I'm convinced that only pot smokers support legalizing marijuana

It says that he distributes smoking paraphernalia like pipes. A "dealer" as you used the term would mean that he sold drugs which he did not state anywhere in his post. In fact, a thinking person would deduce that he was NOT a dealer if you read his entire post (ie. the part where he says he goes to other people who might even have to go to a third party to attain marijuana).

 

No. I wholesale electronic cigarettes, which are totally legal and represent 90% of my business. Part of the other 10% is pipes and other things used for smoking weed, even though everyone, law enforcement included, pretends otherwise.

As I live in Florida, I may get into the business if Med MJ passes in November, which it probably will. But don't mistake my entrepreneurial spirit with my agenda.

I don't think weed should be legal because I want to use it or profit from it. I want it to be legal because I believe in individual freedom, and I see absolutely no compelling governmental interest in banning it. To the contrary, I question if they even have the authority to do so, considering banning booze required a Constitutional Amendment.

If I can use it without fear of criminal charges, great. If I can also profit from it, even better. But living in a society that actually recognizes the rights of individuals of self ownership is 100x more important than both of those combined.

 

I'm not (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. I have business contacts in States where it's legal. I have a business contact who owns a large tract of land where we can grow it. I have political contacts that will put us at the top of the list to get whatever licenses are required. But I'm not currently doing anything illegal, except speeding, occasionally running a pink light, and maybe (but maybe not) driving when I'm technically over the limit.

But see my post above for more information.

 

I wasn't calling you stupid. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

Have you ever seen the History Channel show Hooked?

It's about the history of how drugs got to be illegal.

If you aren't familiar with it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvGtn8RzF0U

It's 44 minutes long.

 

Why is it that only "original sinners" have a problem with a potential seed bearing plant that may even be Good when eaten. Do we need morals tests on a for profit basis so we can influence public policy decisions, afterward?

 

I totally agree with the premise

 

Big government telling us what we can and can't do?
Oh and btw, smoking pot is known to make people act MORE peaceful!

 

OP and those that hold with OP's reasoning:

I refer you to L.E.A.P. and similar associations.
(Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). Prohibition leads to rampant amounts of organized crime (see gangs and cartels today, and capone et al in the roaring 20's), turf wars, and dead bystanders. The demand also only increases.
Look at portugal: The decriminalized in 2000. By 2010 their rates of drug use had dropped by 50%. FULLY HALF. The war on drugs has never done such a thing, and cannot even claim a CORRELATION (much less a CAUSATION). The federal gov itself has a graph you can look at that shows drug war spending (as an increasing exponential curve) and use rates (sticks at between 20-25% and fluctuates more or less on a pattern with no correlation to the spending curve).
Prohibition causes more problems than it solves. To say nothing of the lost tax revenue (both of the incarcerated losing employment after arrest and detention and of the products themselves), the economic woes (of people now destitute over losses related to arrest) and the simple human cost (we have the most prisoners on the planet. half of those are drug offenders), you have children easily able to acquire these psychoactives.
When I was 18 I could get you cocaine, pills of all sorts, lsd, mushrooms, weed, or (*)(*)(*)(*)ING PEYOTE, with anywhere from 10 minutes to a few days notice (depending on the substance). And I wasn't dealing these were just through people I knew.
Know what I had a DAMN hard time acquiring? Alcohol. Why? Because you pretty much had to get it from a store which meant you needed a good fake id (real hard to get and expensive and a felony IIRC) or someone who met the legal requirements.

Ending prohibition is a PRACTICAL matter for MANY, it reduces the costs associated with the drug, brings in revenue to compensate for the costs that exist, cripples organized crime, and "protects the children" far better than prohibition can, in addition to lowering the rate of drug usage. If you want LESS people to use, support ending prohibition. That is THE ONLY method shown to lower the usage rate. If you claim to want less people to use drugs and you AREN"T for ending prohibition, you might as well (*)(*)(*)(*) into a hurricane for all the good it will do you.

