Do you think Obama will legalize weed?

Even if weed isn't legalized, or even decriminalized, it is a very positive sign that the federal government will cease spending taxpayers money to interfere with the wishes of voters in those states with medical marijuana.

Just one of many idiotic policies of the Bush-Reagan era.
 
Well, since 52.9% were apparently smoking dope in November, I'd say the odds are good.





It's a joke! Lighten up...take a hit...whatever. :)
 
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other on this, but I am concerned that if MJ was fully legalized and became tolerated in the mainstream, it would be abused as much as alcohol is, and then we WOULD see significant numbers of people getting hurt and killed by those under the influence on the roads. I guess I would lean towards decriminalization rather than full-out legalization.
 
Marihuana never hurt anyone. Alcohol does, Cigarettes do. Not Marihuana.
Just let people smoke.
I hope Obama legalizes weed, but I don't think it's likely. The world isn't ready for that yet. But I'd guess that within the next 20 years, it will be legal in most countries.
 
Aren't you aware that MJ causes the munchies, therefore attributing to heart attack by clotting of the arteries by excessive consumption of KK doughnuts.:D
 
bmattock said:
Take your opinion and cram it.
Click to expand...

Bill, as a person who voted for Reagan and Bush 41, I think what he was trying to say is that the so-called "war on drugs" was a bad idea in the manner in which it was implemented. You have people doing hard time, longer sentences than rapists and murderers and pedophiles, for pot.

Illegal narcotic use is a medical issue, and should be treated as such. Even though, medically, MJ is not a narcotic, it's treated that way in the drug laws.

Stepping back from this one issue to look at the bigger picture, we live in a society that is addicted to the notion that harsh sentencing laws reduces crime. Keep in mind that we are the nation that has succeeded in putting more people in the slammer than any other nation in recorded history, including Soviet Russia. We are addicted to the idea that the threat of criminal penalty changes medically-motivated behaviour. It doesn't, plain and simple.

The legal industry, and privitized prison industry that wearhouses these inmates, is a fast growing business with plenty of lobbyist money. Guess where that money comes from? You and I the taxpayer.

There's got to be a better way to approach crime prevention than merely throwing the whole country in prison for behaviour whose negative effects on society are frankly dubious. I think the after-effects of an ex-con's prison experience is much worse on society than letting him smoke some weed and perhaps get him into an alternative therapy program.

93% of the people in prison today will be out walking the streets in 3 years. They'll be standing in line in the grocery store behind your wife and daughter.

~Joe
 
Morca007 said:
Quite the convincing argument you've got there. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's not an argument, it's an opinion. No one can offer a 'convincing argument' in the arena of legalization / decriminalization of marijuana, because everyone accuses the other of using tainted data - there are no 'facts' that both sides accept as such, so it can only be a war of entrenched opinions.

I recognize that my opinion cannot be convincing to one who does not feel as I do, because nothing I offer as evidence or proof will be accepted - nor will yours be accepted by me.

So rather than fight a meaningless battle, I cut to the chase and offer my opinion. At the very least, I think it is important for the, shall we say, tree-hugging contingent at RFF to at least realize that not everyone who reads this forum feels the way they do about sparking up a great big doob.
 
JoeV said:
Bill, as a person who voted for Reagan and Bush 41, I think what he was trying to say is that the so-called "war on drugs" was a bad idea in the manner in which it was implemented.
Click to expand...

Hmm, let's revisit...

"Just one of many idiotic policies of the Bush-Reagan era."

No, I disagree. I was right when I read it. An anti-Bush screed. My response stands. If I post something derogatory about President Obama, feel free to say the same to me.

You have people doing hard time, longer sentences than rapists and murderers and pedophiles, for pot.
Click to expand...

That's a problem that can be addressed. Legalization does not have to be on the agenda to fix that issue.

Illegal narcotic use is a medical issue, and should be treated as such. Even though, medically, MJ is not a narcotic, it's treated that way in the drug laws.
Click to expand...

Again, that can be fixed without legalization/decriminalization.

Stepping back from this one issue to look at the bigger picture, we live in a society that is addicted to the notion that harsh sentencing laws reduces crime.
Click to expand...

No one knows what reduces crime. Societies have struggled with this issue since civilization began. What works in one country doesn't in another, and no one exactly knows why or why not.

One thing that is true, is that criminals behind bars are not out preying on citizens.

Keep in mind that we are the nation that has succeeded in putting more people in the slammer than any other nation in recorded history, including Soviet Russia.
Click to expand...

Even if true (and I do not know that it is)

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...ed-states-lead-the-world-in-prison-population

I don't know why I should care about that. So what?

We are addicted to the idea that the threat of criminal penalty changes medically-motivated behaviour. It doesn't, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I do not see potheads smoking pot to get high as a 'medical' issue.

The legal industry, and privitized prison industry that wearhouses these inmates, is a fast growing business with plenty of lobbyist money. Guess where that money comes from? You and I the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

It does. The alternative is that we pay the cost of the damage done to society. I don't know which is worse, but I know which one I prefer.

There's got to be a better way to approach crime prevention than merely throwing the whole country in prison for behaviour whose negative effects on society are frankly dubious.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the negative effects are 'dubious'. I think they're quite clear-cut and easy to understand.

I think the after-effects of an ex-con's prison experience is much worse on society than letting him smoke some weed and perhaps get him into an alternative therapy program.
Click to expand...

You may be right about the first part of your sentence. I suspect that there are some alternatives between the extremes of durance vile and toke up, brother.

93% of the people in prison today will be out walking the streets in 3 years. They'll be standing in line in the grocery store behind your wife and daughter.
Click to expand...

And that means they should be let out now instead. Hmmm. Not seeing the logic there.

In any case, I'd dispute that figure. Death by average. Some prisoners will be in the can for decades to life, many will be out in a fairly short time. Depends on the crime, the sample, and what you mean by 'on the street'.

In addition, Matt Yeager's work on the relationship between unemployment and incarceration rates is about to be turned on its head - in general, rates of imprisonment have followed the unemployment rate, although a lagging indicator (15 months). Now, however, with states fighting budget battles and staggering deficits, non-violent prisoners are being turned loose by court order - they just can't afford to keep them imprisoned and are tossing them out even before they are eligible for parole. So it seems you may get your wish.

In any case, debating the appropriate punishment for smoking pot or dealing pot is really not interesting to me. I would have no problem seeing punishments that more accurately reflected the damage done to society by those worthies - I will never change my opinion on the damage pot smokers and pot dealers do to society, nor my opinion of those scum in general. It's an opinion, dig, and I get to have it.
 
From my own personal experiences with marijuana, I have discovered a lot about who I am and how I fit into this world. Marijuana is very much a different beast than alcohol. It's not for everyone (the same goes for alcohol) though. I feel that from my use of the drug, I have become a more in-tune person with the world. I feel I am more open minded and I realised that there needs to be more love and acceptance in this world.

Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Laws change and adapt. The thing that worries me most is the number of lives that the "war on drugs" has taken. Not to mention the number of people in jail.

Call me a hippie but I think people need to chill out. Look at Canada. Pot's decriminalised here. Life is good. Canadians are very tolerable of marijuana.

To summarise: legalise and thoroughly regulate it. The legalisation would create jobs, boost tourism, and put a lot of money back into our economy. I mean, come on. It's a plant. It's a PLANT. Oh, and growing more plants isn't so bad for the environment, either.
 
calexg said:
Just because something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong.
Click to expand...

It does mean that when the law was enacted, the citizenry did think it should be illegal.

Most Americans still think so:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/americans-growing-kinder-to-bud.html

I mean, come on. It's a plant. It's a PLANT.
Click to expand...

So is the poppy, from which we get opium and heroin. Not a good argument.

Oh, and growing more plants isn't so bad for the environment, either.
Click to expand...

I have a nice thick lawn. The only 'grass' I find useful.
 
I have the pleasure of informing you that the 'war on drugs' is going just swimmingly in Afghanistan too. It is going every bit as well as it has everywhere else i.e. nothing has improved whatsoever despite staggering cash investment.

There are other parallels here to. Nobody who smokes/injects heroin gives a damn about the law. They ended up addicts for a number of reasons, one of which is pain control after serious injuries (very common here). The only real regulator or impetus for getting help seems to be social stigma and the desire to pull themselves out of the mire and reform broken relationships with loved ones. Many just die quietly by the side of the road somewhere, or in the bowls of the derelict Russian Cultural Centre. Sure the police beat the crap out of addicts regularly and charge them with this or that...

Seems to me that drug interdiction is a costly waste of time and, as my completely ignorant understanding of economics possibly maybe dictates, supply will generally find a way of keeping up with demand and so it is demand where we should focus. Its like insurgents: they will always find a way of getting at you - they can watch you, find the weakness and choose the time and the place. Your job is to stop them wanting to and to dissuade the population from assisting their efforts to do so. You need to create a non-permissive environment. Killing 'terrorists' is as effective a solution as chasing down speedboats full of coke in íntelligence led operations.'

Can you imagine what would happen if we invested all the cash we waste on men with badges and flash helicopters chasing speedboats in education, clinics etc instead? IMHO it would be a dramatic improvement. Afghanistan does not just export herion/opium, there are a lot of users here too. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether the same pattern repeats itself here? Of course it does. Lots of money on law enforcement without any real succes. A drug addict who wants help simply cannot get it (although support here is effectively non-existent). Being principled is important, but we must not forget the actual intended result: a reduction in drug users/abusers and social/human harm. If our principles tend to bring about other results, a more pragmatic solution is arguably desirable. If not, we are helping nobody but ourselves, through polishing the gleaming publicly visible reflection of our ethical sensibilities.

I am not a fan of drug abuse.. funnily enough (I don't touch it), but the totalitarian headmasterly approach has proven to be an unmitigated failure wherever it is applied. Human nature explains why. Pure Marxism has has little better success over similar timeframes for the related reasons. Puritanism of any kind does not tend to work, wlthough fads may see their apparrent success over short periods (such as abstinence).

Here is another question: Are the people accountable to the state or the state to the people. Sometimes I am not sure.... I am of the opinion that the state may of course lead by example; they do not need to represent a mob approach to a delicate issue, but they had better be able to explain why they are advocating the course they are.. Personally, I expect of my government a lot more than hot air from 'principled men' in ivory towers. Its about real life, which does not take place 'in theory' at all, only very really.
 
Last edited:
Once a doctor told me:
you live what you eat.
My personal advice:
Become vegetarian.
Ban not only alcohol drugs soft drinks useless medicines, but also whatever comes from animals. And don't let them be killed for you.
Then go to an omotoxicologyst and he will inform you of your allergies what organs need help and he/she will take them back to mint by means of homeopathy.
You will reach 100 in good shape
Just my humble way of life.
BTW that's what mediterranean diet is all about
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom