|
Tuxedo Gin posted:I find it really interesting that a lot of you are using the "alcohol users beat their wife and kids" example in your pro-weed conversations. I think that is pretty counter productive. Not even close to all alcohol users beat their families. That just encourages anti-weed folks to classify you guys: lazy students mooching off of society. Not a really accurate description, I'm sure. Considering like 3/4 of adults in the US are alcohol users I doubt anyone was seriously making that argument, most of the pro-pot people in here probably are also users of alcohol to some extent. The whole "beating wife and kids" thing is just something that is widely known to happen with some alcohol abusers whereas the most horrific stories of pot abuse tend to be something along the lines of "they sit on their couch all day playing Xbox and eating Cheetoes." Neither of those are good things but one is clearly a larger problem for society than the other.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
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. Contextual joke because part of their campaign involved racist fear mongering about 'scary black men' getting stoned and being psychotic rapists.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
I've had worse experiences from overdoing pot than I have from overdoing booze, thus my anecdote trumps yours! Alcohol and pot are both wonderful in moderation and lovely in high amounts. Both should be legal, as should tobacco and whatever other substances people want to ingest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I've had worse experiences from overdoing pot than I have from overdoing booze, thus my anecdote trumps yours! You didn't properly overdo booze if your stomach wasn't pumped and/or are still breathing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I've had worse experiences from overdoing pot than I have from overdoing booze, thus my anecdote trumps yours! http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext  No, all drugs are not the same, regardless of whatever stupid anecdote you're going to put forth
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:02
|
|
Ahh noble psilocybin, does nothing but trip people out 
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Ahh noble psilocybin, does nothing but trip people out It's too bad psychedelics aren't more popular amongst the general public, there's a lot of good that could come from the legalization of them as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
I've never bought into the philosophic conspiracy theories behind drug control, that the state would want to curb people having enlightening and/or mind expanding experiences, but it's a really interesting theory. Alcohol beloved and socially acceptable, you'll never have an epiphany on alcohol. But try some LSD or shrooms in a small quantity and see if it doesn't make you look at things a little differently at the very least.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Fragmented posted:This will just drive the selling of cannabis underground again for most people. So given the choice between a product that is grown in stable soil conditions, treated for mold spore and then placed in airtight packaging with an expiration date people would prefer to buy their gear without these things to save a few bob?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
KingEup posted:So given the choice between a product that is grown in stable soil conditions, treated for mold spore and then placed in airtight packaging with an expiration date people would prefer to buy their gear without these things to save a few bob? I think its a cost thing. Understand that the underground market has been around long enough, and people being able to get decent enough stuff without a regulatory body in place, that most smokers aren't really concerned about these quality assurance matters (even if they rationally ought to be anyway). Unless the quality was superior (which it very well might be), given the high quality of stuff available on the underground market, people would go to whatever is cheaper while still satisfying (satisficing?) their needs. If people could get away with selling it illegally for cheaper despite a taxed, regulated legal regime, they'd do so and probably have no trouble finding buyers. This is of course all hypothetical. I tend to think that even taxed and regulated, a commercial product would bring the price down enough to eliminate an underground market for all except for the most exceptional home grown and boutique stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but if I can start going to The Weed Store and paying the same price as the street, but knowing that a chunk of it is going to taxes and helping schools? Hell yeah. gently caress Donnie the Dealer's income. I think most smokers would be glad to smoke legally AND have the double benefit of paying a tax to a good state initiative rather than supporting a black market.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Fragmented posted:From the site: There'll still be a black market to avoid the tax but the difference is between the Dukes of Hazzard, who are dodging tax stamps and Al Capone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
The ability to grow legally (kinda, there's still the federal thing) will lower prices and then the tax will raise them again. I think overall it'll be cheaper or equal to what you'd pay now. There will still be a black market but the best analog is probably homebrew beer, and that's a nonissue in most jurisdictions. I mean, buying from a dealer sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
The Mob smuggles cigarettes today to dodge tax but it's no where near the problem of organized crime running illicit drugs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:The ability to grow legally (kinda, there's still the federal thing) will lower prices and then the tax will raise them again. I think overall it'll be cheaper or equal to what you'd pay now. There will still be a black market but the best analog is probably homebrew beer, and that's a nonissue in most jurisdictions. I mean, buying from a dealer sucks. It would need to be legal at the federal level to kill prices. Once Phillip Morris starts growing it, it should be comparable in price to cigarettes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 00:42
|
|
|
One thing that occurred to me in regards to the SCOTUS thing is the prospect of one or more of the states that border Colorado suing after we replace Mexico as the weed capital of North America. If you look at a map, we have some of the most indefensible borders of pretty much anywhere, and it'd probably be cheaper and easier for illegal drug sellers in other states to smuggle across the Colorado border than the Mexican one. As for the what happens if we pass it question? I, for one, think all hell will break loose. Whether it breaks loose quickly or more slowly depends on what the federal reaction to it is; quickly if the DEA or US Attorney's office decides to "take a stand" and crack down, slower if they take a wait and see approach, or if there's an executive order saying "hands off unless it's clearly going interstate", or what have you. One interesting thing I've noticed here is while there's been a certain amount of bluster from the feds toward the medical marijuana shops (mostly sending threatening letters to shops that they felt were too close to schools), the actual enforcement has seemed remarkably lax; there doesn't seem to have been much actual enforcement, just  (I think there was a grow op busted sometime last year, but that's the only one I recall hearing about). Meanwhile, there are stores up and down South Broadway with neon pot leaves in their windows, and I'm getting ads stuck in my door for MMJ at about the same rate as chinese takeout menus, and there are guys out on the street spinning signs advertising sale prices on eighths. It's hilarious. For the record, I do plan on voting for this, just because I think it's long past time to actually force some hell to break loose on this particular issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 02:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Nullification of federal law, essentially. Totally incorrect actually. Nullification would be if the Feds said everyone had to smoke weed and Colorado made it illegal to do so... Or if they tried to arrest any DEA agent enforcing federal law. If CO wants to take any anti-weed laws off its books it is free to do so. It's no different than a state passing weed tax stamp laws, though in that case the objective is different. If the Feds want to enforce it, they can send the ATF/DEA agents in. Good luck with getting the budget to cover that. Federal power has always rested on getting the state governments to follow along because states (and the cities/counties they create) are the ones with all the "boots on the ground". You can get away with a tremendous amount of poo poo for a very long time if the local cops don't care. There is nothing to challenge in court and no standing to do so anyway. States, as sovereign entities, cannot be forced to make certain laws or enforce certain penalties. You can't even sue them except with the State's own permission and by the rules of that state, unless it involves a Constitutional question. I would also add that a lot of states just delegate controlled substance classifications to the Federal schedule so if they ever drop Mary Jane from Schedule I, it will automatically become legal in those states. Simulated fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Oct 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
Ender.uNF posted:Totally incorrect actually. Nullification would be if the Feds said everyone had to smoke weed and Colorado made it illegal to do so. This is absolutely true, that a state can't (or won't) be forced to enforce anti-weed laws. But is there a difference between not enforcing anti-weed laws, and making your own laws taxing and regulating marijuana instead? That's not just refusing to enforce federal laws; that's creating your own laws that, at least implicitly, override federal laws. I think not enforcing federal laws, and creating your own laws contradictory to federal law, are two different things. I'm not an expert on this subject so if someone who is would like to correct me please do so.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
Ender.uNF posted:Totally incorrect actually. Nullification would be if the Feds said everyone had to smoke weed and Colorado made it illegal to do so... Or if they tried to arrest any DEA agent enforcing federal law. This is all true, but, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the Fed does have the ability to make life extremely unpleasant for states that buck the trend in the form of withholding all sorts of Federal subsidies and grants. Money upon which most every state dearly depends. So yes, the Fed could very well play hardball to try and bring Colorado back into line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
potato of destiny posted:One interesting thing I've noticed here is while there's been a certain amount of bluster from the feds toward the medical marijuana shops (mostly sending threatening letters to shops that they felt were too close to schools), the actual enforcement has seemed remarkably lax; there doesn't seem to have been much actual enforcement, just How are u posted:This is all true, but, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the Fed does have the ability to make life extremely unpleasant for states that buck the trend in the form of withholding all sorts of Federal subsidies and grants. Money upon which most every state dearly depends.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:No, all drugs are not the same, regardless of whatever stupid anecdote you're going to put forth Not saying they are. I just find it to be a pain in the rear end when people who like one drug evangelize for it and hate against another drug. Adults should be allowed to choose what substances they put in their body, and laws should only be designed to limit societal harm (think drink-driving laws and such). Someone was saying how much worse their experiences with alcohol had been, and I was merely posting a counter-anecdote. Neither should be a basis for policy, because everyone has different experiences with various substances.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Not saying they are. I just find it to be a pain in the rear end when people who like one drug evangelize for it and hate against another drug. Adults should be allowed to choose what substances they put in their body, and laws should only be designed to limit societal harm (think drink-driving laws and such).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Someone was saying how much worse their experiences with alcohol had been, and I was merely posting a counter-anecdote. Neither should be a basis for policy, because everyone has different experiences with various substances. I found a graph that depicts the difference:  http://lufg.com.au/files/media/Popular_intoxicants_what_lessons_can_be_learned.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I found a graph that depicts the difference: Either there is something obvious I'm somehow missing, or this graph is two bars comparing the total number of "harms". What.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
