|
I think we're all forgetting about the terrible economic consequences that legalizing marijuana would have. The war on drugs provides a steady stream of inmates to our prisons. Think of the construction workers who build those prisons, the engineers and mechanics who build and maintain the construction equipment, the guards who patrol those prisons, the cooks who feed those prisoners and the farmers with contracts who provide that food, the uniform and camera makers -- and the list goes on from there! And that is without factoring in the cheap labor that prisoners provide American companies, companies which pass those savings onto American citizens. In light of those facts, legalizing weed would be unamerican!
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I know that it's a losing proposition for any legalization campaign, but it would genuinely be a great benefit to public health if there were a concerted effort to destigmatize marijuana in order to convince people who self-medicate with alcohol to use marijuana instead. It would be a losing proposition for any legalization campaign because it's complete nonsense. If someone is self medicating with alcohol then they should get real treatment, not substitute with a different recreational drug. True, there are some people who would rather smoke pot than drink, but I doubt many of them are alcoholics. Besides, the two drugs have completely different effects. If it were possible to truly substitute then I would drink more often. This whole idea of substitution is drug war nonsense. Henry Anslinger invented the idea to justify pot prohibition and then applied it in the other direction when it suited his purposes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
I've always viewed KOMO news from Seattle to be on the conservative side. Seeing articles like these warms the cockles of my heart:Komo TV posted:Voters in Colorado and Oregon are considering similar measures. But based on polls, Washington's initiative might stand the best chance of passing. The measure has drawn slim organized opposition and gained support from some former federal law enforcement officers. The campaign has raised $4.1 million. Meanwhile, anti-pot advocates in Oregon are getting scared. These were up in Oregon but enough people complained that Clear Channel took them down.  This has been running on TV in Washington. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWr0neESf-M
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I think we're all forgetting about the terrible economic consequences that legalizing marijuana would have. The war on drugs provides a steady stream of inmates to our prisons. Think of the construction workers who build those prisons, the engineers and mechanics who build and maintain the construction equipment, the guards who patrol those prisons, the cooks who feed those prisoners and the farmers with contracts who provide that food, the uniform and camera makers -- and the list goes on from there! And that is without factoring in the cheap labor that prisoners provide American companies, companies which pass those savings onto American citizens. While we're at it, consider how much the economy would suffer if we managed to get reasonable results from our healthcare system without spending twice what the rest of the developed world does for no appreciable benefit!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 00:57
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The war on drugs provides a steady stream of inmates to our prisons. Yes, but inmates work for less than the minimum wage and are stealing jobs from honest hard-working Americans. The only solution is to erect a wall around prisons to stop people getting in (and then deport them if they do). KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Mushrooms was banned because a French girl threw herself off a bridge after taking them, and then politicians were falling all over themselves to 'protect the public'. From a quick google searching it seems like a bunch of people drown in the Amsterdam Canals every year. I would be that most of them are way drunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:From a quick google searching it seems like a bunch of people drown in the Amsterdam Canals every year. I would be that most of them are way drunk. Oh yeah it's complete transparant bullshit but it's the law now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
If Obama is going to say anything about this he'll say it on the Daily Show this week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
McDowell posted:If Obama is going to say anything about this he'll say it on the Daily Show this week. My prediction is that Obama won't say a word about marijuana until after the election. Hell, maybe not even until after the 2014 midterms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:My prediction is that Obama won't say a word about marijuana until after the election. Hell, maybe not even until after the 2014 midterms. There's never going to be a politically "good" time to bring this up for the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
They'll bring it up as soon as their internal polls think it will benefit them, a lot like Obama's milquetoast support for gay marriage. If any of these states passes legalization we're in for a big national conversation. We're past having a moral panic about weed; I trust that facts about the drug's health impact and potential tax revenue will sway some other liberal states. From there it's only a matter of time until there's enough support for one of the parties to come out in support of it. Unfortunately US politics moves pretty slowly. I'd guess that even if we see legalization passed (and not shut down by the DEA/SCOTUS) this year, legalization won't be endorsed on a national ticket until at least 2024-2028. Wow I just looked into the numbers and had no idea how solid they were. The initiative in CO has 50% support and has maintained a 10 point lead for at least a month. With that kind of support and early voting starting in a week I'd be absolutely shocked if it doesn't pass. The latest poll I could find for the WA measure was a month ago but it had even more support with "57% of respondents stated they planned on voting yes, 34% said they would vote no, and 9% are undecided." OR's numbers are much weaker. "Measure 80 was trailing by a margin of 37% to 41%, with a large undecided vote of 22%" Apparently they're having a really hard time getting funding.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
Debunk posted:They'll bring it up as soon as their internal polls think it will benefit them, a lot like Obama's milquetoast support for gay marriage. If any of these states passes legalization we're in for a big national conversation. We're past having a moral panic about weed; I trust that facts about the drug's health impact and potential tax revenue will sway some other liberal states. From there it's only a matter of time until there's enough support for one of the parties to come out in support of it. Unfortunately US politics moves pretty slowly. I'd guess that even if we see legalization passed (and not shut down by the DEA/SCOTUS) this year, legalization won't be endorsed on a national ticket until at least 2024-2028.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:My prediction is that Obama won't say a word about marijuana until after the election. Hell, maybe not even until after the 2014 midterms. Lets be real for a second, the first black president can NOT try and legalize pot without that becoming his legacy and completely devaluing his presidency. I know from a rational perspective that seems insane, but a lot of white people will be saying that he just got into office to legalize drugs and he really did not care about (white) America. That while their children weren't going to college, and while the nation was on the brink of disaster, president choom focused his time on dope.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
Lets say it came to an anonymous poll in Congress and the Senate to legalized pot at the federal level, that is give states the right to regulate. What percentage of people in power would support this before how they would worry about this getting used against them in the next election?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Lets be real for a second, the first black president can NOT try and legalize pot without that becoming his legacy and completely devaluing his presidency. I know from a rational perspective that seems insane, but a lot of white people will be saying that he just got into office to legalize drugs and he really did not care about (white) America. Who isn't a hardcore Republican that would have this opinion? I'm serious. The "angry black man" and "president choom" stuff where Obama supposedly has to avoid being a scary black thug doesn't matter to anyone except people who already hate him for the color of his skin. Would Drudge run a race-baiting headline? You bet. Would it matter? Only for people who already pay attention to Drudge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Only for people who already pay attention to Drudge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:21
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Bill Clinton was impeached over a Drudge story. And that was Drudge's one-in-a-million shot, something that gives him undue prominence over ten years later when his usual fare is not anything remotely consequential - including anything at all to do with Obama's race. The lines have been drawn on that, and anyone who cares about his skin color is already against him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:And that was Drudge's one-in-a-million shot, something that gives him undue prominence over ten years later when his usual fare is not anything remotely consequential - including anything at all to do with Obama's race. The lines have been drawn on that, and anyone who cares about his skin color is already against him. Lyapunov Unstable fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Oct 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
Fragmented posted:You don't have PM's so i have to call you out here. Black cock? is sucking a black cock worse than any other cock? What the gently caress man. I don't think you meant much by it but holy poo poo dude. Not only that, but "go suck a dick" has the implication that giving oral sex to guys is something demeaning, as has the use of cocksucker as an insult. It'd be a lot nicer if people tried and refrain from that kind of poo poo altogether, it might be some of the guys involved were closeted homosexuals and indeed, might've sucked a dick and that's not something that demeans them in any manner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Oh yeah it's complete transparant bullshit but it's the law now. It's also important to keep in mind that the whole weed pass thing is very unpopular with local governments. Recently a mayor belonging to one of the parties who introduced the weed pass spoke out against it. Meanwhile the national government still pretends it's a success, despite overwhelming evidence otherwise. The scheme is due for evaluation in Parliament, if I remember correctly, and I really can't see the new goverment continuing with the plan (there were elections last month), even if that includes one of the parties who helped introduce it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:I guess I'd agree that Drudge stories in and of themselves are fairly inconsequential, but US press teaches controversies that are framed in language engineered by people like Breitbart and developed into coded talking points by Fox News, et al. The Drudge stories themselves don't make it into cable news that often, but American news obsesses over this kind of noise, and that obsessive repetition of coded-racist frames dominates a lot of what we hear about and the topics we're permitted to discuss in US politics. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this process defined Obama's legacy in the same way history was re-written to make Reagan out as some kind of Kim Il-Sung god figure. Who the gently caress cares? I am so tired of Democrats using the big scary Fox News narrative as an excuse for completely giving up on being an actual leftist party. Legalizing weed isn't a particularly radical position, it carries something like a 50% approval rate in the US.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
Lacrosse posted:
I saw this at the store today and the clerk just said "ugh.. 15 years and they couldn't say it then?" as I was walking away, I had political blue-balls for like 4 hours until I saw this. So yeah, the U.S. Attorney's for Western Washington for fifteen years (1992-2007)is in favor of  legalization. I didn't realize that John McKay was involved in the U.S Attorney's Dismissal fiasco during Bush II (among a whole bunch of other stuff) until I read the wikipedia entry. Sounds like a pretty decent dude, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
I'm hoping the almighty dollar will have a deciding impact. If a scheme combining legalization+taxation is passed, and ends up being a moneymaker at a local level, a lot of people are going to sit up and take notice. In a time when states/counties/cities/etc are having issues making ends meet, such a potentially lucrative move has to look unusually appealing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Who isn't a hardcore Republican that would have this opinion? I'm serious. The "angry black man" and "president choom" stuff where Obama supposedly has to avoid being a scary black thug doesn't matter to anyone except people who already hate him for the color of his skin. Would Drudge run a race-baiting headline? You bet. Would it matter? Only for people who already pay attention to Drudge. I think you underestimate just how racist many people including Democrats are and just how scared many people are of legalizing any substance. The first doctor to be high and kill someone on weed (an occurance that is common already with legal drugs) will cause a massive panic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I'm hoping the almighty dollar will have a deciding impact. If a scheme combining legalization+taxation is passed, and ends up being a moneymaker at a local level, a lot of people are going to sit up and take notice. In a time when states/counties/cities/etc are having issues making ends meet, such a potentially lucrative move has to look unusually appealing. But how much of its cost is its illegal nature? That's not to say it couldn't boost an area if legalized but I still see multinational companies taking over mainstream production immediately. Hell the major agg/tobacco producers probably already have plans for what to do once it is legal, including genetic patents on any and all strains.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
mugrim posted:But how much of its cost is its illegal nature? That's not to say it couldn't boost an area if legalized but I still see multinational companies taking over mainstream production immediately. Hell the major agg/tobacco producers probably already have plans for what to do once it is legal, including genetic patents on any and all strains. The illegal price is a price point the market will support. If multinational companies roll in and change the cost at the wholesaler to $300/lb and sin taxes bring the price back up to ~$50/oz or whatever, there is a lot of potential tax money on the table for the government to siphon off, like they do with alcohol or tobacco.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
rscott posted:Who the gently caress cares? I am so tired of Democrats using the big scary Fox News narrative as an excuse for completely giving up on being an actual leftist party. This is kind of a derail (you're right, who gives a poo poo about Obama's legacy), so who cares? Just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:The illegal price is a price point the market will support. If multinational companies roll in and change the cost at the wholesaler to $300/lb and sin taxes bring the price back up to ~$50/oz or whatever, there is a lot of potential tax money on the table for the government to siphon off, like they do with alcohol or tobacco. Oh I believe there's tons of cash there, I just foresee it being completely industrialized to the point local legal farms could not exist, just like everything else in agriculture. It's a false prophet. Considering how you can't currently have a genetic patent on it, I could see legal weed outside of big agriculture go illegal just as fast as it became legal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:31
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Oh I believe there's tons of cash there, I just foresee it being completely industrialized to the point local legal farms could not exist, just like everything else in agriculture. It's a false prophet. Considering how you can't currently have a genetic patent on it, I could see legal weed outside of big agriculture go illegal just as fast as it became legal. I personally am hoping for a more beer-like situation where the market is dominated by the big players, but there is regulatory and marketshare available to smaller boutique manufacturers. You're right though, there is no guarantee. But even with that said, states/counties/munis still make a ton of money of tobacco sales, which is the closest approximation to the market you're describing; even of the tobacco isn't grown in their area, there is still sales tax and product specific taxes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Marijuana will become legal when the Tobacco companies determine it would be more profitable to switch over then to maintain cigarette production, then they will just use all of the congressmen in their pocket to push the bill through.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I personally am hoping for a more beer-like situation where the market is dominated by the big players, but there is regulatory and marketshare available to smaller boutique manufacturers. You're right though, there is no guarantee. You should really look closely at beer though, as it's a great example of gross legacy laws combined with industry. It's actually extremely difficult to start a brewery, and one of the few times the term "over regulation" is probably correct. There's a few documentaries on it on netflix, you should check it out. Laws range from "you are required to ship all your own beer" making distribution a massive hurdle for small breweries, and outright massive license and fines for anyone who are not the big three.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Marijuana will become legal when the Tobacco companies determine it would be more profitable to switch over then to maintain cigarette production, then they will just use all of the congressmen in their pocket to push the bill through. The best-case scenario would be if this passes and weed becomes a large, profitable industry in Colorado. Then the weed companies will use their money to lobby for legalization in other states and nationwide. Sometimes the system can work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 00:29
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Oh I believe there's tons of cash there, I just foresee it being completely industrialized to the point local legal farms could not exist, just like everything else in agriculture. It's a false prophet. Considering how you can't currently have a genetic patent on it, I could see legal weed outside of big agriculture go illegal just as fast as it became legal. Do you know how far genetic patents extend? For example, if somebody bred a new strain based off of two already patented strains would they be able to patent that new strain? Or would your local family owned weed farm have to like find wild weed in the forest or bite the bullet and buy seeds from the agribusinesses. It is weird to me that we live in an age where genetics can be patented.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
Daniel Hillard posted:Do you know how far genetic patents extend? For example, if somebody bred a new strain based off of two already patented strains would they be able to patent that new strain? Or would your local family owned weed farm have to like find wild weed in the forest or bite the bullet and buy seeds from the agribusinesses. Iirc you get sued for adulturation or some nonsense. Genetic patents are insane and the more you read about them the crazier it gets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Can they really patent strains that people already grow? I could see how illegality might make any prior art argument invalid, I guess. But there are all kinds of strains out there right now that big firms didn't invent (or maybe they did in secret, I don't know). How can they patent them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Lets be real for a second, the first black president can NOT try and legalize pot without that becoming his legacy and completely devaluing his presidency. I know from a rational perspective that seems insane, but a lot of white people will be saying that he just got into office to legalize drugs and he really did not care about (white) America. I didn't say that he would be in favor of legalization. I predict he will be completely mute on the subject until he has to make some kind of milquetoast nonstatement about how its still illegal at the federal level and that federal law enforcement will continue even in states where its legal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
Oakland Martini posted:Can they really patent strains that people already grow? I could see how illegality might make any prior art argument invalid, I guess. But there are all kinds of strains out there right now that big firms didn't invent (or maybe they did in secret, I don't know). How can they patent them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
I believe SCOTUS will issue a ruling on this pretty soon, might as well save the worrying till then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Who isn't a hardcore Republican that would have this opinion? I'm serious. The "angry black man" and "president choom" stuff where Obama supposedly has to avoid being a scary black thug doesn't matter to anyone except people who already hate him for the color of his skin. Would Drudge run a race-baiting headline? You bet. Would it matter? Only for people who already pay attention to Drudge. Even George Wallace never professed to hate black people. This "America isn't racist anymore" idea dates back to well before 1964.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 09:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:52 |
|
|
Debunk posted:I believe SCOTUS will issue a ruling on this pretty soon, might as well save the worrying till then. What is there to rule on? Federal law trumps state law, where is the legal ambiguity?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 04:11
|
|