Democrats want to Legalize Marijuana

[jsharmon7]

I'm sure we can both find examples and counter-examples. I don't think PNW has legalized heroin, though, any more than we have. I don't think it's a chicken/egg situation. I think it's pretty clear that the driving factor is the fecklessness of current enforcement ideas and wider and wider acceptance for thinks like recreational marijuana and needle exchanges.

I don’t disagree with that. I think there’s also some degree of social justice and feeling like everyone is a victim. Don’t punish those people, it’s not their fault.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I don’t disagree with that. I think there’s also some degree of social justice and feeling like everyone is a victim. Don’t punish those people, it’s not their fault.

Specific to opiodes, I think a pretty good argument can be made that there's a lot of people at fault in many cases. How many addicts did the pharmaceutical companies intentionally create? I won't relink the lawsuits again, but they are frankly damning.

Ignoring that, why do we punish people? Is there any punishment we are going to give a heroin addict that's worse than being a heroin addict? Has punishment dissuaded the behavior? Can we punish enough people hard enough to end the epidemic? Would we punish suicide attempts and believe it would reduce suicides?

 

[jsharmon7]

Specific to opiodes, I think a pretty good argument can be made that there's a lot of people at fault in many cases. How many addicts did the pharmaceutical companies intentionally create? I won't relink the lawsuits again, but they are frankly damning.

Ignoring that, why do we punish people? Is there any punishment we are going to give a heroin addict that's worse than being a heroin addict? Has punishment dissuaded the behavior? Can we punish enough people hard enough to end the epidemic? Would we punish suicide attempts and believe it would reduce suicides?

I think this highlights the near impossibility of the situation. Needle exchanges and lack of enforcement hasn’t helped. Enforcement wasn’t working anyway. Even without the drug companies pushing opioids as hard as they used to, we still have a problem.

I used to hear the same story all the time: got hurt, was given prescriptions, stopped getting prescriptions/outgrew their dosage, and now they’re into heroin.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Specific to opiodes, I think a pretty good argument can be made that there's a lot of people at fault in many cases. How many addicts did the pharmaceutical companies intentionally create? I won't relink the lawsuits again, but they are frankly damning.

Ignoring that, why do we punish people? Is there any punishment we are going to give a heroin addict that's worse than being a heroin addict? Has punishment dissuaded the behavior? Can we punish enough people hard enough to end the epidemic? Would we punish suicide attempts and believe it would reduce suicides?

Just an observation on my part regarding opiates, but it seemed like the "opioid crisis" didn't hit "crisis" level with overdoses, wider spread use, etc., until the regulations tightened up, and doctors stopped prescribing them as much or as frequently.

Is it because people were addicted, but they were getting a safe supply from their doctor and the pharmacy, and when that supply tightened up or went away, things moved underground, drug store robberies seemed to go up, and we started hearing more about counterfeit stuff laced with fentanyl that started killing people?

 

[phylodog]

Is it because people were addicted, but they were getting a safe supply from their doctor and the pharmacy, and when that supply tightened up or went away, things moved underground, drug store robberies seemed to go up, and we started hearing more about counterfeit stuff laced with fentanyl that started killing people?

Yep. Once hooked it doesn't really matter to the addict where it comes from. Once the supply of plentiful prescriptions dried up the next best place to get it is from the friendly neighborhood heroin dealer.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Yep. Once hooked it doesn't really matter to the addict where it comes from. Once the supply of plentiful prescriptions dried up the next best place to get it is from the friendly neighborhood heroin dealer.

That's kind of what I suspected. So tighter regulations actually (probably) increased deaths from overdoses and also funneled more money underground.

 

[phylodog]

That's kind of what I suspected. So tighter regulations actually (probably) increased deaths from overdoses and also funneled more money underground.

Undoubtedly

 

[Leadeye]

I expect to see heroin just fade away, Fentanyl and it's derivatives is the new China White. Over time I expect users of it to just fade out as well. There just isn't enough Narcan or first responders to bring them back.

 

[BugI02]

Tell me something. No facts, no figures, none of that nerd crap.

Do you think we as humans should have more of fewer freedoms?

No grey, just black and white your personal feelings more or fewer?

More, but not complete, freedom - after some evidence that it likely would lead to liberty and not anarchy. You currently have the freedom to be mentally ill and imagine yourself as some other gender besides the one of two determined by your genetics. How is that working out? Are you cognizant of the 'law' of unintended consequences?

Surely even you, were you honest with yourself, can see that there are better and more important freedoms to support and fight for than the freedom to be intoxicated in any way, and that should inform the inclination to use the 'but alcohol' canard

Primus: That ship has long sailed and I was not given a vote on either prohibiting alcohol or re-instating it. Personally, although not a teetotaler, I could take it or leave it. The complete prohibition of alcohol production or consumption would not affect me personally in the slightest

Secondus: Hopefully you can see that many of the mechanisms that acted as a damper on all that 'freedom' - such as shame and public opprobrium, or a man caring about his reputation or the value of his word, have been short-circuited and have very little effect on behavior today. In simpler times, if someone came skulking around my property, I could waylay them (by force of arms if necessary) and question them as to their intent at the very least without being hauled up on charges. Today, plenty of people on this board have argued for such things as their 'freedom' to closely survey my property with drones while forcefully disputing my right to destroy such an incursion if I find it creepy or intrusive - and that is just one of many examples where people advocate freedom, but only to do what they want not freedom for others to respond as they want

dec·a·dence
noun
moral or cultural decline as characterized by excessive indulgence in pleasure or luxury.

That's never a good look. Time to (re)read 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'


Now, since this is obviously not the low verbiage, binary choice you wished to flail away at, I'll give you a similar chance to obfuscate

Do you think that the majority of people who want weed legalized want to do so for high-minded purpose or just because they just want to [keep] get[ting] high

 

[BugI02]

I don't believe it would be interpreted as you say there. Driving drunk doesn't label you an unlawful user of alcohol, there is no such verbiage in the law. If you want to get that broad with the brush every one of us who drinks coffee every day has lied on their 4473 since caffeine is a stimulant. I'd only expect the words "marijuana or" to be dropped from the question if it were legalized on the federal level.

Can you be arrested for driving under the influence of ANY level of caffeine? Is there any level of caffeine that results in motor or mental impairment?

The two are not the same. I am not aware of a category even existing in crash statistics for caffeine impaired

 

[fullmetaljesus]

More, but not complete, freedom - after some evidence that it likely would lead to liberty and not anarchy. You currently have the freedom to be mentally ill and imagine yourself as some other gender besides the one of two determined by your genetics. How is that working out? Are you cognizant of the 'law' of unintended consequences?

Surely even you, were you honest with yourself, can see that there are better and more important freedoms to support and fight for than the freedom to be intoxicated in any way, and that should inform the inclination to use the 'but alcohol' canard

Primus: That ship has long sailed and I was not given a vote on either prohibiting alcohol or re-instating it. Personally, although not a teetotaler, I could take it or leave it. The complete prohibition of alcohol production or consumption would not affect me personally in the slightest

Secondus: Hopefully you can see that many of the mechanisms that acted as a damper on all that 'freedom' - such as shame and public opprobrium, or a man caring about his reputation or the value of his word, have been short-circuited and have very little effect on behavior today. In simpler times, if someone came skulking around my property, I could waylay them (by force of arms if necessary) and question them as to their intent at the very least without being hauled up on charges. Today, plenty of people on this board have argued for such things as their 'freedom' to closely survey my property with drones while forcefully disputing my right to destroy such an incursion if I find it creepy or intrusive - and that is just one of many examples where people advocate freedom, but only to do what they want not freedom for others to respond as they want



That's never a good look. Time to (re)read 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'


Now, since this is obviously not the low verbiage, binary choice you wished to flail away at, I'll give you a similar chance to obfuscate

Do you think that the majority of people who want weed legalized want to do so for high-minded purpose or just because they just want to [keep] get[ting] high

To answer your question at the end.

Why not both? Why must it have some higher purpose?

It makes me think about a quote about smoking a pipe.

Smoking a pipe gives a wise man something to contemplate and a stupid person something to suck on.

I paraphrase of course.

It's not for me to say why a person should want to get high. Maybe for art, or pleasure, or pain relief, or to keep the demons at bay.

I've known weed smokers of each of those catagories.

Personally I believe we should have more freedoms and less government control in my life. So fewer of these silly laws would be nice.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Can you be arrested for driving under the influence of ANY level of caffeine? Is there any level of caffeine that results in motor or mental impairment?

The two are not the same. I am not aware of a category even existing in crash statistics for caffeine impaired

Irrelevant. The question on the 4473 says nothing about intoxication. It deals only with use of illegal drugs OR addiction to ANY stimulant or depressant.

 

[phylodog]

Can you be arrested for driving under the influence of ANY level of caffeine? Is there any level of caffeine that results in motor or mental impairment?

The two are not the same. I am not aware of a category even existing in crash statistics for caffeine impaired

I agree, they are not the same but there is no means of legally labeling someone as an unlawful user of alcohol which would prevent them from answering no to the question on the 4473.

 

[BugI02]

Imagine the 150k or so registered mj employees in colorado alone.

They admit to a laundry list of federal crimes ever time they file their income taxes.

If the feds wanted to start a roundup of mj law violating gun owners, they could start rounding up registered industry employees in western Colorado and run out of feds y before they got to Vail.

The feds have no teeth without local and state support.

But wait, I thought EVERYTHING was legal in Oregon. And it isn't the Feds, its the OSP - and it appears they are enforcing those rules, boundaries and limitations that all the pie-in-the-sky legalization fans think will magically just evaporate, freeing up resources to be put to better uses

Police seize 500,000 pounds of marijuana in Oregon

The marijuana had a "conservative" estimated street value of around half a billion dollars, depending on where it was going to be exported, OSP said.

www.10tv.com

 

[phylodog]

But wait, I thought EVERYTHING was legal in Oregon. And it isn't the Feds, its the OSP - and it appears they are enforcing those rules, boundaries and limitations that all the pie-in-the-sky legalization fans think will magically just evaporate, freeing up resources to be put to better uses

Police seize 500,000 pounds of marijuana in Oregon

The marijuana had a "conservative" estimated street value of around half a billion dollars, depending on where it was going to be exported, OSP said.

www.10tv.com

You cannot distill alcohol for sale without a license, the same applies to commercial cannabis growers in states where it is legal. Commercial growers or possibly retailers are the only people allowed to possess amounts of cannabis over specific quantities. Your example is no different than someone running an illegal alcohol still. Even though alcohol is legal, manufacturing it for sale is not (without proper licensing). There is still a black market for moonshine and there always will be. Cannabis will be no different unless it is completely unregulated.

 

[BugI02]

Black market marijuana grows continue, turf wars continue, etc.

See my cite above about that supposition that the black market will evaporate after 'true' legalization

 

[BugI02]

You cannot distill alcohol for sale without a license, the same applies to commercial cannabis growers in states where it is legal. Commercial growers or possibly retailers are the only people allowed to possess amounts of cannabis over specific quantities. Your example is no different than someone running an illegal alcohol still. Even though alcohol is legal, manufacturing it for sale is not (without proper licensing). There is still a black market for moonshine and there always will be. Cannabis will be no different unless it is completely unregulated.

But ... but ... one of the common arguments in favor is always that it will break the back of the black markets and the cartels, not to mention that if you still need major manpower to police those 'who can grow and sell' restrictions you will not achieve the promised efficiencies in the distribution of government resources

Sounds like the lottery/legalized gambling thing to me - overpromise/under deliver

 

[BugI02]

I agree, but I also think they’ve realized how well that approach worked. Start with something nobody can really argue against, like racism [ Freedom! ], and eventually morph it into whatever social goals you want.

Fixy

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But wait, I thought EVERYTHING was legal in Oregon. And it isn't the Feds, its the OSP - and it appears they are enforcing those rules, boundaries and limitations that all the pie-in-the-sky legalization fans think will magically just evaporate, freeing up resources to be put to better uses

Police seize 500,000 pounds of marijuana in Oregon

The marijuana had a "conservative" estimated street value of around half a billion dollars, depending on where it was going to be exported, OSP said.

www.10tv.com

How many unlicensed tobacco fields were raided? Ah, right. Because tobacco is actually legal, not in this quasi-legal status that marijuana is. I'm not really sure why pointing out that people are being arrested for illegal grows and resources are overwhelmed is an argument against legalization, but ok. I'd say it's an argument against half-measures. Again, why *not* treat it like "Big Tobacco" instead of this:

County officials estimated there are about 2,000 legal and illegal hemp and marijuana sites locally, yet the Jackson County Sheriff's Office only has the resources to tackle about 40 illegal grows per year.

Well, enforcement options seem limited.

The marijuana had a "conservative" estimated street value of around half a billion dollars

With that kind of money on the table, arresting someone is just making a job opening.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

See my cite above about that supposition that the black market will evaporate after 'true' legalization

Now you've hit on the most persuasive argument against legalization, IMO. But as I said in the post above, nowhere is it fully legally. It's in this quasi-legal status, including one that completely restricts the industries' ability to use standard banking, that keeps the black market alive to this level, as well as money laundering, human trafficking, etc.