 

So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Because there will be an increase in crimes committed while under the influence.

 

Source?

 

Articles like this one. It describes some crimes that were committed under the influence. One guy jumped to his death while a woman was shot by her husband.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/u...o-sees-the-downside-of-a-legal-high.html?_r=1

 

According to that article driving while high is up yet violent crime is down, by as muc as 10% some places. Sounds like a win to me.

 

Except that Marijuana isn't legal yet. When it becomes legal, especially if it becomes legal throughout the country.it stems to logic that these kinds of incidents will increase. However, it remains to be seen by how much.

 

Im fine with driving while high increasing and violent crime decreasing. I wouldn't be suprised if we saw usage rates of harder drugs decrease as well. Drug legalization is a good thing. It brings drug problems above ground where they can be dealt with, it deals a massive blow to the violent black market by removing easy money from their hands, and it helps us save money by not enforcing draconian laws which test the limits of our constitutional rights. I really don't see a downside to legalization from the figures I've seen here and abroad.

 

Ah ah ah. The use rate itself declines, therefore you will have LESS people under the influence because you will have less people using overall.

 

Incidents that could've happened regardless of legality. The use rate goes down with decrim and legalization. Less people use= less people under the influence. You HEAR about these things because its a hot issue and sells newspapers. They've always happened to some extent or another but they happen less the less people use drugs. The only thing ever shown to lower the use rate has been legalization/decrim (see portugal 2000-2010+). You want (*)(*)(*)(*) like the article to happen less? Legalize drugs, tax and regulate them. That is what logic dictates. Other arguments are simply emotionally based from one perspective or another.

 

Also worth noting we are in the "romance period" where people are celebrating legalization, thus use is likely at a high point right now (pun definitely intended). Use will go down with time according to all the info I have seen.

 

Indeed. Its the "high point" *does the dr. evil thing*. Everyone wants to hop on the bandwagon now so they can feel cool and edgy because its illegal still and the page is turning. Once its turned the "forbidden fruit" aspect does a pretty good impersonation of a disappearing act. Doesn't entirely disappear but it goes away as far as it ever will. Which IS the ideal afterall.

 

I dont like the smell of cattle, and their flatulance is harmful to my body.

They shouldn't be allowed to raise cattle anymore.

Oh and the factory down the road, and the landfill, those have to go too. Both harmful to me, both have to go.

And the Sulphur river. That's gotta go too.

 

Good glad you see it my way.

 

But it's a bad indictment of democracy in that those that want to vote and get their way, even if the majority of people didn't vote or don't vote but then don't like the result. It tells you that whenever you get your chance, whatever the subject, you have to have an opinion and vote on it. Then you can't be annoyed at the result, whichever way it goes.

But you could still fume internally, but DO NOT FAIL TO VOTE.

 

Well, only 1/8 of people in prison on drug charges are there for marijuana. So even if drug prisoners are half of the prison population, only 1/16 of the prison population is from marijuana charges. The thought that legalizing marijuana will empty the prisons is specious.

http://norml.org/news/2006/10/12/ne...billion-annually-to-incarcerate-pot-offenders

 

we also have the largest prison population 1/8 of it is over a 250,000 people then. I'm also talking about the entire system in general. the war on marajuana cost 3.6 billion a year at 8 million arrest between 2001-2010. thats alot of taxes.
https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/war-marijuana-black-and-white-report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/marijuana-possession-arrests_n_2490340.html

 

More than that that's alot of people who now pay 33K a year to house and feed. Those same people who now can't hold a job and pay taxes because they're in the pokey. Those same people who will have a harder time finding a job afterwards and are more likely to end up on welfare of one type or another.

 

My neighbor drives a smelly Ford diesel truck and that disgusting smell easily finds it's what into my front window. Now what about my famiily's freedom?