Marijuana should be legal nation wide

Obama is about the head out. Regardless of what party wins the election, if I were him, I'd do whatever I can to start the process after the election. Marijuana is really not a big deal. This is well known among people who are around it. Yeah you have that loser who just smokes weed all day and does nothing. You also have that alcoholic who just drinks all the time going no where. You have the person who won't go to school and get a degree knowing that even a two year will be very beneficial. People don't always make the right choices, but they should have the freedom to choose. It's also not universal. Not everyone who smokes weed goes no where, not everyone who drinks is unable to function due to alcohol, and people who don't go to college can find a path that pays them very well. I have examples of all of this in my life, well with the exception of the pothead who goes nowhere and the alcoholic who does nothing, we left those people long ago.

I guess I just don't understand the problem, why the prohibitionists are so forceful in their anti-marijuana stance. I believe it is mostly political; their political opponent wants weed legal so they want to keep it banned. That's not a valid reason in my book but we see it all the time given our two party system that pits Americans against Americans to gain votes. We need to move past that, but maybe it's because our lives are so easy that we can fight so fiercely against issue that have no impact on our lives. However like gay marriage the seed has been planted, and we'll see legalization move forward throughout the US.

 

I strongly agree. I've yet to hear any compelling arguments against it and feel like an executive order is in order for its decriminalization.

 

Let the states figure it out in their own time frame. No reason why Alaska has to decriminalize at the same time as California, if at all.

 

Im still wondering why the heck Hemp is still or ever was illegal. Many conspiracy theories behind this.

 

It goes back to the 1930s and was directed at Mexican workers and Harlem musicians.. and from what I've read it was basically a one man crusade. PBS had a series.. Here is part of the timeline.

Mexican immigrants introduce recreational use of marijuana leaf

After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexican immigrants flooded into the U.S., introducing to American culture the recreational use of marijuana. The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish-speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching "Marijuana Menace," and terrible crimes were attributed to marijuana and the Mexicans who used it.


1930s


Fear of marijuana

During the Great Depression, massive unemployment increased public resentment and fear of Mexican immigrants, escalating public and governmental concern about the problem of marijuana. This instigated a flurry of research which linked the use of marijuana with violence, crime and other socially deviant behaviors, primarily committed by "racially inferior" or underclass communities. By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana.




1930


Creation of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN)

Harry J. Anslinger was the first Commissioner of the FBN and remained in that post until 1962.




1932


Uniform State Narcotic Act

Concern about the rising use of marijuana and research linking its use with crime and other social problems created pressure on the federal government to take action. Rather than promoting federal legislation, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics strongly encouraged state governments to accept responsibility for control of the problem by adopting the Uniform State Narcotic Act

continued.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html

 

It's illegal because Ben Franklin said: "If you want your economy to flourish, raise hemp".
I lived near Santa Barbara in the mid 70's. Marijuana was just a normal part of life. At lunch time, my 30 or so smoking buddies would hang around out by the Ag. field, sitting in a big circle, eating our lunch, and smoking our joints. School staff would walk by, and nothing was said. The cops would cruise past without stopping.
Then came Nancy Reagan, to ruin the whole thing.

 

Pretty clear after reading this.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-Wears-Clothes-Conspiracy/dp/1878125028

 

More and more the push to legalize marijuana is catching.

 

I disagree. When it comes to basic liberty I don't think the states should have the right to say "no, you can't". I agree with states rights in that they know what is best for them. Clearly a Federal mandate of "use mountain water" won't work for states in middle America which cannot and require well water. I know it's an insanely broad example, but for the most part what is legal in one state should be legal in another unless there are extenuating circumstances. At no point should states rights come to "well we don't like that so we're going to ban it".

 

That's the guy. Banned it over racism and commercialism. Ug, so many lives (*)(*)(*)(*)ed over because of his bull(*)(*)(*)(*) crusade.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you a bot or do you just do one liners? I'm curious because I never see you engaged in discussion. No offense, just curious.

 

One of the problems with the anti pot crowd is that they lie. Claiming that the danger of pot is similar to narcotics such as opioids is a flat out lie.

The main principle on which this nation was founded is that individual rights and freedoms/ life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are "ABOVE" the legitimate power of the Gov't .... Period.

The power of gov't extends only to acts which are injurious to others... Killing, Stealing and so on. The above rights end where the face of another individual begins. That's it.

In order to go outside this purview the Gov't must appeal to "we the people" = change the social contract.

Such a change requires an "overwhelming majority" not (50 + 1). This is to prevent what was referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority" - some group ( city council, State Gov't or the Feds) getting power and messing with liberty.

Heroin vs Pot serve as an excellent example of how well this system works Set "overwhelming majority" at 75-80%

The point here is that if something is "so dangerous" then an overwhelming majority will recognize this danger and agree to give Gov't the power to regulate.

It would be relatively easy to hit that bar for Heroin. Good luck with pot.

We do not see people being taken to the Hospital for Pot overdose on a weekly basis. Alcohol we do.

Our system was set up to limit Gov't power. For 200 years the Govt has been trying to get that power back, and they have succeeded.

Other than religion, one of the ways the Gov't has gotten around restrictions on messing with freedom is through utilitarianism.

These arguments seek to justify law on the basis of increasing happiness for the collective. The problem with such arguments are
1) they ignore individual rights and freedoms and
2) who gets to decide ? one mans poison is another mans pleasure.

Example of such are "if it saves one life" "Harm reduction"

These arguments are insidious because they sound good on the surface. Who does not want to save one life ?

When you dig deeper these arguments turn out to be nonsense.

"if it saves on life" is an absurd justification for law.

If if is a good justification then we should be banning skiing. Would this not save one life ? How about boating, one could drown.
Driving a car ? Banned tomorrow that is super dangerous.

In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

So much for the "we do not want to introduce another harmful substance" argument. This is rank stupidity masquerading as legitimate justification for law.

It is not up to "we the people" to prove that Pot is not harmful. Life is harmful and full of risk.

It is up to the Gov't to prove that the "overwhelming majority" thinks that Pot is so dangerous on a relative basis that they would agree to laws banning it.

 

That does not always work. It was the states with heavy lumber industries that pushed for it to be illegal to begin with, to kill hemp production to protect lumber interests in the paper industry.

 

Yes get it over with already, marilise legajuana, end the war on drugs and tax the carp out of it instead.

 

Total conspiracy theory junk. Hemp is a good generalist crop. Were I a farmer in the 1790s, I'd grow it. The problem is that everything hemp can do can be done better by another crop. Trees are a better source of paper, primarily due to labor costs. Hemp just produces a little more fiber per year than southern pine. However, to do that requires two plantings and harvestings a year over 20 years. If the hemp is not harvested, it rots. The pine just requires one planting and harvesting. If the pine is not harvested, you just keep getting more fiber. Yes, the planting and harvesting of pine is a little more labor intensive than a single planting and harvesting of hemp, but it's not as labor intensive as 40 plantings and harvestings of hemp.

 

Of all the things going on in the world, is this really what you are worried about?

 

If it's not a big deal then I suppose you'd have no problem with legalization. Please vote yes when you see it happen in your state so we can get this issue past us and get on with our lives.

 

That's not a very compelling argument, to get someone to vote for it. What you should say is, we can never win the war on drugs. Even with marijuana, there is far to much blood being spilled, through cartels and other means of getting it across the border, or gangs controlling areas for the sales and money. Instead just legalize it, let those who are going to pay for it anyways grow it, that way they are not contributing to these cartels. And keep it illegal to purchase, one must grow it period, and no added chemicals only all natural, this will keep it under control in the aspect of enhanced drugs. This will not allow for cartels and gangs to thrive in the marijuana aspect. That way at least in the marijuana aspect, we reduce this bloodshed in that specific area. Marijuana is far less destructive on the brain then most other drugs (if not all) taken, including alcohol and prescription drugs. Until the turn of the century it's what they gave women for child birth, and still use for medical purposes. Why put it in the hands of gangs and cartels to get rich on, and kill for?

 

I agree it's not a compelling argument, I'm just pointing out that people who often dismiss ideas like the legalization of marijuana or gay marriage as being low priority would often vote against them, continuing the fight to legalize something that they see as "no big deal". It's just a stance I've never understood.

 

Hmmm, High Times has been around since 1974. I seem to remember Bobby Kennedy was against it as Attorney General. Not really a new idea.

Such mundain laws don't apply to the Donor Class and the drug dealers don't want their profits cut. Not likely to change under the present system.

 

You have to be a weak minded fool to spend your money on marijuana!!!!!

 

Legal, tax it and regulate it like alcohol. Won't do any more damage than beer or smoking but will create lots of tax revenue. Businesses will treat it like any other soft drug. No drunks. No dopes.

 

I believe that if the law was changed, and the stigma abandoned, marijuana would be MUCH more popular.
I used to enjoy it before I joined the Navy. The penalty for "popping positive on a p test" was just too much, so I didn't smoke at all for those 8 years. After I got out, I enjoyed it casually. There came a night when it just stopped working. I stopped then. That was about 25 years ago.
If it were commonly available, and any penalty for a positive test was abolished, I'd like to have some around. I love the smell of skunk weed, before, during and after burning! I like the smell of the smoke residue.
I think a LOT of people are like me. If it was totally legal, I'd probably always have some around.

 

Far more weak and foolish is the mind that succumbs to religious dogma. Especially fundamentalist nonsense.

Perhaps we should make laws banning religion on the basis of your logic.

 

an even weaker mind to spend it on Alcohol, but it's still legal

course an even weaker mind supports prohibition......

.

 

I was indoctrinated to believe that marijuana was bad and I think many my age (50) and older grew up during a time where it was demonized. Upon an objective assessment I now see that I fell victim of the refer madness propaganda where pot is dramatized to make normal people into crazed individuals. The fact that some still perpetuate this myth in this day and age shows the power of indoctrination and its corrosive effect upon reason.