Do you think Obama will legalize weed?

No, there was an active campaign to get Obama to address legalization through his official website's poll (which asked what issue people most wanted to see him address publicly).
Marijuana legalization was the number one issue at the end of the poll, but the public received no response other than a message to the effect of "President Obama has no intentions to legalize marijuana" on the site.
 
I do not think it is a constructive use of our tax money to go after from a federal standpoint what has been legalized from a state standpoint. I also celebrate the affirmation of state's rights, which is probably one of the very small victories of this nature that we'll see in the next four to eight years.

On the other hand, I dislike the legalization of marijuana for 'medical purposes' - not because I am against it being used for that, but because the laws (particularly in California) are written such that anyone can claim to have 'pain' and get a prescription. And that is just what is happening - it's nothing more than out-and-out legalization, which I do not support. If it were being used only by people with real pain-relief needs, I'd have no problem with it. As it stands, it is a charade.
 
Obama has said previously that he supports the decriminalisation of marijuana but not the legalisation.

Don't even get me going on this topic...for what it's worth, I am Canadian and under 25 years old, and I am a firm believer that the government should not decide what I can or can't do to my own body in the privacy of my own home if I'm not hurting anyone else.
 
bmattock said:
I do not think it is a constructive use of our tax money to go after from a federal standpoint what has been legalized from a state standpoint. I also celebrate the affirmation of state's rights, which is probably one of the very small victories of this nature that we'll see in the next four to eight years.
Click to expand...

Bill, this part I agree with. I don't see marijuana becoming legalized anytime soon either. This is a great victory for states rights, but I hope the next step will be the decriminalization of it. As for those that get perscriptions for marijuana that don't really need it. People do that already with pain pills.
 
calexg said:
Don't even get me going on this topic...for what it's worth, I am Canadian and under 25 years old, and I am a firm believer that the government should not decide what I can or can't do to my own body in the privacy of my own home if I'm not hurting anyone else.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. I agree with your statement. I disagree that certain drugs a person might take 'do not hurt anyone else'. As members of societies, we give up some of our natural rights for the good of that society. Although I believe that the goal should always be maximum individual liberty, the needs of society must also be protected.
 
gb hill said:
As for those that get perscriptions for marijuana that don't really need it. People do that already with pain pills.
Click to expand...

That's a good reason to reform pain pill prescriptions, not to open the floodgates to "ya'll come" medical marijuana. Your stance is to 'give up' since pain pills are abused anyway. My stance is to not make things worse at the very least - and if pain pills are also a problem, go after those too.

The truth in California is this - while pain pills are abused, and prescriptions easy to get, most people don't want to take pain pills for entertainment or just to get high. Marijuana, on the other hand, is a drug taken for enjoyment. Medical abuse is done by people who, as opposed to being addicted to pain pills, just want to get high.

There are websites devoted to helping Californians who just like to smoke pot to 'describe their pain' to a doctor in the precise language that will net them a prescription. This is very different from pain pill abuse - it's defacto 'wink wink' legalization.
 
dfoo said:
Yes, because the war on drugs has been so effective. Like prohibition before it.
Click to expand...

If that's your argument, then we should also give up on human trafficking of children for sex - because we can't seem to stop it - so we should legalize it. I do not find it a compelling reason to legalize something that we as a society do not want legalized, just because drugs continue to get through our borders.
 
dfoo said:
So your opinion is that human trafficking of children for sex is as harmful as dope?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? I made no statement of equivalence.

I made an analogy, which is valid. If your argument is that inability to stop an illegal border incursion means it should be legalized, then you must also favor legalization of human trafficking of children for sex, according to your own logic.

I'm not going here again. It's detrimental to RFF and also gets my dander up. You have your opinion about the relative danger of pot, I have mine. Neither one of us is going to change our minds.
 
I suppose the recreational use of alcohol has some parallels to the recreational use of Mary Jane, with the big exception being the supply side. The alcohol lobby is very powerful in this country, and in many states is the largest government lobbyist.

Legit uses of Mary Jane, like for so-called medical uses, are provided for by government-ran plantations.

So I see this whole issue as simply a supply and demand, competition based economics issue. The government has a monopoly on supply and demand.

I suspect the issue would much more resemble the recreational use of alcohol that we have today if there were private interests marketing MJ, using sophisticated marketing and branding techniques.

What would Joe Camel do?

~Joe
 
JoeV said:
I suppose the recreational use of alcohol has some parallels to the recreational use of Mary Jane, with the big exception being the supply side. The alcohol lobby is very powerful in this country, and in many states is the largest government lobbyist.

Legit uses of Mary Jane, like for so-called medical uses, are provided for by government-ran plantations.

So I see this whole issue as simply a supply and demand, competition based economics issue. The government has a monopoly on supply and demand.

I suspect the issue would much more resemble the recreational use of alcohol that we have today if there were private interests marketing MJ, using sophisticated marketing and branding techniques.

What would Joe Camel do?

~Joe
Click to expand...

The government killed Joe Camel....RIP
 
From an economic standpoint, I think it would be a great idea to legalize it. First of all, tons of money would be saved not hunting down farmers, dealers, etc. etc. Secondly, you could tax it, create legal jobs in growing, processing, selling etc. which would generate much revenue. It would of course also cut down on crime.

In terms of it being dangerous, I would have to say that cigarettes and alcohol are much more dangerous and addictive than grass. I don't have any statistics in front of me (and I don't really feel like doing any research on it), but I'm fairly sure more people are killed by drunk drivers, alcohol related disease, etc. than grass. Just because you personally can handle booze doesn't mean everybody can. Think about how often you read about drunk drivers, and then think about how often you read about drivers high on grass. Think about all the health care costs associated with alcohol problems, then there's fetal alcohol syndrome... I am not sure, but I really don't think there's that much disease associated with pot. Maybe low sperm count, but in an overpopulated world that's probably not a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom