Democrats want to Legalize Marijuana

[BugI02]

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.

It specifically mentions 'unlawful use'

Is not OMVI 'unlawful use' as well as indicative of having a problem with self-control where your drug of choice is concerned

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It specifically mentions 'unlawful use'

Is not OMVI 'unlawful use' as well as indicative of having a problem with self-control where your drug of choice is concerned

It says unlawful user of, OR addicted to... that two letter word matters.

 

[phylodog]

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

I've not claimed that, although the black markets shrink considerably when a formerly prohibited substance becomes legal. Why would a white dude from the suburbs go to the hood to score some weed when he can pay a little more and get it from the dispensary down the street? You will always have people who don't want to show ID to enter a dispensary (as is policy in most states where it's legal) so they will choose an alternate means of obtaining it. If our politicians and our society were really interested in removing cannabis from being a problem (aside from driving) it would completely deregulate it. 100% hands off, no taxes, no possession limits, no showing ID to purchase. That would provide the biggest benefit to society. It can still be plenty illegal to drive under the influence of cannabis.

That said, legalizing cannabis the way it's being done isn't going to bring huge benefits to society overnight but it will stop wasting time and money to fight a losing battle and turning people into criminals whose actions pose less of a threat than someone who has had too much to drink.

 

[BugI02]

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.

I can say that, vis a vis people using pot for pain relief, there are studies that indicate that after MJ legalization use of opioids for pain management actually decline. A significant number of people wish to choose the least dangerous method of pain management that actually works

I think the joyriders far outnumber the people in serious need of pain management, though - and the legalize it wing never supports medical distribution as anything more than the camel's nose under the tent

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That said, legalizing cannabis the way it's being done isn't going to bring huge benefits to society overnight but it will stop wasting time and money to fight a losing battle and turning people into criminals whose actions pose less of a threat than someone who has had too much to drink.

Exactly. Nobody, at least in this thread, has said it will be some utopian society afterward. It won't be any more than Prohibition and the repeal did (I know, I know, America used to be Lake Woebegone until *they* ruined it), but how many flipping times are we going to see violent gangs fed by a black market for a product that large segments of the population want take place before we catch on?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I can say that, vis a vis people using pot for pain relief, there are studies that indicate that after MJ legalization use of opioids for pain management actually decline. A significant number of people wish to choose the least dangerous method of pain management that actually works

I think the joyriders far outnumber the people in serious need of pain management, though - and the legalize it wing never supports medical distribution as anything more than the camel's nose under the tent

Explain to me why it's your business if someone smokes to relieve arthritis pain vs smokes to sit though another episode of The View to make their wife happy.

 

[BugI02]

It says unlawful user of, OR addicted to... that two letter word matters.

You understand that OR means any permutation of A, B, as well as A and B can be true, yes? So the two letter word does not matter the way you think it does

Unlawful user, addict OR both - ALL are prohibited

 

[phylodog]

I think the joyriders far outnumber the people in serious need of pain management,

What leads you to that conclusion? I smoked pot in high school and two years ago I'd have called BS on the claims of it working for pain relief. I tried an edible while in CA and was seriously incorrect in my assumption about that. I don't know many people over 40 who aren't in some form of physical pain most of the time.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You understand that OR means any permutation of A, B, as well as A and B can be true, yes? So the two letter word does not matter the way you think it does

Unlawful user, addict OR both - ALL are prohibited

That's what I said. It's Boolean logic. Your point about intoxication as it relates to caffeine was irrelevant and that's what lead me to that explanation. They're not going to be an unlawful user (it's not illegal). They're not going to be both (since it's legal), so that leaves addict.

 

[Ingomike]

That said, legalizing cannabis the way it's being done isn't going to bring huge benefits to society overnight but it will stop wasting time and money to fight a losing battle and turning people into criminals whose actions pose less of a threat than someone who has had too much to drink.

For sure! The point about price difference between legal and illegal is moot until the whole pie is baked. A legal pound in California would sell for about five times that in illegal NY. Way to many variables in this discussion to know for sure outcomes.

 

[BugI02]

Explain to me why it's your business if someone smokes to relieve arthritis pain vs smokes to sit though another episode of The View to make their wife happy.

That whole 'moral and cultural decline' thing

I find myself unwillingly having to live in the 'udopia' imagined and instigated by starry-eyed Aquarians far too often

As I said before, there are more important things pertaining to 'liberty' to expend our energies on than being able to 'sit through another episode of The View'

Surely the left is presenting us with a master class in how damaging it is to societal cohesion to champion unserious examples of the need for 'Freedom!'

 

[BehindBlueI's]

For sure! The point about price difference between legal and illegal is moot until the whole pie is baked. A legal pound in California would sell for about five times that in illegal NY. Way to many variables in this discussion to know for sure outcomes.

And, as Canada found out, the market won't accept a lousy product just because it's legal.

Amsterdam is a great case study on quasi-legal drugs. Legal to sell marijuana, illegal to grow it. I guess they thought the marijuana fairy just delivered it to coffee houses. They have narco gangs now that are allegedly rivaling the gov't for power and influence in many area, just like the cartels south of our border.

 

[phylodog]

The 18 states which have legalized cannabis seem to be enjoying our moral and cultural decline no more or less than the rest of us. I just don't think it amounts to the mountain its been made out to be for decades.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That whole 'moral and cultural decline' thing

So you think keeping weed illegal has hampered that in any way in the past, say, 50 years? Sure. Bang up job.

So your objection pretty much boils down to your version of Puritanism and the belief that you CAN regulate morality (this time will be different, I promise!) to force it on others. Then add an unwillingness to admit that the law as is is useless. I doubt we have much to hash out at this point.

 

[BugI02]

That's what I said. It's Boolean logic. Your point about intoxication as it relates to caffeine was irrelevant and that's what lead me to that explanation. They're not going to be an unlawful user (it's not illegal). They're not going to be both (since it's legal), so that leaves addict.

Sigh. If you discharge a firearm within most city limits, not for a valid self-defense purpose, are you not an 'unlawful user' of a firearm?

If you slide behind the wheel intoxicated and get caught, are you not an unlawful user of alcohol? I might entertain the argument that it is actually the motor vehicle that is being used unlawfully but the offense actually turns not on how said vehicle is used but how and how much of the intoxicant is used

 

[DoggyDaddy]

And, as Canada found out, the market won't accept a lousy product just because it's legal.

Amsterdam is a great case study on quasi-legal drugs. Legal to sell marijuana, illegal to grow it. I guess they thought the marijuana fairy just delivered it to coffee houses. They have narco gangs now that are allegedly rivaling the gov't for power and influence in many area, just like the cartels south of our border.

I think I saw something about Amsterdam on Vice concerning the weird laws there. The MJ shops can sell it legally, but they're not allowed to buy it in order to sell it in the shops. I believe one shop owner was saying that the process of supplying his shop with wares was very much a clandestine operation, but once it's on the shelf, it's hands off for the authorities. Crazy.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Sigh. If you discharge a firearm within most city limits, not for a valid self-defense purpose, are you not an 'unlawful user' of a firearm?

If you slide behind the wheel intoxicated and get caught, are you not an unlawful user of alcohol? I might entertain the argument that it is actually the motor vehicle that is being used unlawfully but the offense actually turns not on how said vehicle is used but how and how much of the intoxicant is used

You're still hung up on the intoxication part and ignoring the "OR". Unlawful user of OR addicted to...

Color coded for your convenience. So if you're an alcoholic (addicted to) but never leave your home or get in your car after drinking, you're not an unlawful user, but you ARE still addicted.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Sigh. If you discharge a firearm within most city limits, not for a valid self-defense purpose, are you not an 'unlawful user' of a firearm?

If you slide behind the wheel intoxicated and get caught, are you not an unlawful user of alcohol? I might entertain the argument that it is actually the motor vehicle that is being used unlawfully but the offense actually turns not on how said vehicle is used but how and how much of the intoxicant is used

Wouldn't that be unlawful use of the vehicle?

 

[BugI02]

So you think keeping weed illegal has hampered that in any way in the past, say, 50 years? Sure. Bang up job.

So your objection pretty much boils down to your version of Puritanism and the belief that you CAN regulate morality (this time will be different, I promise!) to force it on others. Then add an unwillingness to admit that the law as is is useless. I doubt we have much to hash out at this point.

Now perhaps deal with the concept of prioritizing the fight for freedoms based on the utility of said freedoms to inhibit the aforementioned 'moral and cultural decline'

Not sure dope is even on that list. Also would not recommend using states where dope is legal, such as CA or OR, as examples of how legalization has improved 'moral and cultural decline' in any respect. If anything, they serve as examples of what not to do

 

[BugI02]

You're still hung up on the intoxication part and ignoring the "OR". Unlawful user of OR addicted to...

Color coded for your convenience. So if you're an alcoholic (addicted to) but never leave your home or get in your car after drinking, you're not an unlawful user, but you ARE still addicted.

Quite. I thought you were arguing that an OMVI would not constitute 'unlawful use'

The 4473 thing, IMO, is a red herring anyway. Most people today would be completely untroubled about lying on that or any other government form or questionnaire. Their only thought would not involve morality or honor but only parse the odds of being caught