PMMet some Vancouver detectives a couple years ago. Man, they had some hardcore tales to tell.
Interesting factoid they mentioned: Vancouver also happens to be North America's biggest launch point for the sex slave trade to the Middle East. For a lot of runaway blondes from the midwest, Vancouver's their last stop before a short life to Sheikh Rattle and Roll.
Really? Never heard anything like it... who runs that? And why Vancouver?
I didn't realize there was a big sex slave trade out of North America.
I am sure it pales compared to Eastern Europe.
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 12:02:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 11:57:08 PMMet some Vancouver detectives a couple years ago. Man, they had some hardcore tales to tell.
Interesting factoid they mentioned: Vancouver also happens to be North America's biggest launch point for the sex slave trade to the Middle East. For a lot of runaway blondes from the midwest, Vancouver's their last stop before a short life to Sheikh Rattle and Roll.
Really? Never heard anything like it... who runs that? And why Vancouver?
Triady chinky types with waypoint connections.
QuoteI didn't realize there was a big sex slave trade out of North America.
Well, as big as it gets for North America. :lol:
It's not like they're getting stuffed into CHINA SHIPPING containers by the bushels, but they contend it's happening.
Leagalize Pot and Prostitution. Control it, regulate it, and tax it.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 08, 2012, 10:23:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:12:59 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 08, 2012, 10:11:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:02:59 PM
You know it's gotten to the point where prescription drug abuse is probably as big a problem as cocaine / crack. I have my doubts about how effective legalization / decriminalization would be.
Well, a big difference is you cannot grow Oxycontin in your backyard....the main point with pot, is that it should be very easy to kill the profit motive.
You probably can't grow cocaine in your backyard either.
I'm kinda iffy on legalizing pot. Cocaine...nah.
If you really want to take organized crime completely out of the picture you have to legalize everything, and make it easily available (as in no prescription needed).
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
Quote from: Jacob on May 08, 2012, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 10:12:59 PMYou probably can't grow cocaine in your backyard either.
No, but you can trade your backyard grown pot for the cocaine someone down south grew in their yard.
But if Pot's legal the street price will collapse and you won't be able to trade it for cocaine.
I wonder what the ratio of pot used that is grown in the US vs smuggled in.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:36:03 AM
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
You have any evidence of that or is it just your personal opinion. Fyi, there is a group of academics, ex-judges, ex and current majors (who sat and sit on police boards) that take a very different view of that issue.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:28:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:36:03 AM
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
You have any evidence of that or is it just your personal opinion. Fyi, there is a group of academics, ex-judges, ex and current majors (who sat and sit on police boards) that take a very different view of that issue.
Personal opinion, but I'd like to think I have enough first hand experience to make my opinion worth something.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:28:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:36:03 AM
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
You have any evidence of that or is it just your personal opinion. Fyi, there is a group of academics, ex-judges, ex and current majors (who sat and sit on police boards) that take a very different view of that issue.
If pot is legalized, organized crime will still undercut the government's parameters in every respect, from production to retail.
Now, it may very well wind up not nearly being as profitable as it is now, but that's a matter of degrees, considering the obscene profit margin for CDS.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:34:33 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:28:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:36:03 AM
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
You have any evidence of that or is it just your personal opinion. Fyi, there is a group of academics, ex-judges, ex and current majors (who sat and sit on police boards) that take a very different view of that issue.
If pot is legalized, organized crime will still undercut the government's parameters in every respect, from production to retail.
Now, it may very well wind up not nearly being as profitable as it is now, but that's a matter of degrees, considering the obscene profit margin for CDS.
We already have a not-insignificant problem with tobacco smuggling due to our high taxes. There are also huge profits to be made selling other illegal drugs such as cocaine or meth.
I'm not saying legalizing pot would make absolutely zero difference. The quite elaborate grow-ops we keep finding clearly show there is some significant money to be made on pot. But legalizing pot by itself most certainly won't put the HAs out of business.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:33:18 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:28:06 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:36:03 AM
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
You have any evidence of that or is it just your personal opinion. Fyi, there is a group of academics, ex-judges, ex and current majors (who sat and sit on police boards) that take a very different view of that issue.
Personal opinion, but I'd like to think I have enough first hand experience to make my opinion worth something.
Here is a brief report on the topic. You should specifically read the FAQ section (first question) which specifically addresses your point. I also recommend the rest of the report.
http://stoptheviolencebc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/STVBC-Breaking-the-Silence.pdf
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:34:33 AM
If pot is legalized, organized crime will still undercut the government's parameters in every respect, from production to retail.
I doubt it. Pot is dirt cheap to grow - literally. It is like a weed - literally :D
The profit is generated by the risk factor caused by the conduct being illegal.
BB is correct that high taxes create opportunities for cigarette smuggling. But smugglers are not growing thier own tobbacco...
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:33:18 AM
Personal opinion, but I'd like to think I have enough first hand experience to make my opinion worth something.
It's a really crap opinion (unusual for you). If you think that removing a revenue source worth approximately $40bn* in the USA would have a marginal impact on organised crime, you must be tripping.
* Estimate from CNBC
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179677/How_Big_Is_The_Marijuana_Market
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:42:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:34:33 AM
If pot is legalized, organized crime will still undercut the government's parameters in every respect, from production to retail.
I doubt it. Pot is dirt cheap to grow - literally. It is like a weed - literally :D
The profit is generated by the risk factor caused by the conduct being illegal.
BB is correct that high taxes create opportunities for cigarette smuggling. But smugglers are not growing thier own tobbacco...
Yeah, but think about it: if pot is legalized, then all the standards and practices the government invariably tosses into such a subject would come into play--quality, type, HCL content, etc.
There would still be an underground market for bigger, better buds than the mediocre, overtaxed pot that would be allowed in the public market.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:06:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:12:31 PM
I used to like CdM, until he made noises about trying to deprive me of wine.
Wine snobbery is an entirely different issue. One that requires an entirely different criminal code.
I agree. Start with making it a misdemeanor to sell jug wine, white zinfandel, and garbagne.
Quote from: Gups on May 09, 2012, 09:50:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 09:33:18 AM
Personal opinion, but I'd like to think I have enough first hand experience to make my opinion worth something.
It's a really crap opinion (unusual for you). If you think that removing a revenue source worth approximately $40bn* in the USA would have a marginal impact on organised crime, you must be tripping.
* Estimate from CNBC
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36179677/How_Big_Is_The_Marijuana_Market
Maybe we have different understandings of the word "marginal".
I agree it would make a noticeable difference. But of the organized crime-type files I see just as many have to deal with crack as with pot.
So I say again - legalizing pot will not put the Hells Angels out of business.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2012, 10:02:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:06:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:12:31 PM
I used to like CdM, until he made noises about trying to deprive me of wine.
Wine snobbery is an entirely different issue. One that requires an entirely different criminal code.
I agree. Start with making it a misdemeanor to sell jug wine, white zinfandel, and garbagne.
WINE IN A BOX
Marginal = insignificant, minor, small.
Of course legalising pot won't mean an end to criminal gangs. It will just knock out a significant income stream as well as freeing up a certain amount of time for enforcement agencies and a new income stream for the gubbermint.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:10:08 AM
WINE IN A BOX
I'm OK with wine in box conceptually. Just not with the wines that usually get put int the box.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:10:08 AM
WINE IN A BOX
Well how else would a guy like me get into some college chick's pants? :angry:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:10:08 AM
WINE IN A BOX
Well how else would a guy like me get into some college chick's pants? :angry:
There are several ways, but most wind up with you being arrested. :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2012, 10:02:59 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:06:43 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:12:31 PM
I used to like CdM, until he made noises about trying to deprive me of wine.
Wine snobbery is an entirely different issue. One that requires an entirely different criminal code.
I agree. Start with making it a misdemeanor to sell jug wine, white zinfandel, and garbagne.
I'm not a wine snob, but I'll second that.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 10:22:03 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:10:08 AM
WINE IN A BOX
Well how else would a guy like me get into some college chick's pants? :angry:
There are several ways, but most wind up with you being arrested. :(
:(
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs. Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:54:10 AM
There would still be an underground market for bigger, better buds than the mediocre, overtaxed pot that would be allowed in the public market.
