Should Obama Legalize weed

[uscitizen]

If I am willing to risk incarceration. And if I can find a supplier willing to risk incarceration.

Only one of those would be fixed by decriminalization.

yeah pretty much where I am at on smoking dope Sol.
I do not want the risks nor do I want to put someone thru the risks to get some for me. I darned sure don't want to grow it an lose all my property.

The first step would be to restore full constitutional rights for drug crimes.
Ie no illegal search and seizure, need warrants, etc.
The forfeiture of property part of the "drug Warz" is totally unconstitutional.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Thats right Dixie, the government should stick to Oxycontin and Demerol, weed is just too dangerous for commercial purposes....on the other hand it does help for medicinal purposes for people getting chemo it gives them an appetite.

Again, I believe Damo has some sort of filter on your CP which prevents you from seeing what I typed. I think I did indeed type, that government (the FDA) should be allowed to list pot as a controlled substance (like Oxycontin and Demerol) and doctors should be able to prescribe it. Did you read something else? Please confirm this for me, because this is about the third time I've posted something, and someone comes along to 'refute' something opposite of what I said.

 

[uscitizen]

Again, I believe Damo has some sort of filter on your CP which prevents you from seeing what I typed. I think I did indeed type, that government (the FDA) should be allowed to list pot as a controlled substance (like Oxycontin and Demerol) and doctors should be able to prescribe it. Did you read something else? Please confirm this for me, because this is about the third time I've posted something, and someone comes along to 'refute' something opposite of what I said.

Correct is the opposite of what you say Dix.

 

[Cancel1]

no, buts its a common sterotype to assoiate black americans with weed

ok I get ya. No the reason why I think it has a chance is because hillary the czar has managed to somehow gets her claws into obamas cabinet, she's already planning on socializing the healthcare and with her potsmoking husband Im sure weed is next. They are the True Socialists and have really mistreated Obama. He doesn't even like the wicked witch of the north so why is she in his cabinet? Certainly the Clinton Czars are capalbe of legalizing weed.

 

[uscitizen]

Can you imagine the churches screaming about legalizing pot?

Decriminalization may be possible, but I do not think legalization is possible for at least 15 years.

 

[Cancel1]

Again, I believe Damo has some sort of filter on your CP which prevents you from seeing what I typed. I think I did indeed type, that government (the FDA) should be allowed to list pot as a controlled substance (like Oxycontin and Demerol) and doctors should be able to prescribe it. Did you read something else? Please confirm this for me, because this is about the third time I've posted something, and someone comes along to 'refute' something opposite of what I said.

yeah I think it should be sold commercially, I dont think you do. Do you?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

yeah I think it should be sold commercially, I dont think you do. Do you?

Oxycontin and Demerol aren't sold commercially. Tell ya what, why don't we just let the government allow all of it to be sold to the public on demand? Not just Oxycontin, Demerol and Pot, but Heroin, Opium, Cocaine, Meth, Crack, LSD, PCP, whatever! Let's just stick a big ol' tax on it and sell the hell out of it! I bet we could probably pay off the national debt before most of society overdosed, don't you?

Now see... I doubt you are in favor of doing this, because you know and understand that some of those drugs are dangerous to public health, and people would not act in a responsible manner with them readily available. You don't want government to be our "nanny" but you do expect them to act responsibly to some degree, in protecting the 'general welfare' of the public.

 

[uscitizen]

Chloe, do not take dixie personally, he makes little sense to most of us.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Chloe, do not take dixie personally, he makes little sense to most of us.

Good post USC.

 

[Cancel1]

Oxycontin and Demerol aren't sold commercially. Tell ya what, why don't we just let the government allow all of it to be sold to the public on demand? Not just Oxycontin, Demerol and Pot, but Heroin, Opium, Cocaine, Meth, Crack, LSD, PCP, whatever! Let's just stick a big ol' tax on it and sell the hell out of it! I bet we could probably pay off the national debt before most of society overdosed, don't you?

Now see... I doubt you are in favor of doing this, because you know and understand that some of those drugs are dangerous to public health, and people would not act in a responsible manner with them readily available. You don't want government to be our "nanny" but you do expect them to act responsibly to some degree, in protecting the 'general welfare' of the public.

