House votes to decriminalize marijuana at federal level

[Dirtebiker]

What percentage of those drug criminals do you suppose also smoke up? And why do you think that percentage is so high

Almost 100% of alcoholics and drunk drivers started out on MILK!

 

[Hawkeye]

Schedule 1 baby

That's because someone put it on "Schedule 1". Take it off "Schedule 1" and your position evaporates. You have not addressed the comment: "MJ may well be the least dangerous of those"

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That's because someone put it on "Schedule 1". Take it off "Schedule 1" and your position evaporates. You have not addressed the comment: "MJ may well be the least dangerous of those"

Have you read anything phylo has posted in this thread? That's not his position.

 

[Hawkeye]

Have you read anything phylo has posted in this thread? That's not his position.

Phylo: "Schedule 1 baby". That's literally what he said. That's literally what his comment was. No, I'm not going to go back through every post in this topic to try to ferret out some implied meaning to this.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Phylo: "Schedule 1 baby". That's literally what he said. That's literally what his comment was. No, I'm not going to go back through every post in this topic to try to ferret out some implied meaning to this.

It was sarcasm. He just didn't use purple.

 

[Hawkeye]

It was sarcasm. He just didn't use purple.

Was it? Well, that's the problem. I see his comment. Period. You THINK it was sarcasm. I see the words and words have meaning. And I don't waste time trying to read meaning into them. If he wanted to be clear and IF he was being sarcastic, there were plenty of ways to do that. He didn't.

 

[d.kaufman]

Was it? Well, that's the problem. I see his comment. Period. You THINK it was sarcasm. I see the words and words have meaning. And I don't waste time trying to read meaning into them. If he wanted to be clear and IF he was being sarcastic, there were plenty of ways to do that. He didn't.

You would probably of known it was sarcasm had you read the whole thread, which you admittedly didn't.

 

[Hawkeye]

You would probably of known it was sarcasm had you read the whole thread, which you admittedly didn't.

No. I made no such admission. I did read the entire thread over its life. I said I was not going to go back through the entire thread to try to interpret his remark.

Now some advice for you, you can take it or not. I could care less.

 

[KLB]

Someone is cranky this morning.

 

[phylodog]

I feel properly scolded

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I feel properly scolded

 

[KLB]

I feel properly scolded

You just weren't very CLEAR in your opinions. If you would be maybe we could avoid these misunderstandings.

 

[yote hunter]

Weed has been around forever , the Indians used it.
Food for thought . Alcohol was illegal but people don’t want it to be illegal again & it’s killed more people from drunk driving then driving while high.

I don’t care one way or another but back in the day I might of partook in the evil weed but, “ didn’t inhale”

The only thing that comes to mind to me is all the people in jail/prison over weed charges. No weapon involved ,nothing violent . Just weed.
That’s crazy.

 

[Ingomike]

I believe the prohibition of drugs to be unconstitutional. Why? If it required a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal wouldn't common sense dictate the same would be required to do so for drugs?

Change my mind…

 

[manifest destiny]

I believe the prohibition of drugs to be unconstitutional. Why? If it required a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal wouldn't common sense dictate the same would be required to do so for drugs?

Change my mind…

At least for the naturally occurring substances. I suppose when one starts mixing ammonia, vinegar, xylene or such, maybe man's law could have a say. But if a man were walking across the face of the earth and chose to chew the bark of a tree, or lick a frog's ass, or drink soured mash, just because it made him feel better, I don't see governments role in prohibiting that.

 

[BugI02]

I believe the prohibition of drugs to be unconstitutional. Why? If it required a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal wouldn't common sense dictate the same would be required to do so for drugs?