I am not sure why you assume that private regulated growers for profit would produce mediocre bud. I also I am not sure why you assume it would be overtaxed given the fact the main policy reason for regulating is to take out the profit motive for organized crime.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:10:08 AM
WINE IN A BOX
Well how else would a guy like me get into some college chick's pants? :angry:
She might be amused by your presumption.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 10:56:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:54:10 AM
There would still be an underground market for bigger, better buds than the mediocre, overtaxed pot that would be allowed in the public market.
I am not sure why you assume that private regulated growers for profit would produce mediocre bud. I also I am not sure why you assume it would be overtaxed given the fact the main policy reason for regulating is to take out the profit motive for organized crime.
While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:36:03 AM
If you really want to take organized crime completely out of the picture you have to legalize everything, and make it easily available (as in no prescription needed).
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
The influence on organized crime is a diversion. Laws should not be made with organized crime in mind, they should be made with citizens in mind. A large number of citizens, if not the majority, think laws against marijuana are pointless, and a large subsection of those people have so little respect for that law that they just outright ignore it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 10:56:19 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 09:54:10 AM
There would still be an underground market for bigger, better buds than the mediocre, overtaxed pot that would be allowed in the public market.
I am not sure why you assume that private regulated growers for profit would produce mediocre bud.
Result of establishing the cheapest means of production. And don't think the HCL content wouldn't be parametered with a ceiling like any other altering product.
I am not sure why you don't assume that.
QuoteI also I am not sure why you assume it would be overtaxed given the fact the main policy reason for regulating is to take out the profit motive for organized crime.
In order to make such a controversial initiative a success, you know that be the public interest trade-off. Look at the tax margin on our other sin taxes: cigarettes, alcohol.
I also am not sure why you wouldn't assume that.
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:36:03 AM
If you really want to take organized crime completely out of the picture you have to legalize everything, and make it easily available (as in no prescription needed).
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
The influence on organized crime is a diversion. Laws should not be made with organized crime in mind, they should be made with citizens in mind. A large number of citizens, if not the majority, think laws against marijuana are pointless, and a large subsection of those people have so little respect for that law that they just outright ignore it.
But that's not the argument CC and gups are making.
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.
Then you have undercut your own argument. "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:18:28 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 11:02:55 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 08:36:03 AM
If you really want to take organized crime completely out of the picture you have to legalize everything, and make it easily available (as in no prescription needed).
Legalize pot if you want. It will only make a marginal difference to organized crime.
The influence on organized crime is a diversion. Laws should not be made with organized crime in mind, they should be made with citizens in mind. A large number of citizens, if not the majority, think laws against marijuana are pointless, and a large subsection of those people have so little respect for that law that they just outright ignore it.
But that's not the argument CC and gups are making.
That is only because we are responding to your notion that a change in the law would have little effect on oranized crime - although you appear to have softened your stance on that a bit. Of course the laws also make no sense given the fact they are not enforced thus bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 11:25:07 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.
Then you have undercut your own argument. "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.
Well, "we" have increased tobacco taxes to discourage consumption. (Well, actually, more to increase government revenue, but discouraging people from giving themselves lung cancer is generally more politically acceptable to state as the reason.)
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:30:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 11:25:07 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.
Then you have undercut your own argument. "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.
Well, "we" have increased tobacco taxes to discourage consumption. (Well, actually, more to increase government revenue, but discouraging people from giving themselves lung cancer is generally more politically acceptable to state as the reason.)
The problem of tobacco smuggling was smuggling across the Canada-US border, because the US taxes cigarettes at a much lower rate than we did.
I don't think legalizing pot is a panacea, but I do think it will bring the following benefits:
- add a source of revenue through taxation, ranging from minor to major.
- free up criminal justice resources and budgets for other tasks (though the scale of that depends on how much it's already decriminalized).
- undercut a significant source of revenue for organized crime groups.
- it's the right thing to do, as there really isn't any health or social arguments to have weed criminalized but not alcohol.
In my view laws should be made on a cost/benefit basis with a presumption in favour of non-interference by the govt.
One of the benefits of legalising cannabis is that it removes an income stream from criminals. Another is that it would provide an income stream to the public purse and could legitamtely employ people.
Another benefit is that the law is ignored by many, enforced sporadically and inconsistently and tends towards making the law look like an ass.
There are lots of other benefits. Plus a few costs.