Why dont we dixie? They already tell us we have to go to doctors and put vaccinations in our body whether we want to or not, and at one time I think heroin boomed out here and LSD was legal. Your an adult how many people die of liver failure because of all the legal booze they drank? The Government does what it wants and it doesnt follow the constitution to an exact like its supposed to. So take a quaalude and ponder that. Its just freakin weed a natural herb that does have medicinal purposes unlike all the other drugs you mentioned and unlike booze.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Why dont we dixie? They already tell us we have to go to doctors and put vaccinations in our body whether we want to or not, and at one time I think heroin boomed out here and LSD was legal. Your an adult how many people die of liver failure because of all the legal booze they drank? The Government does what it wants and it doesnt follow the constitution to an exact like its supposed to. So take a quaalude and ponder that. Its just freakin weed a natural herb that does have medicinal purposes unlike all the other drugs you mentioned and unlike booze.

Well Opium and Hemlock are natural too.

I don't disagree that weed should be legal, I just think the "it's natural" argument is a bit on the weak side.

 

[Cancel1]

Well Opium and Hemlock are natural too.

I don't disagree that weed should be legal, I just think the "it's natural" argument is a bit on the weak side.

Well weed does have benefits, unlike booze, although LSD can be a mind opening experience depends on the person I suppose, Opium should be legal, it is not the governments job to babysit people and there addictions. People Are accountable to make there own choices.

 

[uscitizen]

Well Opium and Hemlock are natural too.

I don't disagree that weed should be legal, I just think the "it's natural" argument is a bit on the weak side.

true, so are magic mushrooms, Peyote and cyanide.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well weed does have benefits, unlike booze, although LSD can be a mind opening experience depends on the person I suppose, Opium should be legal, it is not the governments job to babysit people and there addictions. People Are accountable to make there own choices.

I disagree. Taking opium (and it's derivatives, like heroin) is like choosing to sell yourself into slavery. Pot on the other hand isn't addictive.

 

[Cancel1]

I disagree. Taking opium (and it's derivatives, like heroin) is like choosing to sell yourself into slavery. Pot on the other hand isn't addictive.

for some people choosing to take oxycontin is also a form of slavery because long after they dont need it anymore they find themsleves robbing pharmacies to get it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

for some people choosing to take oxycontin is also a form of slavery because long after they dont need it anymore they find themsleves robbing pharmacies to get it.

Yep. As Charlie Parker said, they can get it out of your blood, but they can't get it out of your head.

 

[Damocles]

"To provide for the general welfare" is the cornerstone of our government, Damo! It is the federal government's primary function! Some would argue it is the federal government's ONLY legitimate function! What's silly is you keeping up this "government is not your mommy" bullshit, when I never said it was! Government does have a responsibility to protect its citizens, and that includes legalization of things that are a known danger to them.

I think I have a pretty damn 'moderate' viewpoint on this, I favor complete decriminalization of pot! I oppose the federal (or state) government putting people in jail for using it or growing it for personal use. I also endorse medical use (including controlled manufacturing) of marijuana. The 'line' I draw, is in the commercial sale, taxation and distribution of pot as a consumer product. I see that as an affront to the very principles of governmental responsibility.

The primary function of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not to limit them through nannyism. That is how the General Welfare is best served, not through making new laws to put people into prison because you think it is bad that they sell to people who like to smoke. It's crazy. People could just sell plants to each other, like they do at the Home Depot for gawd's sakes...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Why dont we dixie? They already tell us we have to go to doctors and put vaccinations in our body whether we want to or not, and at one time I think heroin boomed out here and LSD was legal. Your an adult how many people die of liver failure because of all the legal booze they drank? The Government does what it wants and it doesnt follow the constitution to an exact like its supposed to. So take a quaalude and ponder that. Its just freakin weed a natural herb that does have medicinal purposes unlike all the other drugs you mentioned and unlike booze.

Virtually all drugs have medicinal value in some circumstance, even booze! We don't allow government to make them readily available for public consumption, because we found that doing so, resulted in social problems we couldn't deal with. Back in the day, when opium and heroin were legal, we had a terrible addiction problem in society, and the drain it was causing on our productivity as a society, as well as the resulting health issues, caused us to reevaluate the "freedom" of having public access to these powerful and addictive drugs. For every 'action' there is a separate and opposite 'reaction' and with drugs, that can be a dangerous thing to the health and welfare of the general public.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The primary function of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not to limit them through nannyism. That is how the General Welfare is best served, not through making new laws to put people into prison because you think it is bad that they sell to people who like to smoke. It's crazy. People could just sell plants to each other, like they do at the Home Depot for gawd's sakes...

Again, it is no more "nannyism" than the current laws enabling the FDA, or laws against speeding, or laws against any number of other things that can be considered a danger to public health. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizenry. Decriminalizing pot, is FAR from being a "nanny" in my opinion.

As for how decriminalization would work, I don't care if someone sells you a plant, as long as they don't have a plant store, or sell them at Home Depot, or set up an Ebay store! If Joe Blow down the street wants to give you a pot plant, I don't care, and it would not be illegal! My motivation is not to keep you from smoking or growing pot, or even to keep someone from selling it to you, just not as a legal commercial enterprise, endorsed by the government.

If you want to see what will happen to pot with that plan, take a look at cigarettes! I would venture to say, if cigarettes were grown and produced naturally at home, they wouldn't contain 576 chemicals designed to make them more addictive and desirable, and they probably wouldn't be nearly as deadly. It is the commercialization of smokes, and the government entanglement with taxation, which has created a social problem we seem to be stuck with, in spite of millions of deaths each year due to lung disease!

Who's to say that in 100 years, we may discover that daily habitual use of commercially produced pot is just as deadly and dangerous as cigarettes? And we still have to deal with the issue of second-hand pot smoke, and how it effects those who don't smoke pot! Their rights to have clean air to breathe is still in play, and we have the same dichotomy as we currently have with cigarettes.

Decriminalization will relieve the restrictive governmental attribute, and enable those who wish to smoke it and grow it, to do so in private, without fear of legal reprisal. It will also pave the way for 'medicinal marijuana' and pharmaceutical grade production in a controlled way, to be prescribed by doctors and monitored by the FDA, like all other drugs. What it doesn't allow, is governmental duplicity and culpability in endangering public health, which is what government is supposed to be all about in the first place.

 

[Damocles]

Again, it is no more "nannyism" than the current laws enabling the FDA, or laws against speeding, or laws against any number of other things that can be considered a danger to public health. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizenry. Decriminalizing pot, is FAR from being a "nanny" in my opinion.

As for how decriminalization would work, I don't care if someone sells you a plant, as long as they don't have a plant store, or sell them at Home Depot, or set up an Ebay store! If Joe Blow down the street wants to give you a pot plant, I don't care, and it would not be illegal! My motivation is not to keep you from smoking or growing pot, or even to keep someone from selling it to you, just not as a legal commercial enterprise, endorsed by the government.

If you want to see what will happen to pot with that plan, take a look at cigarettes! I would venture to say, if cigarettes were grown and produced naturally at home, they wouldn't contain 576 chemicals designed to make them more addictive and desirable, and they probably wouldn't be nearly as deadly. It is the commercialization of smokes, and the government entanglement with taxation, which has created a social problem we seem to be stuck with, in spite of millions of deaths each year due to lung disease!

Who's to say that in 100 years, we may discover that daily habitual use of commercially produced pot is just as deadly and dangerous as cigarettes? And we still have to deal with the issue of second-hand pot smoke, and how it effects those who don't smoke pot! Their rights to have clean air to breathe is still in play, and we have the same dichotomy as we currently have with cigarettes.

Decriminalization will relieve the restrictive governmental attribute, and enable those who wish to smoke it and grow it, to do so in private, without fear of legal reprisal. It will also pave the way for 'medicinal marijuana' and pharmaceutical grade production in a controlled way, to be prescribed by doctors and monitored by the FDA, like all other drugs. What it doesn't allow, is governmental duplicity and culpability in endangering public health, which is what government is supposed to be all about in the first place.

It is different, you ninny.

Any law that protects you from making a choice of something you want to do, just to "protect" you is a law unlike any of what you suggest.

You are not a victim because you willingly purchase something. That's stupid.

And again, why aren't you out there trying to ban liquor stores? You would have been one of the idiots thrilled to ban that while marijuana was legal. (It really was that way during Prohibition). It's insane to pick this little weed because it is bad for you to smoke (it is also bad for your liver to drink, every time too) so we should just arrest the people who sell that poison...

Nothing like you deciding how much danger I can take on... Get everybody a bubble.

I don't need you to limit my choices to "protect" me. I can protect myself or put myself into danger as I will. That is what freedom means.

I hate when people work to "save me from myself" because they so desperately want to work out some way limiting freedom is "good". They start with what they want to do, then come up with some reason why it would be good later.

Quit it. We aren't the land of the free and the home of the brave. We're the land of the prudes and the home of the ninnies. Now stop trying to protect people from themselves like some silly liberal wielding helmet laws and actually look at what you are trying to do there.