• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Bernie Sanders calls for Marijuana legalization

Suits me. Opens up another market. Reduces prison population. Deprives the cartels of one revenue source.

Suits me fine. Republicans should do the same.
 
Strk said:
Sadly the only one saying decriminalize it is Rand Paul.
Click to expand...
Carson and Rubio are both saying that they'd bring the Feds into Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. Small government, states rights, and all that.
 
Strk said:
Sadly the only one saying decriminalize it is Rand Paul.
Click to expand...

At that, he waffles around a lot-

PAUL: The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time. With Senator Leahy, we have a bill on mandatory minimums. There are people in jail for 50 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals. I don't want to encourage people to do it. Marijuana takes away your incentive to work. I don't want to promote that but I also don't want to put people in jail who make the mistake. There are a lot of young people who do this and then later on, they get married and they quit; I don't want to put them in jail and ruin their lives. The last two presidents could conceivably have been put in jail for their drug use, and it would have ruined their lives. They got lucky, but a lot of poor kids, particularly in the inner city, don't get lucky.
Click to expand...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

He'll still throw you in jail just not for an extended period of time (whatever that means).

I don't think he really understands cannabis use in the slightest, given the rest of it. He disrespects a lot of otherwise honest & hardworking users.

Hillary says wait 'til the evidence is in from state legalization. She knows full well we're doing A-OK here in Colorado so that's a deflection of sorts but indicates no bias against it like Christie.

I wonder when conservative lawmakers will discover the contradiction between their pov & the fact that use, possession & cultivation are legal in DC.

They seem to be out of touch with the fact that prohibition exists solely on the basis of institutional inertia.
 
Vic said:
Carson and Rubio are both saying that they'd bring the Feds into Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. Small government, states rights, and all that.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they could shut own retail but that would merely reduce State revenues. Federal authorities lack the wherewithall to effectively enforce other cannabis law w/o state & local statutes to assist them.

Shutting down retail & leaving MMJ alone raises constitutional issues of equal protection because both are specifically outlawed by the same federal statute. It's illegal for either purpose.

Prohibition was fatally snakebit when CO & WA legalized in 2012, something Holder & Obama recognized when they framed it as states rights, adding insult to injury for conservative authoritarians. I'm sure they could feel the love.

We'll see a lot of drama & denial before the end comes, lots of thrashing around in futility.
 
Jhhnn said:
At that, he waffles around a lot-



http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Rand_Paul_Drugs.htm

He'll still throw you in jail just not for an extended period of time (whatever that means).

I don't think he really understands cannabis use in the slightest, given the rest of it. He disrespects a lot of otherwise honest & hardworking users.

Hillary says wait 'til the evidence is in from state legalization. She knows full well we're doing A-OK here in Colorado so that's a deflection of sorts but indicates no bias against it like Christie.

I wonder when conservative lawmakers will discover the contradiction between their pov & the fact that use, possession & cultivation are legal in DC.

They seem to be out of touch with the fact that prohibition exists solely on the basis of institutional inertia.
Click to expand...

Please let's stop with the apologetic rationalization of Hillary Clinton,

Hillary goes by the political weather vane

  • against gay marriage, now she is for it
  • for the Iraq war, now against it
  • for the pacific trade deal, now against it
  • etc., etc., etc.
The only difference between Hillary Clinton and the republicans is she will insist corporate America use the backdoor to the white house so she can continue to pander and pretend to care about the middle class and unions from the front door.
 
1prophet said:
Please let's stop with the apologetic rationalization of Hillary Clinton,

Hillary goes by the political weather vane

  • against gay marriage, now she is for it
  • for the Iraq war, now against it
  • for the pacific trade deal, now against it
  • etc., etc., etc.
The only difference between Hillary Clinton and the republicans is she will insist corporate America use the backdoor to the white house so she can continue to pander and pretend to care about the middle class and unions from the front door.
Click to expand...

Going by the political weather vane, as you say, is at least better than making the same mistakes over and over again. The War on Drugs being a perfect example of that.
 
Vic said:
Carson and Rubio are both saying that they'd bring the Feds into Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. Small government, states rights, and all that.
Click to expand...

Why don't they just get over it? The shit is everywhere, it's a goldmine for crime, and far to many people are in jail over it.
 
Greenman said:
Why don't they just get over it? The shit is everywhere, it's a goldmine for crime, and far to many people are in jail over it.
Click to expand...
Because prosecuting it is a financial gold mine for the law enforcement and prison industries, and a political gold mine for politicians who pander to social conservatives. It's also good for the pharmaceutical industry whose profits depend, in part, on expensive patented drugs that would lose customers to MJ.
 
Strk said:
Sadly the only one saying decriminalize it is Rand Paul.
Click to expand...

Decriminalization isn't the same thing as legalization. Under decriminalization, you could still be stopped and fined for having small amounts of MJ, and even have the MJ taken away. Under legalization, there would usually still be limits on the quantity of MJ you could legally possess, but as long as you kept to that limit (and didn't use MJ in prohibited places or prohibited situations, or supply MJ to minors) it would be akin to smoking cigarettes in the privacy of your own home.
 
1prophet said:
Please let's stop with the apologetic rationalization of Hillary Clinton,

Hillary goes by the political weather vane

  • against gay marriage, now she is for it
  • for the Iraq war, now against it
  • for the pacific trade deal, now against it
  • etc., etc., etc.
The only difference between Hillary Clinton and the republicans is she will insist corporate America use the backdoor to the white house so she can continue to pander and pretend to care about the middle class and unions from the front door.
Click to expand...

That's not really fair or honest.

She was always for equal rights for gays. She just wanted to call gay marriages civil unions way back when. She was persuadable.

If you read her speech about the Iraq war vote, you'd understand that she trusted Bush to use the resolution as leverage for inspections before resorting to war. He lied.

She's been for *a* pacific trade deal but found the one proposed to be lacking.

At a deeper level, do we select leaders to run their own agenda or that of the people?

If the people's changes, why shouldn't theirs?
 
I feel like a broken record, I've posted this so many times. But

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, and empty the prisons of most non-violent MJ-related offenders. Allow enough retail supply such that prices, even with taxes added in, will completely undercut the illegal market.

Those states that insist on keeping it illegal will continue to have lots of MJ-related crime. "Legal" states will have very little MJ-related crime. And I suspect that the difference in MJ-related medical problems will be essentially zero between "legal" and "illegal" states. Legal states will have access to a substantial source of extra revenue and greatly reduced criminal-justice costs, a boon to their budgets. Illegal states won't see any benefit.

Which means that in 10 or 20 years, almost every state will go legal.
 
I think it's odd that only Sanders favors full legalization out of all those dem and rep candidates, given that national polls are showing majorities favoring it. These candidates are behind the times.
 
Vic said:
Carson and Rubio are both saying that they'd bring the Feds into Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. Small government, states rights, and all that.
Click to expand...

Chrispycreme is also all for sending in the stormtroopers to my state to stop pot use.
 
shira said:
I feel like a broken record, I've posted this so many times. But

Legalize it, regulate it, tax it, and empty the prisons of most non-violent MJ-related offenders. Allow enough retail supply such that prices, even with taxes added in, will completely undercut the illegal market.

Those states that insist on keeping it illegal will continue to have lots of MJ-related crime. "Legal" states will have very little MJ-related crime. And I suspect that the difference in MJ-related medical problems will be essentially zero between "legal" and "illegal" states. Legal states will have access to a substantial source of extra revenue and greatly reduced criminal-justice costs, a boon to their budgets. Illegal states won't see any benefit.

Which means that in 10 or 20 years, almost every state will go legal.
Click to expand...

I doubt it'll take that long. We're experiencing a paradigm shift of public opinion simply because prohibition can't stand against the facts of legalization. All kinds of data is being gathered about crime, mental health, intoxicated driving, domestic violence & so forth. Fear of the unknown is no longer a factor which was the only thing prohibition had going for it.

Other than occasional fits of giggling, reefer madness has not occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top