Posted: 5/1/2010 5:43:43 PM EDT
|
On my way in to work and on the corner of 7th st and Indian School a group of 80 or so protesting to legalize weed.
California has officially infiltrated AZ. |
|
Quoted:
If it were legal, it would cut down on the cartels' drug runs  I've heard anecdotal tales that legal grow-ops in California are getting raided, not by police, but by cartels or other ne'er do wells. I don't know if this is true or not, but one of my uncles who lives in SD told me it's a pretty regular occurrence. I don't think the cartels are going to go away over legalizing weed. Who knows though. It would have to be countrywide first. There's only 4 states they can bring the stuff in through. So, even if legal here, it'd still come through here on its way somewhere else. |
|
Quoted: Legalize it; then tax the living shit out of it. Hell, at that point maybe we could even drop the State sales' tax all together.  I doubt that's going to work since it's fairly easy to grow weed yourself. Granted there is some skill and your average bonehead is not growing grade A stuff but I doubt they care. And legalizing weed won't stop the cartels. We still have coke, heroin, LSD, opium... Not any good solutions all around. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legalize it; then tax the living shit out of it. Hell, at that point maybe we could even drop the State sales' tax all together. I doubt that's going to work since it's fairly easy to grow weed yourself. Granted there is some skill and your average bonehead is not growing grade A stuff but I doubt they care. And legalizing weed won't stop the cartels. We still have coke, heroin, LSD, opium... Not any good solutions all around. Hmm, so if we legalized pot they would stop smuggling it and stop the war on drugs for it. No more police would die over it and no more homes would have midnight swat team raids over it. I wonder what would happen if we treated coke, heroin, LSD and opium like that too. |
|
The problem with legalizing drugs (pot, cocaine, heroin, etc) is the effect they have on the happiness & productivity of a society. Look at the problems we have with alcohol. Now, add in the synergistic effect of other drugs. Legalizing it doesn't mean we won't have problems with it. (See Amsterdam for one example.)
Somehow, all those "productive" citizen will have to pay for their drug habits. Gee, I wonder where they'll get the cash. I would only agree to a de-criminalization bill if it were tied to a serious consequence bill. You smoke a blunt, crash your car, kill a pedestrian - you get the chair - while the drug is still in your system. You drive drunk - same consequence. No more "3 strikes". I know it's not a popular opinion, but my (humble) opinion is that the cost to society of legalization is greater than the benefits. The current system adds too much reward to the risk of importing or using. That must change. (See Prohibition, and the rise of import cartels, etc.) Now back to your previously scheduled bong sessions. 
|
|
Quoted: I am fine with decriminalizing pot. ... Me too. I used to be fairly rigid against the notion. But I think time has shown that it's less damaging to society than alcohol. And perhaps if those with addictive personalities switched from booze to weed, there would be less violence, health-issues and there would be an added taxation benefit. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am fine with decriminalizing pot. ... Me too. I used to be fairly rigid against the notion. But I think time has shown that it's less damaging to society than alcohol. And perhaps if those with addictive personalities switched from booze to weed, there would be less violence, health-issues and there would be an added taxation benefit. Agree 100%. And as for having to pay for their pot habits? Gimme a break, its cheaper than most alcohol. But I do a agree to have the punishment be in line with alcohol related punishments. |
|
Quoted:
The problem with legalizing drugs (pot, cocaine, heroin, etc) is the effect they have on the happiness & productivity of a society. Look at the problems we have with alcohol. Now, add in the synergistic effect of other drugs. Legalizing it doesn't mean we won't have problems with it. (See Amsterdam for one example.) Somehow, all those "productive" citizen will have to pay for their drug habits. Gee, I wonder where they'll get the cash. I would only agree to a de-criminalization bill if it were tied to a serious consequence bill. You smoke a blunt, crash your car, kill a pedestrian - you get the chair - while the drug is still in your system. You drive drunk - same consequence. No more "3 strikes". I know it's not a popular opinion, but my (humble) opinion is that the cost to society of legalization is greater than the benefits. The current system adds too much reward to the risk of importing or using. That must change. (See Prohibition, and the rise of import cartels, etc.) Now back to your previously scheduled bong sessions. They absolutely are damaging to society. Amsterdam is a good example. The real question is, and it is hard to be unemotional about it, are they MORE damaging if legal or in their current form. I can't say for certain what would happen if they were legal. Would we have more people using coke and heroin? I don't know. Thing is no one does. All I do know is we would end the narco state power in central america and eliminate the smugglers killing our border police. We would also end this nonsense of having police seize private property without due process or midnight swat raids on the wrong houses. I do not like drugs. Make them all legal and I'll still stick with scotch. My reasoning is that the war on drugs is currently MORE damaging to our society than legalizing them would be. As for punishment I agree to an extent. A society should always punish wrong actions. I would make the punishment for using these drugs and causing an accident in the same category as drinking. They are all drugs. |
|
Quoted:
Legalize it; then tax the living shit out of it. Hell, at that point maybe we could even drop the State sales' tax all together. Yes but no. Tax, sure. It would be insane to apply excessive taxes as that would provide almost as much monetary incentive as is now available. The whole point is to eliminate the profit motive for criminals. With cigarettes we see that the higher the taxes get, the more black market cigarettes are sold. What we want is this: First and foremost we want to eliminate government intrusion in our lives and stop the abuse of the Constitution. Second, we want to reduce crime. Over taxation would have neither effect. Total legalization accompanied by reasonable taxes on commercial sale is the way to get maximum freedom as well as minimum government intrusion. As for the inevitable arguments of big government proponents: Statist: We don't want people driving (or flying, operating heavy equipment, policing, soldiering, parenting, etc.) while high. Libertarian: We don't want them doing that while drunk either. In a free society we wait until people have harmed someone before placing criminal penalties on them, however employers have every right to conduct drug and alcohol screening. Statist: But drugs attract criminals. Libertarian: No, crime attracts criminals. Statist: But, but, drugs are icky. Libertarian: Yes, they are. Don't do drugs. Ultimately the issue comes down to whether you are comfortable with giving government control over other people's behavior. Everyone is for ultimate freedom when it concerns their own actions, the real test of whether you are for liberty or tyranny is when it concerns the actions of other consenting adults who cause no harm to others. See my sig line. For the record, I don't smoke pot. I have tried it and it makes me lazy and tired. I don't like it. If it were legal, I still wouldn't smoke it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Legalize it; then tax the living shit out of it. Hell, at that point maybe we could even drop the State sales' tax all together. Yes but no. Tax, sure. It would be insane to apply excessive taxes as that would provide almost as much monetary incentive as is now available. The whole point is to eliminate the profit motive for criminals. With cigarettes we see that the higher the taxes get, the more black market cigarettes are sold. What we want is this: First and foremost we want to eliminate government intrusion in our lives and stop the abuse of the Constitution. Second, we want to reduce crime. Over taxation would have neither effect. Total legalization accompanied by reasonable taxes on commercial sale is the way to get maximum freedom as well as minimum government intrusion. As for the inevitable arguments of big government proponents: Statist: We don't want people driving (or flying, operating heavy equipment, policing, soldiering, parenting, etc.) while high. Libertarian: We don't want them doing that while drunk either. In a free society we wait until people have harmed someone before placing criminal penalties on them, however employers have every right to conduct drug and alcohol screening. Statist: But drugs attract criminals. Libertarian: No, crime attracts criminals. Statist: But, but, drugs are icky. Libertarian: Yes, they are. Don't do drugs. Ultimately the issue comes down to whether you are comfortable with giving government control over other people's behavior. Everyone is for ultimate freedom when it concerns their own actions, the real test of whether you are for liberty or tyranny is when it concerns the actions of other consenting adults who cause no harm to others. See my sig line. For the record, I don't smoke pot. I have tried it and it makes me lazy and tired. I don't like it. If it were legal, I still wouldn't smoke it. You can take that libertarian argument even further and say it should be legal to drive 100mph on surface streets or have a shooting range in your 0.5 acre backyard in the middle of Phx as long as it doesn't hurt someone. Unfortunately for a civilized society there must always be laws and regulations. It's all about the right compromise between order and disorder. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legalize it; then tax the living shit out of it. Hell, at that point maybe we could even drop the State sales' tax all together. Yes but no. Tax, sure. It would be insane to apply excessive taxes as that would provide almost as much monetary incentive as is now available. The whole point is to eliminate the profit motive for criminals. With cigarettes we see that the higher the taxes get, the more black market cigarettes are sold. What we want is this: First and foremost we want to eliminate government intrusion in our lives and stop the abuse of the Constitution. Second, we want to reduce crime. Over taxation would have neither effect. Total legalization accompanied by reasonable taxes on commercial sale is the way to get maximum freedom as well as minimum government intrusion. As for the inevitable arguments of big government proponents: Statist: We don't want people driving (or flying, operating heavy equipment, policing, soldiering, parenting, etc.) while high. Libertarian: We don't want them doing that while drunk either. In a free society we wait until people have harmed someone before placing criminal penalties on them, however employers have every right to conduct drug and alcohol screening. Statist: But drugs attract criminals. Libertarian: No, crime attracts criminals. Statist: But, but, drugs are icky. Libertarian: Yes, they are. Don't do drugs. Ultimately the issue comes down to whether you are comfortable with giving government control over other people's behavior. Everyone is for ultimate freedom when it concerns their own actions, the real test of whether you are for liberty or tyranny is when it concerns the actions of other consenting adults who cause no harm to others. See my sig line. For the record, I don't smoke pot. I have tried it and it makes me lazy and tired. I don't like it. If it were legal, I still wouldn't smoke it. You can take that libertarian argument even further and say it should be legal to drive 100mph on surface streets or have a shooting range in your 0.5 acre backyard in the middle of Phx as long as it doesn't hurt someone. Unfortunately for a civilized society there must always be laws and regulations. It's all about the right compromise between order and disorder. Correct. Free societies don't tell people they can't do something (drink, for example) because they might do something bad (hit someone with their car). Drunk driving or shooting a gun in a densely populated area is inherently dangerous. I understand your logic and I agree that it compromises the pure libertarian ideal to punish actions that are full retard dangerous like the above. Ideally, a drunk driver wouldn't be punished until he actually hurt someone and then he'd be executed. That's not practical in our culture, though. Unfortunately, the way laws are set up now, the penalty for HAVING weed is greater than injuring someone in an alcohol related motor vehicle collision. Tell me that's not a fucked up situation. My point stands. Should we allow people to drive high? No. Not if driving drunk is illegal. To many of us, this is not about a balance between order and disorder. It is about seeking the greatest possible amount of personal liberty, the least amount of government intrusion possible. There are all sorts of behaviors I find distasteful, behaviors that I don't want other people to engage in because they are disgusting, degrading, unhealthy, or foolish. It is wrong, though for me to run to tug on the skirt of mother government and demand that another free man not do something that I dislike. Remember what our founding fathers had to say about liberty: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." - Thomas Jefferson. This topic is rife with strawman arguments. Statist: But druggies will make our medical insurance go up. Libertarian: Only if we provide them coverage. No reason an insurance company couldn't require a drug screening prior to care. |
|
Quoted: ...Massive quote box removed Correct. Free societies don't tell people they can't do something (drink, for example) because they might do something bad (hit someone with their car). Drunk driving or shooting a gun in a densely populated area is inherently dangerous. I understand your logic and I agree that it compromises the pure libertarian ideal to punish actions that are full retard dangerous like the above. Ideally, a drunk driver wouldn't be punished until he actually hurt someone and then he'd be executed. That's not practical in our culture, though. Unfortunately, the way laws are set up now, the penalty for HAVING weed is greater than injuring someone in an alcohol related motor vehicle collision. Tell me that's not a fucked up situation. My point stands. Should we allow people to drive high? No. Not if driving drunk is illegal. To many of us, this is not about a balance between order and disorder. It is about seeking the greatest possible amount of personal liberty, the least amount of government intrusion possible. There are all sorts of behaviors I find distasteful, behaviors that I don't want other people to engage in because they are disgusting, degrading, unhealthy, or foolish. It is wrong, though for me to run to tug on the skirt of mother government and demand that another free man not do something that I dislike. Remember what our founding fathers had to say about liberty: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." - Thomas Jefferson. This topic is rife with strawman arguments. Statist: But druggies will make our medical insurance go up. Libertarian: Only if we provide them coverage. No reason an insurance company couldn't require a drug screening prior to care. Absolutely. I don't care what others do but as soon as it starts negativly affecting me or my loved ones it becomes my problem. Go smoke all the weed/coke/meth you want, go out to the middle of nowhere and do a mag dump straight up. Just don't pull that crap where it affect me negatively. |
| "War on Drugs"....HAHAHAHAHAAH! What a crock of shit, you want to see our Govt really play "War" on something? Tax the drugs and see what they do to folks to try and cut into their business by selling weed/whatever and not paying their taxes... You'll see a "War on Drug" (dealers) that would make the Marines taking Guadalcanal look like a Sunday school puppet show |
|
Quoted:
On my way in to work and on the corner of 7th st and Indian School a group of 80 or so protesting to legalize weed. California has officially infiltrated AZ. Good for them.... I support the legalization. It would cut much of the income of the drug cartels. regulate it the same way that alcohol and tobacco are.... Even a blind squirrel finds a good nut on occasion. the same happened in cali... Richard |