Ah Pook posted:Either there is something obvious I'm somehow missing, or this graph is two bars comparing the total number of "harms". What. maybe read the link from a Psychopharmacology journal if you're interested in how they quantify harm?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:maybe read the link from a Psychopharmacology journal if you're interested in how they quantify harm? I did. quote:During a meeting of the UK’s Advisory Council on the
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
Ah Pook posted:I did. The data they are referencing is from the article I linked earlier. Hence "(Reprinted from Nutt et al., 2010 with permission from Elsevier)." being put under the chart. Lancet is down but you can read the BBC article here until it's back up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/11/drugs_debate_hots_up.html http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%2961462-6/fulltext Another article: http://www.ias.org.uk/resources/publications/theglobe/globe201003/gl201003_p5.html quote:Within each of these categories, they recognized three components, leading to a comprehensive 9-category matrix of harm. Expert panels then gave scores, from zero to three, for each category of harm for 20 different drugs. All the scores for each drug were combined to produce an overall estimate of its harm. I'd imagine it's close to this but I guess we'll have to wait until Lancet is back up for more details. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Oct 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 10:45
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Still not sure why this would be Supreme Court issue. This is clearly an area in which both state and federal laws coexist. There is no requirement that I know of that states can't not have laws against things that are illegal at the federal level. This is the best overview of the issue I could find (University of San Francisco Law Review, 2012): quote:the Supreme Court has not fully spoken on the constitutionality of federal cannabis prohibition. It has never, that is, squarely tested the CSA as applied to activities that would have been protected by the RCTCA. U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Collective was a statutory ruling91 and Gonzales v. Raich held only that the CSA is generally a permissible exercise of Congress’ commerce power, and that the DEA may thus enforce it.92 This question is distinct from whether federal cannabis prohibition violates the equal liberty principle as articulated in the Court’s 14th Amendment case law. As Husak observes, further, While searching I stumbled across a great article in the Indian Law Journal which I may as well share: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=ilj KingEup fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Oct 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
Also, could people still stop referring to functional alcoholics as being solely wife beaters and child beaters please. There's plenty of functional alcoholics who don't do those things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
EDIT: Hmm, upon further thinking this will probably lead to derail...
DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Oct 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 15:55
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Well then it's a good thing a lovely poster provided us with research showing that everyone's anecdotes of "I've had worse experiences with alcohol than cannabis" are in line with reality. No, the only thing that's ever been posted is that alcohol is more dangerous, and that's a supported fact that I don't disagree with. Subjectively, my experiences with marijuana have been worse/more terrifying than my experiences with alcohol, even though I recognize that alcohol has almost certainly had a greater physical effect on me. Why are weed evangelists so defensive? I like weed, alcohol, tobacco, mushrooms and acid all just fine, and I'm deeply addicted to coffee if you want to count that as well. All I'm saying is that all these things should be perfectly legal for adults to put into their body. Having some stupid conversation about which are more dangerous is not constructive assuming we're all coming from a position of legalization.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
They aren't being defensive they're not allowing weed and alcohol to be conflated. It's an important distinction to make if dialogue about the federal schedule system is to move forwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Also, could people still stop referring to functional alcoholics as being solely wife beaters and child beaters please. There's plenty of functional alcoholics who don't do those things. People are referring to the stereotypes of the worst case scenarios. Most people can drink just fine, a few will end up violent, abusive, and with a serious case of liver damage. Most people can smoke pot just fine, but a few will end up unemployed or in dead end jobs spending all of the leisure time smoking and eating Taco Bell. The worst that a drug can do should be relevant to how it is regulated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Why are weed evangelists so defensive? I like weed, alcohol, tobacco, mushrooms and acid all just fine, and I'm deeply addicted to coffee if you want to count that as well. All I'm saying is that all these things should be perfectly legal for adults to put into their body. Having some stupid conversation about which are more dangerous is not constructive assuming we're all coming from a position of legalization. Sure it is, it's a perfectly good argument that many drugs should be legalized. If more dangerous drugs are already legal how is that not support for the idea that those less dangerous should be legal? Nobody is saying ban alcohol and legalized weed, they are saying "hey, alcohol is legal, marijuana should be too".
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:People are referring to the stereotypes of the worst case scenarios. Most people can drink just fine, a few will end up violent, abusive, and with a serious case of liver damage. Most people can smoke pot just fine, but a few will end up unemployed or in dead end jobs spending all of the leisure time smoking and eating Taco Bell. The worst that a drug can do should be relevant to how it is regulated. To be honest, it's more than just "a few" for alcohol. Almost all the arguments prohibitionists made were true: alcohol is by far the most destructive drug in our society, and as much as I personally enjoy alcohol, it would greatly improve society and save countless lives if we could eliminate drinking. Unfortunately, we can't, because prohibition doesn't work, and it had disastrous side effects on top of not working. With marijuana, of course, in addition to the fact that prohibition doesn't work, the drug already one of the safest drugs with the fewest ill effects in the first place, making the comparison to alcohol strangely invidious. 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.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
JollyGreen posted:That's how the Dutch do it at least. And you can go to a coffeeshop there and grab an eight of weed and an eight of shrooms without an issue. Mushrooms are illegal now, and weed is going that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:Mushrooms are illegal now, and weed is going that way. Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the main cause for that shift in policy is? Is it the nuisance of drug tourists, or the country becoming more conservative? Perhaps the hope that restricting cannabis to Dutch citizens will cause other countries to adopt more sensible laws of their own? I just think it's odd that a country that has for decades had successful, pragmatic drug and social policy is shifting towards restricting it to citizens only (and probably running afoul of EU policy in the process).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the main cause for that shift in policy is? Is it the nuisance of drug tourists, or the country becoming more conservative? Can't really be 'drug tourists' else they'd be banning foreign drinkers from pubs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
I don't know much about the states other than Colorado, but I'm a huge MJ activist in Arkansas (I know it sounds weird, but we're succeeding against some crazy odds, https://www.arcompassion.com) and I've been to a ton of national events with Mason Tvert...if there's anyone more amazing and completely competent to win this, I've never met him. Mason's an awesome loving dude, intelligent and informed as all hell, and I'm really proud to call him a friend. If you haven't read his book and want to know more about the entire subject, pick it up. It's an incredible read. We're all pulling for Mason hard here in AR
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:47 |
|
|
Broken Machine posted:Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the main cause for that shift in policy is? Is it the nuisance of drug tourists, or the country becoming more conservative? Perhaps the hope that restricting cannabis to Dutch citizens will cause other countries to adopt more sensible laws of their own? I just think it's odd that a country that has for decades had successful, pragmatic drug and social policy is shifting towards restricting it to citizens only (and probably running afoul of EU policy in the process). 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'. Weed is also ostensibly because of foreigners, as drug tourism creates problems in the border areas, so now they have a ridiculous idea where you need a Weed Pass to prevent foreigners from buying. Pretty much everyone hates this and predictably it has led to an increase in drug related crime, especially in the border areas. It should be getting repealed soon, but a combination of Christian moralizing and the Liberal party loving the free market so much they just want to make drugs illegal because they also want to be tough on crime and love protecting innocent hardworking middle class voters and other such bullshit. I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the public just wants to flat out legalize, but the politicians have very different opinions. There's also pressure from other countries and the EU and has been for many many years now. I'd expect that to be less of an influence nowadays what with Portugal's far reaching decriminalization and having given them the finger for so long now, but who knows how much of a factor it is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 00:09
|
|