142 replies to this topic

[HordeLorde]

again you can drive past a freshly cut lawn and it smells like weed....
alcohol, which can also cause accidents and is PROVEN to cause health problems is legal
tobacco which causes health problems is legal
prescription medicine, prescribed by a doctor, solves one health problem and gives you another....legal
morphine( the chemical that heroin turns into when it hits your brain) is legal
driving is legal, speeding(which can but does not always cause accidents) is illegal..... yet no one calls for a ban to motorized vehicles despite the millions of speeding tickets handed out annually.
you want to charge people for driving under the influence of cannabis, fine. But saying marijuana should be illegal because "oh people will drive under the influence and might cause an accident" is absolutely ludacris and fascist. especially when you consider the fact that people already do it. Legal or not it doesnt matter.

if you made alcohol illegal to keep people from drinking and driving, people would get it illegally and drive while inebriated anyways
they drive drunk when its legal
theyll drive drunk when its illegal....
so making it illegal doesnt solve the problem does it? all youve done is created a reason to arrest, try and convict someone before they even plop into a car. "we know youre not driving but just having its illegal so its 3-5 for you" ludacris absolutely ludacris

 

[the rebel]

If freshly cut grass smells like weed then you need a new supplier as they are selling you grass and not weed lol

[Justavictim82]

Bumped for Reefer Madness

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Of course marijuana can kill. A lot of things can kill. The question is, does it kill at higher rates than baseline? I would say the overwhelming bulk of the evidence points to the answer being no, it is not especially harmful, especially as compared to legal substances such as cigarettes and alcohol. That said, marijuana is an intoxicant, in the broadest sense of the term, and its use would inarguably be an impediment to the safe operation of a motor vehicle. This is being used by the anti-pot crowd in the current round of hysterical advertising, but it conveniently overlooks that we sanction a substance known to be responsible for orders of magnitude more accidents than marijuana. There are various demographic and sociological reasons why this is so, but it all boils down to this: Irresponsible, even unsafe, use of a substance by a small minority is not in itself sufficient justification to ban that substance so long as it does not pose a widespread public health threat. This is a well established precedent (see: alcohol). So this is not a particularly well thought out tactic on the part of the anti-pot movement. But they are getting desperate.

Now, let's say marijuana were legalized nationwide for recreational use, subject to regulation, similar to alcohol. If, after a few years, the data showed a significant increase in traffic-related deaths associated with marijuana, then these policies would need to be re-examined. But that's just data-driven pragmatism. Unfortunately no one ever roused a crowd with cheers of "DATA-DRIVEN PRAGMATISM!"

Things will be so much better when Colossus takes over.

[Redezra]

Yeah, that would solve several problems involving people not being able to deal with shit. I just want to stop kids drinking alcohol/smoking weed/whatever else. But then again my reasons are basically instrumentality, so I'm not sure I can be considered the ethical authority there.

[Justavictim82]

bumped for thanksgiving

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Heh. Good times.

 

This would be funnier if one of the most rabid anti-marijuana politicians in America hadn't just been named attorney-general. Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

[the rebel]

Heh. Good times.

This would be funnier if one of the most rabid anti-marijuana politicians in America hadn't just been named attorney-general. Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

Federal law is superior to State law, so it's still illegal.

Although funnily enough you should mention smoking being legal when governments are trying their hardest to stop people smoking and seem to be winning, once majority stops I can see tobacco being banned.

[Redezra]

Oooh that'd be nice

[Thrash]

Heh. Good times.

This would be funnier if one of the most rabid anti-marijuana politicians in America hadn't just been named attorney-general. Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

Federal law is superior to State law, so it's still illegal.

Although funnily enough you should mention smoking being legal when governments are trying their hardest to stop people smoking and seem to be winning, once majority stops I can see tobacco being banned.

 

Tobacco will NEVER be banned. I'll go on the record here. It's taxation is used to fund too many things.

[Justavictim82]

Heh. Good times.

This would be funnier if one of the most rabid anti-marijuana politicians in America hadn't just been named attorney-general. Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

Federal law is superior to State law, so it's still illegal.

Although funnily enough you should mention smoking being legal when governments are trying their hardest to stop people smoking and seem to be winning, once majority stops I can see tobacco being banned.

Tobacco will NEVER be banned. I'll go on the record here. It's taxation is used to fund too many things.

It has nothing to do with taxation and everything to do with lobbying. Tabacco's product literally leads to tens of thousands of deaths annually and even has to pay for anti-tabacco ads yet its sales are still ridiculously strong.

[Thrash]

 

 

Heh. Good times.

This would be funnier if one of the most rabid anti-marijuana politicians in America hadn't just been named attorney-general. Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

Federal law is superior to State law, so it's still illegal.

Although funnily enough you should mention smoking being legal when governments are trying their hardest to stop people smoking and seem to be winning, once majority stops I can see tobacco being banned.

Tobacco will NEVER be banned. I'll go on the record here. It's taxation is used to fund too many things.

It has nothing to do with taxation and everything to do with lobbying. Tabacco's product literally leads to tens of thousands of deaths annually and even has to pay for anti-tabacco ads yet its sales are still ridiculously strong.

 

Really? Then how come everytime there's a need for more tax money the first place that is looked at is tobacco and alcohol? It's taking advantage of addiction. The government needs this addiction. 5 years ago, I could buy 16 oz. of loose tobacco (not lobbyists) for $11, today it's over $50.

[the rebel]

Heh. Good times.

This would be funnier if one of the most rabid anti-marijuana politicians in America hadn't just been named attorney-general. Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

Federal law is superior to State law, so it's still illegal.

Although funnily enough you should mention smoking being legal when governments are trying their hardest to stop people smoking and seem to be winning, once majority stops I can see tobacco being banned.

Tobacco will NEVER be banned. I'll go on the record here. It's taxation is used to fund too many things.

Because they will tax the newly legal weed/cannabis in its place as it will become the new "safer" replacement for tobacco.

[voidoid]

Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

 

 

There will be no legal fight; that Federal supersedes State is well established.  The new administration will swoop in, seize the records of the dispensaries in legalized states and then go knocking on doors to arrest the customers, who are proven criminals, and then circle back to seize the assets of the growers and dispensaries on Federal trafficking charges.  The asset forfeitures will offset the cost of contracting with private prison companies to house the millions of newly convicted drug felons.  Mandatory minimum sentences will also probably be lengthened, so CCA is the stock to pile in to now.  An additional 20-30 million man-years of occupancy is a windfall of unprecedented proportions for that industry.

[Redezra]

Oooh that'd be fun

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

 

 

There will be no legal fight; that Federal supersedes State is well established.  The new administration will swoop in, seize the records of the dispensaries in legalized states and then go knocking on doors to arrest the customers, who are proven criminals, and then circle back to seize the assets of the growers and dispensaries on Federal trafficking charges.  The asset forfeitures will offset the cost of contracting with private prison companies to house the millions of newly convicted drug felons.  Mandatory minimum sentences will also probably be lengthened, so CCA is the stock to pile in to now.  An additional 20-30 million man-years of occupancy is a windfall of unprecedented proportions for that industry.

 

It's not as simple as all that. For one thing, there's a lot of money at stake, and that always changes things. Then there's the states' rights issue — a lot of anti-pot types are also big states' righters. It will probably go down more like Prohibition, which was lifted by the various states and no longer recognized in most places even before the federal government finally ended it. This will be easier because there's no constitutional amendment to worry about.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

 

 

 

Heh. Good times.

This would be funnier if one of the most rabid anti-marijuana politicians in America hadn't just been named attorney-general. Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

Federal law is superior to State law, so it's still illegal.

Although funnily enough you should mention smoking being legal when governments are trying their hardest to stop people smoking and seem to be winning, once majority stops I can see tobacco being banned.

Tobacco will NEVER be banned. I'll go on the record here. It's taxation is used to fund too many things.

It has nothing to do with taxation and everything to do with lobbying. Tabacco's product literally leads to tens of thousands of deaths annually and even has to pay for anti-tabacco ads yet its sales are still ridiculously strong.

 

Really? Then how come everytime there's a need for more tax money the first place that is looked at is tobacco and alcohol? It's taking advantage of addiction. The government needs this addiction. 5 years ago, I could buy 16 oz. of loose tobacco (not lobbyists) for $11, today it's over $50.

 

Don't forget lotteries. That's just another kind of addiction.

[Justavictim82]

 

 

 

Heh. Good times.

This would be funnier if one of the most rabid anti-marijuana politicians in America hadn't just been named attorney-general. Considering how many states (including my own) have straight up legalized marijuana, it seems like a legal fight might be looming.

Federal law is superior to State law, so it's still illegal.

Although funnily enough you should mention smoking being legal when governments are trying their hardest to stop people smoking and seem to be winning, once majority stops I can see tobacco being banned.

Tobacco will NEVER be banned. I'll go on the record here. It's taxation is used to fund too many things.

It has nothing to do with taxation and everything to do with lobbying. Tabacco's product literally leads to tens of thousands of deaths annually and even has to pay for anti-tabacco ads yet its sales are still ridiculously strong.

 

Really? Then how come everytime there's a need for more tax money the first place that is looked at is tobacco and alcohol? It's taking advantage of addiction. The government needs this addiction. 5 years ago, I could buy 16 oz. of loose tobacco (not lobbyists) for $11, today it's over $50.

 

Because Phillip Morris is not paying for this tax. You are. Marlboro doesn't care if youa re paying $3 or $6 a pack so long as you buy the pack

[Thrash]

So you're saying big tobacco is lobbying for higher taxes? Don't think so.

 

Their lobbyists are trying to prevent the higher taxes, as it means less business for them. Never said tobacco was paying the tax increases, said the people who are addicted are. That's not fair. That's government rape. That's usury on behalf of the government.

[He who posts]