weeeeeeeeee more medical marijuana reform!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?
 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

You resort to name calling yet again. Prohibition might not have worked in the 1920's, but the argument that it did not work then does not mean it can't work now.

If it did, then why are drugs easy to get now?

Prohibition has never worked and never will. If someone wants something, there's always going tobe someone else to supply it.
Then your argument is what, legalize everything?
 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

You resort to name calling yet again. Prohibition might not have worked in the 1920's, but the argument that it did not work then does not mean it can't work now.

If it did, then why are drugs easy to get now?

Prohibition has never worked and never will. If someone wants something, there's always going tobe someone else to supply it.
Then your argument is what, legalize everything?

why not. tax it heavily, regulate so people know what they get instead of how it is now where the purity is an unknown. all we are doing now is filling our prison with more and more folks. treatment wouldn't be as stigmatized as it is now for those that want it.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

No it didn't. all it did was feed the black market and people can still get moonshine if they want it.

and Americans aren't as religious as you think they are.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Don't some monks brew beer? Anyway, kindly keep your religion out of my life.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

Not appropriate? lol. If you had a solid argument, you would give it. Not plead the 5th.

There are many true arguments that need to be taken into consideration:

1. The issue of State Soveirnty
2. The issue of Personal Freedoms
3. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on prison systems
4. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on court systems
5. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on the enforcement system
6. The creation of a black market whos revenues fund violence and cartel activity
7. The inability to tax the country's largest cash crop.

You're obviously not going to consider any of those. Can you state, in reasonable fashion, why any of these issues aren't legit?
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Don't some monks brew beer? Anyway, kindly keep your religion out of my life.


The pastor at my church last night said it is important not to abuse any substances (drugs, alchohol) and obey the law of the land. But he also said he doesn't think pot should be illegal. Just regulated. The whole sending people to prison over pot thing is absurd he said.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

You're kinda crazy.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,908
6,789
126
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

I agree. You need to be sterilized so you don't breed.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Jesus turn water into wine? Don't some monks brew beer? Anyway, kindly keep your religion out of my life.


The pastor at my church last night said it is important not to abuse any substances (drugs, alchohol) and obey the law of the land. But he also said he doesn't think pot should be illegal. Just regulated. The whole sending people to prison over pot thing is absurd he said.

I'd have to understand his definition of 'abuse' before I'd say I agree or disagree with that part. I agree on the latter though and I've never even tried it.
 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

No it didn't. all it did was feed the black market and people can still get moonshine if they want it.

and Americans aren't as religious as you think they are.

Everyone immediately assumes I was talking about Christianity. I am not being that specific. I was referring to the successful methods used by religions to promote alcohol as an illegal substance.
 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

I agree. You need to be sterilized so you don't breed.
Fear not, I do not plan to have children ever. But I don't think this is part of the current discussion.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

No it didn't. all it did was feed the black market and people can still get moonshine if they want it.

and Americans aren't as religious as you think they are.

Everyone immediately assumes I was talking about Christianity. I am not being that specific. I was referring to the successful methods used by religions to promote alcohol as an illegal substance.

This brings up the reason I usually cede my stance on gay marriage from a christian perspective because I kinda agree religion should be kept out of the law.

What successful methods are you referring to? Islam? hhaha.. right.

 

Possessed Freak

Diamond Member
Nov 4, 1999
6,045
1
0
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

Not appropriate? lol. If you had a solid argument, you would give it. Not plead the 5th.

There are many true arguments that need to be taken into consideration:

1. The issue of State Soveirnty
2. The issue of Personal Freedoms
3. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on prison systems
4. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on court systems
5. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on the enforcement system
6. The creation of a black market whos revenues fund violence and cartel activity
7. The inability to tax the country's largest cash crop.

You're obviously not going to consider any of those. Can you state, in reasonable fashion, why any of these issues aren't legit?

