dfoo
Well-known
No, it means that when the law was enacted the majority of legislative thinks it should be illegal.
I invite you to review this page for the inevitable outcome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
This quote of Rockefeller is particularly pertinent.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
The government is elected in the US, ostensibly to do the work of the people on their behalf. And the poll numbers (three major polls, not just one obscure little one) show that while support for legalization has been growing, it remains the minority viewpoint, and has been for a very, very, long time. The people do not want pot to be legalized - and since the government represents the people, if they had gone against the people's wishes, the people have had ample time to correct things.
EDIT: I read your link. Thanks, I never knew a THING about Prohibition. You must really think me an uneducated dolt, thanks for that. Prohibition, may I remind you, was made law by an amendment to the US Constitution, and was repealed in the same manner - both by popular demand. There is no such demand sufficient to modify the US Constitution regarding marijuana, but you're welcome to try - I eagerly await the outcome. As to Rockefeller's comments, he's right - banning a substance that still has a great deal of demand for it create a criminal class willing to supply it and crime rates rise. To this I can only reply "So what?" People regularly ignore traffic laws like pulling over for ambulances - shall we then make it legal to refuse to pull over? Making criminal behavior legal is expedient - it certainly ends that crime - but it does not change the issue. People do not want pot to be legal. I don't want it to be legal. There is nothing else to discuss.
Last edited:
funkpilz
Well-known
Elaborate, please. I'm sure you have some kind of story about your personal experiences with marihuana. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting these childish one-sentence-comments all the time.
bmattock
Veteran
I have a great deal of personal experience - that is, the experience of being the family member of a person who went down the path of addiction from marijuana to crack and took her entire family with her into hell. I won't recount it here, as I expect it would simply be ridiculed, and that would make me very angry. Suffice to say that anyone who thinks that a burning weed inhaled into your lungs for the purposes of getting high 'never hurt anyone' has never been through the hell I and my family have been through, so you're clearly wrong, from my point of view. I wish I could let you experience some of my history and my pain, you'd shut your pie-hole toot sweet, bucko.
That better?
George S.
How many is enough?
Jeez, more yelling and name-calling Bill? Why is it that 25 people here can have a calm discussion, respectfully disagreeing and you come along and belittle all who disagree with your position. Your opinion is one of many, no better no worse than the 25 others expressed here. Your last post gives us some insight into why you have such strong beliefs one way, but that doesn't excuse your gruff, rude and insulting behavior and maybe you should think a bit more before you open YOUR pie-hole instead of being so quick to tell others to shut theirs...
Last edited:
George S.
How many is enough?
Now, onto my opinion and experiences in this matter...
I've been working in law enforcement for 36 years and I've NEVER had a fight with someone under the influence of marijuana, but I couldn't count the number of all-out brawls I've been involved in with people drunk on alcohol. And there have been many injuries to my fellow police officers as well as the drunk in these fights.
I've seen far too many innocent dead people in car accidents caused by drunk drivers that I care to count. I also can't recall where one of those drunks also had a significant amount of pot in their system. Some of course did have some level in their system, and it was and is difficult to ascertain what level affects drivers to what degree, I do admit. But I can't recall any instance where the reading jumped out at me. A great generalization with regard to driving is that alcohol makes you fearless besides slowing your reflexes and you'll drive 120MPH in a 60MPH zone, wheras pot makes you drive 30MPH in a 60 zone.
14 US states have medical marijuana laws and many more states have decriminalized pot. I don't see the decriminalization as causing more people to smoke it, even in states where the fine is only $75. This is in a state where most traffic summonses are $180. I think pot is available everywhere here in the US, and if you're inclined to smoke it you'll smoke it whether it's a crime, a misdemeanor, or completely legal. The main issue that has to be decided is whether legalizing pot will encourage young people to maybe try something else in the drug culture, like cocaine or meth. My gut instinct is that with the right marketing campaign it won't for the most part.
I'm interested to hear from any RFF members that reside in California. Just this week I read a news blurb that said a bill will be introduced in the legislature completely legalizing it for those 21 and older. This impetus behind the bill is $$$, as California is broke and in need of new taxes and businesses.
I've been working in law enforcement for 36 years and I've NEVER had a fight with someone under the influence of marijuana, but I couldn't count the number of all-out brawls I've been involved in with people drunk on alcohol. And there have been many injuries to my fellow police officers as well as the drunk in these fights.
I've seen far too many innocent dead people in car accidents caused by drunk drivers that I care to count. I also can't recall where one of those drunks also had a significant amount of pot in their system. Some of course did have some level in their system, and it was and is difficult to ascertain what level affects drivers to what degree, I do admit. But I can't recall any instance where the reading jumped out at me. A great generalization with regard to driving is that alcohol makes you fearless besides slowing your reflexes and you'll drive 120MPH in a 60MPH zone, wheras pot makes you drive 30MPH in a 60 zone.
14 US states have medical marijuana laws and many more states have decriminalized pot. I don't see the decriminalization as causing more people to smoke it, even in states where the fine is only $75. This is in a state where most traffic summonses are $180. I think pot is available everywhere here in the US, and if you're inclined to smoke it you'll smoke it whether it's a crime, a misdemeanor, or completely legal. The main issue that has to be decided is whether legalizing pot will encourage young people to maybe try something else in the drug culture, like cocaine or meth. My gut instinct is that with the right marketing campaign it won't for the most part.
I'm interested to hear from any RFF members that reside in California. Just this week I read a news blurb that said a bill will be introduced in the legislature completely legalizing it for those 21 and older. This impetus behind the bill is $$$, as California is broke and in need of new taxes and businesses.
Last edited:
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
As you said, Bill, liquor was made illegal by a constitutional amendment, and later legalized the same way.
The constitution does not specify that cannabis is illegal, and so it would not require an amendment. Furthermore, there are many cases where the government passes laws that are not popular. In many states, interracial marriage was illegal, and not too long ago either. And you know what? The people in some of those states DIDN'T WANT it to be allowed.
Do you assert that the people's wishes ought to determine what's legal and what is not?
The constitution does not specify that cannabis is illegal, and so it would not require an amendment. Furthermore, there are many cases where the government passes laws that are not popular. In many states, interracial marriage was illegal, and not too long ago either. And you know what? The people in some of those states DIDN'T WANT it to be allowed.
Do you assert that the people's wishes ought to determine what's legal and what is not?
bmattock
Veteran
I seldom belittle anyone, but you use that word a lot - are you sure you know what it means? Mostly, you seem to have a personal problem with me, and you follow me around like a little angry dog, yipping at my heels. It's scary to see someone with such a fixation on another human being. If I'm that big a problem for you, you are free to ignore my posts.
I read your previous posts and note well your reaction to anyone with whom you disagree. Your frustrations are clearly visible.
bmattock
Veteran
If the wishes of the people are not contrary to the Constitution, yes.
George S.
How many is enough?
You scare too easily. You should see someone about that. No, wait- that would mean you would have to admit certain things to yourself. Like listening to another's advice. We all know you can't do that. Sorry. Nevermind.
George S.
How many is enough?
The members of the Constitutional Convention did smoke some unconventional plants themselves. So that argument seems pale.
George S.
How many is enough?
Thank you! Read them again without a chip on your shoulder and you may yet get the true meanings.
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
My admittedly limited experience leads me to think that something legal is much easier to control than something illegal.
I lived in a medium sized city here in NY state and while there occasionally bought booze after hours--this guy didn't care about anything other than if his customers A) had cash and B) were not law enforcement. While in the bars, if you were under age or drunk or too obnoxious, you weren't getting served.
One example does NOT make a statistical difference but I suspect my example is only part of a fairly common thing.
And if one is running a legal business, then there are rules and regulations to follow and in most businesses, inspections and enforcement of those rules. And some kind of recourse when those rules are not followed.