Change my mind…

I'm out over my skis on this one, because I don't care enough to research it, but I believe that FedGov just schedules the various drugs according to its opinion of legitimate use

They don't impose legal or sentencing standards, they allow the states to do that (which is why states can legalize it but not compel the feds to do so)

Prohibition was an attempt to assert one federal viewpoint, 'illegal everywhere', over all states at once, which was why an amendment was used. I say used because it was never determined in the courts whether an amendment was necessary for the purpose, they went straight to the big guns

Note that although the 18th was repealed, control of - or outright banning of the sale in some dry municipalities or allotments - is still legal and not uncommon. If you had a constitutional right to alcohol that would not be allowed

You have no constitutional right to weed, either

I think the best way out would be a national referendum, like Brexit, with the feds agreeing to implement the result if legalization wins

 

[manifest destiny]

I'm out over my skis on this one, because I don't care enough to research it, but I believe that FedGov just schedules the various drugs according to its opinion of legitimate use

They don't impose legal or sentencing standards, they allow the states to do that (which is why states can legalize it but not compel the feds to do so)

Prohibition was an attempt to assert one federal viewpoint, 'illegal everywhere', over all states at once, which was why an amendment was used. I say used because it was never determined in the courts whether an amendment was necessary for the purpose, they went straight to the big guns

Note that although the 18th was repealed, control of - or outright banning of the sale in some dry municipalities or allotments - is still legal and not uncommon. If you had a constitutional right to alcohol that would not be allowed

You have no constitutional right to weed, either

I think the best way out would be a national referendum, like Brexit, with the feds agreeing to implement the result if legalization wins

I agree w/ Ingomike prohibition of consuming a natural substance should be unconstitutional. But I want to commend you for this post. You stated a strong argument for your position and you did it with a very neutral tone. I don't think I ever gave a thought to whether or not a Const. Admen. was needed for alcohol prohibition.

 

[SumtnFancy]

Legalizing is not a good idea. Regulation creates increased costs. Street weed becomes the avenue of choice. The southern border is open and we have all the street weed you can have. Next, look out for the drugs laced with drugs.

It's illegal now here, legalization won't increase the black market. Street weed is the only avenue of choice. Most people want to go above board with their purchase, which is why thousands of people drive to other states to purchase legally. Over-regulation leads to black market sales, yes, but that just illustrates the correct way to do it. Don't impose a 40% tax. Allow businesses to write off expenses by rescheduling it, which eliminates tax code 280e issues and greatly reduces costs for everyone from cultivation to retail. Don't half ass the solution and create new problems.

I prefer to keep all recreational drugs illegal. We have alcohol and see what a problem that is; no need to increase beyond that.

Recreational drugs suck. There is only one purpose and that is to change your mood. People need to find good avenues to make themselves feel better.

Who are you to judge what others do to improve their mood. "Gun nuts only want guns because they fantasize about killing people".

And YES, it will increase addictions, violence and hardship in an already torn society.

You have any sources for that? Cause that sounds like feelings over facts.

I had to take a day trip up to MI yesterday, every other billboard up there now is related to pot.

Ever been to Northern IN? Every billboard here is too. They know their clientele. I saw a study that said 60% of sales in Coldwater, MI was from IN residents.

 

[KLB]

I'm out over my skis on this one, because I don't care enough to research it, but I believe that FedGov just schedules the various drugs according to its opinion of legitimate use

They don't impose legal or sentencing standards, they allow the states to do that (which is why states can legalize it but not compel the feds to do so)

Prohibition was an attempt to assert one federal viewpoint, 'illegal everywhere', over all states at once, which was why an amendment was used. I say used because it was never determined in the courts whether an amendment was necessary for the purpose, they went straight to the big guns

Note that although the 18th was repealed, control of - or outright banning of the sale in some dry municipalities or allotments - is still legal and not uncommon. If you had a constitutional right to alcohol that would not be allowed

You have no constitutional right to weed, either

I think the best way out would be a national referendum, like Brexit, with the feds agreeing to implement the result if legalization wins

The fed does have sentencing standards for drug offenses.

There are a lot of things that are unconstitutional for the federal government that are not for state/local.

 

[SumtnFancy]

Policies and legalities aside, my issue was just one of amateur evaluation. Drunks I could spot and send home before they did damage, MJ users I couldn't. Drunks got one Mulligan and then termination, if there was an issue I could certainly call a cop and have a breathalyzer done. I'm not sure about MJ detection, maybe one of the LEO guys could weigh in here with better info about spotting MJ impairment.

I wonder why you couldn't detect people who used MJ? Maybe it was because they weren't sloppy and messing up like drunk people were?