1. An argument I can get behind. As long as the state law is independent and does not press itself past its borders I am fine with that.
2. Personal freedoms are great. I enjoy my second amendment freedom more then most of those who are for legalizing marijuana. Tell ya what, I can agree with this argument if you agree to never argue against personal freedoms in other cases.
3. Sorry, my argument is not about imprisonment so this statement is not a valid one.
4. This one is interesting as it also impacts other laws that one may consider to be "unsensible" which I can only assume you mean insensible (correct me if I am wrong).
5. This is a problem with your argument. Many consider speeding violations to be insensible. Yet the police do generate income from their speed traps and whatnot. It *is* profitable to enforce such laws, as such the impact on the enforcement agency is a positive...
6. This looks like a valid argument, but if you legalize weed, all that will happen is the cartel will move to another illegal drug to thrive.
7. The concept of marijuana being the largest cash crop is possible only when you consider the current cost of it at black market value. If it became legal, would the cost of it remain the same or would the prices adjust to corn or wheat?
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

Not appropriate? lol. If you had a solid argument, you would give it. Not plead the 5th.

There are many true arguments that need to be taken into consideration:

1. The issue of State Soveirnty
2. The issue of Personal Freedoms
3. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on prison systems
4. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on court systems
5. The impact of enforcement of unsensible laws on the enforcement system
6. The creation of a black market whos revenues fund violence and cartel activity
7. The inability to tax the country's largest cash crop.

You're obviously not going to consider any of those. Can you state, in reasonable fashion, why any of these issues aren't legit?

1. An argument I can get behind. As long as the state law is independent and does not press itself past its borders I am fine with that.
2. Personal freedoms are great. I enjoy my second amendment freedom more then most of those who are for legalizing marijuana. Tell ya what, I can agree with this argument if you agree to never argue against personal freedoms in other cases.
3. Sorry, my argument is not about imprisonment so this statement is not a valid one.
4. This one is interesting as it also impacts other laws that one may consider to be "unsensible" which I can only assume you mean insensible (correct me if I am wrong).
5. This is a problem with your argument. Many consider speeding violations to be insensible. Yet the police do generate income from their speed traps and whatnot. It *is* profitable to enforce such laws, as such the impact on the enforcement agency is a positive...
6. This looks like a valid argument, but if you legalize weed, all that will happen is the cartel will move to another illegal drug to thrive.
7. The concept of marijuana being the largest cash crop is possible only when you consider the current cost of it at black market value. If it became legal, would the cost of it remain the same or would the prices adjust to corn or wheat?

3. So you agree imprisoning people over weed is not good, right?
4. Pardon my grammatical err; Yes, like other laws, drug laws regarding mj are not sensible. They have an adverse effect on society and the economy, more so than legalization would.
5. Do you go to jail if you get caught speeding? Anyways, enforcing laws strictly for revenue generation is not a good thing. This is why it is always best to side with a tax vs. fines and impacting the judicial system.
6. Alot more people smoke weed than snort coke. Even if the cartels move to a different drug (which they already push) you can't logically believe they could push them just the same as weed. It is estimated that the major drug cartels in mexico depend on on mj for about 80% of their revenue.
7. The overall value would probably go up. Taxation, and incorporation of hemp into the system would create a massive industry.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
6. Alot more people smoke weed than snort coke. Even if the cartels move to a different drug (which they already push) you can't logically believe they could push them just the same as weed. It is estimated that the major drug cartels in mexico depend on on mj for about 80% of their revenue.

medical marijuana does not come from mexico. EVER.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
7. The concept of marijuana being the largest cash crop is possible only when you consider the current cost of it at black market value. If it became legal, would the cost of it remain the same or would the prices adjust to corn or wheat?
There's no way it would be treated the same as "corn or wheat" prices:

1) First and foremost, it is a drug just like alcohol and alters a person's ability to drive a vehicle. Corn and wheat do not contain drugs.
2) It would have its own separate tax rates and licenses per state, just like alcohol. You don't need a specific license to sell corn or wheat products in stores which will add revenue.
3) Because the federal government would defer to the states on THC like they do alcohol, the price of THC products would probably differ from state to state due to tax laws and not be a nationalized crop like "corn or wheat". For example, many people make the drive all the way to NC for cigarettes b/c they're so much cheaper to buy.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: Ns1
6. Alot more people smoke weed than snort coke. Even if the cartels move to a different drug (which they already push) you can't logically believe they could push them just the same as weed. It is estimated that the major drug cartels in mexico depend on on mj for about 80% of their revenue.

medical marijuana does not come from mexico. EVER.

Great point. It's made in the USA. No money or business gets sent down south involving illegal trade, etc.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,928
143
106
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
5. This is a problem with your argument. Many consider speeding violations to be insensible. Yet the police do generate income from their speed traps and whatnot. It *is* profitable to enforce such laws, as such the impact on the enforcement agency is a positive...

Fine, then change possession of Marij (stupid) to DUI: driving under the influence (something practical now), just like they do with alcohol. Marij does impair a person's ability to drive, the state can set the legal limit of THC in the blood.

In addition, prosecute minors who are under the legal age to consume it just like they do with alcohol.

These would actually generate more revenue than just misdemeanor possession (in my opinion), but let the state set the fines to = that of possession if they're really worried about losing "revenue".
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: BoberFett
We've got a long way to go, but this is a good start.

yup. things are definately creeping in the right direction.

Can we call this "a direction" not the right direction? Hard to say this is the right way to go. Personally, I would sooner see revenue increase dramatically by making fines for any illegal drugs skyrocket and be done with it.

Jail time doesn't curb usage, but fines will?

No; they would generate revenue. Putting someone in jail costs money.

so would taxing it. and would be more cost effective as law enforcement and the courts wouldn't be involved.

Depends on how much you tax it and how much the fine is. ;) Even if Marijuana was legalized and taxed, it would require effort from law enforcement. People don't like paying taxes, and there is already a distribution channel that lets people get their marijuana tax free. Law enforcement effort would be needed to shut down that distribution channel.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,908
6,789
126
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

I agree. You need to be sterilized so you don't breed.
Fear not, I do not plan to have children ever. But I don't think this is part of the current discussion.


No no no no no! I don't trust you. I want everything cut off so you can't have sex. And it does have everything to do with this topic because I want my opinions to be the law and if everybody else is going to have to pay for your no drugs mentality, you are going to have to get used to life without balls and a dick. They are bad for you.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
It`s very good that medical marijauana is coming into acceptance by the federal government.

But those of you who are happy because you think that this is another step towards acceptance and full legalization of marijuana are in for a very rude awakening!

I am all for whatever medicinal value can be obtained through the use of marijuana.
But sadly an overwhelming majority of the populace is still against the legaliazation of marijuana for recreational use!
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,710
136
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak
Originally posted by: dawp
Originally posted by: Possessed Freak

It is not appropriate for me to state why I think the law should remain as it is. It *is* appropriate for you to argue why I should change my stance *if* you think that the law should be changed. The only way the law will change is for those who believe the current law is wrong make their case in some coherent and logical way.

So far, I have seen zero true arguments on this in the thread. All I have seen is the fanatics coming out of the woodwork.

can you name 1 thing that prohibition has actually worked on?

Attacking alcohol as an evil and illegal substance religiously works pretty well. I think it is important to have a ban on certain substances and other objects.

No it didn't. all it did was feed the black market and people can still get moonshine if they want it.

and Americans aren't as religious as you think they are.

Everyone immediately assumes I was talking about Christianity. I am not being that specific. I was referring to the successful methods used by religions to promote alcohol as an illegal substance.

That was tried and faild miserably. And you would have to get them into church/synagogues/masques in the first place and most people don't attend services on a regular basis. If they're not in church they aren't gonna hear the message and you can't force them to attend.