Rob
EDIT: to answer the OP's question; No I don't think the Pres will. In fact, it's not really up to him. That would be Congress' job to pass legislation.
R
I lived in a medium sized city here in NY state and while there occasionally bought booze after hours--this guy didn't care about anything other than if his customers A) had cash and B) were not law enforcement. While in the bars, if you were under age or drunk or too obnoxious, you weren't getting served.
One example does NOT make a statistical difference but I suspect my example is only part of a fairly common thing.
And if one is running a legal business, then there are rules and regulations to follow and in most businesses, inspections and enforcement of those rules. And some kind of recourse when those rules are not followed.
Rob
EDIT: to answer the OP's question; No I don't think the Pres will. In fact, it's not really up to him. That would be Congress' job to pass legislation.
R
Last edited:
calexg
Established
For those of you who are against it, I'd like to know if you'd agree with the government controlling the substance (i.e. price, quality, amount sold, licenses through authorised dealers) as it is, in your view, dangerous?
I was going to go off on a tangent about Europeans and other nations' use of the drug but I realised this thread is about the USA.
I can see this thread getting locked pretty soon here if the insults continue to fly. Why can't we have an intelligent discussion about this? I understand it hits a chord with some members (bmattock, I am sorry to hear about your family member abusing drugs...my heart goes out to you and your family). Hey, I've got an idea! Let's create a thread about abortion! Better yet, let's talk about religion!
(tongue placed firmly in cheek)
I was going to go off on a tangent about Europeans and other nations' use of the drug but I realised this thread is about the USA.
I can see this thread getting locked pretty soon here if the insults continue to fly. Why can't we have an intelligent discussion about this? I understand it hits a chord with some members (bmattock, I am sorry to hear about your family member abusing drugs...my heart goes out to you and your family). Hey, I've got an idea! Let's create a thread about abortion! Better yet, let's talk about religion!
(tongue placed firmly in cheek)
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
If you think medical marijuana should remain illegal because some people will abuse it, do you also believe morphine should be banned for medical purposes?
Olsen
Well-known
Sorry but...
There is a lot of research - tons of it, pointing clearly at 'poverty & desperation' (like the one created by drug abuse) creates crime - among men, and prostitution among women.
bmattock
Veteran
I said no one knows what reduces crime. We know what creates it.
George S.
How many is enough?
Poverty and desperation on the part of the legislators in the state of California has given pot the best chance of becoming legalized. I don't know how they'd get around the federal laws making it illegal, though.
Olsen
Well-known
Reduce poverty!
Olsen
Well-known
Please don't rate this as just another anti-American rant. Because it is not. At least, it is not intended as such. I feel I have strong ties to America and Americans in general, - like most Europeans do. Nor do I know 'everything' about America and what's goes on all the time, over there. We have more than enough with our own financial crisis, and our own domestic problems. Thank you very much...
There is a few things I find disappointing regarding president Obama. I just have to say this.
First of all: He promised to pull out if Iraq. Now we here that 50.000 'instructors' are going to be left behind. That is some education reform! I am sure there isnt that many teachers in Ohio, - about the same population as Iraq.
He promised...!
Second: He is not going forward with this 'Wall Street Bail Out', is he? Just about everybody - with any sense that is, are shouting from the side lines: 'Don't do it!' Save 'people' and 'industries' that create something of real value. Let the banks go bankrupt and nationalize them! Save people's savings and pension funds (as much of the funds that is reasonably possible, that is).
- In a speech about the crisis, the bailout and all that, he says: ' "While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."
Sure, but how, and who's gonna pay...?
He continues: '"Now, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that for too long we have not always met these responsibilities—as a government or as a people... we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before."
- I beg your pardon?
The wast majority of the American people were not at this 'party' were all this money was spent! The average American has had a hard time to cope with falling purchasing power and increasing prices over the last years. Many struggle with credit card debt, just to get by from day to day. Nor were they told of the consequences of 'tax reductions'. By these, the whole nation was indebted beond control.