Arguing about whether one of the benefits is significant or not doesn't imply that it is the only one I think important.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:30:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 11:25:07 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.
Then you have undercut your own argument. "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.
Well, "we" have increased tobacco taxes to discourage consumption. (Well, actually, more to increase government revenue, but discouraging people from giving themselves lung cancer is generally more politically acceptable to state as the reason.)
The problem of tobacco smuggling was smuggling across the Canada-US border, because the US taxes cigarettes at a much lower rate than we did.
The problem with taxing pot will be that many people right now grow and distribute it illegally, and if the tax is sufficiently high the incentive will remain for them to continue to do so.
That's a problem with taxing it too high, not per se.
There's lots of room for taxation. The profit margins are massive. It's no harder to grow weed than anything else but it sells at $100+ an ounce, that's more than saffron.
Quote from: Gups on May 09, 2012, 11:37:43 AM
Another benefit is that the law is ignored by many, enforced sporadically and inconsistently and tends towards making the law look like an ass.
Not me, daddyo. You had so much as a burned out roach on you, a baggie with residue, shitty stems in your ashtray, a pack of EZ Widers in the backseat, you did not pass Go and did not collect $200.
I had a zero-tolerance policy for stoners. Why? Because I fucking hate stoners.
Now, a hot chick with some coke...well, that's a situational judgement call.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 11:41:14 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 11:33:16 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:30:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 11:25:07 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
While I don't know about the 1st assumption, the 2nd one seems almost certain to happen if pot is legalized, given the way we tax alcohol and tobacco.
Then you have undercut your own argument. "We" cut taxes of tobacco to deal with the tobacco smugglers.
Well, "we" have increased tobacco taxes to discourage consumption. (Well, actually, more to increase government revenue, but discouraging people from giving themselves lung cancer is generally more politically acceptable to state as the reason.)
The problem of tobacco smuggling was smuggling across the Canada-US border, because the US taxes cigarettes at a much lower rate than we did.
The problem with taxing pot will be that many people right now grow and distribute it illegally, and if the tax is sufficiently high the incentive will remain for them to continue to do so.
That's what I've been saying.
The notion that pot is going to bring in some huge amount of tax money is false, because if the tax rate is all that high illegal growers will continue.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 12:01:05 PMThat's what I've been saying.
The notion that pot is going to bring in some huge amount of tax money is false, because if the tax rate is all that high illegal growers will continue.
Well, yeah. But even a small amount of tax money is better than none, and having a market regulated by the government is better for society than having a market regulated by criminal cartels.
Even if you don't have any tax income for legalization, the cuts on spending on the War on Pot would by themselves be substantial. A dollar saved is a dollar earned.
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 12:29:47 PMEven if you don't have any tax income for legalization, the cuts on spending on the War on Pot would by themselves be substantial. A dollar saved is a dollar earned.
That's more of an issue in the US than Canada in terms of the resources committed, I think, but definitely a good point.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 11:53:26 AM
Quote from: Gups on May 09, 2012, 11:37:43 AM
Another benefit is that the law is ignored by many, enforced sporadically and inconsistently and tends towards making the law look like an ass.
Not me, daddyo. You had so much as a burned out roach on you, a baggie with residue, shitty stems in your ashtray, a pack of EZ Widers in the backseat, you did not pass Go and did not collect $200.
I had a zero-tolerance policy for stoners. Why? Because I fucking hate stoners.
Now, a hot chick with some coke...well, that's a situational judgement call.
You probably got all Rodney King on people who fed their cats generic cat food too. :P
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 01:01:27 PM
You probably got all Rodney King on people who fed their cats generic cat food too. :P
I was rather...strong-armed with animal abusers. Catching my first Little Dazzling Urbanite shits setting a cat on fire, the name plate came off. :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 12:01:05 PM
That's what I've been saying.
The notion that pot is going to bring in some huge amount of tax money is false, because if the tax rate is all that high illegal growers will continue.
It is true, you can't tax pot prohibitively.
What is needed is a tax that is low enough that growing the stuff "legally" is generally still more rewarding than doing so "illegally". That way, you can raise a great deal of tax money (though there will still of course be some illegal distribution).
This is hardly a unique situation - see moonshine.
Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.
I think pushing the "ZOMG BIG POT TAX REVENUE" is a mistake...there won't be much there.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.
Lots of people are lazy and lots of people lack access to places to grow pot.
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.
Lots of people are lazy and lots of people lack access to places to grow pot.
Yeah, but it's not going to be like tobacco...heck, raw pot would probably be all over the farmer's market circuit.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 04:58:53 PMYeah, but it's not going to be like tobacco...heck, raw pot would probably be all over the farmer's market circuit.
Nothing wrong with that, IMO.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 04:58:53 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.
Lots of people are lazy and lots of people lack access to places to grow pot.
Yeah, but it's not going to be like tobacco...heck, raw pot would probably be all over the farmer's market circuit.
I don't think so...a regulated vegetable substance for consumer use will definitely fall under the FDA and USDA. Bet you wouldn't be able to grow pot for anything beyond personal use anymore than you can't get away with 75 acres of corn.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.
I think pushing the "ZOMG BIG POT TAX REVENUE" is a mistake...there won't be much there.
Nope. Most people lack the time and inclination to become horticulturalists.
Shit, I had a buddy years ago who had a grow-op. The money sure looked sweet ... until you worked out how much damn work was involved (never mind the chance of decorating a jail cell!).
And that was at illegal pot prices. If pot was legal, and it could be grown by big concerns, the price per unit is going to drop, a lot. Doing all that work for a product when you have to compete on price with major farms is simply not going to be worth it financially for the small operator (unless the tax is truly prohibitive).
Well, I'd think that if people were paying illegal-pot prices, they want a quality product...which means all the lights and chemicals and shit, though I imagine most of which is probably because you have to grow it in the basement to hide it from the Heat. If Legal Joe Pothead just wants to get high on the weekend, just pluck some out of the backyard, roll it and light it. Probably won't get too fussy over THC levels and all that crap.
Heck, there will probably be Pot Chia Pets, or you can grow it on the kitchen counter next to some common herbs.
Then the Chinese pot arrives, with lead in it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 09, 2012, 06:34:46 PM
Then the Chinese pot arrives, with lead in it.
No shit.
If they can fuck up the international truffles market, they can put sawdust and pesticide in BC Bud.
Quote from: Jacob on May 09, 2012, 04:54:31 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
Well, on the tax angle...the only people paying tax will be those too lazy to grow their own...or don't have a buddy who is a growing their own.
Lots of people are lazy and lots of people lack access to places to grow pot.
You can grow the shit in a closet under a UV light. Nobody lacks access to places to grow it.
Granted, lots of people are lazy.
The proposition on our Nov ballot (WA state) to legalize Ganja looks, at this point, as thought it will pass.
If it does, that's the Genie out of the bottle.
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:53:45 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs. Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.
Interesting. I've never thought of it that way before. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 10, 2012, 02:51:59 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:53:45 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs. Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.
Interesting. I've never thought of it that way before. :hmm:
I've actually been thinking about this for some time. It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either. Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s, but I've become increasingly convinced that the courts have allowed the Federal government to take to much power through virtually unchecked use of the Commerce Clause (combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause). At this point, I think that many Federal drug laws are simply unconstitutional, especially those that criminalize mere possession (hint to Fireblade--if you get caught by the Feds, don't try this argument in court, especially if the individual mandate is upheld). Note that state drug laws are a different matter, since states have general police powers that the Federal government isn't supposed to have.
Quote from: dps on May 13, 2012, 07:54:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 10, 2012, 02:51:59 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:53:45 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs. Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.
Interesting. I've never thought of it that way before. :hmm:
I've actually been thinking about this for some time. It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either. Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s, but I've become increasingly convinced that the courts have allowed the Federal government to take to much power through virtually unchecked use of the Commerce Clause (combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause). At this point, I think that many Federal drug laws are simply unconstitutional, especially those that criminalize mere possession (hint to Fireblade--if you get caught by the Feds, don't try this argument in court, especially if the individual mandate is upheld). Note that state drug laws are a different matter, since states have general police powers that the Federal government isn't supposed to have.
Why does it seem obvious to you? The US criminalized certain drugs years before prohibition.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2012, 08:47:22 PM
Quote from: dps on May 13, 2012, 07:54:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 10, 2012, 02:51:59 AM
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:53:45 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
Once, we changed out constitution to ban alcohol. Then we changed it back. This will have its time as well.
This may have actually been better placed in the thread on Obamacare and the Supreme Court, but I find it very interesting that in 1919 we didn't think Congress had the power to ban alcohol without a Constitutional amendment, less than 20 years later we repealed that amendment (so, in theory Congress no longer had the power to ban alcohol, right?), and then Congress started criminalizing other recreational drugs. Yet, oddly, I don't recall ever hearing an advocate for decriminalization of pot (or other harder drugs) argue for a strict interpretation of the commerce clause.
Interesting. I've never thought of it that way before. :hmm:
I've actually been thinking about this for some time. It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either. Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s, but I've become increasingly convinced that the courts have allowed the Federal government to take to much power through virtually unchecked use of the Commerce Clause (combined with the Necessary and Proper Clause). At this point, I think that many Federal drug laws are simply unconstitutional, especially those that criminalize mere possession (hint to Fireblade--if you get caught by the Feds, don't try this argument in court, especially if the individual mandate is upheld). Note that state drug laws are a different matter, since states have general police powers that the Federal government isn't supposed to have.
Why does it seem obvious to you? The US criminalized certain drugs years before prohibition.
Individual states did (and in some cases, individual cities) but AFAIK the Federal government didn't outright ban any drugs before prohibition. Certain drugs were heavily regulated but none were out-and-out illegal.
And if Congress had the power to outlaw certain drugs, why did they need a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?
I don't know why they opted for a constitutional amendment, but the US had effectively banned the recreational use of heroin and opium before alcohol prohibition.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 01:03:55 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 09, 2012, 01:01:27 PM
You probably got all Rodney King on people who fed their cats generic cat food too. :P
I was rather...strong-armed with animal abusers. Catching my first Little Dazzling Urbanite shits setting a cat on fire, the name plate came off. :ph34r:
We need more bobbies like you :wub:
But boo to the picking on people with weed. Stoners do tend to rather suck but more people than stoners do weed, even as a regular thing.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2012, 09:17:04 AM
I don't know why they opted for a constitutional amendment, but the US had effectively banned the recreational use of heroin and opium before alcohol prohibition.
They thought that people would respect the Constitution.
Quote from: Tyr on May 14, 2012, 09:44:13 AM
But boo to the picking on people with weed. Stoners do tend to rather suck but more people than stoners do weed, even as a regular thing.
Doesn't matter.
"I judge marijuana by the company it keeps."--Joe Friday, Det. Sgt., LAPD
Quote from: dps on May 13, 2012, 07:54:39 PM
It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either. Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s . . .
In 1919, certainly the Commerce Power would not be considered sufficient basis to outlaw the production of alchohol for purely local consumption. By the time Wickard v. Fillburn was decided around 1942, that had changed, but by then Prohibition was gone.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2012, 10:45:49 AM
Quote from: dps on May 13, 2012, 07:54:39 PM
It seems obvious to me that if before the 18th Amendment, the Commerce Clause didn't give the Federal Government the power to outlaw alcohol, then it didn't have the power to outlaw other drugs, either. Of course, the conception of what the Commerce Clause did allow underwent a profound change during the 1930s . . .
In 1919, certainly the Commerce Power would not be considered sufficient basis to outlaw the production of alchohol for purely local consumption. By the time Wickard v. Fillburn was decided around 1942, that had changed, but by then Prohibition was gone.
Honestly, we're just fumbling around in the dark at this point. Nobody gets the amendments they need anymore. We just get the court to decide the powers were somehow already there and call it good. I see no reason why we can't just make an amendment for each of the ambiguous things now and pass them. Just in case Ron Paul get elected.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 14, 2012, 11:09:31 AM
Nobody gets the amendments they need anymore.
Like the ones about heterosexual marriage, flag burning, and abortion? Be glad they don't.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 14, 2012, 10:04:58 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 14, 2012, 09:44:13 AM
But boo to the picking on people with weed. Stoners do tend to rather suck but more people than stoners do weed, even as a regular thing.
Doesn't matter.
"I judge marijuana by the company it keeps."
--Joe Friday, Det. Sgt., LAPD
I'm shocked Josq is sticking with his fellow drunkards and stoners.