I am also wondering from where and from whom the US government is going to cover the 1,75 Trillion budget deficit, - just for 2009, that is. Hav'nt it dawned on the US government that we are in a middle of a 'financial' crisis? One of the reasons we got there is, - as Obama so elegantly put it - well - read the above! And now he is going to solve this by borrowing more...?
The defence spending is going to grow some 24% in the coming 4 years! The US defence budget equals that of the defence spending of the rest of the world. Practically. Never mind any legalisation of any drugs; 'Washington' is rambling on as if nothing has happened.
To finance the budget they have to convince nations like China or Japan, with their own domestic problems to cope with, to borrow them more money. That was a piece of cake up untill a few months a go. Not any more.
One other way is to print more dollars. That is: Make everything more expensive for ordinary Americans. Regardless if the money is borrowed or just printed up; it is the ordinary American who's gonna take the tab. Ask your president: 'Make it cheap, please!' Printing more dollars, that was the way out the Weimar Republic of Germany choose, back in the 30'. Or Zimbabwe.
It is not only a matter of getting out of the crisis, but to do so without having to empoverish large tracts of the US population when doing so. So, insist on 'no tax reduction for anyone'. 'Everybody' got to contribute to carry the burden. Particularly those who prospered from the debt boom.
There is a few things I find disappointing regarding president Obama. I just have to say this.
First of all: He promised to pull out if Iraq. Now we here that 50.000 'instructors' are going to be left behind. That is some education reform! I am sure there isnt that many teachers in Ohio, - about the same population as Iraq.
He promised...!
Second: He is not going forward with this 'Wall Street Bail Out', is he? Just about everybody - with any sense that is, are shouting from the side lines: 'Don't do it!' Save 'people' and 'industries' that create something of real value. Let the banks go bankrupt and nationalize them! Save people's savings and pension funds (as much of the funds that is reasonably possible, that is).
- In a speech about the crisis, the bailout and all that, he says: ' "While our economy may be weakened and our confidence shaken, though we are living through difficult and uncertain times, tonight I want every American to know this: We will rebuild, we will recover, and the United States of America will emerge stronger than before."
Sure, but how, and who's gonna pay...?
He continues: '"Now, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll admit that for too long we have not always met these responsibilities—as a government or as a people... we still managed to spend more money and pile up more debt, both as individuals and through our government, than ever before."
- I beg your pardon?
The wast majority of the American people were not at this 'party' were all this money was spent! The average American has had a hard time to cope with falling purchasing power and increasing prices over the last years. Many struggle with credit card debt, just to get by from day to day. Nor were they told of the consequences of 'tax reductions'. By these, the whole nation was indebted beond control.
I am also wondering from where and from whom the US government is going to cover the 1,75 Trillion budget deficit, - just for 2009, that is. Hav'nt it dawned on the US government that we are in a middle of a 'financial' crisis? One of the reasons we got there is, - as Obama so elegantly put it - well - read the above! And now he is going to solve this by borrowing more...?
The defence spending is going to grow some 24% in the coming 4 years! The US defence budget equals that of the defence spending of the rest of the world. Practically. Never mind any legalisation of any drugs; 'Washington' is rambling on as if nothing has happened.
To finance the budget they have to convince nations like China or Japan, with their own domestic problems to cope with, to borrow them more money. That was a piece of cake up untill a few months a go. Not any more.
One other way is to print more dollars. That is: Make everything more expensive for ordinary Americans. Regardless if the money is borrowed or just printed up; it is the ordinary American who's gonna take the tab. Ask your president: 'Make it cheap, please!' Printing more dollars, that was the way out the Weimar Republic of Germany choose, back in the 30'. Or Zimbabwe.
It is not only a matter of getting out of the crisis, but to do so without having to empoverish large tracts of the US population when doing so. So, insist on 'no tax reduction for anyone'. 'Everybody' got to contribute to carry the burden. Particularly those who prospered from the debt boom.
Last edited: